From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Subject: Re: Murder in a fit of rage?
Keywords: murder guns truth goodguys badguys
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:39:15 GMT

In article <P2cDoB1w165w@eisley.akita.com> wood@eisley.akita.com (Ken Wood) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul22.190322.21485@eskimo.celestial.com>
>           alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) Writes:

>>     This argument doesn't work.  The MAJORITY of murders in this country
>>are commited by people known to the victim in a fit of rage.

>     No I'm afraid it's your argument that doesn't work.  Please allow 
>me to repost a portion of an article that appeared on T.P.G. a while 
>ago.  If you are serious about this issue and want the facts please read 
>the whole article, it is rather long but very informative.

  [Articles deleted for length but they are interesting]

     Your posted articles made some good points but it still comes down
to an inconclusive answer.  In the statistics given still only 12.8% of
murders are commited by people unknown to each other.  And while sure
aquaintance murders don't have to mean intimates and while sure that the
majority of murderers would have a history of violence, it is entirely
possible that the majority of people who would obtain guns illegally still
only fall in that 12.8% category.  If that is the case then from the very
statistics from these articles 87.2% of gun murders would potentially be
reduced by virtue of the fact that 87.2% of potential murderers would not
own guns.

    Then the argument falls down to well would those people (and we are
talking people with a history of violence - the not neccessarily true
assumption of the articles is that people with a history of violence would
be likely to obtain guns illegaly) if they are denied access to guns would
they then still commit murders through other means (knives, clubs, bare hands,
etc.)  And the truth is that yes they would commit assaults with other means,
but (and its been years and I can't remember sources) people are many times
less likely to kill someone with non-gun methods, especially in "heat of
rage" situations.  With a gun it is just too easy to mechanically pull a 
trigger and the deed is done.  With other weapons it requires actuall
physical contact between people and a bit of force needs to be expended.

    Though still I cannot condone a complete ban on gun ownership.  (How
many of you are opposed to restricting who can own guns at all?  There was
one argument made that any gun restrictions can be used as an excuse to
restrict gun ownership in the population as a whole, but there are legitimate
reasons to keep some people from owning guns - criminal / violent histories
being prominent)  Reasons for supporting the right to bear arms:  At some
point in almost everyones normal lifetime they will find themselves in a 
situation where their physical health or their lives are in extreme danger
from another person; if only the government has weapons, coupled with the
erosions of individual rights of the last decade, tianamen square style
massacres could very well be the reality in the USA - repression is a 
natural tendency of governments; the US is one country that would be
almost impossible to be conquered by conventional warfare - there is a gun
in circulation for every man, woman, and child in this country.  Any
potential invader would have to contend with the fact that for years every
citizen on the street, from behind every building, from every window, is the
possibility that someone with a weapon may lurk and fight back to protect this
country.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************