🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92316.101556SNOSZB@vm.sas.com>, <SNOSZB@vm.sas.com> (Sanjeev Banerjia) writes:
>Ok, so there's been lots of rhetoric (as is usual and expected) on this, and
>truly gun-control proponents & oponents both can present compelling arguments.
>
>To me the question is not so much controlling guns; that is simply the means to
>an end, that end being the reduction of gun-related violence.  I'd like to
>hear some (intelligent) discussion on how we can accomplish that.
>
>As for waiting periods & the like, I read an article about a year ago or so
>(can't remember where, but it was mainstream press) about California's
>waiting period laws.  It was stated that since the waiting period rules had
>gone into effect, the state government had compared statistics on before/after
>handgun violence; it had dropped a very meager 3%.  I'd always been a gun
>control advocate, but those numbers made be rethink my position and re-evaluate
>_why_ I had been in favor of gun control.  Hence, my query today.
>
>Also, can anyone answer what possible benefit comes from NOT outlawing assault
>rifles (not just importation, but sale also)?
>
>Sanjeev

Better question -- what possible benifit can come *from* banning "assault"
rifles?  These "assault" rifles are the same semi-automatic rifles that have
been around for almost a century.  The rifles operating mechanism hasn't
changed, but now instead of wooden stocks, they have synthetic stocks and
other cosmetic differences that make them look "less friendly" :-)  FBI 
statistics show "assualt" weapons are used in 1% of all violent crime.

You said it yourself, let's stop fighting over leglislation that, if passed,
wouldn't make a dent in the real problem (gun-related *AND* non-gun-related
violence).  Waiting periods, gun registration and gun bans don't work because
the overwhelming majority of gun-related crime occurs with guns obtained
illegally.  Let's try stiffer laws/sentencing for crimes commited with *any*
deadly weapon, reducing the amount of plea bargining, building more prisons
and instituting the instant check system as in Virginia and other states.
It would be good a start ...


-- 
Al Cohen                sasazc@unx.sas.com      (919)677-8000 x7117
SAS Institute Inc.      SAS Campus Drive        Cary, NC 27513

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
   --  Amendment II, Bill of Rights

I was hoping to bail out of this discussion (I didn't particularly
want to be in it in the first place) but you asked some reasonable
questions, so I'll try to give you some answers. Contrasting opinions,
hopefully backed by facts, are welcome (and expected). Ideally, this
should ALL go over to talk.politics.guns, but I'm not holding my breath.
(Besides, the election's over - what else but abortion, gun control, and
taxes can this group discuss?)

<SNOSZB@vm.sas.com> (Sanjeev Banerjia) writes:

stuff deleted

>To me the question is not so much controlling guns; that is simply the means to
>an end, that end being the reduction of gun-related violence.  I'd like to
>hear some (intelligent) discussion on how we can accomplish that.

Better training of the populace in general, concerning gun safety. The NRA
(boo hiss :-) ) has excellent programs geared for adults and children. Most
accidental deaths are caused by persons who do NOT have any experience or
training with guns. Information is available on how to "gun-proof" your
kids, much as everyone tries to "stranger-proof" their kids. The concepts
and methods are similar. The NRA provides this information for free. Note
that NRA-certified instructors teach most POLICE gun courses.

Below is a (large) table of accidental deaths from firearms. Note that
the trend has been downward for about 60 years, despite rising per capita
gun ownership. Source is US Bureau of the Census - Statistical Abstract 
of the United States (1975, 1983, 1989):

[1] = Year.
[2] = Population.
[3] = Accidental deaths.
[4] = Accidental deaths per 1,000,000.


[1]   [2]          [3]    [4]       [1]   [2]          [3]    [4]   
1932  124,840,000  3,000  24.03     1961  183,691,000  2,204  12.00
1933  125,579,000  3,014  24.00     1962  186,538,000  2,092  11.21     
1934  126,374,000  3,033  24.00     1963  189,242,000  2,263  11.96     
1935  127,250,000  2,799  22.00     1964  191,889,000  2,275  11.86     
1936  128,053,000  2,817  22.00     1965  194,303,000  2,344  12.06     
1937  128,825,000  2,576  20.00     1966  196,560,000  2,558  13.01     
1938  129,825,000  2,726  21.00     1967  198,712,000  2,896  14.57     
1939  130,880,000  2,618  20.00     1968  200,706,000  2,394  11.93     
1940  132,122,000  2,375  17.98     1969  202,677,000  2,309  11.39     
1941  133,402,000  2,396  17.96     1970  204,879,000  2,406  11.74     
1942  134,860,000  2,678  19.86     1971  207,661,000  2,360  11.36     
1943  136,739,000  2,282  16.69     1972  209,896,000  2,442  11.63    
1944  138,397,000  2,392  17.28     1973  211,909,000  2,618  12.35    
1945  139,928,000  2,385  17.04     1974  213,854,000  2,613  12.22    
1946  141,389,000  2,801  19.81     1975  215,854,000  2,380  11.03    
1947  144,126,000  2,439  16.92     1976  218,035,000  2,059   9.44    
1948  146,631,000  2,191  14.94     1977  220,239,000  1,982   9.00    
1949  149,188,000  2,330  15.62     1978  222,585,000  1,806   8.11    
1950  151,684,000  2,174  14.33     1979  225,055,000  2,004   8.90
1951  154,287,000  2,247  14.56     1980  227,757,000  1,955   8.58    
1952  156,954,000  2,210  14.08     1981  230,138,000  1,871   8.13
1953  159,565,000  2,277  14.27     1982  232,520,000  1,756   7.55    
1954  162,391,000  2,271  13.98     1983  234,799,000  1,695   7.22    
1955  165,275,000  2,120  12.83     1984  237,001,000  1,668   7.04    
1956  168,221,000  2,202  13.09     1985  239,279,000  1,649   6.89    
1957  171,274,000  2,369  13.83     1986  241,613,000  1,600   6.62    
1958  174,141,000  2,172  12.47     1987  243,915,000  1,400   5.74    
1959  177,073,000  2,258  12.75           
1960  180,671,000  2,334  12.92

>As for waiting periods & the like, I read an article about a year ago or so

deleted

>gone into effect, the state government had compared statistics on before/after
>handgun violence; it had dropped a very meager 3%.  I'd always been a gun

In Florida, it became legal for most citizens to carry CONCEALED firearms a 
few years back. The personal crime rate DROPPED as a result.

>Also, can anyone answer what possible benefit comes from NOT outlawing assault
>rifles (not just importation, but sale also)?

This will be kind of a redirection...
1) what the media keep referring to as assault weapons ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.
They LOOK like the military assault rifle, but are functionally very different.
True assault rifles have what is known as selective-fire control. They can be
set to fire a single round per trigger squeeze, three rounds per trigger
squeeze, or be full "machine-gun" fire. More importantly, everyone assumes 
that assault rifles (sic) are more POWERFUL than other weapons. This is
NOT the case. Modern machine-guns and assault rifles shoot PISTOL caliber
ammunition. Virtually ALL hunting/deer rifles are much more powerful than
even true military assault rifles. 

2) Why should any weapon (or anything else) be banned just because of its
appearance? There are no significant functional differences between civilian 
"assault-rifles" and most other weapons available, including shotguns. Another
media-misused term is AUTOMATIC weapons. Every report you hear usually
throws "automatic" and "asssault" in there somewhere. The reality is that
the majority of the incidents actually involve SEMI-automatic weapons.
This encompases most modern firearms. Semi-automatic weapons are designed
to eject the shell and cock the weapon for the next round, using gasses
(typically) generated by firing the current shell. Only ONE
bullet is fired for each trigger pull. A large number of *shotguns* made
today are semi-automatic. People "in-the-know" sometimes abbreviate this
to "autos", but only because we all "know what we mean".
The technology has been around in mass production since the early 1900s.

If ANYONE out there would like more information about ANY of the common
recurring gun control topics, I will be glad to Email you information.
The following topics have been compiled as a result of recurring myths
in talk.politics.guns. The facts are given in about 60 lines per topic,
with REFERENCES, so you can check the stats yourself (they are "neutral"
references for the most part (US Bureau of Statistics, etc.)).

Information is available on these topics: (I have access to the majority 
of the following):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RKBA.000 - What the RKBA.nnn postings are all about
RKBA.001 - Accidental deaths by firearms and by other means
RKBA.002 - Declining trend of accidental deaths by firearms
RKBA.003 - Homicide per capita in the US
RKBA.004 - Children and firearms
RKBA.005 - Myth of "cop killer" ammunition
RKBA.006 - Myth of "plastic guns"
RKBA.007 - About assault rifles
RKBA.008 - Annual firearm manufacture in the United States
RKBA.009 - Households owning a firearm
RKBA.010 - Declaration of Independence
RKBA.011 - The Constitution of the United States of America
RKBA.012 - Switzerland and firearms
RKBA.013 - Trend in weapons use for robberies (1974-86)
RKBA.014 - Reasons for homicide and non-negligent manslaughter
               *** and more to come ***
RKBA.999 - Complete list of all sources

=========
Copyright 1990 by Philip K. Ronzone. Permission to use any and all of the RKBA.nnn
postings as long as this copyright is included. Excerpts for net postings may omit
the copyright notice.


--
Steve Holzworth
sch@unx.sas.com
x6872
SAS Institute - Open Systems R & D
Cary, N.C.

While we are at it, why don't we see to it that other dangerous
weapons have tighter controls. For example, knives are a 
significant weapon of choice in domestic and drug-related violence.
Perhaps there should be a bill introduced which controls private
ownership of knives...

Of course the NKA will probably come out with another catchy
phrase like "Knives don't kill, people do." and raise sickening
amounts of money and kill the whole thing.

Also, it seems I have heard of an unusual number of deaths caused
by someone being struck repeatedly with large blunt objects such
as baseball bats.  Perhaps we should restrict these as well...


My opinions only, not those of SAS...
-- 
-John Price                    OS/2 Maintenance Czar/Source Manager
 Systems Developer             Host Systems R&D
 PC-Host Group                 SAS Institute, Inc.
 sasjzp@unx.sas.com            (919)677-8000 x6976

In article <Bxv7sv.CG6@unx.sas.com>, sasjzp@stjohn.unx.sas.com (John Asa Price) writes...
>While we are at it, why don't we see to it that other dangerous
>weapons have tighter controls. For example, knives are a 
>significant weapon of choice in domestic and drug-related violence.
>Perhaps there should be a bill introduced which controls private
>ownership of knives...

>Of course the NKA will probably come out with another catchy
>phrase like "Knives don't kill, people do." and raise sickening
>amounts of money and kill the whole thing.

Hey, it's not the whole knife but just the blade that kills.  Don't blame
the handle..."Guns don't kill, bullets do."

>Also, it seems I have heard of an unusual number of deaths caused
>by someone being struck repeatedly with large blunt objects such
>as baseball bats.  Perhaps we should restrict these as well...

I know an employee with the CDC who supported the 55 mph speed limit 
because it saved lives.  Why not drop it to 45? 35?

If you are really concerned about saving lives (auto accidents are one of
the top causes of death), stop whining about guns and start outlawing
cars!

On another thread...
When cars first came out, they were hailed as solutions to pollution 
because cities were full of horse excrement.  Then we discovered air
pollution. 

Can gov't protect the individual from himself? 

Does the end justify the means?

How many lives must be saved to justify taking away someone's freedom?

Is there another way to solve the gun "problem" without gov't regulation?

***************************************************************************

     "The quickest way to a man's heart is with a bullet."

**************************************************************************