Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz
From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Gun Control again... A Position Paper
Message-ID: <799@ihuxx.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Jul-84 01:10:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxx.799
Posted: Sat Jul 28 01:10:06 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Jul-84 00:15:48 EDT
References: <859@pucc-h> <898@pyuxa.UUCP> <801@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 100

Gosh, I really hate to see the bi-annual gun flame get restarted.  But as 
I've avoided commenting in the past, I'll briefly reply to Walt Pesch
here:

	I still don't see a reason for the storing of a gun in your home.
	...
	But we don't need to keep this at home anyway, it can be kept
	safely under control at a local place (i.e. the local Police
	Station.)  This is also true for the Target Shootist.

Ah, actually, there would be reasonable reasons for wanting to keep
the weapons at home.  A good target rifle is a significant
investment--the last time I priced the one I wanted (1976), it would
have run me $6-700.00 (Anschutz 1413 with custom-carved, glass-bedded
stock, Schuetzen butt plate, iron sights, etc.)  This is a personalized,
somewhat fragile, very complex and accurate tool.  I wouldn't want some
ham-handed trooper slinging it around; or even to have it out of my
sight!  Correspondingly, a good target pistol is an expensive and very
personalized piece of equipment.  I'd want it somewhere that I could
keep an eye on it.  Also, please consider the insurance
problems--because I'm certain the Police aren't going to accept
responsibility for the things!

And please consider--the police are overworked and underpaid as is.
I'm sure they'd just *love* to be turned into gun baby-sitters.  And
consider the additional expense of making sure that everyone stores
their weapons there, etc.
	
	As to the argument of needing it for self-protection, I personally
	would never see a reason for pulling a gun on a bergular
	(sic).  If the  mug has a gun, he will have it out, and he will
	psychologically be ready to use it.  Meanwhile, I sit their
	(sic)in my nightclothes groping in the nightstand for my .38.
	BOOM.  I'd rather lose a little in wealth than my life.
	Anyway, I have insurance.  

Well, I guess I can understand this.  I don't have a weapon, and never
intended to get one to clobber an intruder.  But not see a REASON??
This jerk has knowingly violated your home, and put you and/or your loved
ones in a life-threatening situation.  He (or she) has abrogated any
consideration from me.  If I could drop the guy dead in his tracks, by
any means, he deserves it.  And you suggest that it's only wealth
they're after--you're not a woman.  Sad to say, a solitary woman
encountering a burglar is most likely going to have an experience not
covered by insurance.  I'm all to sorry to say that I can 
sympathize with those who want a weapon for home defense; I can't
agree with the apalling ease with which they can get one.  More below.
	
	Lastly, there is the problems of both accidental firing and also the
	use of the gun in anger.  How many stories does one hear of little
	Jonnie blowing his friends away while there (sic) playing Dirty Harry.
	And neither do I want it used in an argument that gets out of hand on me
	by my spouse.
	
Well, then, why in hell do you have the bloody thing loaded and
available?  If there are small children in the house, this thing
should be treated just as poison or gasoline--locked up and
inaccessable.  With the ammunition locked up, too.  In another place.
(Two small lockboxes, with combinations that can be set.)  Is this
inconsistent with home defense?  Not really.  If the bad guy is already
in the bedroom, or wherever, then it's too late to get a gun, loaded
or not.  Otherwise, you can quietly open two boxes if needful.

More appropriately, why is it that I have to go through extensive
tests to operate, say, a ham radio, yet just have to be 16 to get a
gun?  I swear to you, if you really understand what that .45 will do
if it hits someone, you wouldn't even *dream* of shooting your spouse.


	Therefor (sic): my proposal is to allow private ownership of rifles and
	target shooting handguns as long as it is kept at the local Police
	Station, and must be checked out for your weekend of hunting or the
	day of skeet shooting.  And also put an automatic five-year
	imprisonment doing hard-labor for anyone that has a gun outside of the
	previous guidelines.  I believe that a Bergular (sic) wouldn't carry a
	gun except to protect himself from the crazed Homeowner/
	Vigillante (sic), especially when it led to a long time automatically
	in the slammer.

My counter-proposal:  have one of these hyper-pro gun groups, such as
the NRA, become training organizations.  Make it mandatory for all gun
owners to go through their exhaustive training course--at least as hard
as that to get a ham license, or even a private pilot's license!  And
impose strict quality control and inventory on new weapons.  And we
fully agree on the legal punishment, except I think it should be even
more stringent:  any posession or use of a firearm in any crime, no
matter how trivial, carries such a henious penalty that it might even
eclipse the penalty for the crime being comitted.  (And if you really
believe that an amateur burglar wouldn't carry a gun except to protect
himself, you are more trusting than I.  In general, police have
confirmed that 'professional' burglars don't carry weapons--they know
they'll get off, one way or the others.  Amateurs carry weapons
because they're scared, and because it makes them feel more powerful.)

You're not going to get rid of guns; so make sure the legal owners 
are highly skilled, and make sure the illegal users are SEVERLY
punished.

			Dave Ihnat
			ihuxx!ignat