From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks in MA)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.151949.10732@aston.ac.uk>
priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price) writes:

>In article 92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writs:
>>In article <75777@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>>
>>
>>   In article <1gtnp7INNeql@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Taares) writes:
>>   >...
>>   >This is the usual argument you get from the gun crowd: Killers will always
>>   >kill, no matter what the laws are.
>>   >...
>>   >But that just isn't so. For example, what if the Montana sniping suspect hd
>>   >been forced to leave the state for his semiautomatic?
>>   >
>>   >And what if he had found God on his trip, got lost or just never came back
>>   >...
>>
>>%   If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
>>%   keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to succes
>>%   does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
>>%   from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solv
>>%   the symptom, not the disease.
>>
>>No just lower proabilities. If a person wanted to kill me say with a
>>machete and I see him coming I can get away. Bullets run faster than
>>people. Guns are more effective at killing than other weapons.
>>Real conversation stoppers.
>>
>>If I walk around with gun , visibly displayed and others do likewise
>>than some homicidal asshole is going to think twice about wanton
>>firing for he just might be shot before he shoots anyone.
>>Again the probability is lowered.
>>
>>Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.
>>The current situation is unacceptable.
>>
>>
[I had a real problem with wordwrap here, so something may get cut off.]
>
>The point of view I have, being from England with somewhat more restrictive (an I would say sensible) gun laws, is that by restricting the availabili
> than "home defence", which seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in  lot of cases), you do avoid the situation in which people are killed
> and th

       Well, some of us (in fact, quite a lot of us) consider home defense
(which I note you put in quotes) and self defense to be "legitimate" reasons
to own a gun.
       I'm not sure what you mean by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,
except that perhaps you consider it an absurdly unnecessary instrument.
Well, a great deal of the time a firearm is going a little far as far
as defense, and rarely fired.  However, you don't keep one around because
*on average* it won't be necessary, but for the out-of-the-ordinary situation.
You *never* know whether the guy coming through your window or whatever
is just looking for some silver, or something more sinister.  We're not
mind readers, here.


>t example used above.
>
>That sounds really anti-gun, which isn't my standpoint - I'm very much a gun enhusiast with a couple of shotguns and I hope to take up handguns at so
>
>In looking at the situation in the US, I don't think that it is practical as soe of your anti-gun lobby suggest, to move to a situation of gun laws s
>ver there that it just wouldn't be possible to remove guns from people who don' have "legitimate" reasons to own them and because you can't tell who
>one.

       One big stumbling block has been that many, including myself, shudder
at the thought of giving the government the discretion to determine what
is or is not a "legetimate" purpose.  (Aside from little legal Constitutional
complications of enactment, passage, and enforcement.)  My impression of the
British, like the Canadians and the Australians, have a much less antagonistic
attitude toward their government, so I don't know whether you'll understand
that.

>Peace through superior firepower seems to be the only effective personal deterrnt against violence!
      Most people i the U.S., contrary to popular opinion, are not prepared,
either by having a gun handy or in any emotional way, to pull out a gun and
shoot you.  We don't all carry guns on our hips, and we don't routinely
try and kill each other over arugments about which dog belongs in which
yard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu