From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:49:09 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec22092527@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.203300.29575@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <105170@bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>>>If we do not limit availabilty than I must assume it
>>>remains as easy for any person as it was for Wayne
>>>to get his gun. Being only 18 he would have had more
>>>trouble getting a six pack.
>>
>>   Not close.  Then again, I note that coke is rather easy to get despite
>>   the legal restrictions, so ....
>
>So what? When was the last time someone use "coke" as a high speed
>projectile to kill someone? What's your point?

The point is that legal restrictions don't necessarily restrict actual
availability.  If actual availability to the relevant population isn't
restricted, there can't be any benefits, no matter what the law says,
no matter how much the law restricts other people.

>>Merritt apparently believes that disarming him can provide benefits.
>>He's wrong.  (Disarming him at best is a no-op and won't disarm anyone
>>who is worth disarming.)  He thinks we should be shocked by the
>>possibility that he might have several guns.  If he's like the rest of
>>us, there's no risk.  Should we jail him so that we won't be
>>shocked"?
>
>I believe that the proability of being shot is too high. There must
>be an environmental change;
>
>1) restrict gun availability

How are you going to do it?  I've made a semi-auto using hand tools,
so don't tell me that you're just going to pass a law.  I can't
compete with competent machinists using tools from Sears, so illegal
manufacture is a definite possibility.  There's also smuggling and
theft from govt.  Given the number of guns used criminally, there's no
way to affect criminal gun use through access restrictions.

>2) restrict ammunition availabilty

I've made ammo too.  It's easier than making guns.

>3) allow people to create communities where the *can* control
>   guns and their use.

How are they going to control guns in those communities?  Search
everyone who enters?  Go for it.  (Note that you can't let me in even
if I'm naked because I know "dangerous" things.)

Since those legal restrictions aren't going to affect crime, why does
Merritt want them?

>Your stance is to compel me to gamble with my life. I but no such impositions
>on you. Infact all I ask is to join with others who think as
>I do and create a sane and safe enviromnet.

My "stance"?  Really?  It's my fault that people can make, smuggle,
and steal guns?  It's my fault that certain legal measures can't work?
Wowsers!  Is it also my fault that people who fall off ladders get
hurt?

There are things that Merritt could work for to create a safe and sane
environment.  It happens that they're not gun control.  It also seems
that he's uninterested in them.  His choice, but it does tell us about
what he's really interested in.  (The alternative is to assume that
he's incompetent.)

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns