🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WARSAW.93Jan29104821@anthem.nlm.nih.gov>, warsaw@nlm.nih.gov (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
|> 
|> >>>>> "MJP" == Michael J Phelps <mjp@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
|> 
|>     MJP> I think the point is that gun control isn't keeping guns out
|>     MJP> of the hands of criminals, thus its not helping prevent
|>     MJP> crime; handguns are illegal in DC, and virtually so in NYC,
|>     MJP> yet the criminals seem to have no trouble getting 'em.
|> 
|> I don't accept the logic in this (oft repeated) argument, because it
|> presupposes that the legal restrictions are actually enforced to a
|> significant percentage.  Which they're not, so you can't say gun
|> control wouldn't work.  You *can* say gun control doesn't work when
|> you don't, won't, or can't enforce the laws, but then again, that's
|> true of any law.  Including the laws already on the books governing
|> gun ownership, sales, etc. as others have already pointed out before.

In Washington DC, handguns have been illegal since '75 (i think).  The law abiding
citizens don't own them, so the law has "worked".  Unfortunatly, the criminals
(the people who the law was supposed to disarm) are still getting them. 
Washington DC isn't a terribly safe place, either, so we can argue that the law
was ineffective in performing its' alledged purpose.

Much the same for NYC, except that there are people who legally own handguns,
after much time, effort and $, so the Sullivan Law (circa 1917) has also "worked";
its cut down on the number of legally owned handguns in NYC.  However, its
demonstratably failed to reduce the number of illegally owned handguns there.
We all know how safe NYC is!

In both these cases, the law has been enforced, but the law only affects legal 
transfers.  The criminal is circumventing the law, in much the same manner as
Germany invaded France at the start of WWII; the French lay behind the Maginot
Line, the most heavily armed fortress around.  The Germans simply went to France
via Belgium.  

Fundamentally, the criminal is the problem; the legal ownership of a firearm is
not. 

If the goverment ever grasps this concept, then we may begin to make progress;
until then we are stuck with laws that fail to address the true issues, and bills
written in bad faith (see 1992's HR7 for some nifty loopholes).  

if the law can't be enforced, then its a waste of time, effort and money, and
ought to be repealed.

if the law isn't being enforced, it should either be 
 a. enforced
 b. repealed 

if the law is enforced, and found to be ineffective, it should be repealed.

Neither case (IMHO) is a very good argument for writing YAL (Yet Another Law).
-- 
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..