From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:56:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: rwing.1759
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Totally Unorganized

NOTE:  I have edited the Folloup-To line to redirect followups to
	   talk.politics.guns, where this item will be better addressed.
	   If you feel that pnw.general and alt.politics.elections remain
	   relevant newsgroups, one can include those if they wish.

In article <1992Sep27.185512.22951@mdd.comm.mot.com> zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.221309.14625@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street 
>>with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US 
>>murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" 
>
>Murders per capita?
>Murders with guns?
>Population density of each half?
>Employment level?
>Average, top, and bottom income?
>Racial breakdown?
>Education level?
>Religions?
>Police per capita?
>.
>
>Easy availability and common acceptance of guns does not prevent killing with
>guns. Guns are for killing. Folks that want to strap on a gun want the ability
 ^^^^

But what effect does it have on killing/violence OVERALL??  Is the means of
death really important (last I knew, a gun death was no deader than a knife
death).

>to kill. At the very least, they don't want to kill, but they don't want to be

No, they just don't want to be at the mercy of any thug that wishes to relieve
them of their wallet and/or life.

>afraid that someone (including the government, with biggest guns of all) wants
>to kill them. At the worst, they love the godlike life and death control of 
>carrying a gun. Children with guns barely understand that death is the end of 

Speak for yourself, please.  You don't know me, (or many gunowners, I suspect).

>life.

Children cannot get guns under current law. I have long advocated gun
safety courses AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM.  And information
for kids to take home to their parents.  But that is not PC.  At any
rate, accidental deaths of children from guns are down in the noise when
compared to the other causes, including poisons, falls, drowning, vehicle
accidents, (and I bet more lives could be saved by proper child seats
being used than by any gun law, but this isn't as glamorous, of course) and
on and on.

>I am not sure that legislation to make guns harder for civilians to get will 
>prevent killing with guns either. Possibly a society willing to pass such laws
>will have an attitude toward life that will reduce killing. 

When it comes to affecting ones right to provide for their own safety,
it seems to me that 'possibly' just doesn't cut it.  Rights revoked are
pure hell to get back.  Particularly rights that empower citizens other
than on paper.  Especially when one will be hard pressed to prove that
making guns inaccessable to the law abiding will have one whit of effect
on the lawless.  Success of things lile heroin control, crack control,
alcohol control in denying the access to the lawless, and current gun
laws in denying access to the lawless, (places like NYC and Wa DC come
to mind) make me feel the 'possibly' given above is more aptly stated
'doubtful'.  A society willing to pass such laws shows that they DO
believe in a high degree of people control, however (why else should
the STATE have a monopoly on coercive force)?

>A society that values life, wishes not to live in fear of one another, 
>understands the benefits to everyone of tolerance and respect, and has a 
>healthy respect for the danger of just and righteous killing might reduce the 
>killing. I don't think this can be legislated.

Perhaps not, but those that show they have no regard for the rights and
safety of others by violating those rights (by committing crimes of violence)
could be kept OUT of society, rather than put thru a revolving door.

>Gun control is not a panacea, however the assertion that a proliferation of
>guns will reduce killing is equally misguided.

Perhaps the availability of guns has NO effect on the level of killing?
If that is the case, or if availability of guns has even a slight reducing
effect, it would seem that gun control would be the LAST thing one would
want to do (if reducing crime and violence is the goal, that is).

Gun control has a LOUSY success record.  Perhaps its time for some OTHER
approach.  Thugs are less apt to attack someone if they know that that
someone probably is able to repel the attack.  In places like Wa DC, NYC
and such, they have a virtual GUARANTEE that the targeted victim lacks the
means to effectively repel the attack.  Hell, they come down harder on the
original victim (now called vigilante for daring to protect his/her self)
than on the original perpretator (that poor, misunderstood victim of
society is the PC terminology, I believe).  I know I sound cynical, but
I get frustrated at the same old stuff over and over and over again.
The 'solution' Mayor Dinkins gave to a stabbing of a tennis fan on the
subway a couple of years ago was more gun control!!!!

>
>-- 
>---
>Mike Zintel             zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com not zintel@mdi.com anymore
>Motorola Mobile Data
>Bothell, WA

The question really becomes, since there are many areas where VERY strict
gun control laws are in effect, including outright bans, that if it is
even a good idea, one should be able to name some cases anywhere that
imposition of some restrictive gun control law has DEMONSTRABLY reduced
violent crime, including reduction of non weapon-specific murder, (since
dead is dead regardless of the tool used).  Where the claim is that guns
come from neighboring areas (which also is against existing law), one
has to wonder if guns are the problem, that these areas 'awash' in guns
don't have similar violence problems.  Kinda suggests that the cause is
elsewhere, that gun control is merely a band-aid, and a poor one at that.
Even 'gunless' Japan is having some rather severe gun crime problems
recently, according to Asia Now on public TV.

If efficiacy of gun control laws cannot be demonstrated, then it becomes
the old saw of "well, since plan X didn't work, we will improve the
situation by imposing more of plan X."  Sort of like the mentality of
the War on the Cons .. er ..Drugs.

So far, I have seen NO examples demonstrating gun control makes violence
and murder go down (of the before gun control/after gun control levels
type). Like  5 years before to get a trend, 5 years after to see if the
trend has any steady state changes?  Longer would even be better.  Most
of the countries pro control folks cite as examples of the benefit of
control don't do so well when examined in this light (low violence/high
control countries had low violence BEFORE controls were instituted, such
as England).

It all boils down to the fact that guns are a mechanical device, and
like any other mechanical gadget, does NOTHING until a HUMAN HAND PICKS
IT UP AND OPERATES IT.  HOW it is operated determines its societal
effects, if any.  Virtually all rounds discharged produce holes in paper,
cardboard or scoot a beverage can along the ground, not penetrate flesh.
When one is about to remove someone else's right, I think it should be
PROVABLY demonstrated that giving up this right will have a benefit
worth the cost.  This has never been done IMO.  Much stuff ranging from
misleading information to outright lies HAVE been repeated endlessly on
the popular media, however, apparantly to mislead the people that such
laws will have a benefit.  That the pro controllers percieve a need to
resort to these means really concerns me as to their private motives.

It is a pretty sure bet that those in power find the idea that they might
not hold ALL the means of power repugnant.  That means that the chance
remains that they might have to answer for their acts at some point in
time.  Power freaks are not known for wanting to share their power.

I find the escalating violence as unacceptable as anyone else, but I
strongly oppose imposing laws that remove my means to protect myself,
while at the same time DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE THE VIOLENCE.  I think
any criminal would strongly endorse such laws, however - since it
makes his/her vocation so much SAFER!!!  Seriously!

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: pnw.general,alt.politics.elections