From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:21:29 GMT

In article <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:

>Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
>guns?

They sure did.  The coup failed because Gorby and Yeltsin (more the latter
than the former) had the backing of significant portions of the military.
If that hadn't been the case, the hardliners would have prevailed (as
they did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia).

>If they had, I think that the nervous and hungry army would have
>done some shooting, instead of foloowing their consciences.

See above.

>Martial Bill declares himself president for life.  He orders army
>into Cupertino and says shoot to kill.  What army will listen to
>those orders?

An army led by people in cahoots with Martial Bill (these visions of
Bloom County keep going throuugh my head).

>Only an army of elites who are fed better than the general population
>and have more to lose by NOT following orders to kill their brothers.

Which isn't so hard to acheive.

>If the country has a firm economic footing and feeling of relative
>contentment and equality, there will be no need for revolution that 
>requires guns.

Are you claiming that this description fits the US?  And always
will?  I know a few million people living in poverty who might
disagree.

>Why were there riots in East LA and not in Westchester County, NY?

Actually, it was mostly South Central.  The riots occurred there
because of the demographics: a high concentration of low-income
non-white people who had been subject to centuries of racism and
economic disenfranchisement.  That doesn't excuse lawlessness, of
course, but it certainly seems to give rise to it.  I'm not sure what
your point was in asking this.

>In my opinion, gun control as a tool to help or hinder a military 
>takeover has little relevance.

Only because you are convinced that other factors mitigate against the
possibility.  I claim that they don't necessarily, and even if they do,
can't always be counted on to do so.

There are mass graves around the world filled with the bodies of people
who though "it couldn't happen" in their country.  People who were
for the most part unarmed.  Please remember that Hitler was ELECTED.

>Gun control also has little relevance 
>on organized or 'semi-organized' crime.

Or even un-organized crime.  Joe-Shmoe armed robber gets his guns from
the local bootlegger, and won't be affected by a ban.

He does, however, have better chances of getting away with it, since
fewer of his law-abiding victims will be able to defend themselves.
He'll thank you for making his job safer.  The bootlegger will thank
you for increasing his business.  The relatives of the unarmed victims
who die will not thank you.

>Where it might help (but couldn't hurt) is getting guns out of the hands
>of small time psychos, children, and abusive spouses.

It's already illegal for "psychos" and children to buy guns.  I support
such laws, and so does the NRA.  As for the abusive spouses, a man
(statistically larger and stronger) probably doesn't need a gun to kill
his wife.  A woman may very well need one to defend herself against
even an unarmed man.  So much for "couldn't hurt".

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections