Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!pyramid!decwrl!spar!singer
From: singer@spar.UUCP (David Singer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Firearms ownership
Message-ID: <290@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 12:41:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.290
Posted: Wed Jul 16 12:41:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jul-86 06:22:01 EDT
References: <1144@erix.UUCP> <447@hadron.UUCP> <1980@sequent.UUCP> <3623@ut-ngp.UUCP> <2806@pegasus.UUCP> <907@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: singer@spar.UUCP (David Singer)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 54

There are two main problems with fire-arms control which have not really
been touched on.

The first is that fire-arms are a durable commodity.  If you effectively 
control (for example) the supply of a consumable such as narcotics, then after
a while there simply isn't any to be had.  Alas, guns and ammunition last for 
a long time.  There are now so many fire-arms in the USA that controlling their
purchase now would have little immediate effect, and controlling ownership
effectively un-enforcable.  Perhaps tight control now would yield perceptible
effect in say 50 years, but I doubt that the effect would be large enough
to be significant.  What politician is going to opt for measures which have
such long pay-back periods?

The second is the deep-seated conviction held by many residents of this country
that force and violence are normal, moral ways of resolving major differences
of opinion.  This covers both individuals and government.  (For example,
the native indian 'problem' in the early years of this country was not solved
by peaceful co-existence or by intermingling but by an attempt at systematic
genocide;  the major attempt at solving the Libyan problem was by bombing the
place -- which I think is where we started in this discussion).
Watch police serials on the TV -- when the situation starts
getting out of hand, out come the fire-arms.  Now this view is held by
criminals too, so of course they carry weapons when indulged in nefarious
pursuits -- after all, they have a difference of opinion with the rest of
society.  This attitude is really quite deep and is taught well to
children, and I see no sign of it being replaced by more humane attitudes.

Now it is possible that careful education and persuasion of the populace
could change this attitude -- that violence is a good way to solve problems --
in, say, a generation or two (50 to 100 years).  But again, what politician
is going to start a program with such a long pay-back period?

Personally I think it deplorable that a society should have such a belief
so deep-seated and so much used.  But unless one can see a way to solving
both ownership and the attitudes which cause desire for ownership, I do
not see the problem being solved.  Removing violence from television or
guns from store shelves are not by themselves complete solutions;  and
the lack of rapid solutions effectively means the lack of any solution
in any country where politician's actions must have some effect within their
term of office (no, I'm not anti-democracy).

On the international stage, the problem is much worse.  At least within
the USA, there are other ways to resolve differences (e.g. the courts in
the case of criminal actions).  Internationally, nations still resolve
major differences by seeing who can kill more of the other side -- a bizarre
and inhumane system -- and there really are few effective alternatives
(for example, the UN is crippled by special interests, particularly those on
the security council).

So, deplorable though the situation is, I challenge the view that domestic
violence in the USA can be rapidly and significantly reduced by controlling
fire-arms, or that international violence can be reduced through arms
talks.  If anyone has reason to be less pessimistic, I'm interested,
but I'm not interested in further 'guns are good and beautiful VS. guns
are nasty and dangerous' simplistic argument and mud-slinging...