From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:43:02 GMT

In article <MCCARTY.92Nov18203808@aphid.add.itg.ti.com>
mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes:

>
>In article <1e17okINNagt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. ell) writes:
>
>   >What???  I can't believe I'm reading such idiocy.  There are "other" issues
>   >of course, but who are you to say that this is an unimportant one?  The
>   >Constitution clearly states what rights cannot be infringed on by the
>   >government, and this right happens to be one of them.  What organizations
>   >like the NRA fight for is to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens,
>   >and why is that a sad state of affairs?   As the old saying goes, "When
>   >guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Do we really want this?
>
>It's interesting that countries such as Great Britain exercise some
>control over guns.  Are the "outlaws" shooting innocent people left and
>right (other than the problems in Ireland, which I'd classify as a war)?

       That "war" is a major difference between the rest of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.  Yet they operate under the very same laws.
Something beyond the controls is evidenced here.
       During the early years of this century, England had very lax gun
control laws, almost to the point of non-existance in many places.  They
did not kill each other in the streets.  Their gun control laws were
enacted for political reasons, not crimenal reasons.  And like ours continue
to be ineffecitve against crimenal activity, theirs is ineffective in
Northern Ireland against political violence.
       England had a much less lethal culture than the United States
prior to their controls, and continues to.  (Although I understand
armed crime is on the rise.)

>Take the 20,000 foot view of this country for a moment - look around you
>and perhaps you'll realize how insane our society is WRT weapons.

>Sometimes I think the NRA is so out of step with reality that it amazes
>me people can be so swayed by their arguments.

       Then I ought to be a breath of fresh air.  I made my decision about
guns before I ever touched anything from the NRA.  (And I'm still not a
member.)

> Why are guns so special?

       Why indeed.

>I may be wrong here on my facts, but I've been under the impression that
>possession of switchblades is against the law in most jurisdictions.  If
>we have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms, does not a switchblade fall
>into that category?

       That is, in fact, a good point.  There are many weapons beyond
guns which are "safe" in legal terms from banning, probably because the
National RIFLE Association does not lobby for them.
       Switchblades were originally outlawed because they were "gang"
weapons.  Outlawing them, it was hoped, would disarm the gangs.  It
was ineffective.  I don't know how much the gangs used them anyway.
Seems like the idea of going into a fight with a knife that could
malfunction is pretty stupid.
      I think it is also interesting to point out that if lethality
is the problem, why are Mace, Stun guns, and tasers illegal in so
many places?

>I feel it's absurd to argue that everyone is safer if everyone can pack
>a pistol.

      Let's differentiate betwen *possible* and *legal* here.  *Possible*
is when something can physically happen.  *Legal* is when something has
been prohibited by the local legislative body.  (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know
that sounds insulting, but I want to make sure we're got our definitions
straight.)  Illegal does not equate to Not-Possible.  For proof I offer
into evidence Washington D.C. and New York.
       The question is not whether arguing with someone is safer if they
are not armed, clearly it is.  The question is whether a law can make it
so that those who would use that gun in an argument impossible (or
extremely difficult) to acquire it.  I don't believe it is, and I think
the "War on Drugs" is ample proof that supply is going to meet demand
no matter how many laws you pass.

> The statistics as I understand them just don't bear out the
>claim that with a gun in the house, one has a better chance against a
>bad guy.  Turns out that more innocent people get hurt than helped by
>having a gun around.

       I can't speak against that statistic unless I know where you got
it.  It sounds suspisciously like the 6/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47 - 1
statistic that floats around and continues to increment.  I do know
that accidental shootings are low.  Also don't assume that "family
member" or "acquaintance" (which is often listed as "friends") necessarily
implies innocent.  "Bad guys" have friends and family, too.
       Also, most statistics don't take into account that the vast
majority of defensive uses of guns don't result either in firing the
weapon or in anybody getting hurt.  Many, also, are not reported.  (A
friend used his when he was visiting New York and somebody tried to
mug him.  The mugger ran off and he didn't feel like telling the police
he had commited a felony.)

>Case in point.  A few years ago, Time magazine ran an article which
>showed pictures of 400 people killed in one week with a gun and listed
>the cause.

       I'm afraid you'll need a better source than that.  Time magazine
has a standard form letter they send to people who complain about their
gun coverage which basically says they've decided on the issue
and that the time for balanced reporting and unbiased consideration
"has passed."

>The majority of them were not crooks.  The highest
>percentage of the people we killed in accidental discharges, suicides,
>or homcides committed by friends or family.

       I'd be interested in seeing that article, but it probably
wouldn't help.  Time, like most news magazines, doesn't give a lot
of insight into where they got their numbers.
       Some points:  Accidental gun deaths are extremely low compared
to just about everything.  The only thing less before you get into
the really weird stuff is death by poison gas.
       For suicides, it's tough to convince people not to kill themselves.
It is more cultural than related to guns.  (Japan's suicide rate, for instance
is significanty higher than ours.)  One study tried to link guns to, at the
very least, lethality in suicide.  Their very odd conclusion was that banning
guns would reduce suicide in the 18-24 age group, but not impact the over-all
suicide rate.  Apparently they though banning guns would make some other group
more likely to kill themselves.
       As for homicides commited by friends and family, that's not quite
true, and anyway, "bad guys" have friends and family, too.

>If it were really safer to
>have a gun around, one would certainly expect the majority of the 400
>deaths to be homicides committed by "outlaws".
>
>It was a haunting article - one which finally convinced me that rampant
>gun ownership (esp. handguns) is pure insanity and places the public at
>far greater risk of harm than controlled public ownership - even if the
>bad guys are well armed.

       Oh well, I tried.

>Our constitution was drafted to above all else protect the people.

       But not from themselves, or each other.  It was drafted to
protect them from the government.  Law enforcement tends to be a
state function.

>I
>cannot believe for a moment that the right to bear arms must be so
>broadly interpreted as to overshadow what I see as an innate right of
>protection from undue risk of harm.

       If that was the case, you'd have a right to police protection, and
you don't  The courts have been quite clear on this.  Even if the police
know you're in danger, they have no compeling legal requirement to come
to your aid.
       What it means is you have the right to be unmolested in your
own pursuits of means with which to secure your own protection, just
like you have the right to be unmolested when you express your opinions.

>And I do believe there IS greater
>risk of harm to the public without stricter gun control.

       Be it a statisitical anomaly or something more, the homicide
rate apparently dropped 2% during a period of time wherein there was no
major national gun control legislation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:482 alt.politics.perot:5545 talk.politics.misc:60477