From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:44:02 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu>
merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>In article <75777@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>
>   In article <1gtnp7INNeql@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavres) 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 ha
>   >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 solve
>%   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.

       I think we're confusing a couple of topics as far as gun control
goes here.  First, gun control is not going to deter in any way somebody
whose primary goal is to kill you.  If you're talking somebody who has
sat around and thought about it, whether or not they can buy a gun from
their local K-Mart isn't going to be relevant.  Either they'll locate
one on the black market, or take another route.  (Or make one.)
       Now, as far as gun control, what most control advocates suggest
is that reducing the availability of guns to us children will prevent
us killing other people when we don't really mean two.

>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.

        I don't think you can simply say that these are our only two
options.  Primarily your ignore that *most* people, even if they've got
a gun handy, don't pull one out and shoot somebody when they get mad
any more than *most* people don't try and kill people when they've got
a baseball bat or a machete handy.
        Whatever else the numbers bear out, they show that it is a fairly
small group, generally repeat offenders, which produce the problem.

>The current situation is unacceptable.
>

       I think you're making the invalid assumption that availability is the
primary determiner of the current situation.

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