From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:50:02 GMT

In article <2sefcxt@Unify.Com>
perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:

>
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) wrote:
>>In article <6ijf1nt@Unify.Com> perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:
>>>syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) wrote:

>>>What I don't understand is why its tougher to get a license
>>>to drive a car than it is to get a license to use a gun.
>>
     Driver's licenses for automobiles has never been suggested as a means
for reducing the number of cars in civilian hands.  This has been put forward
(licensing) as a means of reducing the numbers of guns in civilian hands.

>>Wrong.  There are 10 people in all of SF who have a license to carry;
>>LA has issued on such license since 1970.  There are millions of
>>people who have a license to drive in those two areas.
>>
>
>10 people in SF have a license to own a gun?  Something wrong with
>your statistics here!  How do gun stores stay in business?
>
     The problem here is the same problem that always crops up when somebody
brings up gun laws vs. car laws.  To put is simply, despite how it appears,
they're talking about two entirely different kind of laws.

     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
regard to their use on private property.  There are no laws (or very, very
few that never crop up) regarding the *ownership* of automobiles *or* their
use on private property.
     Inevitably somebody asks why we license cars but not guns.  Well, the
turth is we don't license the *ownership* of cars, only their use on public
property.  The argument applied to guns is one where the suggestion is that
firearm *ownership* be licensed, and this is totally different from any
law on automobiles in the United States.
     The above quote asked about licensing the use of gun, not ownership,
although I have little doubt ownership is what he was refering to.  The reply
about SF was replying *strictly* to use on public property, which is the
only way a parallel between  gun and car laws can be made.

>>Anyone with money can legally buy a car; that's not true of gun
>>purchase/ownership.
>
>But you can't drive it if you have lost your license (not quite the same
>thing, I admit).
>
     You can drive it on private property, yours or anybody else who lets
you use theirs, without a license, or even registration.  The car doesn't
even have to be "street legal."  To the best of my knowledge, the vast
majority of privately owned guns are stored and shot on private property.
     If you want to debate permits to carry you gun on private property like
licenses to drive your car on public property, that is a different debate,
and I am more than willing to consider reasonable qualifcations for such a
permit, on the condition that the police not have a "we say so" veto
on them.

>You keep mentioning the "problems we have" without suggesting anyway to
>solve them.  My point was merely that easy availability of anything
>(be it alcohol or guns) means that people will abuse it and that it
>will get into the wrong hands - alcohol is less instantly fatal than
>a pistol.  As to not having "a gun accident problem", there have been
>at least 3 shootings by children in the Sacramento area since I arrived
>and I don't pay that much attention to the nightly news.
>
     Gun accidents involving children are reported in far greater proportion
than any other form of accident.  Guns are among the smallest causes of
accidental death in the United States for all age groups.  Accidental
shootings of children get reported.  Accidental drownings, far, far, far
more common, don't.  Neither do falls or burns, for the most part, and
they, too, outrank guns.

>>
>>BTW - Since "drug control" can't stop people from getting guns, how
>>can gun control stop criminals from getting guns?  What, it isn't
>>supposed to do so?  Then what's the point; there's no benefit to
>>disarming anyone else.
>>
>
>Yeah.  Free coke for everyone.
>
     I'm afraid I can't see how this follows, except perhaps simply to mock
his statement without providing any sort of concrete rebuttal.

>I *know* its too late to do anything about the problems associated with
>freely available guns, I just don't think that the answer is to give a
>gun to everyone.  I'm just going to keep my head down and try to
>enjoy the pleasanter aspects of America.
>
     While some people tout the positive aspects of universal gun ownership,
I haven't seen anybody I can remotely take seriously suggest any sort of
government give-away of guns.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals