From: nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen)
Subject: Re:  A Japanese Student Killed in Lousianna (Gun Control)
Originator: nguyenpd@nmtvs315
Reply-To: nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.181029.12785@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>I agree with you.  If we need a driver license to operate a car
>because it is potentially deadly, why don't we need a license to
>use a gun then?

In article <1992Nov5.205559.26554@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>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.)

Are you sure Andy??  Have you catch up with the news in San Jose
yet?  A grandfather had to stand trial because his 7 year old
grandson used his gun to shot himself badly.  How about a new
case in Sacramento when a 4 year old boy shot and kill his
friend dead using his parent's gun.  If you are RIGTH, then
I guess that these 7 AND 4 YEARS OLD DO IT INTENTIONALLY.  If
this is really the case, then I guess these children are the
new generation who know how to use guns even before they
know how to think.  I am scared to death of that thought.  If
we need car license because want to prevent unintentioal acts.
Then we should implement it with guns also. (All sources
can be read in the San Jose Mercury News and Sacramento Bee).

>>process for buying automatic weapons anywhere is quite strict and has
>>been since 1934.  It allows arbitrary turn-downs by any chief in the
>>chain from the city to the feds.  (CA chiefs deny everyone who doesn't
>>have a movie-industry connection.)  One consequence of this system is
>>that legally owned automatic weapons are not used criminally, but it
>>has had no effect on the criminal use of automatic weapons.

If it's that strict, how come there are automatic weapons being
used on the street of San Jose??  Have you checked with the
police department lately and find out how many automatic weapons
are confiscated by the police force.  It is higher than what you
would expect.  These guns must come from somewhere.

> want to implement it properly, we have to ban guns for the
> whole U.S.A. Then it will be more effective.

>>Like the cocaine ban.

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

>>The supplier doesn't care why the demand exists.  Guns are useful,
>>so there will be demand.

OF COURSE!  THE SUPPLIER DOESN'T CARE WHY THE DEMAND EXISTES.  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??
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I think that guns are useful because I may use it to protect
myself and my family, then I may buy it.  But then I may also
afraid that some young children may use it unintentionally and
hurt themselves.  There is a tradeoff.  If guns are cheap and
can be easily obtained, then I may buy it because the tradeoff
is not that great.  But when guns become illegal so I have to
pay 10 times as much and go through a lot of burdensome in order
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.

>>Since 65% of the violent revolutions since 1945 have succeeded under
>>the circumstances that "these experts" insist are hopeless, perhaps
>>they don't known what they're talking about.

Of course I don't know what I am talking about.  BUT I DO KNOW THAT
WHEN KIDS USE GUNS, IT'S TIME FOR GUN CONTROL.

Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed are mine.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa