From: davidst@microsoft.com (David Steckler)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 08 Oct 92 16:59:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <43716@ogicse.ogi.edu> kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers) writes:
>
>
>Also (for the same reason that some people want to ban all guns), no
>one would have a legitimate reason for holding a firearm, and
>possession of one would automatically make them a "criminal". This
>would make it a bit easier for the authorities to determine whether
>someone had a legitimate reason for holding a firearm or not. (I
>won't go into whether it's any of the "authorities" business).
>

In my mind, there are two _very_ legitimate reason for a law-abiding person
to own a firearm, even if we could somehow successfully remove firearms from
all criminals. Self-defense and the principles outlined in the 2nd amendment.
Self-defense because if two 250-pound goons enter my house with knives and
baseball bats, my only chance to defend myself and my family is with a firearm.
I'm no match for multiple opponents, perhaps well-versed in the use of a bat
and knives. In my mind, the 2nd amendment arguments are less of an issue, but
still valid: our government is less-likely to become completely totalitarian
if members of our society are armed.

>It is not necessary to achieve a total elimination of all firearms in
>order to have an effect, just make it harder to get them. While some
>people would go to any lengths to get a firearm, many would probably be
>satisfied with clubs or knifes (especially if they knew that it
>wouldn't be likely that an opponent would have a firearm).

Study after study has shown this not to be the case. The same percentage
of criminals use firearms no matter the percentage of local legal gun owners.
What differs is the amount of successfully completed crimes.

>
>As for importing guns from other countries, it's my opinion (this is
>without proof, feel free to show me I'm wrong) that the majority of
>firearms are manufactured in industrialized countries like the United
>States, and of the civilized countries with large enough industrial
>bases, the United States has a much more liberal attitude about
>distributing these weapons to the general populace. Even Third World
>countries that are awash in military equipment usually received them
>from a "civilized" country.

I own three firearms. One is Austrian, one is English and one is American.
While perhaps the majority (I'd guess 60%? Anyone have any real statistics?)
of guns _are_ manufactured in the US, there are significant manufacturing
bases outside the US who would be more than happy to step in and fill any
vacancies. Even if we could get treaties with the more "civilized" countries
(Austria and England, for example), there are many guns made in S. America,
China, etc. Considering how well we've done with the War On Drugs, how well
do you think we'd do at stopping an illegal flow of firearms?

>
>the
>probability that any given individual is likely to get shot by a
>firearm would be greatly reduced. (Note: I'm not saying it would be 0,
>just greatly reduced).

Given that such gun-control measures would only apply to those willing to
abide by the law (ie, if a criminal wanted to get a gun, he could easily
get one from S. America, China, Africa, basement gun-smith shops in the US,
or those smuggled in from "civilized countries"), I don't follow your
reasoning. 

Consider our murder capitol, Washington DC. (or NY or even LA). These cities
have incredibly restrictive gun control laws. But lots of guns get in because
there is a market demand for them. The same thing would happen in a world
community if guns were banned in the US: there would be a demand from the
criminals and guns would get in. And like Washington, DC, only criminals would
have the guns. (if you think our customs dept. could somehow keep guns out,
you're deluding yourself-look how well they do with drugs).

>
>I don't, however, consider this sequence of events to be very likely
>and am hardly making any future plans with this outcome in mind.

There are two reasons why this sequence of events won't occur: the first is
what I have just pointed out: the solution to our crime problem is not to 
ban guns (and gun manufacture); it won't work. The second is because people 
like me realize #1 and are fighting tooth and nail to focus us on our _real_
social evils: cyclical, hopeless poverty and a lessening of respect for the
diversity and integral _goodness_ of human life.

(whoa! did he just end that with a "liberal" twist?, you're asking yourself.
I _am_ very liberal on just about every other issue. From freedom of
expression to the role our government should play in helping out the less
fortunate in our society. It's just that the standard "liberal" line on guns
and gun control won't (and, in some places doesn't) work.)

>*sigh*

***SIGH***


	...Dave
	...davidst@microsoft.com

Newsgroups: pnw.general