From: wood@eisley.akita.com (Ken Wood)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Murder in a fit of rage?
Summary: Mostly illegal guns are used for murder.
Keywords: murder guns laws politicians yuck
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 08:26:56 PDT
Organization: Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS


In article <1992Jul24.193915.4621@eskimo.celestial.com>
           alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:

>     Your posted articles made some good points but it still comes down
>to an inconclusive answer.  In the statistics given still only 12.8% of
>murders are commited by people unknown to each other.  And while sure
>aquaintance murders don't have to mean intimates and while sure that the
>majority of murderers would have a history of violence, it is entirely
>possible that the majority of people who would obtain guns illegally still
>only fall in that 12.8% category.  If that is the case then from the very
>statistics from these articles 87.2% of gun murders would potentially be
>reduced by virtue of the fact that 87.2% of potential murderers would not
>own guns.

     It is very unlikely that the majority of the murders are commited 
with legal guns.  Studies show ( I don't have the numbers handy right 
now ) that only about 15% of the guns used in crimes are legaly 
purchased.  Simple fact will bear this out.  As the statistics in the 
article show the majority of murderers have a history of violent 
felonies.  In almost all cases one of the conditions for parole ( 
especialy for a violent felony ) is that the felon not possess any 
firearms.  In addition a convicted felon looses many of there rights 
even after they are released.  They can not vote, in many states thay 
can not hold most public offices, and they can not legally have a 
firearm.  The person can appeal to reverse this, but very few exceptions 
are granted and then only after the person has maintained a clean record 
for many years.  This means that the majority of the people commiting 
these murders, haveing a substantial previous criminal history, cannot 
legally own a firearm.  If they can't legally have the weapon they use 
than any attempt at legal controll won't have much effect on them.

>    Then the argument falls down to well would those people (and we are
>talking people with a history of violence - the not neccessarily true
>assumption of the articles is that people with a history of violence would
>be likely to obtain guns illegaly)

See above.

>if they are denied access to guns would
>they then still commit murders through other means (knives, clubs, bare hands,
>etc.)  And the truth is that yes they would commit assaults with other means,
>but (and its been years and I can't remember source) people are many times
>less likely to kill someone with non-gun methods, especially in "heat of
>rage" situations.  With a gun it is just too easy to mechanically pull a 
>trigger and the deed is done.  With other weapons it requires actuall
>physical contact between people and a bit of force needs to be expended.

     I pretty much agree here.  Yes a gun is more deadly that most other 
weapons, and yes it is easier psychologicly to use.  I'm not sure about 
the "many times" but that is a minor point at best.  ( can anyone 
provide some statistics? )

>    Though still I cannot condone a complete ban on gun ownership.  (How
>many of you are opposed to restricting who can own guns at all?  There was
>one argument made that any gun restrictions can be used as an excuse to
>restrict gun ownership in the population as a whole, but there are legitimate
>reasons to keep some people from owning guns - criminal / violent histories
>being prominent) 

     I believe I was one of the people who brought this up ( but not the 
only one ).  So far the best proposal I have seen for this is the 
Staggers Bill.  It was introduced by the NRA ( yes the NRA ) as a 
counter to the Brady Bill.  The Brady bill calls for a 5 day waiting 
period, however it does not require that ANY background check be done in 
this time.  Also the 5 days starts when the local police chief 
acknowledges recipt of the request.  There is NO requirment for him/her 
to do so.  This is a prime example of the way restrictions can turn into 
bans.  Also HCI ( Handgin Controll Inc. ) has threatened to sue the 
first police chief who approves a request for a gun that is subsequently 
used in a crime.  Many police chiefs won't take the risk.  Now the 
Staggers Bill requires an instant ( in the store ) background check for 
a criminal record or a record of mental incompetence.  The system 
already exists to do this.  It is being done in Virginia today, and the 
national computer data base already exists.  All that would have to be 
done is that gun stores would have to put in simple terminals similar to 
credit card readers in stores.  Instant, no restriction of the rights of 
the average law abiding citizen, and very practicly.  HCI fought against 
this in a big way and with there influence it was defeated.  This is my 
idea of a good law, on that I would support.  Unfortunatly it died.

     In my response to a private letter sent to me on this subject I 
encouraged the writer to research the subject for himself.  I would 
encourage anybody interested in this subject to do the same.  Most of what 
is presented in the mass media on this is at best an extreem 
distortion.  Do a little research on the subject for yourself, don't 
rely on the media and don't rely on what I say, I could be lying to you 
too.  I would encourage people to do this for any subject they have an 
interest in.  The media in this country often distorts the "facts".  The 
truth is worth the research, you might be supprised what you find.  When 
I started looking into this subject I held a different oppinion.  Not 
completly different since I support all of the Bill of Rights ( even the 
deceased 9th and 10th and the terminal 4th ) but still substantialy 
different.  Since then I've learned that alot of things are not as they 
are often presented.


     Ken Wood

         


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wood@eisley.akita.com           :     Don't eat the rocks.              |
| eisley!wood@polari.online.com   : -The First Law of Bovine Cogitation.- |
| wood@seanews.akita.com          :                                       |
| wood@pismo.wa.com               :     Who let the pigs play poker?      |
| (In above order of preference.) :     Evo Shander was right!            |
| "Don't look back, someth'in might be gaining on ya."  -- Satchel Page   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+