From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price)
Subject: Gun Control generally
Followup-To: Gun control generally
Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:38:12 GMT

( Please post replies to my mail straight to the bulletin board rather than to me personally if that's OK - I'll read them there.  Thanks. )
___
(posted to me, but you might all want a read)

From shaffer%achilles.ctd.anl.gov@uk.ac.nsf Mon Dec 21 20:16:53 1992
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:16:55 CST
From: shaffer@gov.anl.ctd.achilles (Michael A. Shaffer)
To: priceje@uk.ac.aston.cs
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks in MA)
Content-Length: 7430

Jason are you the pro-life Jason that has supported me in the past
on the Libertarian boards? Welcome I don't remember seing you here
before.

In article <1992Dec21.151949.10732@aston.ac.uk> you write:
|> 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 


Well we would disagree here.

>guns to people who don't have a legitimate use (and in classing legitimate as 

Having the Guv define legitimate can be a problem. Take the American
Revolution for example. I would say that the militia and the continental
army had legitmate reasons the way they used their arms. Of course the
ruling British Government disagreed...

>something other than |> "home defence", which seems to be using a sledgehammer

I consider a gun a very appropriate means of home defense (esp. handguns)
In the case of a violent encounter I lean toward overkill rather than
underkill. Sure I suppose I might be able to stop an attack using
a pocket knive but I prefer better odds.


>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 

These accidents are very rare in the US and considerable less of a problem
the houshold chemicals, swimming pools etc. Certainly not worth giving up
the final check and balance in the US constitution.

>it in the "heat of the moment") and th
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 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.

Assuming your government will allow it. I am glad you are not really anti
gun. BTW the US second amendment has very little to do with sporting and
so called legitimate uses. It is the final defense against a tyranical
government. If I am not hurting someone the government has no business
infringing on my rights. If I do hurt someone then they have a responsibility
to act. These days however the gov prefers to pass laws restricting
the rights of the law abiding and then letting the serial killers out
of jail in a year or two to make room for the drug users and tax
evaders.

|> 
|> 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 th|> ere 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 o

ne.

Correct. The goal is not only undesirable but impossible to achieve. I
think you will find that even in the UK it will become impossible to
control the criminal elements access to firearms. BTW one often needs
a weapon even if his/her attacker does not have one. Not everyone is
an excellent boxer or martial arts expert. We also have handicapped
people and elderly and the list goes on.

|> Peace through superior firepower seems to be the only effective personal >deterrent against violence!

It has always been such. The price of freedom and all that. As they say
those who are unable or unwilling to use force to protect themselves and
their property are at the mercy of those who are will and able to use
force against them.

|> 
|> 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

I really hate this idea that freedom and self defense are not legitimate
reasons. Some Animal Rights Nazis don't believe that "sporting" uses
are legitimate. It is dangerous to get in the habit of allowing government
to decide what is a legitimate use of tools _except_ to prohibit the
hurting of innocent fellow citizens. Since I have never harmed an
innocent person the government has no right to restrict my RKBA.

>see the need to increase gun ownership to the kind of levels ( and >subsequently use and violence) that is se|> en over in the US and elsewhere.

It really isn't a matter of increasing the levels (i.e. active things like
requiring folks to arm themselves) as much as a passive move to restore
the rights of peacful citizens. Of course one could argue that each
person as a militia member has the responsibility to aquire and pratice
with appropriate moder military arms so that they are equiped to serve
well in their roll as militia members. This is how it was orginally done
in the US and it worked pretty well. I however would settle for being
allowed to fulfill my responsibility.

|> 
|> 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.

If you stick around you will see even more of these issues addressed. I am
glad that you are enjoying the view. ;-)

|> 
|> 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)


				mike

P.S. pardon the formatting. Your message semmed to show up missing a
few line feeds.

____


Interesting points and quite informative.  I think the general case that you put forward for home defence is one which has to be considered justified in the US simply because of the widespread ownership of guns.

If someone coming into your house has a gun, then the only real weapon you have is a gun - correct.  This is the point I'm making about it being impractical to remove guns from circulation for reasons other than 'legitimate' sporting reasons etc. (as we have here) over there.  It simply wouldn't work, as the criminal would then be the only person with the gun, other than the sportsman.
(not much help in the inner cities, where everyone seems to own guns and 'sporting use' is hardly appropriate - not many deer around to shoot at!)

However, the situation here is quite different.  Granted, you can't stop the hardened criminal element from getting a gun illegally.  However, these people do tend to think twice before taking it out and using it - the penalties in the courts for carrying firearms are far in excess of just normal robbery, so that thought I believe crosses the mind of someone about to go out and commit a robbery (for example).

In the home defence argument, the case as I see it here is as follows.  Let's say someone breaks into your home - they are highly unlikely to be armed with a gun (or anything as it happens).  Ok, if I own a gun, then that'll deal with it seeing as I don't know home defence.  But surely you'll just get the escalating situation you appear to have over there whereby 'he knows I have a gun and therefore he must have a gun.'

This means you can more or less guarantee that he will have a gun, so you need a gun etc etc. and you end up in a shoot-out.  On balance, doesn't this mean that more people will be injured in attacks on the home than if guns were not used in 'defence'.

I would say I've far more chance of surviving an attack by an intruder armed with a knife if I've gone and got a knife from the kitchen (or even the bedside lamp if I can't get that far), than trying to tackle someone with a gun - then it's a case of who fires first.  If he gets me first, then I'm invariably very seriously injured, far more so than from a stab wound.

I would argue that (in the rare cases of violent crime in the home - still very small here, although they do happen) having ten injured victims (but alive) is surely better than 5 dead ones and 5 uninjured ones??

On the point of my taking up handguns - the laws here on firearms (I don't know exactly what you've heard) are not as restrictive as people seem to assume, providing you have a legitimate (i.e.sporting) reason.
If I wanted to take up handguns, I first find a firing range and club which has been set up and approved by the police (standard practicefor starting a gun club and there are quite afew around).  I then apply for a firearms certificate (which I've done successfully in the past).
This involves a search to see if I have a criminal record, then a police officer visiting my home to ensure that the guns are to be safely locked away in a secure gun cabinet when not in use.
I have to state the purpose for the use of the gun and ( in the case of firearms - it's a bit more lax in the case of shotguns) prove my membership of a gun club for a period (i.e. I haven't joined yesterday, but am genuinely interested in the sport).

The guns and ammo I own are recorded on the certificate and any guns I wish to buy I apply to the police for a right to buy to be added to my certificate.  Sounds a lot when you write it all down, but practically there is no problem if you can show the police you are interested in the sport and sensible in keeping your guns securely locked away from burglars in your home (so they don't get stolen).  You can then use the guns for the purpose stated.

Shotguns are a bit easier, although this was tightened up after the 1986 Hungerford Massacre (to a reasonable level I feel) - you now have to have your shotgun locked away when not in use, as most responsible gun owners do anyway.  No need to have proof of joining a gun club though, as sporting use in the field is far more common for shotguns.

Hope that removes some of the myth over english gun laws!!`

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