From: mvickers@orca.fhcrc.org (Mark Vickers)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.192228.18759@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <MCCARTY.92Nov19184331@aphid.add.itg.ti.com> mccarty@add.itg.ti.com
>(Rick McCarty) 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.
>
>I agree with you that there';s no excuse for doing stupid things like
>brandishing a gun or walking down the street practicing quick draws.
>However, our (at least my) mindset about guns is that they are enjoyable
>sporting tools, which could (as a last resort) save my life some day.
>The need for self defense is NOT obsolete!
>
>>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.
>
>In Switzerland, all males in a certain age range keep REAL assault rifles
>(capabale of full-auto operation) in their homes.  It is also not too hard
>for people to get other types of rifles, pistols and shotguns for private
>sporting use.
>
>>   >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.
>
>I never said that we have the right to carry concealed weapons; i consider
>that a privilege that people with clean records should be able to get, if
>they are trained in safe use of guns for self defense.
>
>But, let's look at the possibilities if John Q Public "packs" a gun:
>1. Nothing happens, no harm done, what's the beef?
>2. He brandishes the gun or threatens someone - he loses his gun, goes to
>   jail for carrying a weapon illegally and assault with a deadly weapon.
>3. he shoots somebody - he goes to jail for many years on various charges,
>   is possibly executed.
>
>And if he is not carrying a gun:
>1. Nothing happens.
>2. He is attacked, possibly hurt, possibly killed
>
>I still maintain that trained people of good character should be allowed
>to carry weapons.
>
>>>   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.
>
>It would be interesting to know how many of those family/friends had a
>criminal record and acquired their guns illegally...
>
>>>   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.
>
>Whoah, sanity check.  You're going to take away the single best method of
>self defense, guaranteed in the Constitution, because some people will kill
>themselves with them?  Sorry, other methods of suicide are as effective,
>hanging for instance...will you ask for a waiting period for rope or belt
>purchases next? :)
>
>>>   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.
>
>No, it's impossible for a felon to walk into a shop and buy a gun in most
>states.  Looks like you're not up on your laws...
>
>>>   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.
>
>And if we don't we'll just keep making stricter laws on the off chance that
>it will do some good, eh?
>
>>>   I take it you don't live in LA or Florida...
>>
>>I used to live in both places.
>
>Then I take it you see no value in having the only store on a block in
>LA that was unburned/unlooted because you defended it with a gun.  And there
>is no benefit in defending your block from looters in the wake of a hurricane?
>
>   don

If you have strick gun control laws only people who break laws will have guns.

-Mark
f
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc