From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Japanese student killed in Lousiana
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:01:57 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.japan
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Bx6rqE.LF6@ncifcrf.gov>, masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.073012.20676@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> >
> >If you would look at the statistics, you would see the number
> >of gun accidents is very low, much less than the number of
> >people who die in swimming pools or fall down stairs.
> 
>    Even if it's true that the number is not large, those cases are still a
> tragedy. If there's a way to decrease the number, wouldn't it be
> reasonable to go for it?

This is a common argument.  We call it the "if it saves only ONE life"
argument.  Usually the person arguing it is under the misassumption that
this "way to decrease the number" is a magic bullet (pardon the cliche)
that will affect ONLY the problem without having a negative effect on
any other group.  But this is never the case.  The law of diminishing
returns provides that for every additional bad case you prevent, you
will negatively affect many, many more innocent people.

Example: civil forfeiture gives police a way to impound the possessions 
of criminals without a trial.  Unfortunately, it gives them the same power 
against non-criminals.  Since no trial is involved, it is up to the police
to make "good guesses" as to who is or is not a criminal.  And since the 
really big criminals have good lawyers, guess who it affects the LEAST.  
Meanwhile, the honest citizen who has his pocket cash impounded because 
he "looks like a drug dealer" loses it permanently.  The government has
taken planes, cars, and even the houses of innocent people.  These people
then have to pay the government to get their own possessions back.

Civil forfeiture is a great example of "if it stops only ONE criminal."
Obviously, it's stopped at least ONE criminal.  Do you think we were
"reasonable to go for it?"

> >Now, if you want to argue that we need to teach criminals how
> >to shoot better, go ahead.
> 
>    Have you taken a driving lesson? Did the teacher tell you only how to
> drive fast? As I understand it, the good gun education doesn't include only
> "how to shoot well" but also "how not to shoot when you shouldn't."

Say, which of the three are you discussing?

1) Accidents.
2) Erroneous use of a firearm.
3) Criminals intending to commit crimes.

Courses will NEVER affect #3 -- they INTEND to be dangerous.  Courses may
diminish the other two cases, but will never entirely remove them.  Given
that the number of incidents in these two cases are SMALL and GETTING SMALLER,
(in the case of accidents, 1,400 a year, which is less than the number of
children who EAT OR DRINK POISON and much less than the number of children
who DROWN IN PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS) what do you hope to accomplish?

Are you aware that the ACCIDENTAL death rate alone of LICENSED DRIVERS who 
have taken your highly-touted government driving tests and courses is 43 
times HIGHER than the accident rate of American gun owners who are in general
not licensed or tested?  This is no statistic to aspire to.  Government
certification is, in general, largely meaningless.

>    If the person who shot Yoshi Hattori had received a better training,
> they might not have had to make someone who could be judged as a murderer 
> out of those who want to defend themselves.  

Or, in the heat of fear and the flush of adrenaline, he may in fact have
made exactly the same mistakes.  You don't know.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...