From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:39:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Note:  As this topic has become strictly gun politics, I am redirecting
followups to THIS article to t.p.g only.
 
In article <1992Aug07.162932.13013@ecst.csuchico.edu> jimmay@csuchico.edu (Jim May) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.165056.25434@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don 
>Baldwin) writes:
>> On the other hand, criminals
>> will always be willing to get and use guns illegally, as they do now.
>
>This tired worn out claim is simply false.  The overwhelming majority of 
>guns used to kill people in this country, whether by intent, accident, or 
>whatever were purchased LEGALLY by so called law abiding citizens.  

False.  Only one-sixth (i.e., NOT NEARLY an "overwhelming majority") of
guns used in committing crimes are obtained legally.

>The reason gun bans in cities don't work is simply because it's not 
>nationwide.  We have open borders within the country so that city bans are 
>thwarted by neighboring jurisdictions that value human life less.  There 
>is little reason why ordinary citizens need pistols and machine guns or, 
>for that matter,  handgrenades, bombs, etc.  So long as the arsenal in 
>this country is so huge we will continue to make access for killers easy.  

Utter nonsense.  Aside from the fact that it *is* ILLEGAL to purchase guns
outside your state of residence, and transport them back to your home, the
claim is patently false.  Guns are relatively easy to obtain in Virginia
and Maryland, so why aren't their violent crime rates comparable to that
of Washington, D.C., which has extremely harsh gun laws?  The answer:
the guns aren't causing the crime.  And do you value human life so little
that you would deny someone the right to protect himself/herself from
murderous thugs (read: one BIG reason that "ordinary citizens" might need
pistols)?  You obviously know very little about the subjects you are
addressing, or you'd know that Class III weapons (basically, machine guns)
are highly regulated, with permits required, and hand grenades and bombs
are ILLEGAL to own.  Go stuff your opinions in a sack, and learn a bit
about the subject before you make more of a fool of yourself.

>Have you noticed the NRA opposes, initially, ALL legislation on gun 
>control, even legislation which would keep guns out of the hands of 
>criminals, yet they use the slogan of "guns don't kill, criminals do".  

Bullshit.  The NRA does not oppose gun legislation that would keep guns
out of the hands of criminals; no such legislation has been proposed, at
least on a national level, that has subsequently been given any reasonable
scrutiny (the Staggers bill, far superior to the Brady Bill in criminal
limitation potential, was virtually ignored).  The NRA opposes legislation
that sacrifices the rights of law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to
decrease crime, such as the Brady Bill and the DeConcini ban.

>I believe in responsible gun ownership for legitimate purposes such as 
>hunting but not for increasing the supply for human killing.

Who died and made you God, that you might determine for the rest of the
population what purposes are "legitimate"?  In your opinion, is self-defense
a legitimate purpose?  How about target shooting?  Regardless of your
answers, I believe you will find that most Americans will say YES to both
questions, as well as supporting the legitimacy of hunting.  So you can
take your self-serving posturing and reflect on it, while the rest of us
deal with reality.


Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals