From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: The "Poof" Paradigm (was Re: Guns and Skeptics)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene
Keywords:  Cole Weslock Master Grayhill
Reply-To: langston@convex.com (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:10:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


    People, let's watch the Newsgroups line, please.  I've deleted
    alt.alien.visitors, alt.conspiracy, sci.skeptic, and misc.headlines 
    and added talk.politics.guns. Followup is set to the latter.

w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
>gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>do with guns because these cities have the strictest gun control laws
>>in the country.  In NYC, for instance, you simply can not buy hand
>>guns legally.  The problem is one of economics, and the symptom is
>>crime, some times perpetrated with guns.
>
>Are you claiming the robbery rate would be just as high if people
>had to use knives.

    Why would they have to use knives? There's no actual link between
    banning guns and seeing the availability evaporate. At least among
    the "officially" designated audience.
 
>>2-The comment about a person getting a gun and becoming a criminal,
>>thereby being able to get the gun legally, is pure bullshit.  This
>>simply does not happen (with any statistical significance).  There are
>
>Yes but a criminal would be more likely to rob if they have a gun 
>rather than a knife or a stick (IMHO).

    Why? Are you trying to say that having a more powerful weapon "makes
    one more liable to rob"? Hmm, our police all carry guns, does this 
    make them more likely to rob, too? 
    
    It's probably safer to say that if the potential victims are disarmed 
    (as the law may require), the perps are more likely to rob them. 

    What happens when the target is hardened? Doesn't this make the perp
    LESS likely to hit it? Or are you refuting all the experts in the
    security field who emphasize making the target less attractive? 

>>3-Anyone who believe that the police and military are there to protect
>>and serve is not living in the same world I am.  But, then again,
>
> The police are there to maintain some degree of order, protect 
>property of the better off from damage, etc.  So they are there
>to protect. 

    Protect: to shield from danger. And how do the police "protect" us?
    Simple, the same way as an armed population, by deterrence. It's
    not like the police actually stand guard around our homes, right?
    It's purely a threat, and when that threat **appears** to weaken, it 
    is no longer as effective.
    
    When the average violent criminal serves 20 days for every year 
    sentenced, the judicial systems appears very weak. 
    
    Is it still an effective deterrent? 
    
    When laws are passed making guns almost impossible to legally buy,
    are the bad guys (who "need" them to rob, steal and murder) going to be
    affected more than the good guys (who need them for defense until the
    police show up)? When the good guys can't buy guns, what deterrence
    is there to keep the bad guys from preying on the defenseless masses?
    Is their "need to commit crime" going to dissappear in the same "poof"
    that makes the guns disappear?

>>Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that guns are bad
>>and that guns cause ccrime.  This simply isn't true.  As scientists,
>
>Give a criminal a knife and they might use it.
>Give a criminal a gun and they might use it.
>Give a criminal a nuclear bomb and they might use it.

    Give a criminal a good stiff sentence, and all of the above are
    out of reach. 

    How does making even a total ban on guns prevent criminals from 
    getting them? 
 
>Then why do most wealthy countries EXCEPT the USA get by without
>massive gun ownership AND lower crime rates than the US.  Are
>you claiming that if the UK was to allow everyone to own guns
>that crime would not increase as a result of this,   as criminals
>used guns to commit more robberies etc.

    Gee, good questions. So sell us on the solution. Show us where all 
    these other wealthy countries have succeeded in drastically reducing 
    their crime rates by implementing gun controls. 


-- 
----        Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------      WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
--------    AKA:  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
----  In a world of compromise, some people thrive on it. Boycott Ruger.  ----
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15288 soc.culture.latin-america:3193 talk.politics.misc:41335