From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:59:56 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.220957.21524@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.210801.11139@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com
>(Reid Kneeland) writes:
>
>|>Now our illustrious British commentator will explain to us why Northern
>|>Ireland has a such a problem with armed violence, since it shares
>|>England's tough gun laws.  (Don't they know that's illegal!?!?)
>
>First off it is rather safer to walk down the streets of NI carrying a
>sign saying "The Rev Ian Paisley is the Pope's Gay lover" or some such
>than drive through Washington DC in an Armoured vehicle surrounded by
>security guards. Well not quite, but the murder rate in NI is
>insignificant compared to Washington or New York.

Yes, Belfast is safer than NY or DC, but much more dangerous than
London, where the same laws apply.  Why?  You haven't answered the
question.

Are you aware that you've chosen the two US cities with the strictest
gun laws as your examples?  They illustrate the same point that NI
does:  gun laws in and of themselves simply are not effective.  The
criminals will always get guns (they don't obey laws, hence the name
"criminals") if they really want them.  The question is whether the
law-abiding will be able to defend themselves or not.

England's enjoyment of a low crime rate has much more to do with a
generally law-abiding culture than with its gun laws.  One can leave a
car on the street in London unlocked, and have a much better chance
of keeping it than in any US city.  Is this because of the gun laws,
too?  My wife twice misplaced a camera in public places while we were
traveling in the UK (once in London proper).  Both times it was
returned.  England is just that way, or at least much, much more so
than the US.

One must look at a culture as a whole.  THAT is the difference between
England and NI.  And that is also the reason that gun bans such as
England's will not work in the US.  (NI has revolutionaries rather than
drug-addicted robbers, but that means little to the innocent person who
gets shot.)

>Second they get their guns from such globo-shites as Muhamir Ghdaffi and

Well, I see we agree on something.

>smuggle them in.

But they could smuggle them into London, too.  Why don't they?  The
culture.  NI has a significant number of individuals who are highly
motivated to obtain guns and wreak havoc with them; London does not.

The US does, and MANY more than NI.  We also have well over one hundred
million weapons already in circulation, and that figure does not include
the illicit market.   It might conceivably have been possible to ban guns
successfully at one time, but that time is long past.

A gun ban in the US will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals,
any more than our war on drugs has kept pot and coke out of the hands
of users.  The criminal element here is powerful and vicious, to an
extent that Britishers cannot imagine.   They will not be disarmed by
passing laws (most of them own weapons illegally anyway), and we
cannot rely on the police to protect us.  Hence my uneasiness.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com
to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton