From: uk09365@nx06.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:09:06 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul30.103325.27001@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>  
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

> Society has the right to determine whether this is a tool that we need
> and should have.  In the 1700's, war was a reality of everyday life.

	Today, in the 20th century, there are approximately
	20 active wars, insurrections, rebellions, violent
	border disputes, etc. going on around the world at
	any one time.

> only that, but a gun was a tool that provided sustenance for humans.
> But today, we have many other tools for providing that sustenance.  Guns
> are not needed for that purpose - although they are still used in that
> manner.

	Is there anything wrong with CHOOSING to provide
	sustenance in the manner, rather than relying
	solely on the big food processors and distributors.

>The primary purpose of most guns today, and especially certain
> classes of guns, are not to kill animals such as deer and squirrels, but
> to kill people.

	I disagree.  Most guns are owned solely or primarily for
	hunting, target shooting, and collector interest.  The
	number of firearms used solely for hunting (for example)
	each year greatly exceeds the total used in all
	criminal and defensive incidents.  In the end, however,
	it is the INTENT that matters.  Admittedly, intent
	can change and due to the NON-VALUE-LADEN design of 
	a firearm, it can be used to kill people.
 
> As a society, we have to determine whether that is something we need and
> want.  There are many people on both sides of this issue.  One group
> feels they should have rights to guns for the antiquated purpose of
> providing sustenance.

	Providing sustenance is not antiquated.  Providing it
	with a gun is only antiquated in the sense that we
	are conditioned that the proper way is pull food off
	the grocery store shelves.  [no, I don't argue for
	sole reliance on hunting for everyone's survival,
	it would be impractical.]

> They don't want to hurt any humans with their
> guns.

	The vast majority.  99%.

> Another group sees the reality that many guns are designed
> primarily for killing people, and they don't want people killed, so they
> don't want guns.

	They would do well to concentrate on the issues of
	why some people develop the intent of using a tool
	(a firearm) to harm other human beings.
 
> Unfortunately, we live in a violent society.  Guns are everywhere and
> can be obtained quickly and cheaply

	True, but other societies without easy access to 
	guns have been as or more violent.

	Remember.  Here in Kentucky I can get up from my
	terminal, walk to my car, drive to a gun store (or
	discount store or hardware store or pawnshop etc.)
	walk in, point to any non-Class III firearm in the
	place, show my drivers license to prove my age
	and residency, fill out the 4473, pay cash (or
	check or credit card etc.) for the gun, buy 
	a box of bullets, load the gun, strap it to
	my hip, and walk out the door.  We have a homicide
	rate 40% below the national average. [Do I need
	to make a comparison to Washington D.C. with
	a homicide rate 800% above the national average.]

> - even by people with bad intentions
> - such as killing people.  Because many bad people have access to guns,
> many good people want access to guns, so they can use the guns in
> offensive acts against bad people that are trying to commit offensive
> acts against them.  They believe, `boy, it would be really great if we
> didn't need guns, but there are a lot of bad people out there who might
> try to hurt me and mine, so I need a gun to defend myself and mine
> against those people.'  You might call it a "practical" approach.

	You seem to recognize that this has some psychologically
	rational basis.  One thing anti-gun types often ignore
	is that even if they can prove that a gun is more of a
	danger to the owner than an assailant or intruder; it
	won't change the strongly held belief of many people
	that there is no better alternative to owning a firearm
	for protection in extremis.
 
> We have a moral dilemma that pits sport enthusiasts and recreational gun
> users - unhappily in bed with a whole lot of bad people who want guns
> for malicious reasons, against a whole lot of people who just wish the
> whole problem would go away and believe that getting rid of the guns
> would get rid of the problem.

	Since people who want guns for malicious reasons are
	not concerned about gun laws, and many (would) profit
	by them through the blackmarkets, IMO its not really
	valid to claim that sport and recreational (and lawful
	defense) gun owners are in bed with those people.
 

> So, I encourage the discourse on guns and gun control. 

	Good.  Actually I enjoyed your article.  I don't
	agree with everything you write; but I think you
	try to at least suggest a potential framework
	in which to debate this issue.

> But arguing whether an AK-47 is a machine gun,
> or an assault rifle, or a tool for hunters is simply an argument of
> semantics.  It is a word game.  A gun is a gun.  How's that for a
> verity?  Now, knowing that a gun is a gun, argue.  Of what value is a
> gun?  What are the good attributes?  What are the bad attributes?

	This is directed primarily at the pro-RKBA people on
	this group.  In terms of debate I often think we
	need to be more careful about defending one design
	of firearm at the temporary expense of another.  To
	argue, without clarification, that handguns rather
	than AK-47s are really the "criminals weapon of
	choice" or that if all handguns are eliminated
	killers will use shotguns which are four times more
	lethal is potentially self-defeating.  To anti-gun
	thinking there is no justification for owning the
	AK-47, so the fact that handguns are used far
	more often in crime only means that BOTH handguns
	and AK-47s should be banned.  The fact that a shotgun
	is more deadly means (in their view) that shotguns
	should be strictly controlled / banned, too.

	In some cases, discourse is a loser no matter what.
	TPG regulars of the past few months no doubt remember
	Tom Oligino.  Tom advocated a complete ban on all
	private gun ownership.  He began with two premises:
	1) he arbitrarily rejected protective utility out
	of hand and 2) he rejected the validity of any positive
	aspect of sporting use of firearms.  Once he made this
	clear, whether he justified it or not, no details or
	'truths' about guns were going to change his mind
	that all guns needed to be banned.  The fact that
	firearms-related incidents were low on the list of
	accidental deaths etc. did not dissuade him, as he
	unconditionally rejected all positive utility of
	owning firearms in the first place.  Often, I feel,
	we spend time trying to debate details with people
	like this when we could focus on more receptive, or
	pragmatically important audiences.

Robert K.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns