NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/crypt/4654

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-12 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4654 comp.org.eff.talk:6958 alt.privacy:2207 talk.politics.guns:24024
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bz269
From: [e-mail] (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 12 Nov 1992 11:04:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 63
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (William Unruh) says:

>>|> 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

Clearly?  Or maybe a believer in not implementing a "solution" that
has proven to only aggravate the problem whem implemented, again and
again.   Stricter gun control or bans has never been followed by a
drop in violent crime, always instead an increase or no effect, exactly
the _opposite_ of the goal of such measures as you advocate.

>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

Never use them?  Where did you get that?  They use them an estimated 650000-
to 1 million times each year  for defense & to prevent serious crimes, and
used countless daily millions of times for target and recreation.

>steal they are easier to steal.

>> 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.

    That's funny because it fits so closely to the Ben Franklin
quote on the subject.

    (re: to the effect of "..those who would sacrifice liberty for
security deserve neither."

>> 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.

Ok, assume the guns are used on average once per week (twice for some,
daily for other recreational shooters, seldom for others), that's 100
billion uses and 12000 homicides.  A miniscule fraction results using
your math.    Actualy, the only relevent homicides for such an equation
would be the _variable_ & _unlawful_ homicides that would be eliminated
by your ban.  This would be a very small subset of that 12000 indeed.

When you add back in all the extra knifing, clubbing, and other strongarm
non-gun murders that result from your ban, implementing a ban turns out to
be very costly using "death math" like you do above.

Jim Del Vecchio