From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:33:53 GMT

In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.003233.6757@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.DU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>[While Kelly doesn't know about it, there is a lot of research on gun
>> control.  See Kleck's Point Blank for far more info than you'll ever
>> need.]
>>
>>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
>>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
>>>the gun and ammo of choice.
>>
>>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.

       As in all cases where the government is involved, the burdon of
proof must be placed on the government to prove that a person is
not entitled to something, not on the person to prove that he is.
That's like suggesting I have to go through a federal board to prove
I'm not out to libel someone when I start a newspaper.
       After that, exactly whose definition of mental health are
you going to use?  I've dealt with people (one of them a post-doctoral
student in psychology) who believe that simply *wanting* to purchase
a gun indicates someone is too dangerously violent to be allowed to
own one.
       If the government wants to check and see if I've been in a mental
hospital when I go buy a gun, fine.  But unless they've got proof
on hand, they have no right to deny me my purchase an not let me take
it home.  The government must have *proof* not just "Well, we're looking
into it."

>>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.
>>
>>Yet, the states where one can just walk in and buy a gun don't have
>>much crime - they're less like Beirut* than Boston is.  If guns are
>>the problem, how come the problems are where the guns aren't?
>
>Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
>shooting at other crack dealers.

       Who, if they're getting drugs from out of the country, probably
have plenty of connections with which to get guns, too.  Exactly where
on the black market do you intend to station your resident psychologist?

>>We happen to know that criminals don't acquire guns at gun stores.
>>(It's easy enough to do the relevant research.)  Therefore, controls
>>on stores are, at best, like looking for your keys under a street
>>light when you know that you lost them somewhere else.  Sure the light
>>is good there, but you're wasting your time.
>>
>>We can't win a gun war any more than we can win a drug war.  How many
>>people should we jail to satisfy Kelly's bigotry?  (BTW - He's also
>>misstated the way MA's gun laws work for honest law-abiding people.)
>
>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.

        The problem is that if someone is denied, and the decision later
over-turned, *nothing* happens to the people who mistakenly (or intentionally)
denied the gun.  If I'm a police chief who doesn't want people to have
guns, then there is nothing to prevent me from denying ever single request
that comes onto my desk.  Even if *every single* appeal is granted,
I've at least made it more difficult for them and prevented some number
from buy guns.
        Mistakenly (or intentionally) denying someone a gun should result
in, at minimum, a reprimand, and dismissal if a sufficient number of
denials are over-turned on appeal.

>You seem to imply that if EVERYONE had a gun, there would be no crime
>and no shots fired.

        That's certainly not true.  However, it would mean the victim
might have a fighting chance, if otherwise only the assailant were
armed, or so physically powerful it didn't matte.r

>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.

        As has been pointed out before, accidental gun deaths rank behind
almost all other forms of accidental death and have been declining for
decades.  Further, police officers make up a fairly good percentage of
those, which wouldn't be affected at all.

>And your belief that no one legally buys a gun and then does something
>illegal with it is ridiculous.  Read a newspaper.

        The question is the whether the impact of telling *me* I can't
have a gun will affect them.

         Tell me.   Are you prepared to sign an affidavit saying you
believe that I am dangerously unstable and should not be allowed to
purchase a deadly weapon?  And if no one is, why shouldn't I be
allowed to?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25646 talk.politics.drugs:8047