Testimony Before Violent Crimes Commission (LONG)
Bill Gray
Last week I testified before the Governor's Commission on Violent
Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
Here is (approximately) what I said:
In the 1930's AT&T introduced dial telephones, eliminating thousands
of operators' jobs. The move was controversial and AT&T took some
flak over it because of the high Depression-era unemployment rates.
But by the 1970's, had AT&T not gone to dial technology, every woman
in America would have had to be a telephone operator to handle the
call volume.
Presently in Minnesota, we have an "operator assisted" approach to
safety in the streets. I suggest that a "direct dial" approach to
personal safety would have better results. Let me give you just one
specific example.
In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.
When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.
Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! :-) ]
Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.
The results?
In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.
In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)
The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.
Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.
Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.
My home was built in 1913. It has never burned. But we still have
two operational smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher. We practice
fire drills with our children. We do *not* just count on the fire
department to save us if something goes wrong.
I have never been in a personal injury automobile accident. But I still
wear seatbelts whenever they are available, and require all passengers
to use them when I am driving. We also maintain our cars as best we
can and we drive sober and defensively. We do *not* just count on the
paramedics to save us if something goes wrong.
Since my family moved to Minnesota in 1987, we have been victims of
crime 8 times. Before that, in Tennessee, we were burglarized three
times. How can it be sensible for us to just depend on the police for
our protection?
We are *not* talking about vigilantism here, but simple self-reliance.
We are not talking about shooting anyone, anywhere at the drop of a
hat; that privilege is reserved for the criminals. We are only talking
about reasonable self-defense. Remember that it was not armed citizens
who threw a grenade into the Smalley's home and killed two elderly
invalids, or who shot Tycel Nelson, or two thirteen-year-old Hmong boys
in the back with a shotgun from behind cover in broad daylight. Those
were the "professionals."*
Armed citizens may make some mistakes, too. But they have proven
statistically to be better risks than the police when it comes to
justifiable shooting.
I urge the members of the Commission to remember that to protect women,
one must empower them. I ask that you recommend to the Governor that he
support an amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing the right
of each citizen to keep and bear arms for the purpose of legitimate
self-defense.
Thank you.
To what I had time to present to the Commission I'd like to point out
that the average sentence served per rape is about 84.5 days. If that
seems low, remember that most rapists are not caught, and the average
convicted rapist had raped 17 times before being apprehended.
*Notes to the net about local cases mentioned in the testimony:
Lloyd (?) Smalley and his female companion, both elderly, invalids, and
black, were killed by Minneapolice (TM) who threw a "flash-bang" grenade
into their home to "confuse and disorient" the "drug dealers" they were
raiding.
The grenade landed in the room where Smalley and his companion were
confined to bed. The resulting fire killed them both. The younger
housemates who cared for the Smalley couple--and who may have been
selling drugs on the side--were in the front of the house. The Smalley
couple was in the rear in a bedroom. Any citizen who threw such a
grenade under these circumstances would go to prison for a long, long time.
The cop is still "protecting" the public in Minneapolis.
Tycel Nelson, a 17 year old black male, was at a party when someone
fired a few shots. (It is not known whether they were fired at someone,
or even if they were gunshots and not firecrackers.) On hearing the
sirens of approaching police, Tycel and many other partygoers bugged out
rather than have to deal with the Minneapolice (TM).
One heroic officer shot Tycel in the back with a shotgun as Tycel ran.
A small-caliber handgun was found near Tycel's body, but friends and
relatives vociferously deny that he ever had a gun. As a shooter, I
can assure the non-shooting public that it is rather difficult (to
understate it considerably) to place an accurate shot behind you while
running away from someone, especially at the 25 yard range the officer
fired from. Put another way--had any ordinary citizen fired under
those circumstances, s/he would have faced charges and likely been
convicted for at least manslaughter. The heroic officer who shot Tycel
is still on patrol in Minneapolis.
The two 13 year old Hmong boys were running from a stolen car they had
wrecked following a police chase. One of them had a screwdriver in his
hand. The officer shot them in the back from a position behind some farm
equipment. Again, any citizen who shot under those circumstances would
face charges and probable conviction.
--
gr...@hawkmoon.mn.org
"Veni, vini, vomiti!" -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Mr. X
>
mega snip...
>The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
>widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
>themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
>learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
>of the defenseless in those other locations.
I'm sure our IllustriousCongress(tm) will fix this oversight by
passing legisaltion making it illegal for any individual or local
municipality to engage in any action that would cause the indigenous
criminal element to leave the vicinity and do business elsewhere,
thereby ensuring the safety of the members of one community at the
expense of the members of another. After all this is AMERICA God
damn it where people are all EXACTLY THE SAME, which is the TRUE
meaning of 'created equal' and therefore NO CITIZEN shall enjoy a
higher degree of safety than any other. The STATE provides safety,
NOT the individual. The STATE is PERFECT God damn it and if any of
you miserable little insignificant wads of fly shit DARE to think
otherwise, the STATE will see to it that you NEVER think contrary
to the accepted and PoliticallyCorrect(tm) dogma that we shove down
your miserable fucking pencil necked throats every day.
You all GOT THAT? You'd BETTER! Just for your insolence,
DOUBLE THE TAXES! HA! That'l show you what for!
[note for the humor impaired: This, ah say this is a *joke* son]
Carry on...
James Douglas Del Vecchio
house by policemen to "confuse" "drug dealers". In Minneaplolis MN.
Per report, policeman who threw the gernade into the slain invalids'
bedroom is still on the job.
What were the names and dates for this story please?
Jim Del Vecchio
Jeff Pipkins
>In article <1991Oct8.1...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> gr...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Bill Gray) writes:
>>
> mega snip...
>
>>The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
>>widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
>>themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
>>learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
>>of the defenseless in those other locations.
>
> I'm sure our IllustriousCongress(tm) will fix this oversight by
> passing legisaltion making it illegal for any individual or local
> municipality to engage in any action that would cause the indigenous
> criminal element to leave the vicinity and do business elsewhere,
> thereby ensuring the safety of the members of one community at the
> expense of the members of another. After all this is AMERICA God
> damn it where people are all EXACTLY THE SAME, which is the TRUE
> meaning of 'created equal' and therefore NO CITIZEN shall enjoy a
> higher degree of safety than any other. [megasnip]
There used to be a saying here in Texas:
"God made all men, and Sam Colt made them equal!"
>[note for the humor impaired: This, ah say this is a *joke* son]
------------------------------------------------------------------- [sig #18]
Jeff D. Pipkins <uunet!cpqhou!pipkinsj> |
<pipk...@cpqhou.se.hou.com> NOTE: I am | I'd rather have a bottle in front of
NOT authorized to represent my employer. | me than a frontal lobotamy.
Use my opinions ONLY at your OWN risk. |
Scott Woodson
>Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
>
>Here is (approximately) what I said:
.
>In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
>there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
>Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
>below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
>areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
>
>Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
>in addition to the rape reductions.
.
Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
(Ever notice how much lyer sounds like lawyer? 8-)
I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
health!
(These opinions are mine.)
Scott!
Russell Turpin
In article <34...@calmasd.Prime.COM> s...@calmasd.Prime.COM (Scott Woodson) writes:
> In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
> 27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
> 9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't
> have tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
Of course. Because I know how the argument is constructed.
But what is the murder rate in Mexico?
> Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
> I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
It means that the list of countries was well selected to make a
point. A pro-gun activist could make the opposite point by
juxtaposing places with low murder rates and liberal laws
against places with a high murder rate and very stringent gun
control laws. Consider the four categories below.
(1) low murder rate, little gun control
(2) high murder rate, little gun control
(3) low murder rate, stringent gun control
(4) high murder rate, stringent gun control
I suspect that there are plenty of examples for each category.
The US falls into the second category. The gun control lobby
can make a point by juxtaposing the US with a handful of
countries from category (3). A pro-gun activist might argue
that guns increase safety by juxaposing instances of (1)
and (4). Neither argument is worth a damn.
By the way, the word is spelled "liar".
Russell
lawrence.v.cipriani
>
>In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
>27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
>9014 in the good ole USA.
You should be talking about murder rates in order to adjust for population
level; e.g., comparing the number of murders in Liechtenstein to the USA is
absurd.
>Only one of these countries doesn't have tough handgun control laws.
>Can you guess?
You should also be concerned with the overall crime rates before and after
tough handgun control laws were implemented in a given nation; e.g., if
the violent crime rate in England was even lower before tough handgun
control laws were passed one would not jump to the conclusion that tough
handgun control laws kept or brought the violent crime rate down. The
violent crime rates in all the countries who passed tough handgun control
laws rose after those laws were passed.
Perhaps you can name at least one jurisdiction, of any size, where the
violent crime rate fell after a tough handgun control law was passed ?
I'll make it even easier, can you name at least one jurisdiction where
the violent crime rate fell after any gun control was passed ?
>I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
They were cooked up to scare people unknowledgeable about firearms into
supporting even more draconian gun control laws.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Nosy
Unlike Mr. Woodson, I know that firearms debates on the net properly
belong in talk.politics.guns, therefore the followup is set THERE
rather than misc.legal.
<In article <34...@calmasd.Prime.COM> s...@calmasd.Prime.COM (Scott Woodson) writes:
< Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
< In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
< 27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
< 9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
< tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
I challenge this claim; I say that handguns killed none
of those people, but rather that criminals USED handguns
to kill people or that individuals USED handguns to
take their own lives. Your attempt to blame a crime on
an inanimate object is noted.
Now then, the last claim. Please define what you mean by
"tough" handgun laws. For example, compare and contrast
the handguns laws of Washington, D.C. (a ban since 1976)
with the handguns laws of Switzerland. Do you actually
KNOW what is involved in getting a handgun license
in Switzerland? It is, in fact, easier to LEGALLY get a
handgun in Lucerne, Switzerland than it is in New York
City. Note the key word: LEGALLY.
I, for one, would feel more comfortable walking
the streets of Lucerne at 3 AM than in NYC.
I suspect you have an agenda and cut the facts to fit.
< Lyers, damned lyers, and statiticians.
< (Ever notice how much lyer sounds like lawyer? 8-)
< I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
< After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
< for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
< health!
It would also be more useful to compare murder RATES,
that is # of murders/100,000 population, rather than
total number of crimes.
Matthew T. Russotto
appropriate forums. I have restored the original newsgroup list, and set
followups to t.p.guns]
>In article <1991Oct8.1...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> gr...@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Bill Gray) writes:
>>
>>Last week I testified before the Governor's Commission on Violent
>>Crime in a public hearing in St. Paul.
>>
>>Here is (approximately) what I said:
>.
>.
>>In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
>>there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
>>Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
>>below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
>>areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.
>>
>>Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
>>in addition to the rape reductions.
>.
>.
>Those are some pretty good statistics. Here, I've got some of my own:
>
>In 1983, handguns killed 35 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain,
>27 in Switzerland, 6 in Canada, 7 in Sweden, 10 in Austria, and
>9014 in the good ole USA. Only one of these countries doesn't have
>tough handgun control laws. Can you guess?
None of them, if you consider local regulations (most US murders occur in
areas with strict gun control).
>I don't know what any of these statistics really mean.
>After all, the tobacco industry has been coming up with statistics
>for years that show that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to ones
>health!
>(These opinions are mine.)
They weren't opinions-- they were a cheap shot, as is shown by your dishonest
redirection of followups.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Frank Crary
strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
HCI In 19__ there were N murders in England, M in France....." It
would be nice to print an almost identical poster, but contrasting the
US to countries with gun control and high murder rates.
I'd suggest Mexico, Laos, Columbia, and/or South Africa.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
The Terminator
could have an accident and become handicapped one day!
(But as Captain Picard says, "Well Done!" :-)
Phil Ronzone
Well, first of all, the 9,014 is the combined total of ALL firearms,
not just handguns. Secondly, in almost all cantons in Switzerland,
firearms are a lot easier to acquire than in New York City, which
has an extremely high homicide rate by firearms. I don't
think Austria is very strict either. And you left out both
Germany and Italy -- guess you didn't liek those figures, huh?
So here I am, less than 2 miles from guns shops were I can buy
such weapons as the H&K SP89, the AR15 Sporter, semi-automatic
shotguns, SKS rifles, and guess what?
Yet again ANOTHER year with a single homicide by firearm.
FYI - where I live is in Cupertino, which is 8 miles from East Palo
Alto, a high crime "slum" city, and about 11 miles from East San Jose,
parts of which I wouldn't want to be in at night. Distances are all
by miles traveled on 4-lane+ highways, so travel roads are no hindrance.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
September 14 - commissioning of the "Hue City" -- ho ho ho, way to
go, Nicaruaga, East Germany, USSR, next is Vietnam!
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
Oh yes. Probably Jamaica is the worst. It's laws are so strict that
60 minutes reported on an Australian that got off a plane with a hat that
have several decorations in it, one of which was a dummy (inert) rifle
cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
per 100,000!
They are now running another Jamaica is safe, come play tourist campaign.
Just don't the streets at night, or as the travel agencies put it,
stay in groups and don't carry VCS, cameras or other obviously expensive
goods.
Bill Gray
>
Depends on how you define murder. If you mean the unjustified taking of
innocent human life, then I'd suggest you include China, Iraq, Cambodia,
and, until very recently, just about anywhere in the Eastern Bloc. Gun
control was *very* popular among all these governments.
Far and away the largest cause of violent death in my lifetime has been
governments killing their own people. Garden-variety murder is a distant
second.
Bill
P.S. I have attempted to set followups to talk.politics.guns. I am not
sure I succeeded. :-(
--
gr...@hawkmoon.mn.org
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!" -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Stanford Guillory
>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
>is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
>per 100,000!
Yes, but what percentage are committed by guns?
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
The Terminator
>In article <1991Oct14.03...@netcom.COM> ph...@netcom.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>
>Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
>committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>
>>cartridge. He got 7 years. Period. Jamaica's per capita homicide rate
>>is so high they don't discuss -- it's been estimated to approached 100
>>per 100,000!
>
>Yes, but what percentage are committed by guns?
>
Jerry Roe
>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>HCI In 19__ there were N murders in England, M in France....." It
Sure. Washington, D.C.; New York City; Detroit...you get the picture.
Jerry Roe
j...@nsc.nsc.com ...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl}!nsc!jrr
Russell Turpin
In article <1991Oct14....@intelhf.hf.intel.com> sgu...@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Stanford Guillory) writes:
> Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
> committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
Not at all.
The real issue is whether, and to what extent, control of handguns
decreases the rate of *all* murders and injurious assaults. If,
tomorrow, all handguns were to disappear from NYC, that might only
shift the means of violence. Drug dealers, instead of carrying
automatic pistols, might carry sawed-off shotguns. Those who want
a gun at home might also merely turn to guns other than pistols.
This would not necessarily make NYC a safer place; it might even
make it a more dangerous place. It would be no benefit if the
number of murders committed by handguns were to drop, only to be
made up by murders committed with other means.
I don't usually enter the gun-control fray. For some reason,
it seems to bring out people's worst arguments and analysis.
Russell
Stanford Guillory
>
> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>will be done with other tools.
Perhaps, but it is not as easy to kill with other weapons. The maxim
that guns don't kill people, people kill people may be true, but
people are a lot more effective at killing when they have a gun.
>
> Statistics will then show that knives are present in a significant number
>of crime related deaths.
Yes, but the number of deaths will be significantly lower.
>
>Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>Then, we'll outlaw fire.
Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
One of my fears is that some little punk is going to get pissed at
me in traffic and pull a gun and shoot me. I'd like to see that same
punk come at me with a tire iron. I'd shove it up his ass.
(My apologies for letting my sexist, macho side show on soc.women.)
BTW, I have been chastized for not checking the crosspostings, so I am
taking this out of soc.women and talk.rape. Also, I apologize, but
since I do not read the other groups, I will probably not see any
responses. I might read one of them for a week just to see.
>| Michael Rivero riv...@dev8j.mdcbbs "A Human's Human!" |
Roger White
>>In article <1991Oct13.2...@agate.berkeley.edu> fcr...@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>Could someone please put together a list of (say) 3 or 4 countries with
>>>strong gun control laws and high murder rates? I'm sick of seeing the
>
>Yes, but be sure to include in this list the percentage of murders
>committed by handguns. The other murders would be irrelevant.
>
Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
Rog
Stanford Guillory
>
>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die. Plus, if you go into a rage
against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
rolling pin out of the house.
>
>Rog
Andy Freeman
>> Statistics will then show that knives are present in a significant number
>>of crime related deaths.
>
>Yes, but the number of deaths will be significantly lower.
Gun control has never been associated with a reduction in the murder
rate, not in the UK, not in Canada, and not in any US jurisdiction.
So, either gun control doesn't take guns away from people who murder,
or they seem to be able to do without.
Of course, if Guillory is discussing an ideal world, where guns don't
exist, his comments are relevant. In this world they aren't, because
gun control doesn't have the effects he assumes. It's easy to disarm
people who aren't going to kill anyone, but that doesn't accomplish
anything. It has proved impossible to disarm people who will kill, so
gun control fails as crime control. Perhaps Guillory has another
purpose in mind.
BTW - The murder rate in the US is now about 10x as high as the UK's.
(Before the UK introduced gun control, the difference was a factor of
16.) If gun control is the difference, then how come the non-gun
murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than the UK's total murder
rate? Is there knife control in the UK? Do they have fewer fists?
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
Andy Freeman
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
Not even close. Handguns are only marginally more lethal than knives;
both kill about 15%. (Knives are more lethal than many other things
that are classified as edged weapons.) Rifles and shotguns can be
80% lethal, but they're not commonly used to shoot people.
Effective killers use fire. Somewhat less effective killers use cars.
(The exceptions are serial killers; almost all of them use knives,
rope, and fists/feet.)
>Plus, if you go into a rage against your spouse with a frying pan, you
>have to stay in that irrational state a lot longer to kill them than
>if you had a gun.
You only have to stay mad enough to hit once, or maybe twice. Since
most people who actually take up pans against their spouses in anger
pound until their arms are tired, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
It doesn't take many blows to reliably kill with a knife either.
If you really believe the "rush of passion" argument, then guns are
LESS lethal because the sound is a greater shock to the attacker than
the squick of a blade or the thud of a pan. Remember, that theory
says that they really don't want to kill and and guns speedup the
"snap out of it" process.
Of course, trying to be consistent with a bogus theory is somewhat
silly. People who kill, regardless of weapon choice, happen to have a
history of violence toward others.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
He's much more likely to kill his playmates by sneaking them into the
family pool.
Robert D. Silverman
:Stanford,
: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
:
:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
:
:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
--
Bob Silverman
#include <std.disclaimer>
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Eolid enthusiast
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth.
Are you just trying to start an argument, or are you *really* as
ignorant as your statment makes you look?
You need to do a *lot* of study on the subject. Man was an efficient
killer long before firearms came into being, and there are a lot of
weapons that far surpass individual firearms for efficiency. (And
completely ignoring nuclear weapons and the like.)
He was an efficient killer before metal tools came on the scene, for
that matter.
Why don't you start by finding out about the Mongols under Genghis
and his successors?
>It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
This one was brought up a couple days back, you must have missed it.
The lethality of gun vs knife is roughly 1:1. Check your stats again.
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
Don't bet on it. It might, and it might not. Someone mad enough
to pound on someone with a skillet (or bat or...) is not likely to
quit soon enough to help the victim much.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
It would not be anywhere near the problem that it is (not that it's
a major cause of children's deaths, compared to the other major
killers) if kids were taught reasonable gun safety, rather than
picking up what they "know" from TV and playing games with their
pals.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only drawback with morning is that it | Chasing nebulae till 3 am
comes at such an inconvenient time of day. | may explain it, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
james c oconnor
> In article <1991Oct15.1...@philabs.philips.com> r...@philabs.philips.com (Roger White) writes:
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
> Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
> with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
> since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
> victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
I'd REALLY like to see those stats, since that runs counter to nearly
everything I've seen.
As to rage with a frying pan, blunt objects are exceedingly deadly.
I've never gone into a rage with a gun or a frying pan, even though
there were times when I was angry and had both handy. Maybe you know
people who just have no control over themselves, but then no amount
of state-imposed control will keep them from harming others except for
solitary confinement.
Jim
--
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
John Kapson
I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
<sg> to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
<sg> as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
<sg> you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
of gasoline. Remember earlier this year when some nutcase set fire to that
nightclub in New York? 87 people died (none of them "right next to" their
killer) but I didn't hear people clamoring to ban gas or have background
checks before selling it.
People are either killers or non-killers; a gun may make it slightly easier
for them to try, but it doesn't make them necessarily more effective(*), and a
gun certainly won't take a person who normally wouldn't kill and suddenly
make hir homocidal.
(*) In Detroit 1986 (+/- a couple years) 365 young drug dealers (age<18) [oops,
maybe I should say "children" like HCI does] shot each other but only 41
died. Too bad.
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| John Kapson NRA IEEE ACM |"The strongest reason for the people to |
| Engineer / Grad Student | retain the right to keep and bear arms is, |
| kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu | as a last resort, to protect themselves |
| kap...@erim.org | against tyranny in government." T. Jefferson |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Eolid enthusiast
>In article <1991Oct16.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:
>:Stanford,
>: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
>:
>:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>:
>:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
I hate to dissappoint you...ever heard of target shooting? (Like with
a bow and arrow, for example?) Take a good look at some target guns and
you'll see something that not only was not designed for killing, but would
be a good deal less effective for the task than a number of items in the
list above that you dismiss as being different due to differing primary
purpose.
>"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
It must take some courage to admit that...
seh
p.s. I must be due for some vacation. I'm not normally this testy.
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) says:
>
>The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
>of gasoline. Remember earlier this year when some nutcase set fire to that
>nightclub in New York? 87 people died (none of them "right next to" their
>killer) but I didn't hear people clamoring to ban gas or have background
>checks before selling it.
>
>People are either killers or non-killers; a gun may make it slightly easier
>for them to try, but it doesn't make them necessarily more effective(*), and a
>gun certainly won't take a person who normally wouldn't kill and suddenly
>make hir homocidal.
>
>(*) In Detroit 1986 (+/- a couple years) 365 young drug dealers (age<18)
>[oops,
>maybe I should say "children" like HCI does] shot each other but only 41
>died. Too bad.
>
is one of the most bogus reasons for being against any form of gun
control. No reasonable person advocates banning useful objects or
substances merely because some lunatic "might" use it to harm others,
but society does require licensing for people who operate dangerous
machinery or handle lethal and toxic substances.
Are you seriously saying that since it's the person who does the
killing, and not the object that person uses to commit the murders,
therefore everybody should be allowed to own an uzi? how about a
laser beam weapon? or a missile? or a nuclear bomb?
The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Robert Allen
+:Stanford,
+: I hope you're still lurking; I tried to mail my response but it bounced.
+:
+:In article <1991Oct16.0...@intelhf.hf.intel.com> you write:
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
+:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
+:
+:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
+:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
+
+I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
+All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
+
+When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
+the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
What is noise is your stupid remarks.
Saying the primary purpose of guns is to kill is like saying the
primary purpose of cars is to do drive by shootings.
--
Robert Allen, r...@sun.com DISCLAIMER: I said it, not my company.
"Traditionalists often study what is taught, not what there is to create."
- Ed Parker, Grandmaster, American Kenpo.
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
fcr...@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) says:
>
>The Supreme Court ruled in
>(as I recall 1942) in US v. Miller, exactly where to draw the line.
>According to the Court, individual citizens have the right to keep and
>bare ANY weapon which contributes to the continuation and effectiveness of
~~~~~~~~~~
Does anybody know where I can buy an H-bomb wholesale? I'll bet
we can pick them up real cheap at a government surplus auction
considering all the arms reduction going on with the end of the cold war.
>the militia. It is, according to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional for
>the government to pass ANY law which restricts this right. The only
>way to "license" firearms is to either amend the Constitution and repeal
>the Second Amendment, or find a was to "license" that will not restrict
>a law abiding citizen's right to own a firearm.
>
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
>>
>>Not so. It would indicate that murders will use whatever means are available
>>to them. Lets have complete stats if possible.
>
>Human beings without guns are highly inefficient killers, human beings
>with guns are the most efficient killers on Earth. It's been a few years
>since I read the stats, but they were on the order of 80% of shooting
>victims die, 25% of stabbing victims die.
This isn't so-- the stats have been posted here before, perhaps someone has
them on hand.
>Plus, if you go into a rage
>against your spouse with a frying pan, you have to stay in that
>irrational state a lot longer to kill them than if you had a gun.
I don't know about you, but when I get into a rage at someone, I feel like
hurting them with my bare hands-- less personal techniques just don't come
to mind.
>And a child is not likely to kill his playmates if he sneaks Mama's
>rolling pin out of the house.
So don't put the gun where the child can get at it! If the child is not old
enough or responsible enough to handle the gun, he shouldn't be able to get to
it? Do you leave Liquid Drano where a kid can get at it, if the kid is likely
to drink it?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
"We do not need any characterizations like "Shame" from the Senator from
Massachusetts" --- Sen. Arlan Specter
Matthew T. Russotto
>>
>> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>>will be done with other tools.
>
>Perhaps, but it is not as easy to kill with other weapons. The maxim
>that guns don't kill people, people kill people may be true, but
>people are a lot more effective at killing when they have a gun.
Well, they are more effective at killing people they are trying to kill. If
you mean killing indiscriminately, fire is the best weapon.
>>Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>>Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>>Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>>Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>>Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>>Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>
>Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>to your victim, and you need to be physically powerful, at least
>as powerful as your victim, and possibly more. With the above items,
>you also take the chance of losing the struggle and suffering injury.
Not fire.
But, all those differences you point out are double edged. I can, using
a gun, stop an assailant before he is close enough to do me any harm. I
don't need to be as strong as he is, and I take a much smaller chance
of losing the struggle.
>One of my fears is that some little punk is going to get pissed at
>me in traffic and pull a gun and shoot me. I'd like to see that same
>punk come at me with a tire iron. I'd shove it up his ass.
Good for YOU. But if some 6' 3" thug comes at ME with a tire iron, I'm not
going to be able to shove it up his ass. If I'm in a car, I might take off,
if possible, but otherwise, I'm screwed without a gun.
>Stanford S. Guillory sgui...@pcocd2.intel.com
>The sin of another should excite only compassion in your heart.
Not envy? :-)
Rodrigo Vanegas
>I'd suggest Mexico, Laos, Columbia, and/or South Africa.
That's *Colombia*. Will I ever see this spelled correctly by an
American?
Rodrigo Vanegas
Frank Crary
> The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
>licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
>that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
>
According to the Court, individual citizens have the right to keep and
bare ANY weapon which contributes to the continuation and effectiveness of
the government to pass ANY law which restricts this right. The only
way to "license" firearms is to either amend the Constitution and repeal
the Second Amendment, or find a was to "license" that will not restrict
a law abiding citizen's right to own a firearm.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
John Kapson
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw knives.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw pipes.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw tire irons.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw sharp wooden sticks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw rocks.
>:<someone else> Then, we'll outlaw fire.
>:
>:<sg> Can you spot one difference between killing with the above articles, and
>:<sg> killing with a gun? With the above items, you need to be right next
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
>When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
>the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
Gee Bob, I've been shooting for about seventeen years, own several firearms
(including the dreaded SemiAutomatics (*gasp*)) and I've never killed anyone.
I must be doing something wrong, huh? Regardless of what you think guns are
made for, DEAD IS DEAD. Like the mass murder info that you conveniently
snipped out. Do you think those people care whether it was a man with a gun
or an arsonist that killed them? Read this again: dead is dead. If you
want to lower the murder rate, why not take a hard look at _why_ some people
choose to kill others, not what instrument they do it with.
Finally, here's the open question that no hoplophobic gun-banner has yet
supplied an answer to: can you name _any_ area where increased gun control
or a total gun ban has brought about a decrease in the crime rate? Didn't
think you could.
>Bob Silverman
>"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
You are a perfect example of this statement. Why don't you learn the FACTS
about gun control (or even guns in general) before you jump on the HCI
bandwagon?
John Kapson
> Are you seriously saying that since it's the person who does the
>killing, and not the object that person uses to commit the murders,
>therefore everybody should be allowed to own an uzi? how about a
>laser beam weapon? or a missile? or a nuclear bomb?
Why should you be afraid of the average law-aiding citizen (like myself,
for example) owning an uzi? Personally, I don't own one yet, but I have
several of the NewDreadedSemiAutomaticPistols, I've been shooting for
about seventeen years, yet I've never hurt _anyone_ with my firearms.
Why shouldn't _I_ be allowed to own one if I want one? Don't tell me,
"because other people have used to for evil". _I_ haven't. Give me some
good reasons why _I_ shouldn't be allowed to own the firearm of my choice.
> The rational debate is where to draw the line and the amount of
>licensing required in the personal ownership of dangerous *WEAPONS*
>that are designed specifically to *kill* and *not* to run your car.
Well, since the govts own studies show that about 90% of criminals
obtain their firearms illegally, I guess there is no appropriate place
to draw the line. Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
gun bans.
> Larry Parrish
> par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Matthew T. Russotto
If this is supposed to be areas of high crime/strict gun control, the
District of Columbia works as well as Colombia :-)
Paul Wallich
> Guns are a tool (one of many), not the problem. Assuming that outlawing guns
>will actually affect the outlaws (hah!) simply means that the killings
>will be done with other tools.
The fact remains that guns are more dangerous. You are more likely
to kill someone if you attack them with a gun than with something
else. To wit:
"Compared with assaults with guns, attacks with knives were more
likely to result in multiple wounds, and they were equally likely
to damage a part of the body where death can result. The five-to-one
difference in death rate [between gun & knife assaults] thus seems
to stem from the greater dangerousness of the firearm . . .
If such instrumentality effects are large, a shift from guns to
knives would cause a drop in the homicide rate even if the total
rate of violent assault did not change. Other studies have
corroborated the presence of large instrumentality effects in
urban violence." ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
lawrence.v.cipriani
>The fact remains that guns are more dangerous. You are more likely
>to kill someone if you attack them with a gun than with something
>else. To wit:
>
>"Compared with assaults with guns, attacks with knives were more
>likely to result in multiple wounds, and they were equally likely
>to damage a part of the body where death can result. The five-to-one
>difference in death rate [between gun & knife assaults] thus seems
>to stem from the greater dangerousness of the firearm . . .
> If such instrumentality effects are large, a shift from guns to
>knives would cause a drop in the homicide rate even if the total
>rate of violent assault did not change. Other studies have
>corroborated the presence of large instrumentality effects in
>urban violence." ("Firearms, Violence and Public Policy", Franklin
>E. Zimring, _Scientific American_, November 1991, p. 49.)
The key mistake Zimring makes is assuming people who use firearms
in crimes and people who use other weapons, say knives, have the
same motivations.
See "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America" by Wright,
Rossi and Daly for a complete refutation of this argument.
Zimring is so caught up in his fantasy world he hasn't taken the
time to read refutations of his work. That's hardly sticking to
the scientific method.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
George Tucker
>The largest mass murder in several decades was committed with a gallon
>of gasoline.
Khmer Rouge all used a variety of weapons.
George Tucker tuc...@den.hac.com
PAR...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
kap...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) says:
>
> Why should you be afraid of the average law-aiding citizen (like myself,
>for example) owning an uzi? Personally, I don't own one yet, but I have
>several of the NewDreadedSemiAutomaticPistols, I've been shooting for
>about seventeen years, yet I've never hurt _anyone_ with my firearms.
>Why shouldn't _I_ be allowed to own one if I want one? Don't tell me,
>"because other people have used to for evil". _I_ haven't. Give me some
>good reasons why _I_ shouldn't be allowed to own the firearm of my choice.
>
you really mean aiding?) citizen to own an uzi. _You_ *are* advocating
allowing *anyone* to own *any* weapon without *any* restrictions (see
your comments below).
I also own two rifles and have been shooting for more than 20 years,
and I too have not hurt _anyone_; but that does not mean I think it's
reasonable to allow any Joe Blow off the street to buy whatever
automatic weapon he wants without any checks into his qualifications.
>
> Well, since the govts own studies show that about 90% of criminals
>obtain their firearms illegally, I guess there is no appropriate place
>to draw the line. Lets remove all gun restricting laws and see what
>happens, since in every other place where gun restrictions or bans have
>been enacted, the crime rate has risen.
>
>Open question: Name any country (or state, city, etc.) where the crime rate
>has decreased following the enaction of restrictive gun control laws or total
>gun bans.
>
to reduce the number of killings from *guns*. Understand? If you want
to argue about effective ways to reduce the *crime* rate, then let's
take this discussion elsewhere and talk about economic remedies, drug
and vice law reform, judicial reform, adequate law enforcement and
prison facility funding, etc. etc.
If you want to know where murders from *guns* have decreased as
a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look into the records
of Japan and England. To suggest the purpose of gun control is to
reduce deaths from arson and other crimes not involving guns and,
since these *other* crimes do not diminish, therefore gun control is
useless is simply twisted logic.
Larry Parrish
par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Mr. X
In article <1991Oct16.1...@linus.mitre.org> b...@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
>All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
>When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
>the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
>--
>Bob Silverman
You are obviously in painful ignorance of firearms. Some other
similarly ignorant person made the exact statement concerning the
'sole' purpose of a gun. Sorry, but you have succeeded in making
a complete fool of yourself in front of the entire net. No flame,
just fact. Do you know *anything* substantive about firearms, other
than the fact that they can be used to kill? If not (which your
statements seem to suggest), why not try learning about firearms
firsthand, rather than through mediating sources? It would not cost
you much and at least you'd stand a chance of making a passably
intelligent statement of opinion rather than utter nonsense that only
serves to paint yourself as a non-credible source.
As a show of good will I will even list a few other purposes of a
gun:
To shoot in competition. There are *many* different
categories.
To provide food. Yes this involves killing, but then so does
the buying and eating of steak, chicken, pork chops, fish,
etc. If you think you are any less of a killer than a hunter
then I suggest you go visit a slaughterhouse. They stink of
death and I can tell you first hand that the killing of
cattle and other livestock is UGLY UGLY business. And I might
add that at least the hunter has the guts to do the dirty
work themselves rather than hiring someone else to do that
which they find too distasteful to personally undertake.
At any rate we are talking about killing for food and that
usually does not include humans on the menu.
To dissuade another person from committing an act of violence
against oneself or someone else. This may be accomplished
with or without violence depending on the situation at hand.
The nonviolent outcome is by far the most common. There have
been mountains of stats posted here in support of this
assertion. Seek and ye shall find.
To stop another person from continuing an act of violence
against oneself or someone else. This may also be done
with or without violence, given the circumstances.
Even in violent cases, wounding an assailant is a possible
alternative to killing.
To give a people the ability to defend themselves against
milipol (that's my contraction for military-political)
threats, whether foreign or domestic. This is the major
intent behind the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Without
it, YOU (as well as the rest of us) would have ABSOLUTELY no
recourse but to accept EVERY decree to come down from yon
lofty tower 'du le Guv'. What do you say to the Guv when
a gun is pointed at your defenseless person? NO? Don't
think so.
To act as paperweight. :-)
So you see, there are many purposes to which guns are well suited,
killing being only one. Indeed, a gun is often the ideal method
by which all physical violence is thoroughly avoided.
If I could not defend my home (for example) with a gun, I would use
my Katana (Japanese sword). I can hold a robber at bay from a
distance with a gun, thereby giving me the best chance to spare a
life. With the sword, I am afraid the only safe choice for defense
would be to cleave them in half before they knew what was happening.
Are you going to tell me that the gun is more likely to kill?
-Andy V.
Lee King
Accelerator Ce nter) wrote:
> If you want to know where murders from *guns* have
>decreased as a result of gun control laws, then I suggest you look
>into the records of Japan and England. To suggest the purpose of
>gun control is to reduce deaths from arson and other crimes not
>involving guns and, since these *other* crimes do not diminish,
>therefore gun control is useless is simply twisted logic.
<
> Larry Parrish
> par...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Larry, I suppose it would be nice for the gunbanners if gun control had
decreased murders, but you'll have to look farther than England (or
Canada, or Japan, or Australia, etc) to find evidence of that. England
(and the others) never had a gun problem (or a murder problem, compared to
the United States), and murders with guns didn't go down after they passed
their gun control laws. Like all crimes, murders by gun have gone UP in
England since the laws.
Best I can find from my survey of the sociological/criminological field
in the last 2-3 years (Kleck, Zimring, Wright & Rossi, etc), there is NO
causal relationship between guns and murder, or guns and crime.
--
Curious about the Libertarian Party? Call LP National HQ at 1-800-682-1776,
or send your USPS address to 76177...@COMPUSERVE.COM, attn. Marc Montoni
Joe Green
>
> I can cite one difference. Guns have one purpose and ONLY one purpose: to kill.
> All of the other items have other uses and their primary purpose ISN'T killing.
>
> When discussing whether to ban things that can be used to kill, the above is
> the ONLY thing that is relevant. All else is noise.
> --
> Bob Silverman
> #include <std.disclaimer>
> Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
> "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
I have been reading this file for several months and am impressed that the
pro-RKBA people have the patience to respond to nonsensical assertions like
the one above -- again and again and again. Yet it seems that their
opponents -- fellows like this who encounter this file and are not
ashamed to display their complete ignorance -- never ever concede
that they might be wrong, never provide facts, never do more than
make assertions like this. I am always looking about for examples
of irony to chat about in my close reading seminars. This fellow's
signature provides the best example in a long time.
--