X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:19:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Firearms; a rational viewpoint
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt381250@drew.edu>, Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> wri
   tes:
> THE FOLLOWING IS REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION.  (BUT I'M POSITIVE
> THE AUTHOR WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE)

a good way to supercede copyright law; but judge I thought when I
reprinted this the person would be appreciative. After all I am
supporting his viewpoint.  Isn't fining me being a bit unappreciative
of you and the author/publisher?  :-)
>
>                    WHEN GUNS DO GOOD
>                    -----------------
>
>                    by J. Neil Schulman
>          (hosts an American Radio Network program)
>
> Here's another story you didn't see on the network news.

[story that should be on some reality show because it is so exciting
mostly deleted]

> Shields saw his opportunity to fire without endangering bystanders.
> He pulled out his concealed .380 Walther PPK-S pistol, which he
> carries licensed as a part-time private bodyguard, and opened fire
> on the robbers, wounding them.  They ran out to the parking lot
> where their driver was waiting; Shields put a couple of bullets into
> the getaway car, then ran out of ammunition.  The robbers opened
> fire on him again and he dived back into the restaurant.  The
> robbers squealed away, then pulled a U-turn so they could fire a
> few extra rounds into the restaurant.

when the robbers opened fired on him, one might think that innocents
might get hurt.  Especially when the criminals said "Someone will die
tonight"  Such hero antics is not that commendable.  Trying to attack
robbers while being outnumbered at least 4:1 with others in danger
isn't that great of a path of action.

> Even an advocate of restricting handguns would find it hard to
> argue against the effects of Shields' being armed that night.

the actual effects yes, the possible effects, no.

>  conclusions.  Surely, carrying a gun is no guarantee that others
>  would be as brave and clear-headed as Shields when faced with
>  Difficult but not impossible.

but is it probable?  Not to reject your basic premises (guns for self
protection are valuable), but the case you stated is the time when
guns can be abused and the path of action potentially dangerous.  The
person noted is trained as a security officer; manadating people to
take such training isn't being put on the table, nor is such people
the ones anti-gun people are worried mostly about.

> wounding anyone 99 percent of the time.  A 1986 National Institute
> of Justice survey of 2,000 felons in 10 state prisons found that
> 34 percent had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by
> an armed victim" and 57 percent said they were "more worried about
> meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the
> police."

this is a good argument for gun supporters to use for the criminals
know that there is a low chance for police to be around.  Any
factoring in of the use of guns in public areas in such surveys?
>
> Hans Toch of the State University of New York School of Criminology
> in Albany concluded, "High saturations of guns...inhibit illegal
> aggression."

this appears to be very debatable even if you find that guns do
prevent crime.  Especially in the 19th century, a high saturation of
guns added to agression; the problem is one of degree -- how high is
the saturation of guns legally held really these days?  High enough to
really judge the truth of this theory?

> No.  Criminologist Don Kates of the Pacific Research Foundation said,
> "Instances of citizens using guns with excessive force or against
> innocent persons they have misidentified as criminals are
> negligible."
>
> Meanwhile, according to FBI crime reports, the homicide rate in
> Florida dropped 20 percent between 1986 and 1991, while the U.S.
> homicide rate increased 14 percent during that same period.

is this supposed to mean that more guns meant less crime?

> Any sensible public policy demands that hysteria and demagoguery
> not bury the facts.  Firearms carried by responsible, competent
> civilians present no danger to the public.

"no danger"?  Guns implicitly contain some danger, the question is is
it too much to uphold the 2nd amendment?  I'll grant the rest of the
statement.

> dramatic examples such as Shields' provide us with good reason to
> believe that they save lives.

granted
>
>
> ---Robert

       -Joe

P.S. The original post was a rational look at one side of the gun
debate (note it wasn't Robert's look, so he's not out of the woods yet
:-)), but I found some things questionable about it.  Let's see if I
could do this without being seen as a anti-gun person, instead of one
who sees gun as dangerous things if used badly, and worthy of great
vigilance though most anti-gun law is problematic.