From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:15:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>>Would
>>you be as cavalier about someone trying to deny YOUR choice on something
>>you consider of signifigant importance to you (assuming the choice being
>>foisted on you is not the one you would take). Since you don't care
>>for guns, a ban on them will not affect you, at least in the short term,
>>so you consider that an acceptable restriction,
>
>The fact is that plenty of activities, substances, and what-have-you
>are banned even though plenty of people don't do or use them. I don't
>smoke pot. I don't break into other peoples' computers. I don't
>expose myself to old ladies. Like shooting guns, I don't have any
>urge to do any of those things. I don't see what that has to do with
>whether I should be allowed to, though.

	However, all of the things you mention above are illegal.
The last I knew, target practice was not.  Please state an example
of something that is legal to do, that you do not do, and still feel
your right to participate in such activity should be banned.

>>Or could it be that a ban
>>on guns looks to be the quick fix, even though I have yet to see any
>>evidence of its efficacy in reducing either homicide or other crimes of
>>violence, or overall accidental deaths.
>
>Quick, I dunno. Sure wouldn't hurt. Let's give it a try.

	Actually, yes it would hurt.  It would keep the law-abiding
citizen from participating in a very satisfying form of recreation.
Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban would work, 
there is no reason to support such a ban.

>>Please explain why
>>*I* should be penalized for something some irresponsible producers seem
>>to like to feed us for a non-stop diet, or that irresponsible (but
>>oh-so-progressive) community 'leaders' could be taking to address the
>>root CAUSES of urban violence (except that it would require recognizing
>>some unpleasant truths, and a bit of effort)?  Better to blame some
>>inantimate hardware...
>
>It's true that addressing the underlying problems would be the more
>elegant solution. But it'll never happen. All we can do at this point
>is patch the system. This seems like a good patch to me.

	Why can't we address the underlying problems?  What's keeping
us from doing so?  "Patching the system" simply adds kludge on top of
kludge until you have a system that is so huge noone can understand it
and noone can support it.  If that's the case, it's time for a new system.

>>Of course, all this lacks the appeal of the 'magic bullet':  Just pass
>>this one more 'reasonable' law, and all our problems will go away...
>
>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>doesn't change my preference.

	If you realize a handgun ban doesn't address the problem, then
for what reason do you support a handgun ban?  If it doesn't solve the
the problem, what purpose does it serve?

>-- 
> Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com

	If you really want to solve the problem, try studying the problem
and comming up with real solutions instead of supporting a band-aid that 
will only effect law-abiding citizens like you or me.  The information
is out there. All you have to do is look it up.


							Steve



------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4421 comp.org.eff.talk:6824 alt.privacy:2125 talk.politics.guns:23673