Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:41:46 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

>Those of us who are sickened by the slaughter which is everyday America
>would ESPECIALLY like to see guns out of the hands of criminals.

Care to name ANYONE who wants to see guns in the hands of criminals?
Care to name ANYONE who isn't sickened by the slaughter?

Hint: disagreeing about solutions does not imply denying that there's
a problem.

>you might even approve of the solution which I would suggest: possession
>of any unlicensed firearm, 5 years; use of any firearm in the commission
>of a crime, 10 years; use of deadly force in the violation of the consti-
>tution, death (whoops, we just hanged Ollie North and his boss; sorry).

A friend of mine lives in Chicago.  Since he moved there in the past
few years he can't get a license; Chicago stopped issuing licenses
over 10 years ago.  If he owns a handgun, it is unlicensed.  If he
does own, what is the appropriate sentence?  Is it the same as the
appropriate sentence for a convicted felon?

CURRENT LAW provides for jail time for felons who possess.  It is
rarely enforced; that's one of the crimes that usually gets plea-
bargained away.  Would punishing law abiding people for technical
violations of gun laws provide any benefits?

We can argue about whether or not mandatory jail time for gun use in
crime would help or not, but it has long been advocated by major
pro-gun groups.  Of course, people who don't know anything about them,
such as people who think that they're not sickened by slaughter or
inappropriate gun use, wouldn't know that.

Licensing works only in an environment of good faith and then only for
certain problems.  It can't affect intentional use.  It can't affect
criminals because they don't acquire through legal channels.  (It
can't help with criminal investigations either.)  In other words,
there are no possible benefits from gun licensing.  There need not be
any costs either, but there are.

The history of gun licensing in the US is abysmal.  It is a means by
which govt scapegoats honest citizens for its failures wrt dishonest
ones.  US govts have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no good
use for information regarding gun ownership by good people, and
licensing doesn't provide information regarding ownership by bad
people.  It is a policy with no benefits and many demonstrated costs.

Gun control advocates often say "be reasonable" and "trust us".  Fine.
Let's see some evidence showing their reasonableness, some evidence
showing that they can be trusted.  Heck, let's see them advocate
reasonable and intelligent policies, policies that haven't failed many
times.  (That's a bit of a problem, as gun control hasn't worked
anywhere, but ....)

>Couldn't all you mayhem-boppers find a symbolic outlet for your rage?

What makes you think that gun ownership is an outlet for rage?  Maybe
if you owned guns, it would be an outlet for your rage, but you don't
own, so your hypothetical motivations don't tell us about motivations
for people who do own.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu