From: mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:43:31
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin, TX
	<1e17okINNagt@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<MCCARTY.92Nov18203808@aphid.add.itg.ti.com>
	<1992Nov19.185445.22510@igor.tamri.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aphid.add.itg.ti.com
In-reply-to: donb@igor.tamri.com's message of Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:54:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.185445.22510@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>   Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
>   higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
>   fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
>   rate is HIGHER than ours.

I think it's a combination of mindset and accessibility that make guns
such a problem in this country.  Our image (at least mine) of the gun is
rooted greatly in the old west with the good guys against the bad
guys and the only thing in between them was a gun.  Combine the gunslinger
mindset with easy access and you get a society full of guns.  We'll just
have to disagree on it, but I find that situation to be inherently
unsafe and inconsistent with the needs of today's society.  This isn't the
old west anymore.  We must alter our mindset about guns.

It is relevant to look at other countries.  OK, let's agree that some
countries have higher gun ownership than the US (what type of weapons by
the way? - that would seem important as well).  These countries don't
hold the same societal view of the gun that we do.

   >>possession of switchblades is against the law in most jurisdictions.  If
   >>we have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms, does not a switchblade fall
   >>into that category?

>   Personally, I don;t think you should be penalized for carrying a weapon
>   unless you misuse it.

At least you are consistent in your view.

   >I feel it's absurd to argue that everyone is safer if everyone can pack
   >a pistol.  The statistics as I understand them just don't bear out the
   >claim that with a gun in the house, one has a better chance against a
   >bad guy.  Turns out that more innocent people get hurt than helped by
   >having a gun around.

>   Who said that?  I consider gun ownership a right; I agree that carrying
>   a gun is a privilege.  I do think that anyone with a clean record and
>   some amount of training should be able to carry.

I guess I'm in that minority of folks who don't feel too comfortable with
the knowledge that John Q. Public might be packing.  There are lots of
incidents where someone with a clean record got pissed off, went off the
deep end, reached into the drawer and shot someone.

>   The gun accident death rate in the 70s was about 2400/year; in 1990 it
>   was down to 1200.  While I think that those deaths are tragedies, I don't
>   think the rate is high enough to warrant further legislation.

I agree about the gun accident rate.  However, that was only one of the
causes I listed, and the least frequent.  Suicides and homicides among
friends and family account for the greatest numbers.

>   I don't think suicides are relevant to the discussion of gun control.

Sure they are.  Killing yourself with a gun is a lot surer and more
dramatic than other methods - I think you'd find accessibility plays a
significant role.

>   Did Time also say how many of those friends/family members obtained
>   their guns legally?  Because something like 85% of such murders are
>   committed by people with previous felony records who couldn't have obtained
>   a gun legally anyway!  But then Time has told gun owners who've written
>   in that the time for a balanced discussion of the issue is over, so I
>   don't expect professional objectivity from them...

So?  For the sake of argument, let's assume your statistic is correct.  You've
made my point for me.  It's TOO EASY to get hold of a handgun in this
country - if a felon can walk into a shop and buy one, we're in deep trouble.
Even if by making it harder we only can prevent 10 or 15 percent of that 85%
from obtaining one, lives will be saved.

>   Sorry Rick but the question is moot.  there is no possible way that all
>   the privately owned handguns could be removed from society.  None.
>   Live with it...

I hold no illusion that all privately owned handguns can be removed.
But I do think we can do a lot better than we are.

>   I take it you don't live in LA or Florida...

I used to live in both places.

--Rick

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton