From: nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen)
Subject: A Japanese Student Killed in Lousianna (AKA Gun Control)
Originator: nguyenpd@nmtvs315
Reply-To: nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:53:59 GMT

>>Because car licensing is supposed to address unintentional acts, AKA
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>accidents.  We don't expect it to address intentional acts, like
>>drive-bys, get-aways, and so on.  There are significant problems with
>>unintentional acts with cars, but not with guns.  (Murder/robbery is
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>an INTENTIONAL act.)

In article <1992Nov10.180535.4753@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>> Yes, I'm sure, because I've read the statistics.  Rare events get lots
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> of coverage - they're newsworthy.  Common events don't get much
>> coverage.  That same week, more children drowned in San Jose.  More
>> died in falls.  More were poisoned with household chemicals.  Lots
>> more children died in auto accidents.  Gun accidents are in the noise.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Anyone who gets excited about gun accidents but doesn't care about
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> other accidents is either ignorant or dishonestly trying to use 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> accidents as an excuse to ban guns.  Which category does Nguyen fit
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> into?

When I read this, it sounds very funny to me.  One moment Mr. Freeman 
says that accidents don't happen with guns.  And then the next moment, 
he says that gun accidents are rare.  Give me and our newsgroup readers
a break, Mr. Freeman.  We know how to think on our own without
relying on your arguments with your "accurate statistics."  We both
all know what is the difference between ACCIDENTS AND INTENTIONAL
ACTS.  We know that the incidents in which the children use his parent's
and grandfather's gun to hurt himself and kill his friend are ACCIDENTS
without your help of pointing it out to us.  I DON'T GET EXCITED
about gun accidents, I am saddened by the fact that these young and
innocent kids with all of their potential are killed by this kind of
senseless killing.  It seems to me that you mention many kind of
accidents that can happen to children; but unfortunately, your 
definition of UNINTENTIONAL ACTS AND INTENTIONAL ACTS are VAGUELY 
DEFINED (refer to article #1 above).  Is this vaguely defined definition
a proof of "IGNORANT" or "DISHONESTLY TRYING" to conceal one's own
motive for violence??  I let our newsgroup readers decide for
themselves.

>> Because automatic weapons can be made illegally.  The basic principles
>> have been well known for hundreds of years and the necessary level of
>> metal working is fairly low.  Hand tools are adequate and power tools
>> would be a luxury to someone with the mechanical aptitude of an
>> Afghan.  (The Afghans MADE guns to fight the soviets; would Americans
>> be less competent with our far better tools?)

Yep!!!!  You are right, Mr. Freeman.  Illegal automatic weapons 
in fact EXIST.  So DO HANDMADE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS if one knows
the basic principles well enough.  But unfortunately, I am not
talking about handmade automatic weapons which are uncommon.
The more common type are factory-manufactured ones.  If 
everyone think like you do, nobody will buy branch-name 
products (T.V. for example).  Sure, the branch-name TV and less than
well-known TV work the same way (i.e. if one really knows how
the principles behind it works).  There must be something to
the so-called branch-name that attract customers.  When you compare
handmade automatic weapons with the factory-manufactured ones,
you are comparing apples to oranges.  It helps me to understand
why most automatic weapons on the street are factory-manufactured
ones and not handmade because here they can be obtain quite cheaply
and easily.

>> Sure, the guns come from somewhere, but that doesn't imply that they
>> come from any specific place.

>> If Nguyen insists that legal sources are being used, then I'll make
>> him the same offer that I make to everyone who claims that.  My $3k
>> says that he's wrong.

I don't say that guns come from any specific place.  If you re-read
my articles again, I name some of the possibilities and I also say
that the possible places are endless.  I would love to get your $3k;
but unfortunately I am not into gambling.


>>> There is a big difference here.  Illegal drugs are addictive,
>>> but owning a gun is not.

>> ******************* Mr. Freeman's words ***********************
>>The supplier doesn't care why the demand exists.  Guns are useful,
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>so there will be demand.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ***************************************************************
 
>> ************************ My words **********************************
>>>OF COURSE!  THE SUPPLIER DOESN'T CARE WHY THE DEMAND EXISTES.
>> ********************************************************************

>> ******************* Mr. Freeman's words ***********************
>>Hold it.  Nguyen said that the reason for the demand was relevant.  Is
>>s\he now retracting that claim?
>> ***************************************************************

Nope!!! Mr. Freeman.  I am not retracting any of my claims.  You only
misinterprete it.  To be fair and thoroughly analyzed the problem,
both the demand and supply side must be addressed.  I was looking
at the demand from the demand's point of view.  You looked at the
demand from the supplier's point of view.  These views are 
different from another.  Remember to keep them in mind when you
quote my sayings.  

   ************************** My words **************************
>>>THE MORE GUNS THEY SELL, THE MORE MONEY THEY GET.  What I am talking is
>>>the consumer.  GUNS ARE USEFUL FOR SURE, BUT USEFUL TO DO WHAT??
   **************************************************************

***************************** Mr. Freeman words *****************
>They're useful for self-defense.  They're useful for recreation.
>They're also useful for certain kinds of crime.
****************************************************************

Here the motives for violence are showing up.  Watch out!! everyone.
And Mr. Freeman, don't forget to mention that guns are also useful
for kids to play around with (i.e. killing someone).

  ************************** My words **************************
>>to have it, then the answer is NO.  It seems to me that you forget
>>that HIGH PRICE lowers demand significantly according to economic
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>theory.  So there will be less guns on the streets.

***************************** Mr. Freeman words *****************
> Nguyen doesn't understand the market.  In particular, he doesn't
> understand the value to a criminal user.  (There's no social benefit
> in disarming non-criminals; there's actually a social cost.)  The
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Social cost???  Are you saying that saving some innocent lives due 
to senseless killings because of novice gun owners is a social cost????  


> value to criminals is high enough that it is unlikely that they can be
> priced out of the market.
> For example, doubling the price won't disarm him a criminal who has
> multiple guns.  (It turns out that the typical criminal has multiple
> guns.)  Then there's "rental" arrangements, so that several criminals
> can share a gun.  It would require a huge price increase necessary to
> price crooks out of the market.
> It is unreasonable to think that legal measures could cause anywhere
> near the necessary price increase.  Even if we assume every gun crime
> is committed with a different gun, a couple of plane loads could
> provide a year's supply.  That's small enough that it would be in the
> noise in known smuggling volume.  It is unreasonable to think that
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> smuggled guns would be expensive.  Illegal manufacture is also
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> trivial, so it is unclear which source would dominate.  (I'm ignoring
> govt "leaks", which provide a huge fraction of the automatic weapons
> that are criminally used in the US.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Freeman.  It seems to me that you begin to
think.  From what I read, what you are saying is that we HAVE TOO MANY
GUNS on the street already.  There are TOO MANY GUNS that are
currently in the hands of the criminals.  Now you recognize the 
problem; at least we talk about the same thing right now.  My question
is:  Why do we give them more guns???  If you think that legal 
measures don't work, then what are your proposals???   It seems to
me that you has none.  Smuggled guns would not be expensive to
drug dealers and criminals, but they are expensive to those novice
gun owners who buy and then lay guns around the houses so their
children would use them to shoot someone else.


  ************************** My words **************************
>>Of course I don't know what I am talking about.

***************************** Mr. Freeman words *****************
> Then why should we agree with Nguyen's recommendations?

I find this is really funny when you take it so literally.  Have
you ever heard of satirical talk before.  You have fallen into
my trap without knowing it.

> Nguyen doesn't understand the gun control we do have and doesn't
> understand the effects that gun control has had (since it hasn't
> helped in any other country, why does he think that it will help in
> the US?).  "We should do something" doesn't imply that a specific
> measure will work, no matter what the problem is.

This is an attitude of a person who think that it is better
to do nothing than something.  How do you know that gun
control doesn't work in other countries????   Have you ever
been in all of the countries that have gun control???  It
seems to me that you haven't.  Go and try it and you will 
feel the difference.  

>>>Since gun control laws don't disarm criminals, what's the point?

The point is that it prevents kids from using parents' guns
and then kill other people senselessly.

>What I mean is that these laws don't prevent crimes
>in New York city when guns can still be obtained so easily --
>illegally of course (ILLEGALLY implies buying guns from other states
>and abroad).

>>>So, they won't stop smuggling either.  What's the point?

The point is that it won't eradicate crimes in New York city.
But it will lower it, including the so-called accidents due
to guns.  It will prevent kids in gangs who steal guns from their
parents and then use them for other illegal activities because
parents don't have guns in the first place if gun control
laws are tough.

>Against the law doesn't imply that people won't do it.  They may
>commit a "felony" just because they don't feel safe enough without
>an "illegal" gun in their house.  Or they may buy and then resell
>it for a profit.

>>> In other words, the laws won't disarm criminals.

(See the above argument).

>Tough gun control laws enable us to feel more safe when we know that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** (here  is my original saying) ***
>guns are in the hands of a right person.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>Hold it.  A few sentences before, Nguyen said that these laws won't
>>>disarm criminals, that they won't "enable us to feel more safe"
>>>because, as he's said, they won't keep guns away from crooks.
>>>Or, does he think we should feel safe even though they don't
>>>provide the promised benefits?

What kind of crooks are you refering to???  You must realize
that there are different kinds of crooks around.  Gun control
laws won't disarm all kind of crooks, but they sure disarm
some kinds.  We will never feel safe with the Mafia for sure even
if there are million laws of gun control.  But we will feel
safe when there are gun control laws that prevent the 
neighborhood kids from obtaining guns.  That is the kind
of crooks I am referring to.  Don't misquote me by saying
that:

>>>Hold it.  A few sentences before, Nguyen said that these laws won't
>>>disarm criminals, that they won't "enable us to feel more safe"
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
The fact is "I say that these laws enable us to feel safer."
Please re-read it again to be sure that you didn't quote
it wrong.  I feel much more threatened when the neighborhood kids
have guns than if Mafia or other big gangsters have guns who live 
hundred of miles away.  The gun control laws don't disarm these 
gangsters, but it sure disarms the kids.

>>If anything, gun smuggling and illegal manufacture is easier than drug
>>smuggling/manufacture.  (I'm a better chemist than I am a machinist,
>>which isn't saying much, but I know enough to make guns, but not
>>drugs.)  There are drug detection methods that can't work for guns and
>>there are no gun detection methods that don't work for drugs.  (Guns
>>don't "smell" and a few hundred disassembled guns in a shipment of
>>metal parts can't be found, so customs inspections are less useful for
>>guns than drugs.)  Considering most smuggling doesn't even go through
>>customs, that may not be an important difference, but it does
>>demonstrate that Nguyen is assuming that we can do something that is
>>harder than something he admits that we can't do....

Ah ha!!!  You refer guns as a whole.  There is a big difference
between handmade guns and factory-made guns.  If they want to make
their own guns; that's fine with me.  But I am not so sure that  
many of the kids in junior high schools who join gangs have the tools, 
patience, or the knowledge necessary to make a deadly guns yet.
These guns are mostly stolen from their family or they buy them on
the street.  So you admit that it is more trouble for the supplier
to ship guns illegally into the U.S.  When there is more trouble and
more costly, people will do it less, especially with something 
non-additive such as guns. 

P.S.:  I am off the net.  If you want to have guns because you
       like it or it somehow satisfy your motives for violence,
       then say so.  Don't pretend to be IGNORANT or DISHONESTLY
       trying to hide it by presenting these senseless arguments.
       I have no time to argue with you.

Take care!!!!