🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37vlrr$en1@news.utdallas.edu>,
Mohit K Goyal <goyal@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>Yeah, yeah, yeah...statistics *clearly* show that there are more
>accidental shootings then self-defense shootings.  More innocent
>people die from guns than criminals.

Wrong.  Statistics also show that there are somewhere between 650,000 and 
2.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year which are not reported to
the police and do not result in death or injury.  The threat of deadly force
(eg the presence of a firearm) is an effective means of self-defense.
Even Dr. Kellerman, who is the author of most of the 'statistics' that you
are alluding to, was quoted in Health magazine (yes I can provide issue &
page # if you want it) agreeing with the statement that those individuals
who use a firearm in self-defense are less likely to be injured if attacked.
Kellerman's other numbers were derived by only counting times in which a
firearm was used in self-defense *and* the attacker was killed, which is rare.
He also counted incidents in which criminals killed other criminals known to
them as "friend kills friend" statistics.  

The other statistics quoted above come from Dr. Gary Kleck, who is a Democrat, ACLU member, and nationally recognized criminologist, and *not* an NRA member.
If you are interested in this issue you should read Point Blank (Kleck's book)
because it is one of the few objective studies on the topic.  Kleck's numbers
are supported by Dept. of Justice and FBI studies as well.

>The NRA makes it impossible for Congress to take away any but the most
>outrageous guns.  They almost succeeded in blocking the ban on semi-auto's

I have a suggestion for you.  If you don't have a basic, first-hand knowledge
of firearms, take a basic shooting class.  It takes about 5 minutes for most
people to realize that all firearms function the same, regardless of
appearance.  The intention of the user is the key.  Your statement is like
claiming that we should ban little red sportscars because they are 
outrageous, and the "car of choice of drug dealers, speeders, and drunk
drivers".  The main reason the "assault weapon" ban passed is because of
most of the American public was lead to believe that these guns were 
fully-automatic and frequently used in crime - both of which are false.
FBI crime stats show that those guns were used in less than 2% of violent
crime.  One police chief testified before Congress that his street cops were
"more likely to be attacked by a tiger than shot at with an AR-15".
You've been conditioned to believe otherwise because you've seen too many
gansta rap videos and Rambo movies.  Look at the real numbers and not just
the soundbites put out by career politicians.  

>The fact of the matter is that it is
>extremely easy for almost *anyone* to not just legally buy a gun, but
>legally sell them too.

How do you know?  Did you hear this on TV?  Have you ever bought a gun?
Have you ever applied for a Federal Firearms dealer's license?
Or have you simply been reading HCI pamphlets?
Here's another factoid:  there are already 200 million+ guns out there and
99% of the them will never be involved in violent crime and will only be
used for recreational and self-defense purposes.  Violence in our culture
isn't due to, or caused by, inanimate machines.  Could it be that 
poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness affect human behavior?
Hollywood churns out hyper-violent TV shows and films in which guns are
portrayed as symbols of power, and violence is shown as the best solution 
to any social conflict.  Did you know that California had to grant an
exemption to the "assault rifle" ban so that Hollywood could continue to
produce movies and TV shows glorifying their use?  Do you approve of this?
Many of the same entertainment figures who publicly support gun control 
lobbied for this exemption - which is total hypocrisy IMHO.

>She simply had enough sense to realize that it wasn't worth the *risk*.
>People should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.  It is safer
>for everyone.  Just finds stats on states which allow this vs. states
>that don't.

Huh?  The statistical evidence is clearly on the side of the 'armed
citizens'.  Look at the drop in violent crime in Florida following
passage of the CCW law there.  Compare the violence rate in cities
such as Washington DC and NYC, which have the strictest handgun
control in the US, to the violence rate in Phoenix, Arizona, where
open- and concealed carry are legal.  37 states currently have
CCW permits, Texas is in the *minority*, not the majority, in this.
All the numbers I've ever seen on the subject show that CCW permit
holders are *less* likely to misuse their guns than the general public.
A CCW permit is only issued after a background check and a considerable
amount of training.  

>Why do you have a problem with the govt. regulating guns, such as they
>regulate most everything else.(toys, cars, etc)
>Why do you have a problem with a national licencing program for guns,
>so that it would be easier to track the history of a gun

Because in the past, when gun registration/mandatory licensing schemes
have been implemented, those in power have manipulated the system to
implement a de facto ban on ownership by failing to fund and provide
the required training classes, raising fees beyond the means of most
citizens except the political elite, and implementing 6-9 month delays.
New York City is the perfect example of this.  Rhode Island is another
example.  Do some research.  It's not paranoia to be concerned about
the "slippery slope" when there are numerous examples of where this
has already occurred at the state level.  Volunteer NRA instructors
offer training courses all over the country to teach safe handling
of firearms.  This training has resulted in a continual drop in the
percentage of accidents each year for the past 15-20 years.  Look it up.

>Do you think minors should be allowed to buy guns?  Do you think it is
>wrong to limit the amount of guns a person buys to say, 1 per month?  Why??

Minors were already prohibited from buying and owning guns.  They have been
for a long time.  I do think it's wrong to limit the number of guns
one can purchase in a month.  What if I'm a gun collector and I travel to a
big gun show and find 3 guns, all of which I have been wanting for my
collection?  Why should my rights be infringed when I am a law-abiding
citizen?  Because you think it *might* do some good even though you have
no evidence to prove otherwise?  

>BTW, when I say "guns" I'm actually referring to handguns, since they are
>the root of the problem.  Not semi-automatics, or shotguns, or the like.

You really don't have a clue about how firearms work, do you?
There are semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  Of the three types,
handguns are the least lethal.  Hunting rifles are the most lethal.
If handguns are "the root of the problem", why was it so important to ban
"assault weapons"?  The root of the problem is that violence - not just gun
violence, but all violence - is glorified in our popular culture, not
harshly punished by our courts, not prevented often enough through counseling
and other preventative measures.  We've got to teach our children, and 
ourselves, that violence is not acceptable in our society except to prevent
someone from raping or killing you.  There is no right more basic than
the right to self-defense.

re:  "hunting use".  The word "hunting" doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment.
Many gun-owners have no interest in hunting, and are competitive shooters,
recreational shooters, gun collectors, or own primarily for self-defense.
Why should my rights be infringed if I am doing no harm?

>Reminds me of the NRA staunch support for the "cop-killer" bullet...
I'm just guessing here that you really don't know what a "cop-killer"
bullet is.  The NRA *wrote* the bill that banned civilian ownership
of bullets that could penetrate standard body armor.  Look it up, again.

>it's too bad the NRA has so much influence in Congress.  If this wasn't
>the case, Moynihan's proposal of a tax on ammunition might have received
>the attention it deserved.
Moynihan's tax was insane and pointless.  Hollowpoint ammunition is the
most effective, and humane (yes, humane!) for self-defense with a pistol.
If deadly force is required to stop an attacker, it is more likely that
he/she will survive being shot if only hit once.  Police shooting
statistics clearly show this, and most police departments are using
this "evil" ammunition -- because it works when you need it.

>I personally have no problem with a tax on ammo, smokes, or beer.
>Of course I wouldn't pay for the first two, but I'd more than make
>up for it with the 3rd!  :)

No smiley here.  If you can claim that guns "are responsible" for violence,
then I can claim that alcohol "is responsible" for 4 times the number of
deaths each year then are attributed to guns.  Look up the AMA statistics for
last year.  Go ahead, have another beer.  Perhaps we need to limit you to
1 6-pack a month.  No one *needs* to have more than 6 beers a month.
Think about it - mass purchases of alcohol are the leading "cause" of drunk
driving and alcohol-related violence.  If it only saves one life...

I would strongly suggest that you check out the ftp site at portal.com or
start reading talk.politics.guns, where this issue is discussed in greater
depth.  I would also suggest that you take the time to learn some basic
information about firearms.  Even if you continue to support your current
position you will at least be able to discuss it more intelligently.

Karl
rehn@arlut.utexas.edu