Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxi!russ
From: russ@ihuxi.UUCP (Russell Spence)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: a gun control question - (nf)
Message-ID: <993@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jul-84 14:48:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.993
Posted: Thu Jul 26 14:48:11 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 20:57:38 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 54

> Regarding the shooting, I ask the gun control dissenters, why it is
> that RANDOM murders take place almost only in this country? If it is NOT
> because of the fact that the US has far looser guns controls than
> say, Western Europe, Canada etc., why is it?  Do you wish to claim
> that such senseless slayings would take place even if there were the 
> strictest of gun control? If so, then we need to start a discussion
> about the differences in our society and those where such murders don't
> take place. 
> 
>                                     S. Krolikoski
>                                     u of illinois at U-C
>                                     ...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank
> 
> If not the difference in gun control, why the difference in the crime
> statistics in the NY Times and the London Times?

The reason that more random murders takes place in this country is not
because of the availability of guns.  It reflects a fundamental difference
in the people who live in the country.  People in Britain, for example,
have a different view of the law.  Maybe there is someone out there who
knows about British attitudes who could describe this behavior better than
me, but the fact remains that gun control does not been shown to have a
significant bearing on the crime rate.  Look at your example of NY.  It has
the toughest gun control laws in the country, but it also has one of the
highest crime rates.  Look at Switzerland, they are required to keep guns
and have one of the lowest crime rates (I believe that someone has already
mentioned this on the net).  I think that the reason there is random violence
is due to the behavior of the media.  The difference between this country
and others is that it is in the U.S. that you see television shows whose
dominant theme is violence (the A-Team, etc etc ad infinitum).(and people
watch a LOT of TV in America)  It is in the U.S. that the media glorifies
random violence like the MacDonalds slaughter by making it a major media
event.  If you want to know what is sick about the MacDonalds massacre,
it is not the the killer was able to get guns, but that his widow is going
to sell her story.  It is this attitude more than anything else that
promotes violence.  ESPECIALLY random violence.  If this act was so
bad, why is it that the killer's name is now a household word?  Why is
it that his widow is going to make millions selling the story of the
massacre?  Time Magazine and Newsweek wouldn't be plastering photos of
the bloody bodies in MacDonald's all over its magazine unless people
wanted to see them.  This is what you should be questioning.  This is what
you should be fighting.  Not someone's right to own a hunk of metal.
Violence does not increase with each new gun, but rather, with each new
punk who becomes famous for killing a John Lennon, a Martin Luther King,
or who takes a pot-shot at the president.  Hollywood and Time magazine
are more to blame for random killings than any gun manufacturor, and the
reason they promote violence comes back to US.  We are the ones who pay
to see it.
-- 

						Russell Spence
						ihnp4!ihuxi!russ
						AT&T Technologies
						Naperville, IL