Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <132@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 10:56:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.132
Posted: Fri Apr 26 10:56:29 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 12:39:12 EDT
References: <350@idis.UUCP> <497@abnji.UUCP> <572@ahuta.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 104

> Rick Peralta writes:
> >In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous.
> >Does that mean we should ban blenders ?
> >Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ?
> 
>   Don't be stupid.  People who are incompetent with blenders don't 
> kill innocents.  I would not be in the least suprised to find that
> more people are killed in family disputes with guns/accidents with
> guns/heated arguments with guns than are killed by criminals.  THAT
> is what I find so pathetic.  In the rush to protect yourselves from
> criminals, you are killing far more of the innocents than would have died
> if you had left well enough alone.  But then Truth, Justice and 
> Large-Calibre Handguns has long been the American Way.
> 

First: accidents with guns kill about 1800 - 2000 people a year in the
U.S.  Many of those "accidents" occur while cleaning guns.  (This is in
fact possible, but somewhat unlikely.)  I have noticed in following press
accounts of these cleaning "accidents" that they seem to occur dis-
proportionately to white males above 60, with many years experience with
firearms.  White males above 60 are also far and away the most likely
age group to commit suicide.  I suspect a good many of the "cleaning 
accidents" are suicides covered up by either the suicide, or by the
family.  (Insurance companies have some restrictions about paying claims
in suicide cases, for obvious reasons.)

One of the more misleading statistics used in the jihad against handguns
comes from an FBI study some years ago that showed that 3 out of 4 murder
victims were killed by an acquaintance or friend.  Their definition of
acquaintance included business associates (which includes substantial
numbers of drug dealers, pimps, and people "known by sight", but not
necessarily people well-known to the victim.

I'm sure that a lot of people are in fact killed with handguns during
heated arguments.  If you hang around drug addicts, or people with violent 
tempers, or spend a lot of time in bars, you stand a much better chance of
becoming a victim than if you stay away from those sort of places.

Every year in the U.S., about three times as many criminals are killed by
private citizens as are killed by the police.  Some studies done by the
New York and Chicago police departments suggest that as much as 60% of 
the people murdered each year are criminals murdering other criminals.  
(If you think about the nature of criminals, this is not surprising.)

Incidentally, you may find this statistic of interest.  While it was
difficult to find crime figures for Canada (even in a university library)
down here, I was able to locate murder figures for most of the years
between 1973 (when Canada's handgun laws took effect) and 1980.  It
appears that Canada experienced a 30% increase in murders during those
years.  Certainly the population of Canada didn't go 30%, or even close.
This was at a time when our murder rate((and total murders) was slightly 
declining.  I would suggest that the relative difficulty of obtaining
handguns by the honest population of Canada may have played some role
in this increase in murder rate, since the criminals obviously didn't
suddenly decide to obey the law.

>    How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from 
> criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today.  That it would
> be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition.  My guess
> is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five.
> Handguns, especially in criminals hands don't last too long, and deprived of
> the usual source (some good citizen's home...), and NO alternatives, only
> criminals far and few between would have them.  
>    Gee, it would mean that the only source for Canadian criminals getting
> handguns would dry up as well.  Wow! Wouldn't that be nice?
> 

I hate to disappoint you, but a handgun is *almost* forever.  In addition, it
is quite easy to manufacture enough of a handgun to seriously threaten the
lives of other people.  Remember: the criminal needs far less effective of
a weapon to threaten someone's life, than they need to realistic fight back,
since the criminal is on the offensive.

Converting .22 rifles into concealed weapons is almost trivial; I used to
be slightly acquainted with the sheriff of Sonoma County, California.  He
told me they confiscated dozens of sawed-off rifles and shotguns every year,
and Sonoma County is one of the more peaceful parts of California.

There are so many handguns in this country (and probably in yours as well),
that it might take 500 years for most of the handguns to disappear.  Perhaps
a better solution is to deal with the crime problem, instead of its most
trivial component.

>   What is really depressing is that a lot of people are dying so that a 
> few citizens who are hand-gun crazy can tote their's around.  I don't
> particularily understand a country where a minority can condemn many thousands
> to death and injury.
>    But hey, it's *your* country.  I only get mad 'cause we get the tail
> end.  i.e. Canadians die because of the stupid US policy.  Maybe we
> should sue.  Who knows, in the American courts of today, it might win! :-)
> (Actually I lie.  I get mad because there are rational types getting knocked
>  off in the US as well.  Why must they die for others stupidity?)
> 

I hate to disappoint you, but gun control ordinances in this country fail
almost every time they are put to a vote of the people.  That's why the
gun control forces here work through the state legislatures.  Even though
most people are ambivalent about firearms, they recognize the danger of 
disarming the population.  If the British had suceeded in disarming the
American colonists, heck, we'd be like Canada today!  :-)

>   Tom West                          "Some men think..., and some don't"
>                                                 -A. Regard
>  { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west