From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:54:45 GMT

In article <MCCARTY.92Nov18203808@aphid.add.itg.ti.com> mccarty@add.itg.ti.com
(Rick McCarty) writes:
>It's interesting that countries such as Great Britain exercise some
>control over guns.  Are the "outlaws" shooting innocent people left and
>right (other than the problems in Ireland, which I'd classify as a war)?
>Take the 20,000 foot view of this country for a moment - look around you
>and perhaps you'll realize how insane our society is WRT weapons.

Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
rate is HIGHER than ours.

>Sometimes I think the NRA is so out of step with reality that it amazes
>me people can be so swayed by their arguments.  Why are guns so special?
>I may be wrong here on my facts, but I've been under the impression that
>possession of switchblades is against the law in most jurisdictions.  If
>we have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms, does not a switchblade fall
>into that category?

Personally, I don;t think you should be penalized for carrying a weapon
unless you misuse it.

>I feel it's absurd to argue that everyone is safer if everyone can pack
>a pistol.  The statistics as I understand them just don't bear out the
>claim that with a gun in the house, one has a better chance against a
>bad guy.  Turns out that more innocent people get hurt than helped by
>having a gun around.

Who said that?  I consider gun ownership a right; I agree that carrying
a gun is a privilege.  I do think that anyone with a clean record and
some amount of training should be able to carry.

>Case in point.  A few years ago, Time magazine ran an article which
>showed pictures of 400 people killed in one week with a gun and listed
>the cause.  The majority of them were not crooks.  The highest
>percentage of the people we killed in accidental discharges, suicides,
>or homcides committed by friends or family.  If it were really safer to
>have a gun around, one would certainly expect the majority of the 400
>deaths to be homicides committed by "outlaws".

The gun accident death rate in the 70s was about 2400/year; in 1990 it
was down to 1200.  While I think that those deaths are tragedies, I don't
think the rate is high enough to warrant further legislation.

I don't think suicides are relevant to the discussion of gun control.

Did Time also say how many of those friends/family members obtained
their guns legally?  Because something like 85% of such murders are
committed by people with previous felony records who couldn't have obtained
a gun legally anyway!  But then Time has told gun owners who've written
in that the time for a balanced discussion of the issue is over, so I
don't expect professional objectivity from them...

>It was a haunting article - one which finally convinced me that rampant
>gun ownership (esp. handguns) is pure insanity and places the public at
>far greater risk of harm than controlled public ownership - even if the
>bad guys are well armed.

Sorry Rick but the question is moot.  there is no possible way that all
the privately owned handguns could be removed from society.  None.
Live with it...

>Our constitution was drafted to above all else protect the people.  I
>cannot believe for a moment that the right to bear arms must be so
>broadly interpreted as to overshadow what I see as an innate right of
>protection from undue risk of harm.  And I do believe there IS greater
>risk of harm to the public without stricter gun control.

I take it you don't live in LA or Florida...

   don
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton