From: Tony Berkman (tberkman@rcn.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 07:48:48 PST
Your rebuttal to the statistic really doesn't serve your point very well in
my opinion. The military and police have been well-trained presumably on
the proper use of firearms. And I think that gets right to what should be
the core point. It should not be easy to get a firearm for anyone and the
penalty for unlawful possession should be firm and strictly enforced.
Some thoughts:
When politicians I've heard lobby against stricter gun-control
laws they always use some anecdotal example of their wives being alone and
needing protection or the need to protect the family from crime, etc. Why
is it you don't hear them talk about the need for citizens to be able to
form a well-organized militia in case the govt. becomes oppressive?
For those of you who are against gun-control, where would you draw
the line on what firearms an ordinary citizen can
own? Automatic? Semi-Automatic, how about a hand grenade? What I'm
interested in is do you think a line should be drawn? and if so, why and
where?
At 09:32 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > If I remember my factoids correctly, you're something like 10x
> > more likely to be killed by gunshot if you own a gun than if you don't.
>Those
> > two things --- personal experience and cold statistics --- are enough
> for me
> > to make my decision: I don't currently own a gun.
>
>I don't remember the exact number, but lets assume you are right on the 10x
>for now. Here is a classic case of a statistic misused. Taken at face value,
>this stat could lead you to conclude that the military and police should not
>have/use guns either. If you disarm the military & police, then their chances
>of being killed by a gun are reduced. Pretty shoddy logic, eh? This 'fact' is
>a favorite of the HCI crowd; scare the crap out of a bunch of soccer moms then
>offer them a deal to exchange freedom for "safety". And you can bet Schumer,
>Feinstein, et. al. recognise and understand the deception, and this scares the
>crap out of me! When the pro GC politicians insist on supressing information
>that contradicts their view of the world and 'overlook' obvious problems with
>'statistics', I can only assume they are not really interested in finding the
>truth. They want something else......
>
> > OTOH, like *EVERYTHING
> > ELSE,* there's just no point in trying to regulate the supply side of the
> > equation. Where there's demand, there will be suppliers willing ---
> legally
> > or illegally --- to fill it. Gun control laws serve no purpose. What we
>need
> > are MUCH, MUCH stricter penalties and tort for cases like my ex's brother;
> > IMO, the owner of the gun in question should've been tried for negligent
> > homicide.
>
>And this tact if followed through on will effectively circumvent the 2nd
>amendment. Would I own a gun if it caused my insurance to be 10x, 100x, 1000x
>more than it is? Probably not, couldn't afford it. Allowing more tort (does
>that make sense?) to suppress 'undesired' behaviour (not just gun ownership)
>is repression. Where will it stop?
>
>Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 07:04:50 PST