From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Summary: random words from a random brain
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:44:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hells Bells -- "we're a bunch of Ding-Dongs"

In article <1992Dec23.190031.24169@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
  >...
  >"Effects of REstrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in
  >	the District of Columbia"
  >...
  >In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided
  >with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms ( a reduction of 3.3
  >per month, or 25%) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month,
  >or 23%).  No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides
  >or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar
  >reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and
  >Virginia.  There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other
  >methods, as would be expected in equally lethal means were substituted 
  >for handguns.
  >
  >[The body of the study contains many graphs and tables documenting the
  > claims above.  It also discusses why the intuitive idea that gun
  > availability through the black market would render controls useless
  > does not actually pan out.]

Does this mean you now can walk the streets of D.C. and not worry about
being killed?  Or is it still a very dangerous place where you would be
nuts to go walking alone at night?  The people of D.C. are being disarmed
so they can not protect themselves.  All for a reduction in odds of being
killed by firearms.  Pardon me if I'm not impressed.

Let's see, you gave up 100% protection by a firearm to get a 25% reduction
in being a firearm-related cadaver.  A poor tradeoff in my book.  What
difference does it make how you're killed?  Dead is dead.

You still have a chance of running into someone intent on putting you
away, yet you have less ability to do anything about it.  What're going to
do, call the police?  You could do the "physical" thing with your attacker,
if that fails move on to the OC/Mace/CS, if that also fails, say your prayers
if you don't have a gun backup.

I sorry our world is so violent.  I don't like it either, but I'll be 
dammed if I'll just lay down and let someone knock me off without a 
fight.  I would rather not have to worry about defending myself and this
is probably true for most people, but taking away 100% of the only real
protection people have for a simple reduction in odds of being killed is
a very poor reason indeed.

How about we apply this logic to other things:

  - Throw away those fire extinguishers when you reduce the odds of
    having a fire at home.

  - Unlock your doors and windows at home because you installed an
    alarm system and placed a warning sticker on the front lawn.

  - Unbuckle your seatbelts when you're going 25MPH instead 55MPH.

  - Lean against the 35th Floor Window because the odds are you won't
    fall out, right?

This is my personal point of view.  If were in power, I probably would
like the tradeoff.  Makes my power position more secure when I know the
little people can't do shit to protect themselves from me.  Goly, I
wonder if anyone has ever had a thought like that? 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25674 talk.politics.drugs:8059 sci.psychology:4864