From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:08:15 GMT

>Interesting points and quite informative.  I think the general case that you >put forward for home defence is one which has to be considered justified in >the US simply because of the widespread ownership of guns.

No. I don't think this is relevent. See below.

>If someone coming into your house has a gun, then the only real weapon you >have is a gun - correct.  This is the point I'm making about it being

Not really one could choose a crossbow or a throwing star if those
were the weapons he preferred. Since noise surpressors are illegal
in much of USSA they do have the advantage of preserving your hearing.

>impractical to remove guns from circulation for reasons other than >'legitimate' sporting reasons etc. (as we have here) over there.  It simply >wouldn't work, as the criminal would then be the only person with the gun, >other than the sportsman.
>(not much help in the inner cities, where everyone seems to own guns and >'sporting use' is hardly appropriate - not many deer around to shoot at!)

Well the do still allow us to use automobiles. :-}

>However, the situation here is quite different.  Granted, you can't stop the >hardened criminal element from getting a gun illegally.  However, these people >do tend to think twice before taking it out and using it - the penalties in >the courts for carrying firearms are far in excess of just normal robbery, so

Not surprising. The penalty in Kalifornia is apparently higher for selling
a semi-automatic rifle than for commiting several types of violent crime.

>that thought I believe crosses the mind of someone about to go out and commit >a robbery (for example).

>In the home defence argument, the case as I see it here is as follows.  Let's >say someone breaks into your home - they are highly unlikely to be armed with >a gun (or anything as it happens).  Ok, if I own a gun, then that'll deal with >it seeing as I don't know home defence.  But surely you'll just get the >escalating situation you appear to have over there whereby 'he knows I have a >gun and therefore he must have a gun.'

That doesn't seem to be the case here. The victims in DC and NY are
almost completely unarmed but the criminals have been using guns in
the commision of their crimes with increasing frequency.

>This means you can more or less guarantee that he will have a gun, so you need >a gun etc etc. and you end up in a shoot-out.  On balance, doesn't this mean >that more people will be injured in attacks on the home than if guns were not >used in 'defence'.

No. The evidence indicates that most cases of defense with a firearm
result in no shots being fired. It also appears that private citizens
have a better record than the police WRT collatoral damage. I can't
give you the stats on this but maybe someone can.

>I would say I've far more chance of surviving an attack by an intruder armed >with a knife if I've gone and got a knife from the kitchen (or even the >bedside lamp if I can't get that far), than trying to tackle someone with a >gun - then it's a case of who fires first.  If he gets me first, then I'm >invariably very seriously injured, far more so than from a stab wound.

Definitely not the case. You may feel safer but that is just a feeling.
Knife wounds are almost always inflicted at close range were aiming is
pretty certain. On the other hand criminals have a pretty poor record
WRT engaging an armed homeowner. The homeowner has the home court advantage.
Most of the two legged predators are very skilled with their blades
and I would not want to take them on in a fair fight with knives.
Quite a few crime victims have survived an attack with a gun. If you
do not hit a vital area (heart, lungs, brain or spine) the victim
stands a good chance of surviving. While a knife wound is very likely
to result in profuse bleeding; much worse than the average gunshot
wound.

Also keep in mind that the average housebreaker only has to be convinced
that continuing the attack is not a good idea. However he must kill you
inorder to win. Even a non-fatal hit on the perp usually (though not
always) ends the attack.

>I would argue that (in the rare cases of violent crime in the home - still >very small here, although they do happen) having ten injured victims (but >alive) is surely better than 5 dead ones and 5 uninjured ones??

However I contend that this is a false representation of the actual
situation. First of all I assume that you are not counting the perp
as a victim.

There have been studies which show that those who defend themselves
with a firearm are more likely to escape uninjured than those who
either submit or attempt to defend themselves in any other way.

>On the point of my taking up handguns - the laws here on firearms (I don't >know exactly what you've heard) are not as restrictive as people seem to >assume, providing you have a legitimate (i.e.sporting) reason.
>If I wanted to take up handguns, I first find a firing range and club which >has been set up and approved by the police (standard practicefor starting a >gun club and there are quite afew around).  I then apply for a firearms >certificate (which I've done successfully in the past).
>This involves a search to see if I have a criminal record, then a police >officer visiting my home to ensure that the guns are to be safely locked away >in a secure gun cabinet when not in use.
>I have to state the purpose for the use of the gun and ( in the case of >firearms - it's a bit more lax in the case of shotguns) prove my membership of >a gun club for a period (i.e. I haven't joined yesterday, but am genuinely >interested in the sport).

>The guns and ammo I own are recorded on the certificate and any guns I wish to >buy I apply to the police for a right to buy to be added to my certificate.  >Sounds a lot when you write it all down, but practically there is no problem >if you can show the police you are interested in the sport and sensible in >keeping your guns securely locked away from burglars in your home (so they >don't get stolen).  You can then use the guns for the purpose stated.

Sounds pretty oppresive to me.

>Shotguns are a bit easier, although this was tightened up after the 1986 >Hungerford Massacre (to a reasonable level I feel) - you now have to have your
>shotgun locked away when not in use, as most responsible gun owners do anyway. > No need to have proof of joining a gun club though, as sporting use in the >field is far more common for shotguns.

>Hope that removes some of the myth over english gun laws!!`

Sounds like what I would have expected. I can't immagine such oppresive
laws being passed here without triggering a revolution.

>Jason

				mike