From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Gun Control and the people who love it
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:00:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.035405.102151@zeus.calpoly.edu> ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Eric T Horne) writes:
[...]
>My questions to you is:
>
>  How much control should the government have over you owning and
>  operating ANY gun/weapon (including tanks, B-2 bombers, etc)

I'll take a shot at this.

You should be able to own anything that it is possible to own,
anywhere in the world.  The laws should only affect what you may
possess.

I think that people convicted of serious violent crimes should not be
permitted to possess guns at least for the period of their debt to
society (prison, parole, etc.) and possibly longer.  People who lack
the capacity to understand the dangers---such as children and the
mentally ill---should also be prohibited from owning guns.

Certain weapons present a serious safety hazard, even if not misused,
such as poison gas and biological weapons.  Also, the effects of
weapons such as nukes and large bombs are so devastating, that
exceptions can be made for them.

Other weapons, such as knives, handguns, assault rifles, and machine
guns have clear self-defense uses: you can direct them at a specific
individual who is threatening you.

Weapons such as tanks, bombs, missiles, and fighter jets, are
difficult to direct at individual offenders.  It is difficult to
imagine a scenario where a 2000lb bomb could be used against a
threatening individual without what hurting bystanders.  Consequently,
individual possession of such weapons is difficult to justify.  I
would be open to the formation of citizens militia units that are
capable of possessing such weapons.

Background checks would be permissible to verify that the individual
has not had his or her right to bear arms restricted because of a
criminal conviction.

In theory, I would not object to a system of licensing and/or
mandatory training, if the system could be administered in good faith.
In practice, good faith is difficult to come by, and I can't support
such options at this time.

[...]
>  What is the appeal of anti-gun control (same questions as above, but
>  for anti-gun control)?

I guess I take it personally.  I'm not hurting anyone, yet most gun
control laws will affect me rather than the criminals who cause the
problems.  These laws would limit my fundamental right to defend
myself and my family.

There's a lot of stupidity out there.  Many gun control laws seem
really pointless.  I can't have a handgun in the city, but I can have
an elephant rifle.  Guns with bayonet mounts are outlawed---as if
there has been a rash of bayonettings!  Then, when the bayonet lugs
are removed, people get outraged when they see that it's really the
same gun.  You'd think they'd realize this proves the original law was
stupid!  A lot of people who scream for more gun control have no idea
what the existing laws are like.

There's a big double standard too.  Senators and mayors tell me I
don't need a gun from behind walls of armed bodyguards.  Protecting my
family is not an acceptable reason to own a gun, but protecting the
life of some rich guy's family---because he hires me as a
bodyguard--is.  I'm told I don't need a gun by police officers who
wear a gun every day even though they have a desk job.

Finally, I really do think that "government with the consent of the
governed" is meaningless if the people can't revoke their consent.  A
well-armed civilian population is the final guarantee of this.

[...]
>So lets hear what you have to say!

How's that?
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
 
"You didn't hear Elliot Ness whining about Al Capone's machine gun."
-- Leroy Pyle on Assault Rifles