From: rhatcher@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:54:06 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1992Nov5.200531.29251@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:

> In the meantime, the only relevance this discussion has to sci.skeptic
> are those aspects of the question which are susceptable to empirical
> study.  

Good suggestion.  Proposals for such controlled empirical studies?

> So, what is the objective of gun-control?  

I'm not sure I know what "motivation" has to do with a skeptical claim
of effectiveness ... but it's your paranoia, not mine.

> If these objectives
> are desirable and if they have a chance to actually *work*, then it's
> reasonable to discuss repealing the second ammendment.  
> 
> It is clear (after decades of experience) that gun-control has *NO* 
> effect on violent crime (or any other kind).  To be sure, there is 

Okay, since this is sci.skeptic I have to ask:  How has this been shown?
What constitutes the control group?  I'd guess that baselines are
impossible to estimate from historical data and that no two locations
are identical.  There's just too much noise in the "data" that effect
any such baseline estimates needed to claim "*NO*" effect.  Sorry, but
I'm skeptical that you could prove that gun-control has had *NO* effect
on crime (nor do I believe that one could prove the converse as well).

> a *positive* correlation between strict gun-control laws and crime 
> rates - but this is an artifact of our political system.  People 
> notice an increase in crime, their politicians pass gun-control 
> laws in a pretense of crime fighting vigor, the laws ignore the 
> *real* causes of the crimes - so the rates of crime continue to 
> rise, the politicians pass stricter gun-control laws, these are 
> irrelevant and continue to ignore the *real* causes of crime, etc....
>
> Since gun-control has *NO* effect on crime, that can't possibly be
> the *real* reason people support gun-control measures.  So, what other
> reasons do can anyone suggest?

The gov't is preparing to suppress all those people out there that
waited too late to apply for a permit (ie. those who didn't get guns
5-7 days *before* the crack down).  Nah, that belongs in alt.conspiracy...  

How about REASONABLE control of dangerous instruments (sort of like getting
a drivers license).  I agree that there probably shouldn't be outright
bans on owning *any* guns at all; but there are gun-nu^H^Henthusists that 
argue against *any* limits...but we've had that discussion already 
(this last summer I believe...where you argued for NO limits and NO 
restrictions).  Personally I'd argue for restrictions on ownership of
handguns based solely on domestic disputes and household accidents.
The restrictions I see would involve such things as safety training
requirements, cooling off period ("n" day wait), background checks
for violent crimes.  There, see, I make no claim that this will help
reduce violent crime by strangers, but instead I'd claim the safety
training will reduce the number of accidental deaths in the home.
I think *this* IS something that could be verified (and probably 
already proven)

> J. Giles

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic