From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks in MA)
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:19:49 GMT
Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)

In article 92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <75777@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>
>
>   In article <1gtnp7INNeql@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>   >...
>   >This is the usual argument you get from the gun crowd: Killers will always 
>   >kill, no matter what the laws are. 
>   >...
>   >But that just isn't so. For example, what if the Montana sniping suspect had 
>   >been forced to leave the state for his semiautomatic? 
>   >
>   >And what if he had found God on his trip, got lost or just never came back? 
>   >...
>
>%   If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
>%   keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to success
>%   does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
>%   from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solve
>%   the symptom, not the disease.
>
>No just lower proabilities. If a person wanted to kill me say with a
>machete and I see him coming I can get away. Bullets run faster than
>people. Guns are more effective at killing than other weapons.
>Real conversation stoppers.
>
>If I walk around with gun , visibly displayed and others do likewise
>than some homicidal asshole is going to think twice about wanton
>firing for he just might be shot before he shoots anyone.
>Again the probability is lowered.
>
>Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.
>The current situation is unacceptable.
>
>
>-sjm
>--
>Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
>Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
>merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel


The point of view I have, being from England with somewhat more restrictive (and I would say sensible) gun laws, is that by restricting the availability of guns to people who don't have a legitimate use (and in classing legitimate as something other than "home defence", which seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in a lot of cases), you do avoid the situation in which people are killed 'by accident' (e.g children getting hold of a parents gun and using it in the "heat of the moment") and the firs


t example used above.

That sounds really anti-gun, which isn't my standpoint - I'm very much a gun enthusiast with a couple of shotguns and I hope to take up handguns at some point when I can afford it.

In looking at the situation in the US, I don't think that it is practical as some of your anti-gun lobby suggest, to move to a situation of gun laws such as those we have over here in the UK.  The fact is that such a huge number of people own guns over there that it just wouldn't be possible to remove guns from people who don't have "legitimate" reasons to own them and because you can't tell who has a gun, self-defence has to be a legitimate reason simply because the next guy is likely to own one.
Peace through superior firepower seems to be the only effective personal deterrent against violence!

In countries like the UK, where the ownership of guns by the general population is restricted to legitimate reasons, such as sporting use, I don't see the need to increase gun ownership to the kind of levels ( and subsequently use and violence) that is seen over in the US and elsewhere.

That's my opinion!  If you think I'm wrong (or I've not got the facts right) please mail (as I'm sure youwill!!).  It's an interesting discussion and I'm enjoying reading the discussions on the bulletin board.

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------------------
priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk	| "I have something to say...
Aston University,	|  it's better to burn out than to fade away"
Birmingham, U.K.	|  	 - Kurgen, (Highlander)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns