most of my objections to the commonly proposed gun control agenda
stem from thinking that it's usually based on bogus fear; I think the
status quo is about right (though I'm wary in general of new
categories being created to add un-vocal minorities to the list of
those ineligible to own a gun: either make them illegal or shut the
hell up; anyway ... ]
From DENNIS_CLAXTON at fragomen.com Fri May 28 11:30:30 1999
given that two thirds of murders in the u.s. are committed with
guns and that about half of u.s. murders are committed by
relatives or acquaintances of the victim isn't it acceptable to
say that loosely restricted access to guns is adding fuel to a
fire?
The standard response to this is that 'acquaintance' is defined broadly to include people like the asshole who just burned you on a coke deal who you only "know" as Angel; I sent the number you might be thinking about ("friends and family") a few weeks back; contact me privately if you want the URL -- basically, there are a few (low single digit) number of murders you ought to really be worried about -- the rest are "acquaintences" who happen to be involved in drug turf wars and the like.
So no, I don't see the fire. We've got a violence problem, and the violence problem can easily be worked on with a gun; but 60M Americans with guns aren't the problem. If guns *were* the problem, our murder rate would have to be 30x what it is today.
Finally, "loosely restricted" is not an accurate representation of the situation: despite the 20/20 "special" you may have seen, it's actually fairly difficult for law-abiding citizens in most states to get a gun. Criminals have much easier access, but then, they have much easier access to lots of things.
We're touchy about gun control now but in the 19th century
american west it wasn't that unusual to give your guns to a
lawman at the city limits and this worked to control the kind
of liqoured up personal violence so prevalent today.
Caller, is there a question in there? :)
About the argument that access to guns provides protection from
tyranny, wouldn't it take a lot of people to pull this off?
I think I addressed this before as well. Who is to say that the 60M gun owners *aren't already* doing this? It certainly was (from my point of view) the intention of the framers that if you could get everyone to have guns, there'd be no threat at all. So there are people who are suspicious about attempts to make this number much smaller, maybe through a combination of demonization and new laws. There are many places that put such draconian restrictions on owning guns (including typically giving up many of the other protections afforded by the Constitution) that it simply isn't worth it to them. Getting a carry permit in a non-shall-issue state, for example, often inludes registering a particular gun to be attached to the permit. So in places where there's no registration, you've registered just so you can carry? I think that would typically violate due-process at least (those who carry are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public).
As long as it's just you defending your little piece of heaven
you're always going to be outgunned. If it comes down to it
they'll burn you out like in Waco, or use bombs like in
Philadelphia. Get enough people together I might even help
you load ...
I think an actual firefight against the government would indeed be futile; but it was never intended to be an actual force, rather the intention was to provide a *threat* of force. Look, we haven't used a nuclear weapon in anger since 1945, but does that mean that having them has been a waste because no one else used them in the 50 years since then?
The last thing I wanted to ask about is the constitutional
argument. The right to bear arms is in there but so what?
There's also something in there about promoting the general
welfare and we're paying less and less attention to that part.
Why privilege the second amendment?
I'm all for supporting each and every one of them. Like I said, I only mostly really care about the 2nd because I think it's hilarious what kind of hypocracy it brings out in people. You have people like Diane Feinstein who get on the tube and bitch and moan about guns, but she carries! You've got Rosie O'Donnel who tries to get the cast of Annie Get Your Gun to *change the lyrics* to a song they are going to sing on her show because it mentions a bit of sharpshooting.
/jordan