From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 24 Nov 1992 03:58:10 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com

In article <MCCARTY.92Nov19184331@aphid.add.itg.ti.com>, mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.185445.22510@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
|> 
|> >   Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
|> >   higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
|> >   fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
|> >   rate is HIGHER than ours.
|> 
|> I think it's a combination of mindset and accessibility that make guns
|> such a problem in this country.  Our image (at least mine) of the gun is
|> rooted greatly in the old west with the good guys against the bad
|> guys and the only thing in between them was a gun.  Combine the gunslinger
|> mindset with easy access and you get a society full of guns.  We'll just
|> have to disagree on it, but I find that situation to be inherently
|> unsafe and inconsistent with the needs of today's society.  This isn't the
|> old west anymore.  We must alter our mindset about guns.
|> 
|> It is relevant to look at other countries.  OK, let's agree that some
|> countries have higher gun ownership than the US (what type of weapons by
|> the way? - that would seem important as well).  These countries don't
|> hold the same societal view of the gun that we do.

the Swiss have fully automatic military rifles in each home.

|> 
|>    >>possession of switchblades is against the law in most jurisdictions.  If
|>    >>we have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms, does not a switchblade fall
|>    >>into that category?
|> 
|> >   Personally, I don;t think you should be penalized for carrying a weapon
|> >   unless you misuse it.
|> 
|> At least you are consistent in your view.
|> 
|>    >I feel it's absurd to argue that everyone is safer if everyone can pack
|>    >a pistol.  The statistics as I understand them just don't bear out the
|>    >claim that with a gun in the house, one has a better chance against a
|>    >bad guy.  Turns out that more innocent people get hurt than helped by
|>    >having a gun around.
|> 
|> >   Who said that?  I consider gun ownership a right; I agree that carrying
|> >   a gun is a privilege.  I do think that anyone with a clean record and
|> >   some amount of training should be able to carry.
|> 
|> I guess I'm in that minority of folks who don't feel too comfortable with
|> the knowledge that John Q. Public might be packing.  There are lots of
|> incidents where someone with a clean record got pissed off, went off the
|> deep end, reached into the drawer and shot someone.

if this is true, we'd all be dieing here.  what people always forget
to mention that a gun also deters crime.  it is estimated that over 600,000 crimes a year have been diverted due to the "victim" being able
to successfully defend themselves.  most of these incidents are not
reported since no one was hurt.  ban guns and the 600,000 are now
real victims.

|> 
|> >   The gun accident death rate in the 70s was about 2400/year; in 1990 it
|> >   was down to 1200.  While I think that those deaths are tragedies, I don't
|> >   think the rate is high enough to warrant further legislation.
|> 
|> I agree about the gun accident rate.  However, that was only one of the
|> causes I listed, and the least frequent.  Suicides and homicides among
|> friends and family account for the greatest numbers.
|> 
|> >   I don't think suicides are relevant to the discussion of gun control.
|> 
|> Sure they are.  Killing yourself with a gun is a lot surer and more
|> dramatic than other methods - I think you'd find accessibility plays a
|> significant role.

a person bent on killing her/himself will do it anyway s/he can.  Japan has
strict gun control yet they have a higher suicide rate.

|> 
|> >   Did Time also say how many of those friends/family members obtained
|> >   their guns legally?  Because something like 85% of such murders are
|> >   committed by people with previous felony records who couldn't have obtained
|> >   a gun legally anyway!  But then Time has told gun owners who've written
|> >   in that the time for a balanced discussion of the issue is over, so I
|> >   don't expect professional objectivity from them...
|> 
|> So?  For the sake of argument, let's assume your statistic is correct.  You've
|> made my point for me.  It's TOO EASY to get hold of a handgun in this
|> country - if a felon can walk into a shop and buy one, we're in deep trouble.
|> Even if by making it harder we only can prevent 10 or 15 percent of that 85%
|> from obtaining one, lives will be saved.

sorry, it is illegal for a felon to go into a store and legally buy a handgun.

|> 
|> >   Sorry Rick but the question is moot.  there is no possible way that all
|> >   the privately owned handguns could be removed from society.  None.
|> >   Live with it...
|> 
|> I hold no illusion that all privately owned handguns can be removed.
|> But I do think we can do a lot better than we are.
|> 
|> >   I take it you don't live in LA or Florida...
|> 
|> I used to live in both places.
|> 
|> --Rick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton