From: raf@nyqrn.UUCP (Hugh Sider)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing Arms
Date: 25 Aug 92 00:51:51 GMT

>> >Let's talk about gun control.  It's a bad idea.

  Actually, you seem to think it's a good idea, you just don't
 seem to want the government to supply it.  I'm much less optimistic
 about the ability of J. Q. Public to control himself.

>> >...prevents abuse by the government.....

   Hate to break this to you, but the government's got a lot more
 guns than we do, and they're *much* better at applying them.  The
 era of peasant militia is over.

>> The fact is, most gun deaths occur when a member of a gun-owners
>> family shoots someone, either accidentally, or in "playing."  Many of
>> those killed are kids.  Many of those who have been killed were killed
>> by someone who should have known better.
>
>Oh, yes, of course.  You can't legislate stupidity or responsibility, though.
>There's no arguing that you have to be careful with guns!  :-)
>
    Sorry, Murph, I'm on the other side of this one.  We legislate to
 avoid stupidity all the time.  Consider speed limits, age restrictions
 on alcohol consumption, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
 etc.  A common use of law is to punish blatant acts of stupidity or
 irresponsibility.

     An example closer to the topic.  When I was 14, I was required,
 by law, to take and pass a hunter safety course before being allowed
 to get a hunting license.  I don't have a problem with this; do you?
 I do have a problem with the assumption that an adult does not need
 this instruction.

>> Far fewer people are killed in countries where owning a gun is illegal
>> than in the US.  There are as many crimes, but not as many lead to
>> death.
>
>Sure, but in many of those same countries, they don't enjoy the same freedoms
>we do here - won for us with guns during our Revolution.

   I'm missing something here.  This is 1992, not 1776.  Revolutions
 are conducted with car bombs and assault rifles.  And at the point
 of open armed revolt,  I don't think the revolutionaries are going
 to sweat possession charges.

   A good comparison to make is Vancouver/Seattle.  The study I heard
 (NPR, last year) compared the suicide rates in the two cities.  The
 surprising (heavy sarcasm) conclusion was that attempting suicide
 with a handgun works pretty well.  Somehow, more kids grow up in
 Vancouver.


>I have no problem with the reasonable restrictions you mentioned like a
>background check and not letting persons convicted of violent crimes own guns
>- provided said checks take place as quickly as a check on traffic violations
>occurs at the Registry of Motor Vehicles.  I disagree, however, with long
>waiting periods or "cooling off" periods.  Why should I wait?  I have a
>CONSTITUTIONAL right to that gun - gimme the damned heater, NOW.  If my
>neighborhood or house were under seige like those in Los Angeles during those
>terrible riots, I don't want to screw around; I WANT THAT FREAKIN' GUN!

      Constitutional right?  What militia do you regularly drill in?
 Go back and re-read the constitution.  My personal interpretation
 may even be looser than yours, but here it is.

      The consitution was written when law enforcement, in general,
 was conducted by the army.  This amendment gives the enforcement of
 civil law to civilians.   Police have a constitutional right to
 keep and bear arms.  We don't.

      Go ahead and flame.  Just be aware that the constitution
 specifically ties this right to the maintenance of a militia.  My
 fallback organization (to play the role of militia) is the National
 Guard.

 Topic change: Waiting periods. Again I disagree with Mr. Murphy.

    Make the decision to become a gun owner when you start the
 training to make the bloody thing useful.  It takes a while, as
 you may already know.

    Waiting periods are a practical way to reduce crimes of passion.
 It may be an inconvenience, but your example is not persuasive.
 A more likely scenarion is "My girlfriend just dumped me. I WANT THAT
 FREAKIN' GUN!"   Wanna loan him your .45?

    As an aside, most waiting periods are for handguns.  You want to
 stop the rioters at your door, buy a shotgun.  A persuasive model
 is the Remmington pump with a deerslayer barrel. (1/4" above legal
 minimum.)  A female aquaitence of mine has one, handloaded with
 a slow burning powder to give it that nice, four foot muzzle blast.
 It's a good bit more intimidating than a revolver.  Consider that
 you're arguing for HER right to keep and bear arms, too.  Scary, huh?

>
>I disagree, however, with penalties for leaving a gun where a kid can get at
>it.  Again, we can't legislate responsibility.  If you are so careless a
>parent as to leave a GUN within reach of your children, no penalty of any
>severity will help.  To have such a law will only provide more work for
>lawyers, slimey bastards that they are.  Further, if the loss or maiming of
>your own child is not penalty enough, I'd say the person who wants to fine
>or imprison the greiving parent is truly heartless.

    What would you say if it was a member of your family killed by
 a child of irresponsible parents?

     Legislation doesn't cause responsibility.  It punishes
 irresponsibility.  Fear of punishment causes responsibility.


>
>> If you want to bear arms, you have to accept the responsibility that
>> comes with owning a peice of equipment designed to kill.  If you don't
>> want to, don't buy a gun.
>
>Absolutely!  Good for you Mr. Adam Shostack!

     I don't think we'll find anyone to disagree with this. ;->

     Question for you, Murph.  Willing to fund the teaching of
 firearms safety in public school?  Please remember that the vast
 majority of your fellow Americans are pretty clueless about the
 subject.


  Sorry to ramble, everyone.  You can direct replies to
  <jjmhome!nyqrn!raf@transfer.stratus.com>.

-Hugh Sider
class SIG public Disclaimer  { short OneLiner;}
Newsgroups: ne.politics