From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Guns(and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Keywords: Guns, knives, ban
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:01:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.065813.28381@cs.cornell.edu> elster@cs.cornell.edu (Anne
C. Elster) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.011740.29446@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond
Lang) writes:
>>In article <1e8vffINNmqm@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (M
ike Roncadori) writes:
>>>                                        I just have a hard
>>>time believing that guns cause crime, just by their presence.
>>
>Just this fall an aquaintance of mine was stabbed to death by some
>unknown local highschool students on the steps of the MIT librabry
>at 9pm on a Friday night. His friend was also stabbed, but survived.
>Apparantly the kids had headed over to MIT to see "who could mugg
>some students  for the most money" -- It was one of those sensless
>acts of violence that makes you go "shudder"! It hits you even harder
>when you knmow the victims ... :-(
>
>Unfortunately, gun-laws wouldn't have helped much. In fact, had the
>kids had guns, they might realize using them would be more fatal and
>not ending up killing, but then again, who knows ... the truely evil
>will always be evil. (BTW, I don't *really* believe that guns would
>have helped!)

Kids owning guns(handgund, the most concealable firearm)is illegal under 
federal laws. More gun laws would not have helped, they are allready breaking
the law by mugging people.

>I admit to swinging back and forth on this issue.
>Like illegal drugs, I think we will prob. be better off keeping most
>weapons illegal -- i.e. the fewer available, the better.

It is estimated that 1/2 the homes in the USA have firearms.(I heard this on 
the tv, so I don't have an exact figure.)

A few years ago(1989 or so) there were 600,000 uses of firearms by HONEST
LAWABIDING CITIZENS to stop crimes in progress.(from the FBI reports)

And you should also remember(I know that thist has been overused) the use of
"assault rifles" to protect life & property durring the riots in LA, & to stop
looters in Florida after the storm.

>However, that does not mean I think a ban is even close to the solution
>of the problem!

Bans normaly incorrage unlawfull behavior. Those who feel the need to protect 
themselves break the law, because they feel that it is a bad law, and become 
crimminals because of it. Those who are crimminals(for reasions other than 
weapons possession) will not be effected by the bans, they are crimminals and 
if they feel that they need weapons, they will get them through illegal means.
What is one more broken law to them?

The Lawabiding person is the one who is hurt. They end up being outgunned by
the crimminals, and cannot get the means to protect themselves.

>first .... Admittedly I feel stronger about a woman's right to choose
>over peoples right to bear arms, but that's another story ...

This is one of the contradictions that I see in the "liberal" agenda. I can 
choose to kill an unborn child, but I cannot choose to protect myself from 
someone who is trying to rob/assault/kill me.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton