Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Firearms ownership
Message-ID: <924@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jul-86 12:55:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.924
Posted: Thu Jul 17 12:55:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 05:55:01 EDT
References: <1144@erix.UUCP> <447@hadron.UUCP> <1980@sequent.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 69

> 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?
> 

A valid statement, but 50 years isn't the interval -- it's more like a 1000.
Also, it is COMPLETELY impossible to prevent drugs from being imported into
this country, and ALMOST completely impossible to prevent domestic production
of drugs.  And stopping drug importation and production is easy compared to
firearms.

> 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.
> 

Most Americans believe in the use of force to deal with one particular 
type of problem: someone is threatening to kill you, or cause you great
bodily harm, or rape you, and you have no alternative but to use deadly
force.  That's why our laws allow use of deadly force under those circum-
stances.  What's so strange about this?  What's strange is to think that
you can resolve such a problem non-violently.  (Calling the police is NOT
a non-violent solution -- it's just putting the violence into governmental
hands.)

> 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?
> 

Self-preservation is the strongest motivation I can think of, and it's
true of people everywhere on this planet.  "Careful education and per-
suasion"?  Brainwashing would be required.

> 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...

You can only persuade people to give up violent solutions for non-
violent solutions when they don't feel personally threatened, and when
they feel that their rights will be respected.  The fundamental definitions
of human rights are dramatically different between the Marxist and 
capitalist societies -- there's no way that Marxist and capitalist 
societies will agree on binding arbitration.

Clayton E. Cramer