From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5141848@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
><
><   >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
><   >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
><   >we threatening other people with jail?
>
><   The police would like to know who has guns.
>
>	The police would like to know a lot of things; that's
>	why we have a Constitution that was designed to limit
>	the powers of the government.

So convicted criminals shouldn't lose ther constitutional rights?

>[text deleted]
>
><   >>>There is experience with "anyone who wants can carry legally"; it is
><   >>>significantly better than the experience with "only criminals and
><   >>>people with politcal pull carry", which what you get with
><   >>>discretionary permit systems, like the one Rich finds so "good".
><   >>
><   >>Is it?
><   >
><   >Yes.  As Kelly points out, even MA police will grudgingly admit that
><   >guns are useful for self-defense.  (Note that the statistics had to
><   >become overwhelming before they did, and as soon as the heat drops,
><   >they'll go back to their old "we'll protect you".)  Since rapists
><   >don't restrict themselves to people the police favor ....
>
><   >A number of states have decided to issue permits to most anyone who
><   >applies.  They haven't had the horrible experience that Kelly assumes.
><   >Are Bay Staters different?
>
><   In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
><   that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
><   concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
><   carry concealed weapons.
>
>	So what? Florida, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
>	Vermont all issue concealed carry permits to pretty much
>	anyone (actually, Vermont has no permits; the state
>	constitution allows concealed carry by anyone who does not
>	have criminal intent). The experience in those states suggests
>	very strongly that Kelly is wrong.

How do they determine criminal intent?

><   >>If you honestly think that the state of California should issue each
><   >>citizen of the state a handgun, and let them do with it as they will,
><   >>fine.  I'll stay in Massachusetts.
>,   >
><   >Strawman.  I didn't propose letting anyone "do ... as they will".  I
><   >said that few will do anything wrong, and the ones who will do
><   >something wrong don't obey the carry law anyay.  Since all we can do
><   >about them is deal with the wrong they do, why are we hosing people
><   >who aren't doing wrong?
>
><   What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
><   handguns?  
>
>	Strawman yet again; the current Kalifornia permit system
>	is purely discretionary. 
>
><You're speculating.
>
>	Kelly is the one who is speculating; he proclaims that
>	if "anyone" is allowed to carry, "Beruit" would be the
>	result.
>
>	I guess that Vermont is "Beruit"?
>
><   >BTW - MA's permit system and "mandatory jail time for unlicensed
><   >carry" is one of the great gun control failures.  It doesn't restrict
><   >anyone worth restricting and merely provides an excuse for a lot of
><   >illegal searches.
>
><   It is a failure, but I don't know that there is a high rate of illegal
><   searches.
>
>	If it is a failure, why is Kelly defending it?

I'm not defending it.  I'm just saying that, in my experience, there isn't
a high rate of illegal searches.  A legal search is declaring someone is
under arrest, and then reading them the Miranda warning before the search
is conducted.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape