Path: tribune.usask.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!caen!batcomputer!baobab.cadif.cornell.edu!MIKE
From: mike@baobab.cadif.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Please tear this up
Date: 5 Oct 1993 20:33:12 GMT
Organization: Cadif Cornell University Ithaca NY.
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <28slm8$15t@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>
Reply-To: mike@baobab.cadif.cornell.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: baobab.cadif.cornell.edu

Hi,

	Here is an anti-gun-control argument. Before I finalize this
and footnote all my facts, I thought I'd let the local gun control advocates
take a shot at it and point out weaknesses or errors I may have overlooked.
I am actually looking forward to constructive feedback; please be polite,
and you will be heard...



          Gun control is a poor method of crime control because:
                         /                      \
                        /                        \
                _______/                     Legal guns are a good thing
               /        \                        /              \
              /          \                      /                \
partial controls          total ban         recreation       self-defense
      /                      |    \                            /       \
     /                       |     \                          /         \
useless [1]         impossible [2]  misdirected [3]    effective [4]  safe [5]
(DC, NYC, Canada)   (War on drugs)
(Florida)                 
                       


[1]  There are numerous examples of the failure of restrictive gun laws to 
even dent the rise of violent crime in US cities. Both NYC and DC have laws
that severely restrict legal ownership of handguns, and both of these cities 
are awash in violent crime; more importantly, there was no decrease, or
significant decrease in the increase, of crime after these laws were passed.
Canada, which now has a higher violent crime rate (per capita) than the
US also saw an increase in their previously stable crime rates after their
restrictive gun control laws were passed. I am not aware of a single modern 
example of localized gun control laws actually working to reduce crime in an 
American city. Support of such laws as a method of crime control is baseless.

	Florida recently eased their handgun restrictions and made it easier
for people to get carry permits. Their crime rate has dropped slightly after
the laws were eased.


[2]  Attempts at a total ban of handguns are even more unrealistic. For 
example, guns and ammunition are easy to make, and cocaine must be imported;
yet after 12 years and tens of billions of dollars spent on cocaine control 
efforts, the drugs is more common, and cheaper, than ever. Again, I am aware 
of no modern example of the government's ability to control any strongly 
desired contraband. Currently there are tens of billions of dollars worth 
of legally owned guns already in private hands; the cost of the confiscation
of even these weapons would be enormous. A total ban of handguns would result
in the immediate creation of a multi-billion-dollar black market over which
we have no control; as it is easier to produce automatic weapons (machine guns)
than other types, there is no reason not to expect that even deadlier 
weapons would be available to criminals, at lower cost, just as crack cocaine,
at $5/hit, replaced powdered cocaine at several times the price once the black
market structure was in place.


[3]  Legally owned guns are rarely used in crime. The overwhelming majority
of guns associated with crime are already illegal and beyond the reach of 
the law. Suggestions that the availability of illegal guns might at least
be reduced are in conflict with points [1] and [2], above.


[4]  Legally owned guns are actually effective at preventing crime. While
the actual numbers are in some dispute, there is no doubt that several 
thousand crimes are prevented or stopped each year, typically without
any shots being fired. The simple presence of a gun is a strong deterrent 
to crime.


[5]  Legally owned guns present an acceptably low risk of accidental injury.
The household accident rate for firearms is below that of drowning and 
accidental poisoning, even after statistical correction for the fact that 
only 45-50 of American households contain guns, but presumably all contain 
poisons of some sort.


From information originally posted by J. Neil Schulman
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (1991, latest official
estimates)

     Motor Vehicle*.....................................47,575
     Falls*.............................................12,151
     Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas)*.....................6,524
     Fires and Flames* ..................................4,716
     Drowning (incl. water transport drownings)'.........4,716
     Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion)* ...............4,491
     Surgical/Medical misadventures* ....................2,850
     Other Transportation (excl. drownings)* ............2,160
     Natural/Environmental factors* .....................1,816
     Firearms ...........................................1,489
          (includes estimated 500 handgun and 200 hunting accidents)

*1989, latest official figures
And just to put this in context, accidental death from firearms is
down 40% from ten years ago, and down 80% from fifty years ago.
 

							- Michael Chase