Well, I said I wasn't going to say more on this, but...
Jordan:
1) A very large (but less than 50%) of gun deaths are among family members. Are these people your precious "criminals"?
2) Sam Pawlett's (I think) post is "spot-on." Many other countries have higher rates of all kinds of crime than the US does (some don't, of course). So it is not that the US is this "high crime" place. But somehow we have this far higher rate of deaths, mostly by guns.
3) All the talk by you and Margaret about ropes and knives is silly. Guns kill a whole lot easier and quicker than do ropes and knives or other potential weapons.
4) The frontier legacy began well before the American Revolution. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion rebels were carrying, squirrel knives? Colonists were shooting and killing Indians pretty much from Day One, or at least Two.
5) I would fully agree that it is very hard to deal with this problem now, given how many guns are out there for all kinds of historical and hysterical reasons. But I say, you start cutting them back every way you can from now on.
Oh yes, I am not some ignoramus about guns. I'm an old Eagle Scout who got a marksmanship award on the way to that. But I have not fired a gun since.
As for the NRA, I think that they should take seriously that bumper sticker about "they'll have to take my gun out my hands when I am cold and dead." Let the NRA be that. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:30 AM Subject: Re: guns prevent violence!
> From dhenwood at panix.com Tue May 4 12:38:24 1999
>
>[ From Doug's posting, but first ... ]
>
> J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
> >What there is an order of magnitude difference
> >in is the sheer availability of guns, 240 million by the
> >last count.
>
>It's also interesting to note that there are more gun owners in the US
>than there are voters in the last Presidential election. If that's not
>proof enough that guns don't "cause" violent crime, I don't know what
>is. That is: if guns "cause violence" then instead of asking "why is
>the US so violent?" we should be asking "why is the US *not* so
>violent?" ...
>
>My own answer to why we're so violent is that there's so much at stake
>here: crime is one way to try to get around not getting what you think
>is fair, and we've certainly "protected" that which would like to be
>had by the have-nots. The underground economy, the "underworld" and
>the drug trade are all rooted in getting more for the have-nots.
>Lately, this has gotten worse for the have-nots, and the stakes are
>higher. I think it also has evolved into something that's easier to
>grasp: much like the language on TV gets saucier and the skin gets more
>plentiful in R rated movies over time, as people get "used" to it.
>
>Among crime circles, there's a "violence culture" that has progressed.
>
> >It is also true that we have a frontier legacy
> >of guns and that we are the only nation that allows people
> >to own guns without having a license.
>
>Er, the "frontier legacy" came quite a bit after the "victory over
>tyranny legacy" some hundred years earlier. The standard answer as to
>why licensing isn't required (except for some kinds of weapons) is that
>in nearly every case of weapon confiscation, licensing has been the key
>to locating the weapons. If you don't trust your government to
>confiscate your weapons, you can see why people (including Congress)
>have been reluctant to license weapons. Of course this has recently
>shifted: DOJ, spearheded by Reno, has been testing the waters lately
>with the idea of collecting this data, despite reports from BATF that
>it almost never helps in investigations.
>
>[ Finally, we get toDoug's actual question ... ]
>
> But why are guns so available?
>
>I'd say because they just aren't the Big Problem that some people think
>they are. Statistically speaking, "damn near all" gun owners are
>law-abiding citizens with no intention of commiting a violent crime.
>You sure wouldn't know it from reading this list, but really Doug:
>isn't it only among this crowd that you could ask such a question with
>a straight face?
>
>Try going to Wal-Mart and asking "we the people" ...
>
>It's almost that way with "why are we so violent?" ... "we" aren't!
>The vast majority of violent crimes are commited by a small number of
>people, many of whom are associates of each other. There are far fewer
>violent criminals than there are violent crimes -- most violent crimes
>are committed by repeat offenders, and most convicted criminals
>committed many cries before they were caught; in fact, one
>significant-but-not-dominant factor in the recent drop in violent crime
>is that more violent criminals are serving jail sentences.
>
>Yes, there is a disproportionate number of "new" inmates from the
>so-called "war on drugs", but 40% of the increase of incarcerated
>convicts in the 90's are there for violent crimes. And we *know* how
>much bigger the prison population is getting.
>
>/jordan
>