From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:32:57 GMT

In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>><   >Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>><   >what's so unreasonable about it?
>>
>><   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>,   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>><   a handgun.
>>
>>	Then why isn't Kelly also demanding licensing for cars;
>>	automobiles are used to cause more deaths than firearms
>>	every year.
>
>I don't know about the laws where you live but cars and drivers here are
>licensed/registered, and cars get a title search before the registration
>is granted.

      Cars a registered.  In most places you only need registration if 
you're going to drive the car on public roads.  Driver's a licensed, again 
only if you're going to drive on public roads.  Neither registration nor 
license is required to purchase a car.  If you want to make a case for 
registering guns carried on public property and licensing those who do so 
(CCW) then do so.

>><   Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
>><   shooting at other crack dealers.
>>
>>	Said crack dealers do not obtain their firearms through
>>	legal channels, now do they?
>
>The point is, for the city of Boston, if you ignore the crack dealers
>shooting at other crack dealers, then the number of actual violent crimes
>involving guns drops considerably.

       Ignore drug related crime in most places and your figures are going 
to drop considerably, regardless of area or weapon.

>><   Apparently, the appeal process has changed over the last decade.  It's
>><   been a long time since anyone I know had to go through it.
>>
>><   You seem to imply that if EVERYONE had a gun, there would be no crime
>><   and no shots fired.
>>
>>	Hardly. On the other hand, those states with so-called "lax"
>>	gun laws *DO* have less violent crime than such garden spots
>>	as Washington, DC, New York, Chicago and so forth.
>
>Compare population density.

       It has been compared.  That's the point.  If the primary determinant 
of gun crime is population density, why add more laws regarding firearm 
acquisition?

>><   And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>><   hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>>
>>	Can Kelly show where anyone asserted this?
>
>Huh?  Are you saying that people are born with the genetic talent to use
>guns in a safe manner?

       If untrained idiots didn't have swimming pools installed we'd 
probably have less drownings.  If clumsy idiots couldn't buy knives at K-
Mart we'd probably have less accidents and deaths.
       The point is, that just because morons drink and drive is no reason 
to make it more difficult for me to buy a car.

>><   And your belief that no one legally buys a gun and then does something
>><   illegal with it is ridiculous.
>>
>>	The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of
>>	the Treasury, surveyed about 900 convicted felons.
>>	Over 90% of them stated they obtained their firearms from
>>	a source OTHER than a licensed dealer.
>
>Of that 90%, how many of them already had a record when they bought
>illegal firearms?

       Exactly how relevant is that?  The point was that your suggestions 
regarding background checks and psych profiles aren't going to catch those 
people who get their guns from other sources.

>><  Read a newspaper.
>>
>>	One of those publications that use such terms as
>>	"automatic revolver", "Semi-automatic assault rifle",
>>	"saturday night special"? One of *those* paragons
>>	of factual accuracy?
>>
>>	If Kelly can point to a newspaper that doesn't sensationalize
>>	any story having to do with firearms, I'll try reading it.
>
>If reported cases of gun violence are all sensationalized nonsense, then
>I guess no one needs guns.

        First, sensationalizing a story does not make it nonsense.  It's the 
difference between making up a crime, and writing about a crime that 
happened in such a way as to "sensationalize."
        As for needing a gun, listen closely:  A physically powerful 
attacker does not need to be armed to present a deadly threat to a
victim, either by intention of accident.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns