Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
From: brycerw@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:04:03 CST
 <1992Sep6.165102.23841@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> 
 <1992Sep6.231429.24616@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> <1992Sep7.005223.29989@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep7.005223.29989@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
> 
>>|> >ok, there are way too many auto-accidents, so we are going to ban private
>>|> >vehicle ownership, and force everyone on public transit.
>>|> 
>>|> Well, that would be fine with me, however I'm repeatedly told that it isn't 
>>|> practical.
>>|> Afterall, how would anyone, um, ...gee I've forgotten their argument. 
>>|>[...]

It would be impractical for me, at least.  1/2-mile to the nearest neighbor,
8 miles to the nearest village, 38 miles to the nearest town.  A public transit
system in the rural areas here would have a ridiculous cost.

>>|> 
>>|> But that wasn't my point.
>>|> I think the point is that people don't *intentionally* use cars to kill
>>|> people and for crime.
>>
>>	It has happened before.  McDonald's in the states and that restaurant
>>	in Texas last year have had madmen 'driving thru the window' (like the
>>	sign said!)
>>
> This is true.  But it is an an incredible anomoly.  People in this category are the
> ones who kill with or without guns.  And yes, killing with a gun is an 'anomoly'

Agreed.
> too, but one that is thousands of times more frequent.
> 
>>|> >i don't think out-right bans on anything is going to change anything.
>>|> 
>>|> It would definitely change things.  It would lower the number of people
>>|> killed in crime and violent acts.  The question is, however, 
>>|> 'is it worth having our rights infringed upond to do so?' 

NO!  Please read on.

[...]
> So there are fewer guns out there, but they are valuable.  So the fewer
> people being killed have the consolation of knowing that they were done
> in by something that was worth a lot of money.

Some consolation.  Reasoning here is totally ludicrous.

>>|> 
>>|> And for those people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill
>>|> people", go to your bookstore and look up some anti-gun material.  Some people
>>|> are always going to kill, but with guns, it happens more often.  It's the
>>|> ease with which one can kill with a gun that is the biggest problem.
>>|> Again, fewer guns=fewer intentional deaths.  This is a fact. 
>>|> 

Just like fewer knives=fewer intentional deaths...

>>
>>	Well, state the sources.  What books, authors?  Where did they
>>	get the stats?  I'm not against you, I just want more FACTS.
>>
> 
> Okay, most of these sorts of books are American of course.  One in particular
> that I thought was good (some of them are a bit naive) was called _The Right
> to Bear Arms_ (I think).  The statistics cited were mainly regional comparisons,
> as well as country comparisons.  These of course have societal bias.  But they
> are so overwhelming that they have some credence.  The author also references
> psychologial studies and profiles that stress that SOME people would not kill
> if it weren't so easy.  "It's harder to kill someone up close when you can see
> their eyes" type argument.  Again, there are statistics to support the claim
> and they aren't trivial numbers.  It's similar to the argument that fewer
> people would eat beef if they actually  had to kill the cow themselves....
> 
> oops. there i go again :-)
> 
We raise our own cattle.  Butcher the best of the lot for ourselves.  Love it.
Love the steak, the liver, roasts, ....

>>|> Criminals can always get guns.  But, when guns are difficult to come by 
>>|> and extremely expensive, the number of criminals who have them does go down.
>>|> And the ones who don't have them are the ones who are 'small time' and break
>>|> into your home.
>>
>>	First sentence OK.  BUT, I've heard of people waking up
>>	at gunpoint whhile some thug goes through the jewelry!!  
>>	Are ALL criminals the SAME? NOT.  Are you willing to take the chance 
>>	that these 'small time' guys are gunless?  
>>
> 
> My point was too vague.  When guns are hard to get and 'valuable', the small
> time crooks, such as burglars, hardly ever will have one.

Instead, they'll find (nearly) equally effective alternatives.
> 
> Somewhat unrelated, but ironic point:  as an unarmed person in our society, you are
> safer than an armed person in the US.
> 
> Scary.
> 
> peace,
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter Mason
> masonp@nukie.physics.mcmaster.ca
> Hamilton, Ontario (ack! pfffthpt!), Canada
> -displaced Nova Scotian

I would like to raise a few other points:

- what about the honest gun collector (my father, brother, and I are - 30 
	guns and counting between the 3 of us).  Some of these guns are no 
	longer operable, others you can no longer get shells (ammo.) for them.
	Others are brand new.  Are you saying ban ALL guns, or just some?

- what about a gun passed on through the family as a heirloom?  I've got a gun
	from my grandfather that he used in the UK before WWII.  You'd have a
	fight on your hands before I'd give up a family heirloom (which hasn't
	fired a shot in decades) to meet a ban.

- we hunt for deer every year.  Fine, if there was a ban on guns, we could use
	bows.  That's a sport in it's own.  What about muzzle-loaders?  They're
	regaining in popularity for hunters now, since it puts more of the
	sport back into it - one shot, then take 3-5 minutes to reload.

- as I'm sure you can tell, I live on a farm (cattle, etc.).  In our area,
	wolves, coyotes, and even bears (occasionally) are sited here, as well
	as skunks, porcupines, etc.  Skunks can have raibbies (sp?), wolves
	and coyotes can have the mainge (sp?).  Both these diseases, and 
	others, can be picked up by our cattle extremely quickly.  Therefor, 
	when we see a diseased animal, we have to kill it right away, or we 
	may get hit by a tremendous financial loss.  If we have no weapons to 
	easily and quickly do this, there is a larger chance of us not getting
	rid of the animal in time.  If we have to phone and wait for a ranger 
	to show up to kill the animal, that, too, could be too late, as they 
	can take literally hours to come.  Same goes if an animal is bothering
	our cattle - cows could abort, young calves could be eaten be coyotes, 
	etc.  By banning firearms completely, you are removing our ability 
	to properly and effectively protect our investment when needed.  
	This is not a frequent event, but when considering how often the need 
	to kill/scare a wild animal arises, and the amount of investment at 
	risk, it is a valid point.

I would like to see the laws and requirements for owning/aquiring FAC's
increased and stiffened.  This should be the area of concern - if we make sure
that who the law will allow to carry firearms is not any old 'Joe'.  The laws
concerning what firearms are legal are fine.  Who can carry and own these
firearms, and how these firearms are attained is where the scrutiny should 
be placed.

2 cents poorer.

Robert Bryce
BRYCERW@BrandonU.CA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada