Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!husc6!harvard!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Firearms ownership (was Re: Air raid on Libya) Message-ID: <902@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 13:12:29 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.902 Posted: Fri Jul 11 13:12:29 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jul-86 05:43:54 EDT References: <864@kontron.UUCP> <170@suneast.uucp> <874@kontron.UUCP> <962@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 98 > In article <874@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >Does someone "absolutely need a gun"? Ask my friends. 1) Stabbed seven > >times by burglars who broke into their house, and tried to rape his > >wife. 2) Another couple, intruders smashed down their front door, raped > >her, beat him up, stole everything they owned down to their wedding > >pictures, and used their credit cards for months. (LAPD didn't even > >run fingerprints -- they had "serious" crimes to pursue.) 3) One of > >my wife's friends, who was gang-raped and a broken bottle stuffed into > >her sexual organs. 4) My wife's boss, raped, kidnapped, and thrown into > >a latrine. 5) One of my wife's schoolmates -- beaten to death with > >roofing hammers (as was his sister, after she was raped). 6) Friend > >in number one, robbed at gunpoint on the street. 7) Someone I went to > >school with, who spent months with her jaw wired after a group of > >teenagers stole her purse, then broke her jaw. 8) My ex-landlord's > >daughter, murdered in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. > > > >No, I guess there's really no need for self-defense. > > A counter-example: John Shorthouse, 5 years, shot at > point-blank range by PC Brian Chester, 35 years, in > Birmingham last year during a house search. > > The policeman was tried for manslaughter and acquitted last > week. Justly, because he was not acting negligently. > > What does this show? That even a highly trained, > mature, policeman can make a fatal mistake with a firearm. > British policemen have to take special training courses > before they are allowed to be issued with weapons. > If such a mistake can be made by such a person, what about > Tom, Dick or Harry (or Clayton E.)? > However, a policeman with a firearm is likely to be put into situations every month where the question about whether to use that firearm will come up. A private citizen is unlikely to have such a situation more than once a lifetime. (Unless they live in New York City.) The hazards of a less adequately armed civilian are much less than the hazards of a less adequately armed police officer. I would also agree that train- ing in the legal use of a firearm is a valuable and useful thing. Many cities require completion of such a course before they issue a concealed weapon permit. Also, the circumstances a police officer will use a firearm under are significantly more demanding than a civilian. A civilian needs to protect his own life -- he chooses whether to risk his own life to protect someone else. A police officer's job is to risk his own life. This suggests that a police officer will be engaged in gun battles not only more frequently (see previous paragraph) but also at longer ranges. > What are you trying to prove? > That because of our high crime rates (which are NOT because of gun ownership) it is necessary for the general population to have access to deadly weapons. > If you can show that there is a suppressed desire by the > British people for the right to own firearms without > restrictions, then run off to the library, look it up, and > tell us all about it. My reading of public opinion; Left-wing, > Right-wing and at all other angles reveals no such desire. > But maybe you know better. > There's no desire in Britain because you have a very low crime rate. The low crime rate is why the population tolerated firearms restrictions adopted in the 1920s without argument. > If you are arguing that we are in some way less `free' > because we have to show society a very good reason why we > want to own firearms, well maybe we are. But your list of > atrocities above shows that you are less `free' in a much > more significant way. The sort of crimes you describe make > *headlines* over here. They seem to be routine where you > live. > Agreed. But the crime rate we have is not the result of firearms ownership. Firearms ownership is a result of the crime rate. > If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it > back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make > the same mistakes as you. > -- > Peter Kendell > If firearms ownership were as widespread in Britain as it is in the U.S., I suspect that your burglary, unarmed robbery, and rape rates would be dramatically lower. I suspect that your murder rate might be slightly higher. Armed robbery rate would be higher -- how much I don't know. Overall, I think Britain would be better off -- but not dramatically. But unless your population is too dumb to behave rationally, I see no way you would be worse off. Clayton E. Cramer