🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 Oct 1994, Mohit K Goyal wrote:

> : The HCI (Handgun Control Inc... the folks who want to ban ALL guns) and
> 
> WRONG!  HCI supports everything *but* a ban on handguns.  They are very
> clear on this issue.

Both Pete Shields (founder of HCI) and Sarah Brady have been quoted as 
saying that the ultimate goal of HCI is a total ban on civilian ownership 
of firearms.

> The only national group which advocates a ban on all handguns is CSGV.
> (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

Which, if I recall correctly, shares HCI's mailing address.

> Yeah, yeah, yeah...statistics *clearly* show that there are more 
> accidental shootings then self-defense shootings.  More innocent
> people die from guns than criminals.

Define "innocent". A drug dealer shot by a rival is not "innocent".

> : If they wanted to take guns away that were being used in crime they would
> : take away .38 Specials and .25 ACP Ravens.  If they wanted to take guns
> 
> 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

You are, of course, aware that there is no functional difference between 
many of the semi-automatic weapons in the banned list and many on the 
protected list. In several cases, the two use exactly the same mechanical 
parts -- the only difference is in the appearance.

> : The real problem is that the laws we already have are not being enforced
> : very well.
> 
> This is also incorrect.  This is the core argument of almost every conserv.
> when it comes to gun control.  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.

Wrong again. For many years it has been a Federal felony to use a firearm 
in the commission of another crime. This has never been enforced. On the 
rare occasions that a criminal is actually charged under this law, the 
charge is either thrown out as part of a plea bargain, or the sentence 
runs concurrently with the (longer) sentence for the primary criminal 
act. Net deterrence level == zero.

> : Think about why Ann Richards didn't even want to let the citizens of Texas
> : make their own decision about allowing permits (it would not have been a
> : free thing) to carry guns.  Does she not trust the people?  Does she not
> : want to let people make their own decisions.
> 
> 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.

What risk? It is a fact that 1) more police officers shoot themselves 
with their sidearms than civilians do and 2) that police officers shoot 
the wrong person twice as often as armed civilians.

> Why do you have a problem with the govt. regulating guns, such as they
> regulate most everything else.(toys, cars, etc)

For one thing, toys and cars are not specifically mentioned in the 
Constitution.

> 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/

Also makes it easier for a tyrranical regime to locate and imprison (if 
not kill outright) armed civilians who might pose a threat to that 
regime. This has happened several times in the past, in other countries 
-- Cuba, Germany and the USSR immediately come to mind.

> Do you think minors should be allowed to buy guns?

Already illegal under current law. It wouuld help your arguments if you 
would bother to become famiiliar with the real situation, rather than 
with what you _think_ is the real situation.

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

And what other Constitutional rights would you like to regulate, hmmm? I 
will point out the poll taxes and voter-literacy tests have already been 
ruled unConstitutional...

> 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.

I have yet to see a firearm, of it's own volition, cause anything. That 
is the problem with hoplophobes -- they continue to ascribe intention to 
inanimate objects, while ignoring the human being wielding the object.

whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William Hughes) | In memory of 85 un-charged,
UTSA doesn't agree with me. They're wrong. | un-convicted victims of the U.S.
St. Dismas' Infirmary for the Incurably    | government in Waco, Texas -
Informed [_Synners_, Pat Cadigan]          | including over 20 children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         United States Constitution     1788 - 1994    R. I. P.
                          Don't Tread On Me!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------