NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/crypt/4565

Text File | 1992-11-10 | 3.9 KB | 98 lines

Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4565 comp.org.eff.talk:6914 alt.privacy:2178 talk.politics.guns:23911
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!bu.edu!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!dswartz
From: [e-mail] (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:51:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 85
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Unruh) writes:
> [e-mail] (Michael Phelps) writes:
>
>
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pete Gontier) writes:
> >|> [e-mail] (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >[lots deleted]
> >|>
> >|> I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
> >|> doesn't change my preference.
>
> > I'm curious.  Why not?
>
> Clearly you are a believer in the maxim that if a solution is not final
> and complete it is not worth implimenting at all. No sane person
> believes that the registring/ banning / whatever of guns would sole all
> problems. Neither does medicine solve the problem of death. But even
> bandaids help ( or don't yo own any of those since they aren't the
> complete solution)/

Strike one - you are overlooking (big surprise) the fact that if one of these
minimally effective bandaid solutions is enforced vigorously, it costs; both
in manpower and money which could be spent on more societally useful programs.
If it isn't enforced, it's yet another unenforced (read useless) law.  Well?

>
> > If the goal is to make society safer, clearly the problem to be addressed is
> >  violent crime, of all sorts.  Banning handguns isn't gonna solve it - but
> >  you already know that!
>
> Yes and controlling peoples ability to commit violent acts is part of
> the solution- not all of it, part of it.
> Many of the guns used in crimes are stolen- stolen from all those law
> abiding citizens who never use them. And if there are more available to
> steal they are easier to steal.

This claim has been refuted time and time again in this newsgroup.
You apparently know differently.  Proof please?

>
> > If you simply don't like handguns, fine.  Don't own one.
>
> I don't know about the original poster but I don't like them in your, or
> other peoples hands. Like you I feel that I am infinitely responsible
> and would never never misuse any gun I owned Unfortunately I do not
> have the same confidence in you, or others , and am willing to give up
> my utterly responsile freedom in order to help protect me from other's
> irresponsibility.

Strike three - we have no problem with your desire to waive your rights.
What we do object to is your desire to waive ours.


> > If you feel that they are just too dangerous for people to own, consider the
> >  numbers - there are about 200 million handguns in the US, and about 12000
> >  firearms homicides per year, and 1400 accidental firarms deaths.  That makes
> >  firearms safer than automobiles.
> >
>  Uh, hardly. divide the number of deaths by the number of times they
> are used, not by the number. There are "billions" of molecules of cyanide
> in the universe. That does not make them any the less dangerous when
> used.

Uh, hardly, yourself.  This little bit of mislogic is too priceless to pass up.
No one would claim cyanide isn't dangerous.  What they *would* claim is that
given the small number of fatalities due to cyanide each year (non-suicide),
it is a safe chemical to keep around - if you know what you are doing.













--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.