From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:15:29 GMT

In article <1dp5mpINNfat@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
>
>
>>In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com>, gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>>|> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>[lots deleted]
>>|> 
>>|> I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>>|> doesn't change my preference.
>
>> I'm curious.  Why not?  
>
>Clearly you are a believer in the maxim that if a solution is not final
>and complete it is not worth implimenting at all. No sane person
>believes that the registring/ banning / whatever of guns would sole all
>problems. Neither does medicine solve the problem of death. But even
>bandaids help ( or don't yo own any of those since they aren't the
>complete solution)/

	No, I'm interested in a band-aid that addresses the problem.
Medicine does this (it cures a disease that could cause death).  Waiting
periods and bans only serve to take firearms out of the hands of
law-abiding.  The criminal can still get the firearms he/she wants on
the black market.  No waiting.  No background checks. No limitation on
his choice of weapon.  Stiffer penalties and more prisons get the
criminals off the streets.  This is a proven, working solution that
can be used as a band-aid until a better solution can be found.

	Action simply for the sake of doing something is often more
dangerous than not doing anything at all.

>> If the goal is to make society safer, clearly the problem to be addressed is
>>  violent crime, of all sorts.  Banning handguns isn't gonna solve it - but
>>  you already know that!
>
>Yes and controlling peoples ability to commit violent acts is part of
>the solution- not all of it, part of it.

	Correct.  Which is why we need more prisons and stiffer penalties.

>Many of the guns used in crimes are stolen- stolen from all those law
>abiding citizens who never use them. And if there are more available to
>steal they are easier to steal.

	Stealing is yet another crime punishable by a prison sentence.
Considering the price of some of the firearms out there, this could be
grand larceny, but I digress.

	So the theory is: If you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding
citizens, we'll take them out of the hands of the criminals?  Wrong.
I'll also digress on the authority of society to control an individual
to concentrate on the more concrete answer: the black market.  Guns are
not only stolen from the law-abiding, they are smuggled into the country,
as well.  If, as you suggest, we take the guns out of the hands of the
citizen so that stolen guns are not the problem, where do you think
they'll turn to?

	So now you say "Eliminate the black market."  Some may argue
that this is an impossible task, but let's say we can achieve this
goal.  Have you ever heard of a zip gun?  A couple of pieces of pipe
at the local hardware store can make a fairly effective firearm at
close range.  Do you want to ban lengths of pipe now?

	You also seem to ignore the fact that less than 25% of all
violent crime are committed with firearms.  Obviously, this means
there are other methods of committing violent acts than with firearms.
How do you propose to handle that?

	I don't doubt you intentions.  I believe we have the same
ultimate goal in mind (the reduction of violent crime in the US.)
Where we differ is on how to achieve this goal.  You want to eliminate
the tools.  I want to attack violent crime directly.

>> If you simply don't like handguns, fine.  Don't own one.  
>
>I don't know about the original poster but I don't like them in your, or
>other peoples hands. Like you I feel that I am infinitely responsible
>and would never never misuse any gun I owned Unfortunately I do not
>have the same confidence in you, or others , and am willing to give up
>my utterly responsile freedom in order to help protect me from other's
>irresponsibility.

	That is you opinion, which you have a right to voice.  However,
you do *not* have the right to compell others to follow your thinking
if they disagree with you.

>
>> If you feel that they are just too dangerous for people to own, consider the
>>  numbers - there are about 200 million handguns in the US, and about 12000 
>>  firearms homicides per year, and 1400 accidental firarms deaths.  That makes
>>  firearms safer than automobiles.  
>> 
> Uh, hardly. divide the number of deaths by the number of times they
>are used, not by the number. There are "billions" of molecules of cyanide
>in the universe. That does not make them any the less dangerous when
>used.	

	According to you comment, obviously the total number of guns used
in violent crime is < 12000, thus the ratio of the total number of firearms
to the total number used in violent crimes is negligible ( I get a number
less than 6*10^-5.)  Now, how many of these were legally owned firearms?
My guess is the number is smaller still.  So what's your point?




						Steve


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4734 alt.society.civil-liberty:6557