From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:22:28 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <MCCARTY.92Nov19184331@aphid.add.itg.ti.com> mccarty@add.itg.ti.com
(Rick McCarty) writes:
>>   Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
>>   higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
>>   fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
>>   rate is HIGHER than ours.
>
>I think it's a combination of mindset and accessibility that make guns
>such a problem in this country.  Our image (at least mine) of the gun is
>rooted greatly in the old west with the good guys against the bad
>guys and the only thing in between them was a gun.  Combine the gunslinger
>mindset with easy access and you get a society full of guns.  We'll just
>have to disagree on it, but I find that situation to be inherently
>unsafe and inconsistent with the needs of today's society.  This isn't the
>old west anymore.  We must alter our mindset about guns.

I agree with you that there';s no excuse for doing stupid things like
brandishing a gun or walking down the street practicing quick draws.
However, our (at least my) mindset about guns is that they are enjoyable
sporting tools, which could (as a last resort) save my life some day.
The need for self defense is NOT obsolete!

>It is relevant to look at other countries.  OK, let's agree that some
>countries have higher gun ownership than the US (what type of weapons by
>the way? - that would seem important as well).  These countries don't
>hold the same societal view of the gun that we do.

In Switzerland, all males in a certain age range keep REAL assault rifles
(capabale of full-auto operation) in their homes.  It is also not too hard
for people to get other types of rifles, pistols and shotguns for private
sporting use.

>   >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.
>
>>   Who said that?  I consider gun ownership a right; I agree that carrying
>>   a gun is a privilege.  I do think that anyone with a clean record and
>>   some amount of training should be able to carry.
>
>I guess I'm in that minority of folks who don't feel too comfortable with
>the knowledge that John Q. Public might be packing.  There are lots of
>incidents where someone with a clean record got pissed off, went off the
>deep end, reached into the drawer and shot someone.

I never said that we have the right to carry concealed weapons; i consider
that a privilege that people with clean records should be able to get, if
they are trained in safe use of guns for self defense.

But, let's look at the possibilities if John Q Public "packs" a gun:
1. Nothing happens, no harm done, what's the beef?
2. He brandishes the gun or threatens someone - he loses his gun, goes to
   jail for carrying a weapon illegally and assault with a deadly weapon.
3. he shoots somebody - he goes to jail for many years on various charges,
   is possibly executed.

And if he is not carrying a gun:
1. Nothing happens.
2. He is attacked, possibly hurt, possibly killed

I still maintain that trained people of good character should be allowed
to carry weapons.

>>   The gun accident death rate in the 70s was about 2400/year; in 1990 it
>>   was down to 1200.  While I think that those deaths are tragedies, I don't
>>   think the rate is high enough to warrant further legislation.
>
>I agree about the gun accident rate.  However, that was only one of the
>causes I listed, and the least frequent.  Suicides and homicides among
>friends and family account for the greatest numbers.

It would be interesting to know how many of those family/friends had a
criminal record and acquired their guns illegally...

>>   I don't think suicides are relevant to the discussion of gun control.
>
>Sure they are.  Killing yourself with a gun is a lot surer and more
>dramatic than other methods - I think you'd find accessibility plays a
>significant role.

Whoah, sanity check.  You're going to take away the single best method of
self defense, guaranteed in the Constitution, because some people will kill
themselves with them?  Sorry, other methods of suicide are as effective,
hanging for instance...will you ask for a waiting period for rope or belt
purchases next? :)

>>   Did Time also say how many of those friends/family members obtained
>>   their guns legally?  Because something like 85% of such murders are
>>   committed by people with previous felony records who couldn't have obtained
>>   a gun legally anyway!  But then Time has told gun owners who've written
>>   in that the time for a balanced discussion of the issue is over, so I
>>   don't expect professional objectivity from them...
>
>So?  For the sake of argument, let's assume your statistic is correct.  You've
>made my point for me.  It's TOO EASY to get hold of a handgun in this
>country - if a felon can walk into a shop and buy one, we're in deep trouble.
>Even if by making it harder we only can prevent 10 or 15 percent of that 85%
>from obtaining one, lives will be saved.

No, it's impossible for a felon to walk into a shop and buy a gun in most
states.  Looks like you're not up on your laws...

>>   Sorry Rick but the question is moot.  there is no possible way that all
>>   the privately owned handguns could be removed from society.  None.
>>   Live with it...
>
>I hold no illusion that all privately owned handguns can be removed.
>But I do think we can do a lot better than we are.

And if we don't we'll just keep making stricter laws on the off chance that
it will do some good, eh?

>>   I take it you don't live in LA or Florida...
>
>I used to live in both places.

Then I take it you see no value in having the only store on a block in
LA that was unburned/unlooted because you defended it with a gun.  And there
is no benefit in defending your block from looters in the wake of a hurricane?

   don
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc