From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:10:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul22132948@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu
>(Nosy) writes:

>|><   Well lets take a look at the British. 
>|>
>|>     You are aware that we are not British, do not have the British
>|>     culture and have not had that culture for more than 200 years?

>Nor any other as far as anyone can tell.

     Hello and good morning to you, to.

>|>< I beleieve that they don't even
>|><   allow their police to carry guns, 
>|>
>|>     Yes and no.

>Police carry guns if they are essential. Most police do not have the
>certificates of competency etc. The idea is that the police carrying
>guns are an elite bunch of highly trained specialists. The police very
>rarely make mistakes and shoot the wrong person as a result.

     Too bad you don't live in the Eastern portion of the Great State
of Tennessee.  *You're* police may not make many mistakes  (which
I thoroughly doubt, but I don't know the methods used for oversight
on your police force...)  Perhaps we're just better at watching our
police?  (Yes, we can be insulting when we care to, too.)

>|><and is't next to impossible for a
>|><   civilian (if not impossible) to obtain a gun.  
>|>
>|>     This is false; it is possible for a civilian to obtain 
>|>     a gun. There is a capricious licensing process.

>Shotgun licences are quite easy to get provided you have a reasonable
>explanation of what you are going to use it for. The rule for handguns
>is much tougher, basicaly forget it unless you are a member of a gun
>club.

>We don't like the idea of loonies with guns. Greg McLaren would not be
>in with a chance of getting a gun in the UK.

     Perhaps not legally.
 
     Nowhere in the U.S. may a "loony" purchase a gun legally.  However,
the foundation of our system of government is that it is the government
which must justify its actions to the citizenry, not the other way
around.  In the absence of proof, it is assumed that the citizen is
trustworthy, to prevent the government from exercising undue controls
on the citizens lives.
 
     This appears to be an idea alien to most Europeans.  I mean, we're
just those Barbaric Americans, aren't we?

>|>     Note that criminals who use guns rarely have licences.

>But the idea is noit to stop hard core hardened criminals but psychos
>and casual criminals out to rob grocery stores. Armed robbery is actualy
>quite rare, most incidents turn out to have involved a dummy.

>|>     Mexican gun laws are STRICTER than British gun laws, yet
>|>     by any measure you choose, crime in the Republic of Mexico
>|>     is worse than in the U.S.
>|>
>|>     If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>|>     safer than the U.S.?

>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>chance of gun control laws working?

     Guns "freely circulate" south of Canada, too.  Their gun control laws
"work."  Why theirs and not Mexico's?  Are there, perhaps other factors
involved?

>Phill Hallam-Baker

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc