Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:10:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Canadian Experience with Gun Control

>Come on Andy, cut the crap. You don't care what the experience of
>the civilized world is, you don't care about statistics,

That's a curious response to a message that cited statistics.

I care a great deal about the experience of the civilized world.  I've
researched the impact of gun control in the UK, Canada, Australia,
Mexico, Jamaica, and US jurisdictions.  It hasn't produced any
reduction in crime.  Low crime countries before gun control are low
crime countries afterwards.  High crime countries before gun control
are high crime countries afterwards.  At times, there's a small
increase in crime associated with introducing gun control, but it is
more common for a steady decrease in crime to level off.  (I'm being
nice; I'm not pointing out that the steepest increases in US crime
have come WITH FEDERAL gun control because there are other
explanations for much of the increase.)

>you don't care about accidental deaths,

Really?  I care enough to know how many there are.  (Does Morse?)  I
care enough to have read research on the circumstances and victims.  I
care enough to have spent lots of money and time on low-cost/ free
safety training for others.

>you don't care what the constitution says (how exactly do you weasle
>your way around the "purposes of forming a militia" clause?),

I care enough to know what it actually says.  Perhaps Morse should
read the document before making up quotes.  "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Two of the
three key words Morse used don't actually appear in the 2nd amendment.

I care enough to have researched the meanings of the words used, to
have read the academic writings on the subject.  (I prefer Cottroll's
article in the Dec 91 issue of the Georgetown Law Review although
Levinson's in the Dec 89 issue of the Yale Law review is more commonly
cited.)  Does Morse know what "well regulated militia" meant in 1789?
How about "militia"?  Want to try for "arms"?  How about "keep and
bear"?

>and, to get to the heart of the matter,
>you will reject out of hand any argument of any kind that gainsays
>what you believe to be your inalienable right to own, brandish,

Not at all.  I started researching the subject because I wanted to win
an argument with a pro-gun person.  I found out I was wrong.  Evidence
convinces me; blustering doesn't.

>and boast about a lethal metal penis.

I've noticed who insists that penis' are relevant to the
discussion....

>There's no reasoning with you on this, so why don't we just drop it
>and move on to something which is genuinely open to discussion?

Hmm.  Morse was happy as long as no one disagreed with him.  Does
"genuinely open to discussion" mean "agree with Morse"?

What's the matter - doesn't Morse want to discuss gun issues with
someone who actually knows something about them AND disagrees?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU