From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:02:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.070004.1556@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>>...it would hurt.  History has proven this time and time again.
>>New York, Wash. DC, Chicago, all places that have banned guns and have
>>the highest crime rates in the country, with the crime rates rising
>>dramatically after the citizenry was unarmed.
>
>It might be that the U.S. is already too screwed up with weird
>judeo-Xian guilt/hate for a ban on handguns to result in anything but
>pandemonium. See? I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to fall back
>to the position: "In any *reasonable* society, this would work..."
>Like, perhaps, the majority of other western societies.

We are not talking about any other society, we are talking about *our*
society.  There is no yardstick for whether or not a society is right
or wrong, they just are.  It's a highly circular argument, kind of
like "my morals are better than your morals.

>>History has also proven
>>that the first steps in oppressing a populace is to disarm them.
>
>Oh, that's alarmist talk. There are plenty of other countries
>with a ban on handguns of which one wouldn't say the population
>is being oppressed. There are plenty of countries of which you
>*would* say it. But you certainly can't claim any causal
>relation.

So what if it's alarmist talk?  There is no law saying I have to trust
my government, and if there was one, then I'd have proven my point.
The right to replace our government if it strays away from the goals
of the governed is granted to us in the constitution.  When I see our
govt doing things that would prevent the population from having the
final check on it it damn well alarms me.  All this is to not say that
I think my govt is going to come get me tomorrow, but I want to be
prepared if they should decide that the peoples will no longer
matters.

>
>>A handgun was designed to...
>
>Hey! What did I just say? :-)

You said that a handgun was designed to kill.  That is not what I
said.  Whether or not it kills is up to the user.

>>>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>>>doesn't change my preference.
>
>>It would be morally wrong...
>
>Whoa! Now you're talking on a whole different plane. Care to elaborate?

I did in my previous message.  According to my morals it is wrong for
you to restrict one of my more effective methods of self-defense.

>>...and it would not achieve the desired effect. Even then so,
>>about 5% of adults will carry a gun no matter if it's legal or not.
>
>Remember, we're talking about kids finding Daddy's gun, here. 5%
>sounds to me like a lot less than the present percentage, and in
>the terms to which I'm so valiantly trying to limit the discussion,
>that's a Good Thing.

5% sounds like a lot, at least where I live, in a state where getting
a concealed carry permit is easy BTW.  I did not say 5% would own a
gun, I said 5% would carry a gun.  Big difference.

This particular argument is getting dangerously circular, therefor,
unless you have any new points to address, I'll follow up in email.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent