🚀 go-pugleaf

>Part 1 of NRA twists-the-facts BULLSH*T.  Even if one agrees with those
>statistics, how many of the crimes would have occurred if guns where
>not easily available?

My guess:  most of them.  Sounds like you're one of those people who
think that inanimate machines have the magical ability to cause people
to commit crimes.  Kind've like the way cars cause accidents, or
matches cause arson.  I'll say it again:  factors like poverty,
alcohol and drug abuse, and mental illness play a much bigger role in
violence than guns do.  You gun-banners are fixated on the guns and
not the violence.  If you were really concerned about saving lives,
you'd be pushing for a ban on alcohol (which is a factor in car
accidents, shootings, stabbings, and lots of other crimes), teaching
unarmed self-defense, or demanding that parents with swimming pools
installed safety fences to keep little children from drowning in them.
I know you won't believe it, since it's coming from a pro-gun person,
but it's really true:  more young children drown in swimming pools
every year than are involved in firearms accidents.  A *lot* more.
There are better ways to save lives than by disarming law-abiding
citizens who rely on personal firearms as part of a self-defense plan.
Victim disarmament may cost more lives than it saves.

>The carry laws reduced crime in already high-crime areas.  Who gives a
>sh*t about passing a carry law if crime is low?

Oh, I dunno.  Ask a rape victim whether it mattered to her whether
the crime rate in her area was "low" by your standards or not.  Maybe 
she would have liked to have a legal way to prevent that sexual assault.
Maybe you'd like to tell the woman in Killeen who watched her parents
get shot to death in Luby's that you think that it's a good thing
she obeyed the law and didn't bring her gun inside with her?

>You gun-fanatics.  Why not just give everyone a gun?  Kids, adults,
>everyone.  NRA nuts always claim that it is impossible to keep guns
>out of the hands of criminals.  What would happen if every idiot
>had a gun?  

Sigh.  Name-calling and idiotic arguments already.
We're not advocating giving everyone a gun.  We're advocating giving
everyone the freedom to decide for themselves.  There's a big
difference.  The NRA supported a background check for gun purchases
to prevent criminals from buying guns, and there have been some
purchases stopped as a result of the background check part of the Brady
Bill.  There's also a difference between reasonable steps to keep
guns out of the hands of criminals and unreasonable restrictions
on law-abiding citizens.  Mandatory licensing, for example, may
reduce the number of accidents, but won't make a difference in the
number of criminals buying guns.  

>On the other hand, what if guns where heavily taxed and controlled?
>Less people would have access to them and there would be less crime.

Don't you mean less "poor" people?  Maybe even less "people who live
in bad neighborhoods and have a different skin color from me"?
Self-defense should not be a right only for the rich.  They already
have bodyguards and security systems.  

>It is the common punk who I have a far greater chance of meeting.  
>He is the one I don't wantto have a gun.  And the only way to reduce 
>his odds of having one is to reduce the supply of guns.

Wrong.  One good way is to keep him in jail next time he gets caught
doing a crime with a gun.  If the 'common punk' wants to do you
harm and/or rob you, will you feel better about it if he uses a knife?
Will you be "less dead" if he beats you to death?  Are you strong
enough, or skilled enough, to defend yourself if he attacks without
a gun?  Even Dr. Kellerman, who did the infamous 43:1 study, was quoted
in Health magazine recently as agreeing that crime victims are less
likely to be injured if they defend themselves with a gun.  

There are 200 million guns out there already.  Criminals don't obey
laws - that's what makes them criminals.  No matter what law you
pass, no matter how high you raise the fees and taxes, people are
going to have guns if they want them.  Think about the failure of
the War on Drugs to stop the drug trade and decrease drug usage.
What makes you think that a War on Guns will be any more successful?

Karl
rehn@arlut.utexas.edu