From: mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:38:08
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin, TX
	<1992Nov13.032850.28606@adobe.com>
	<1992Nov13.125439.8701@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1e17okINNagt@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aphid.add.itg.ti.com
In-reply-to: wft@soda.berkeley.edu's message of 13 Nov 92 21:47:00 GMT

In article <1e17okINNagt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

   >What???  I can't believe I'm reading such idiocy.  There are "other" issues,
   >of course, but who are you to say that this is an unimportant one?  The
   >Constitution clearly states what rights cannot be infringed on by the
   >government, and this right happens to be one of them.  What organizations
   >like the NRA fight for is to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens,
   >and why is that a sad state of affairs?   As the old saying goes, "When
   >guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Do we really want this?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.


--RJMc

===========================================================================
Rick McCarty                                      mccarty@add.itg.ti.com

My views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  But they will
someday!
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc