NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/dc/general/3313

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!dougnews
From: [e-mail] (Doug Humphrey)
Newsgroups: dc.general
Subject: joint the dc-g_u_n_s mailing list!
Date: 28 Dec 1992 02:14:17 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Cunningham) writes:
>
>I feel that we should not allow unrestricted use of handguns, then figure
>out afterwards who the criminals were.  Your own response indicates the
>high number of repeat offenders that show up,

the gun issue is seperate from the repeat-offenders issue; I was
pointing out that a very small number of people do most of the
crimes (a provable fact) and that if on their second (or even third)
conviction they were identified as repeat offenders and treated as
such, then maybe the number of crimes would drop.  Some repeat offenders
use guns, and some don't...  guns do not a repeat offender make.

>yet the gun lobby has shown
>no interest in effecting the kinds of checks that may prevent even these
>people from aquiring handguns easily.

many pro-gun people would support such checks and requirements if
they had confidence that they could be done without starting toward
the "slippery slope" of regulation.   This has nothing to do with
the merits of your suggestion, or even with guns for that matter,
since the same applies equally well to abortion, and other issues
where a limitation of rights is being considered.

There is often a fear that once one moves from the absolute state
(there MUST be abortion on demand, there must be an absolute right
to keep and bear arms, there must be absolute freedom of speech)
to a compromising state (abortion under most conditions but not all,
guns with some form or registration or performance based licensing,
freedom of speech with some limitation to protect certain situations)
then where the line is actually drawn will be a matter of perception
for different groups, as opposed to when the argument was one of
absolutes, where there was no question where the parties stood.

So, some gun people would gladly accept a modified version of the
gun situation, but only if they do not lose something in the bargain.
If they are to lose something valuable, then why do the deal at all,
why not just fight for the current situation?  The art of compromise
is a lost one here in the US...

Let's move this discussion to the mailing list  [e-mail]
since the dc.talk.guns group looks defunct...

>Why is it so incongruous to you to apply the same restrictions on handguns?

See the explaination above; it is not incongruous to me.

--
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice [phone]
[e-mail]   Dialup: [phone] Login as "new"   Email [e-mail]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." - DEVO