🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1k8sagINNasc@sol.tis.com>, mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
|> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
[snip]
|> the context of your previous statements. You have implied that having
|> guns helps prevent crime. I described a situation in which someone
|> had the drop on me, and postulated that whether or not I'd been armed
|> was irrelevant.

There are no guarentees in life.. certainly you can postulate situations where
having a gun probably will not help, and i can posutlate situations where having
a gun probably will help.

|> but
|> the NRA logic consistently ignores the fact that it does not
|> mean that arming everyone will help.

I've never seen anywhere that the NRA wants to arm everyone.  Instead, the NRA
seems to believe that those people who are not felons or mentally incompetent
should have the option (thats "option" not "requirement") to own firearms.  This
really doesn't seem to be unreasonable.  

|> 
|> 	Crime is a complex problem. I find your oversimplistic
|> view of solving it (being ready to shoot first, deterrent) to be
|> kind of poorly thought out.

deterrent:  see James Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous"
            3/5 of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a 
            potential victim who was know th be armed.  2/5 of them had decided
            not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun
            Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried
            the most about armed victims.  (New York: Aldine, 1986)

As for "shoot it out first", clearly thats illegal; anyone doing so is a criminal;
in NY state, basically one must be in clear + present danger &tc..


|> 
|> 	The gist of this statement appears to be that gun control
|> prevents you from defending yourself. Therefore are you implying
|> that un-control of guns helps you defend yourself? Is this your
|> position?
|> 	If free access to guns helps you defend yourself, how do
|> you reconcile that with the fact that guns are constantly being
|> used on the defenceless? Are you arguing that we should all be
|> required by law to carry guns, like we are to wear seatbelts?
|> Do you feel that this would *reduce* gun related incidents? Please
|> justify this position.

I think the point is that gun control isn't keeping guns out of the hands of
criminals, thus its not helping prevent crime; handguns are illegal in DC, and
virtually so in NYC, yet the criminals seem to have no trouble getting 'em.

|
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..