davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) (02/22/85)
> I don't think anyone has effectively disputed the claim that > handguns are really valuable only for killing or injuring PEOPLE. >>Of course they haven't; it can't be done. Well, you can ration- >>alize your way around anything if you like: cars aren't for >>driving; airplanes aren't for flying; handguns aren't for >>shooting people. yawn....... Guns are "valuable" (watch definitions, please!) for punching holes in things. People are ONE item they can be used on. People are FAR too easy to hit to be very interesting as a target for a handgun, which has quite a limited range. You know, the Navy has a high-speed machine-gun which uses uranium-core bullets and is designed ONLY for shooting at antiship missiles like the Exocet. >This stuff about the primary purpose of handguns not being >the shooting of poeple is a load of utter crap. MY primary purpose is shooting at CANS, buddy. I'm sorry YOUR primary purpose is shooting at PEOPLE... >(Please note: there is no reason whatsoever why people can't >enjoy pistol shooting as a hobby WITHOUT a universal right >of handgun possession, as several netters have pointed out. >I enjoyed shooting (in a shooting club) during my youth in >England, and you may as well try to obtain an H-bomb as a >handgun there. The UK has about 10 handgun murders a year, >among a population of 55 million). ****ERROR**** ****DOES NOT COMPUTE**** YOU were able to get a handgun there - well, how 'bout getting me a nuke, if it's so easy? I could get a LOT of cans with one of those (no pun intended). It's my understanding that the shooting sports are in grave difficulty in wonderful Britain, and that the if the police know you have guns, they will come into your house without a warrant anytime they feel like to make sure you have only the correct number and the correct amount of ammunition and... and... and... and that the general population lets them get AWAY with this even though there's no legal basis for it (of course, in Britain, "legal basis" translates to even less than it does here - thank you, Thomas Jefferson & Co., for - ) oh, never mind... >(Not many other murders involving other weapons either, but >that's another story). No, it's NOT another story. It's the WHOLE story. >I would respect such persons if they said something like: "the >law says I can have handguns, I want to have handguns, and if that >has to mean that everyone else can have handguns too, even if 12000 >people a year are killed by them, that's just too bad". At least >then they would be honest. People who resist restriction of handgun >possession rights are simply determined not to see their PERSONAL >right to have a hangun infringed. REGARDLESS, that is, of the >consequences for the society they live in of a law which guarantees >to any person, with any intent whoever malevolent, the right to >possess all the deadly weapons he or she wants. Gee, you ALMOST emitted a fragment of truth. Most people who resist registration of handgun possession rights are simply determined not to have ANY of their rights infringed because SOMEONE ELSE was unable to control themself. Why should I submit to the SLIGHTEST inconvenience because some two-bit jerk has a macho complex about guns and therefore abuses them? WHY??? WHY??? Nobody on this braindamaged net will even DISCUSS that question, even though SEVERAL people have asked it. It must be just too mentally taxing to contemplate - it's easier to just go about blathering statistics, and arguing fruitlessly about whether or not "guns cause crime", etc., etc, etc...