🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Oct21.022434.3050@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> Sarah Brady said while she was here in Texas that she didn't want a complete
> handgun ban.  This is just so she can get the ban incrementally without
> complete objection now.  First it was a 7 day waiting period.  Brady II has
> a one gun per month limit.  Brady III is supposed to include extremely
> high tax rates, life time ban on gun ownership for any criminal infraction
> (including a slew of new gun infractions) and so on.  What should be
> completely crystal clear is that HCI is 100% for a complete and total ban
> on guns.

Great!  So what's your problem?

> No, he is correct on a technicality -- remember the claim is that more
> innocent people are KILLED than criminals.  Since the 2,000,000 or so
> crimes prevented by gun owners do not all result in the death of the
> criminal, the anti-gunners have made the unwillingness of gun owners
> to kill criminals into a liabilty.

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?

> Not only that, but within the 50% of the states with strict carry laws,
> fully 80% of all murders occur.  Or put another way, you are 4 times
> more likely to be murdered if you live in a state, such as Texas, which
> has strict carry laws than if you live in a state without.

This is not only BULLSH*T, it is pure NRA twist-the-facts BULLSH*T.  It
just so happens that generally the states with the strict carry laws
are the same ones with the high-population cities, where the crime-rate 
is always higher regardless if you are in America, Europe or anywhere else.
The carry laws reduced crime in already high-crime areas.  Who gives a
sh*t about passing a carry law if crime is low?

Anyway, why compare USA states where guns are easily obtained?  Why not
compare crime rates against other countries where guns are CONTROLLED
and difficult to obtain?  Like Japan, England and most of Europe.  Then
compare crime against countries where guns are easily obtained.  Like
Mexico, Bosnia and Italy.  Its so obvious that only a gun-fanatic
cannot understand it.

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?  12 year olds, homeless, mentally ill and many others 
who do not now because they cannot afford it.  Of course crime would
go up because more idiots would have guns.  (A benefit is that the NRA
could then claim that guns prevent more crimes because there are
more crimes.  ;-)  

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.
Sure, big-daddy crime boss will still have one but he is not who
I am afraid of walking down the street.  It is the common punk who
I have a far greater chance of meeting.  He is the one I don't want 
to have a gun.  And the only way to reduce his odds of having one
is to reduce the supply of guns.

It boils down to supply/demand.  Simple economics.