From: perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: Unify Corporation
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 01:56:32 GMT

ed@Tekelec.gecko.uucp (Ed Campbell) wrote:
>
>	The only difference gun control makes is that politicians
>and other criminals need not fear that their victims will defend
>themselves while they are being robbed.

So where is the study (chock full of statistics :-) that shows that
robberies are down because robbers fear that they will be gunned down by
honest citizens?  Your statement is also dangerously close to advocating
gun ownership as a means of making political statements.  I lived in 
Ireland for many years and the only thing keeping some parts of society
together was a basic belief that the "Ballot box was better than the
Armalite" (a type of rifle favored by the IRA).

>	If a person wishes to asault others individually or en
>masse, there are other weapons that will work just as well as a
>gun, and if no honest citizen is armed, they are more likely to
>"flip out" because there is no one to stop them. For example, in
>Tokyo, it seems to be almost a custom to hit the kitchen when you
>are stressed out, grab your favorite ginsu knife, and run down the
>street slashing at people.

I suspect that there are other factors about Japanese life at work here ...

Now there's a gory study: A Comparison Of Total Fatalities Caused By
Ginsu Wielding Japanese And M-16 Wielding Americans.

>	You don't hear of many crazys shooting up fast food places
>or schools in Arizona because they know that it is legal to carry
>an unconcealed firearm there and it is no fun to shoot up a place
>when there is a good chance they will shoot back.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!  Using this logic you can prove anything
that you like.  There are have simply not been enough "crazys shooting up
fast food places" in total to draw conclusions like this (has every other
state besides Arizona had such an event, leaving Arizona sticking out like a
sore thumb?).

>	If you think gun control will disarm anyone who should be,
>I have a nice toll bridge near Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. The
>average criminal does not care what the law says, or he would be
>in some other business. Do you really think a law banning firearms
>will have the average armed robber, drug dealer, or gangster running
>to turn in his weapon? There is a law against cocain, does that stop
>anyone from getting all he wants? 

Yes, its too late to do anything about it now.  Interestingly this
argument was brought up by another pro-gun poster.

>	Many ask the utterly stupid question, "Are your posessions
>realy worth more than the life of a thief?" Well, they must be to
>him, or he wouldn't risk his life to steal them.  I spent a good
>part of my life working to obtain what little I have, so taking it
>away is exectly the same as taking that part of my life, and I will
>defend my life with whatever force is needed, even if it is life
>already lived.

The question that I would ask myself is: Which is more likely, that I would
successfully drive off a {robber, murderer ... insert baddie of your choice}
with my gun or that some accident would occur causing me untold grief?
Neither is very likely at all, but I know which bet I'm going to take.

I am obviously missing something here.  The basic logic is that because the
baddies have guns therefore we should all have them.  Isn't the problem
that we need to remove guns from society, not introduce more?  If half the
creative effort was expended on figuring out a way to reduce the number of
guns as is spent on justifying why gun laws are bad we would be a lot
closer to a solution.

--
Perry Clarke                   perry@unify.com                 (916) 928 6287
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA                   I speak only for Me, Inc.