The People's Right to Bear Arms

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 02:57 PM 4/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Again, forgive me if I'm treading on ground that's already been covered; I
missed many posts in this thread while working on deadline. but my
understanding is that four guns were used, and has anyone made note of the
fact that three of them were shotguns/hunting rifles of the sort that would
not be affected by any of the usual sorts of gun control legislation?
>----------
>From: 	Doug Henwood
>Sent: 	Tuesday, April 27, 1999 1:55 PM
>To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: 	Re: The People's Right to Bear Arms
>
>Jim heartfield wrote:
>
>>In message <Pine.NEB.4.10.9904260017510.2852-100000 at panix7.panix.com>,
>>Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> writes
>>
>>> As for numbers,
>>>in 1996, 9,390 people were murdered by handguns in the US.  (The total
>>>figures, including suicides and accidents are 4 times as high).  During
>>>the same period, 30 people were murdered with handguns in Britain.

While availability of guns is undoubtedely a factor, I would not stretch it
too far.  UCSC criminologist Dane Archer did a comparative study of
response to potentially threatening and conflicting situations among US and
British high school students.  He used vignettes (descriptions of
hypothetical scenarios) invoving marital infidelity and street demos, ans
asked the rs to supply the resolution of conflicts.

What transpired was a huge gap the USers and the Brits.  The Brits'
soultion generalli involved showing emotions, negotiations, talk etc.
whereas the USers would generally provide straightforward quotes of
Hollywood dramas - gory mayhem (using machine guns, chain saws, etc.) or
truly fantastic scenarios, such as "aliebs killing everyone."  I a word, a
proud product of our entertainment industry.

If the only choice I faced was between ban on guns or ban on Hollywood, I'd
probably choose the latter.  Or better yet, use the former to get rid of
the latter.

Wojtek
>