don@allegra.UUCP (D. Mitchell) (12/27/84)
Last year, Handguns killed 48 people in japan 8 in great britain 34 in switzerland 52 in canada 58 in israel 21 in sweden 42 in west germany 10,728 in the united states
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (01/01/85)
> Last year, Handguns killed > > 48 people in japan > 8 in great britain > 34 in switzerland > 52 in canada > 58 in israel > 21 in sweden > 42 in west germany > 10,728 in the united states Cars killed ~50k last year...... I suggest we work on a ban for them first! As far as handguns are concerned, We have a constitutional right to bear arms.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/03/85)
> > Last year, Handguns killed > > 10,728 in the united states Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
paul@wjvax.UUCP (Paul Summers) (01/03/85)
This discussion is inappropriate here. Move it to net.politics. I used to debate on the issue at hand but gave it up in Jr. High when I discovered that people had their own opinions and would refuse to look at the other side of the issue, no matter how logically presented. -- <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> Paul Summers Watkins Johnson, Co. 2525 N. First St. San Jose, Ca. 95131-1097 (408) 262-1411 x3203 (...wjvax!paul) Working is fine, but I wouldn't want to make a career out of it.
albert@harvard.ARPA (David Albert) (01/04/85)
> > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > 10,728 in the united states > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny The question raised by the numbers given in the original letter, most of which you have left out, is whether these People who kill People would have done so if they did not have access to handguns. Studies say no; what do you say? David Albert -- ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (ARPAnet)
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/04/85)
Sunny Kirsten (an AI program?) writes: >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. You're right!! BAN PEOPLE. Richard Carnes (AI program)
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/04/85)
-- [Sunny Kirsten] >> Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >> People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. Perhaps. If armed with knives, clubs, or nothing at all, people who kill must feel the destruction of another's flesh (unless they're drugged into oblivion). With a gun, though, you can shoot at an abstraction, deal death at a distance. People who fire guns at others may not, in their own minds, be killing real individuals. But I don't know, I've never done it. Are there any war vets, ex-cops, or other folks out there who have intentionally fired a gun at a person? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Jan 85 [14 Nivose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/04/85)
> Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. Then make it difficult to acquire those tools on a whim. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
pallas@CSL-Vax.ARPA (01/04/85)
> > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > > 10,728 in the united states > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. Guns shoot bullets. People shoot guns. Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. The NRA does NOT shoot criminals, fools, or hunters. Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange vest looks like a 12-point buck? Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a gun right there? If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi semi-automatic machine guns. But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's and shoot everyone in sight won't. joe Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better.
lee@unmvax.UUCP (01/06/85)
> Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. > Guns shoot bullets. > People shoot guns. > Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. Now then, "people" shoot guns and "criminals, fools and hunters" shoot "people". If "people" would carry their guns then criminals and fools would not be able to shoot them as "people" would shoot the criminals and fools. Hunting accidents do occur, unfortunately. So do driving accidents. I don't see anybody here discussing taking away everybodies car. They just want them to be responsible while driving. The NRA would like to see hunters use their guns responsibly. That is why there is an NRA sponsored hunter safety course available almost everywhere in the U.S. > Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. > Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? > Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? > Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange > vest looks like a 12-point buck? > Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their > own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or > how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a > gun right there? Ok, back it up. Please publish the number of NRA members who shot people in this last year. I do not have these figures at hand but I have the distinct feeling that the number is small. If so, then maybe everybody should join the NRA, huh? > > If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi > semi-automatic machine guns. But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's > and shoot everyone in sight won't. > No, the psychos would undoubtedly find another method. This is really a cheap shot. Though it is true that the guy used a gun to commit this act. From what I have read he would have been just as happy to hack those people up with a sword. You use the incident to inflame people by emotion. Like I said, a cheap shot. A people with rights at least has the chance to be free. The ability to change ones government (with weapons if need be) is a very difficult people to oppress when they do not choose to be. I believe this is the reason why we (the citizens of the United States) were given this right. > joe > > Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better. Naw, that's ok. You're drastic enough for the both of us. -- --Lee (Ward) {ucbvax,convex,gatech,pur-ee}!unmvax!lee
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (01/08/85)
> >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > You're right!! > BAN PEOPLE. When people are banned, only outlaws will be people. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Extend USENET to omicron Ceti.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/08/85)
> -- > [Sunny Kirsten] > >> Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > >> People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > Perhaps. If armed with knives, clubs, or nothing at all, people > who kill must feel the destruction of another's flesh (unless they're > drugged into oblivion). > ken perlow ***** ***** > (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** > ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** And don't for get Poison, Electrocution, Suffocation, ... Please, can we move this to net.politics.gore? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/08/85)
Ok, ok, I give up. I'll bite the bullet and put my two sense worth in here. :-) (though I still think this belongs in net.politics.gore... ) First we get some emotional drivel. > > Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. > > Guns shoot bullets. > > People shoot guns. > > Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. > Then we get some emotional follow up drivel. > Now then, "people" shoot guns and "criminals, fools and hunters" shoot > "people". If "people" would carry their guns then criminals and fools > would not be able to shoot them as "people" would shoot the criminals > and fools. Hunting accidents do occur, unfortunately. So do driving > accidents. I don't see anybody here discussing taking away everybodies > car. They just want them to be responsible while driving. The NRA > would like to see hunters use their guns responsibly. That is > why there is an NRA sponsored hunter safety course available almost > everywhere in the U.S. > The NRA does push for responsible gun use. NRA members are generally reasonable folks who can back up what they say with facts. They are also often at odds with the position of the NRA organization. They do push for gun safty and are generally fanatic about it. They are also often fanatic about their political position too... > > Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. Why lump hunters in with criminals and fools? While I may not like the idea of someone blasting holes in Bamby, it is legal; and for many folks it is not foolish. (Venison does taste good... even if I can't bring myself to shoot a deer when it looks at me. They are *SO* cute. ) Though some of the Sunday Warriors from the city can be a hazard and foolish, they are rarely serious enough to join the NRA. Also, the NRA is very down on criminals. Seems that they are more of a bunch of red neck types.... There is a very high percentage of military and police in the NRA. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the NRA is not a place for criminals or fools. These guys tend to be very picky about technical details, almost as bad as hackers...:-) > > Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? Define for me please an 'armor-piercing bullet'? No can do. There are armor defeating energies, and bullets that can defeat armor at lower energies than others, but no such thing as a magic 'armor-piercing bullet' exists. True, the special coated bullets can pierce armor at lower energies. Also true that *ANY* average deer rifle can pierce police soft body armor with *ANY* bullet. The NRA has stated that it wants the special composition bullets reserved for police use. It also wants to retain the standard hunting bullets for hunting use. Most proposed laws have ignored physics. Defining an armor piercing bullet without regard to the energy with which it travels is an exercise in futility. On to some more emoting... > > Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? > > Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange > > vest looks like a 12-point buck? > > Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their > > own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or > > how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a > > gun right there? > > Ok, back it up. Please publish the number of NRA members who shot people > in this last year. I do not have these figures at hand but I have the > distinct feeling that the number is small. If so, then maybe everybody > should join the NRA, huh? > This is not a good challenge to issue. Given the high percentage of police and military in the NRA, the average NRA member has a higher probability of having shot someone than the average 'guy on the street'. (Though these shooting would have been 'OK' shootings... sigh ) > > > > If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi > > semi-automatic machine guns. But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's > > and shoot everyone in sight won't. > > Another technical error. There is no such thing as a 'semi-automatic machine gun'. This is an oxymoron. Machine gun means full automatic. You can't have a semifull auto... The full automatic Uzi is illegal. The semi-automatic Uzi is less lethal than most semi-automatics as it uses a handgun cartridge (and thus has far less energy than a true rifle.) > > No, the psychos would undoubtedly find another method. This is really > a cheap shot. Though it is true that the guy used a gun to commit this > act. From what I have read he would have been just as happy to hack > those people up with a sword. You use the incident to inflame people > by emotion. Like I said, a cheap shot. > Yes, a cheap shot. And speaking of inflaming people, why not walk into someplace, dump out 5 gals of gas and light a cigarette? Guns are much more effective at killing than most other things *the average person can think of*. But I can walk into the local harware or garden store and walk out with the ingredients for 2 pounds of explosives for less than $5. If some bulk fertilizer is available and some diesel fuel I can make 50 pounds of high explosives for about $8. Want to outlaw fuel? Fertilizer? Knowledge? (No, I won't tell anyone how to make it. Don't ask. I will forward your name to the FBI.) The NRA does manage to ignore the fact that for the average person, the gun is the easiest way to kill. > A people with rights at least has the chance to be free. The ability > to change ones government (with weapons if need be) is a very > difficult people to oppress when they do not choose to be. I believe > this is the reason why we (the citizens of the United States) were > given this right. Sorry Lee, we don't have the right to change the government with weapons. That is strickly a no-no. We do have the right to defend our government against outside agressors by the use of weapons. (To those who will inevitably ridicule the idea of deer rifles against Agressors military: Please look up the muzzle energy of a 30-06 deer cartridge, then a .223 Remington as used by our military. The deer rifles in use today have far more range {especially with telescopic sights} than military guns. They are far more lethal. The foot soldier is still the cornerstone of military force. Those soldiers with modern hunting equipment would be far more deadly. Most hollow point and similar hunting ammunition is outlawed for military use because of the damage it can do. We must be civilized in our warfare, now mustn't we... *BIG* sigh.) > > > joe > > > > Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better. > > Naw, that's ok. You're drastic enough for the both of us. > > -- > --Lee (Ward) > {ucbvax,convex,gatech,pur-ee}!unmvax!lee ONE LAST TIME: Can we please move this to net.politics? I'm tired of all this and I must admit that I would love to have it move to a group to which I don't subscribe... -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/08/85)
> Sunny Kirsten (an AI program?) writes: > > >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > You're right!! > > BAN PEOPLE. > > Richard Carnes (AI program) It figures an AI program would come up with an answer like this. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/08/85)
> > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > Then make it difficult to acquire those tools on a whim. > > Guy Harris > {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy I'd much rather see it made difficult to use those tools on a whim and then return as a free person to society. The problem is our system of "due process" not of the availability of tools. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/08/85)
> > > > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > > > > 10,728 in the united states last year there were 4 or 5 times as many killed on the highways by AUTOMOBILES > > > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > -- > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. > Guns shoot bullets. > People shoot guns. Yes, the root problem is people, those who kill for socially unacceptable reasons like robbery (as opposed to socially acceptable reasons like war). > Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. Accidents are not restricted to guns, but occur with all tools. Training is the answer, not loss of use of those tools which at times are necessary to provide useful functions. > The NRA does NOT shoot criminals, fools, or hunters. The NRA does far more to support the continued existance of wildlife than it does anything else. It also supports the second ammendment to the US Constitution, which many people seem to forget exists. > Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. And net.politics is populated with idiots who make large leaps of illogic. > Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? Since when have armor-piercing bullets constituted a problem? Nobody but the police and military can get them, so your illogic baffles me. > Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? Handguns are useful primarily as defensive weapons, i.e. in the defense of the life of the person carrying one. Offensive tactics favour assault-rifles and larger scale weapons over handguns. The problem is the criminal use of guns, and the failure of society to stop criminals, not the tool itself. > Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange > vest looks like a 12-point buck? only you. > Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their > own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or > how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a > gun right there? And I suppose you think guns are the only tools this is a problem with? > > If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi > semi-automatic machine guns. What NEWSPEAK you mouth! "semi-automatic" and "machine-gun" are mutually exclusive. > But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's > and shoot everyone in sight won't. Won't what? be outlawed? Most problems with guns used illegally are traceable to criminals who become repeat offenders through lack of death. The real problem is that we condone the release of these criminals back upon society. > > joe > > Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better. To this I'd say "see you in net.flame", but since I don't subscribe to that pile of @!#$RR%T^Y&* I hope you get robbed at knife-point by some idiot who has no respect for human life, and has been released on his own recognizance repeatedly. Then maybe you'll begin to think of locking-up or killing criminals, rather than locking up guns. This country was founded on the principle of rugged individualism and self sufficiency and self-responsibility. I see you're too much of a wimp to watch out for your own life, and so would have the government deprive the rest of us of our constitutional right to defend ourselves against the nuts you keep seeing fit to release on the street, no matter how many times they commit violent crimes. You obviously also have never lived outside an urban area or you'd realize that the police can't do a damn thing to keep your ass alive, and will merely come after the fact to mop you up and file reports and explain (not very) sadly to your widow how you died. For those of us who have lived or do live in rural areas, there simply aren't enough police to go around, nor would we want to live in the required police state to have same, and we feel we must take responsibility for our own lives, and protect our own asses from death at the hands of some nut you city folk have released after he's committed numerous crimes against humanity. There is NO substitute for a handgun in the defense of your own life. Although it might seem to you to be a bad idea to have everyone wandering around the city with a sidearm on their hip, there is no substitute in the country. If you disparage the NRA so much, I suggest you look up one of their publications, and read the page titled "The Armed Citizen" and note how many people are glad to be alive and healthy, and share that with their alive and healthy family and relatives, who would not be so had they not had a handy weapon in their homes to defend against the criminals so often not terminated any other way. I think I'd better stop before I being to flame your ignorance. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/08/85)
> > > > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > 10,728 in the united states > > > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > -- > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > The question raised by the numbers given in the original > letter, most of which you have left out, is whether these > People who kill People would have done so if they did > not have access to handguns. Studies say no; what do you say? > > David Albert > -- > ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (ARPAnet) I say the numbers ain't worth the paper they're printed on unless you have the associated sociological study of who pulled the trigger, and what their previous criminal record was. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (01/08/85)
In article <1912@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> >> Last year, Handguns killed >> >> 10,728 in the united states > >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. Bullshit, Sunny. You had to quote out of context to make your assertion anything less than ludicrous. Let's remember the whole article: 41 people in West Germany, 11 in Great Britain, etc. So you are telling us that Americans are 26165% more murderous than Germans. To quote Bill Cosby, RRRRIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT. Mike Royko gives out gun owner awards every year. This year, one of the awards went to a country singer in Dallas. Seems he decided to carry a derringer in his cowboy boot. His girlfriend was helping him take the boots off, and the derringer fell out, fired, and wounded the singer. Handguns don't wound people, boots wound people. John D. McDonald said it best. The difference between a handgun and a knife is that a handgun is impersonal. To successfully murder with a knife, you have to come close enough to engage in a struggle (and usually do so), and most of the time you have to stab repeatedly to actually achieve a kill, despite the fact that blood is very likely gushing from the first wound. Not a project for the weak of stomach. With a gun, on the other hand, you can be across the room. A small sickly person can, in a moment of anger, snatch up a gun, point, squeeze, and fell a burly man. The first shot is usually enough. This is not at all the same thing. Another thing McDonald said: "the only two things you can kill with a handgun are beer cans and people." I have never heard that successfully refuted. Handguns are good target weapons; like anything they can be fun to collect. They are not good for hunting. So I have to confess real suspicion about the people who are so rabid about defending handguns. Who do they want to shoot? Oh, right, the burglar. RRRRRIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTT. You're going to wake up in the middle of the night, rip that pistol out from under your pillow, and plug that sucker square between the eyes. Starting from a sound sleep, and beating the guy to the draw. RRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTT. If you're quick enough to beat the guy to the draw, I bet it turns out to be your brother on a surprise visit. Any *really* dangerous intruder is going to be armed, cocked, and jumpy. Royko's first prize went to a fellow who picked up his gun instead of the ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. That's the sort of thing sleepy people do. Me, I like Larry Niven's/Jerry Pournelle's phrase: "think of it as evolution in action." -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/09/85)
> Yes, a cheap shot. And speaking of inflaming people, why not walk into > someplace, dump out 5 gals of gas and light a cigarette? Guns are > much more effective at killing than most other things *the average person > can think of*. Actually, I can be far more deadly with a molotov cocktail than with a gun. (I'm a lousy shot). Of course, then again it could be hereditary (I'm Irish).
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/09/85)
> > > > > > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > > 10,728 in the united states > > > > > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > > > The question raised by the numbers ... is whether these > > People who kill People would have done so if they did > > not have access to handguns. > > > > I say the numbers ain't worth the paper they're printed on unless you > have the associated sociological study of who pulled the trigger, and > what their previous criminal record was. > -- I saw one posting go by that seemed to assert that the number of handgun related deaths was closer to 20K. 10k from suicide, 6k or so from homicide, and 2k or so from accidents. (I may have garbled the numbers some in my sticky state memory...) From this I would assume that the biggest hunk (1/2) would have commited suicied by gun anyway, even if it were registered, or would have found another way to die (like driving into me on the freeway head on) if guns were banned. The 2k or so accidental should still exist with registration, though should be lower with a ban (assuming of course that the ban didn't just result in a reduction of people seeking training without effecting gun numbers). So really we are talking about more like 6k. Of these, how many were JUSTIFIABLE homicides? Are police shootings accounted for here? How many were people shooting a crook and how many crooks shooting victims? I have no idea if these numbers are at all valid, as I said - my source is a flakey memory of an unknown posting. Well netland, any better analysis? -- The early bird catches the worm, but the early worm gets eaten. So which are you, a worm or a bird brain? (Me? I sleep in...) E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/09/85)
> > >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > You're right!! > > BAN PEOPLE. > When people are banned, only outlaws will be people. > -- > Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) > Extend USENET to omicron Ceti. Here is my problem with 'gun control'. (I am in favor of the *IDEA* of limiting guns in a society... just doesn't seem to work yet.) 1. Cost - do you realize that you are talking about a multi-million dollar operation? Couldn't we save 10k lives easier by spending on other projects? 2. Guns can be MANUFACTURED or SMUGGLED very easily. Witness the gun trade into South American nations. (And Humbolt county, Ca....) 3. The persons most 'hurt' by restricting citizen access to guns are the old, the weak, the small, and women. The big bruser bully can get by just fine with a knife, club, or just plain old size. (Yes, I have been beaten up before, no I don't carry a gun because of it, yes I do understand some lady friends who have a gun in the purse... ) 4. 'Gun nuts' are not going to comply, from those I have talked to. 5. Criminals are not going to comply. (In the Humbolt area of California the most popular weapons for defending Pot farms are full automatic assualt rifles. Highly illegal.) 6. Enough laws already exist. Say one walks into a store for a stick up and has a prior record. What laws were broken? a. Possession of a gun by a felon. b. Conceled (spelled wrong..) weapon. (A gun in a holster is is considered to be hidden.) c. Loaded weapon in city limits (usually a separate crime) d. Assult with a deadly weapon e. Brandishing a weapon f. Use of a gun in the commision of a crime g. And several others I'm sure... Like fireing the gun is two more crimes; the first is discharging a firearm in city limits, the other is murder or aggravated assult or some such. Do you really believe that adding possession of an unregistered gun to the list will stop any one? As for cause to arrest someone before they commit a 'crime'. Possession of a loaded gun in plain sight or not is already covered by several of the above laws. We can already lock them away. 7. It takes about 10 minutes if you are slow to put a hacksaw to a shotgun and make a more leathal weapon that is cheaper and just as small as most handguns. Also easier to buy. The handgun is notoriously inaccurate and low in power when compared to rifles and shotguns. (which is why many sportsmen prefer to hunt with handguns - adds chalenge. And keeps more deer safe :-) ) I don't want the criminal element learning to use sawed off shotguns rather than handguns. Ronnie was shot at close range by a hand gun and lived. Kennedy was shot at long range with a rifle and died. Ford was completely missed by a handgun. Keep criminals ignorant and using handguns. -- The early bird catches the worm, but the early worm gets eaten. So which are you, a worm or a bird brain? (Me? I sleep in...) E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/10/85)
In article <297@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >John D. McDonald said it best. The difference between a handgun and a knife >is that a handgun is impersonal. To successfully murder with a knife, you >have to come close enough to engage in a struggle (and usually do so), and >most of the time you have to stab repeatedly to actually achieve a kill, >despite the fact that blood is very likely gushing from the first wound. >Not a project for the weak of stomach. > A point of view with which I agree completely. >With a gun, on the other hand, you can be across the room. A small sickly >person can, in a moment of anger, snatch up a gun, point, squeeze, and fell >a burly man. The first shot is usually enough. This is not at all the same >thing. > Again, I agree. I also know that a small sickly person can snatch up a gun, point, squeeze, and fell a burly mugger/rapist/... >Another thing McDonald said: "the only two things you can kill with a >handgun are beer cans and people." I have never heard that successfully >refuted. Handguns are good target weapons; like anything they can be fun >to collect. They are not good for hunting. Please, let me be the first to refute it. In 1977, I shot and killed a 5 point buck deer with a Ruger Super Blackhawk, a .44 caliber, single-action revolver. It dressed out at somewhere around 100 pounds and was subsequently eaten with great enjoyment. >Oh, right, the burglar. RRRRRIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTT. You're going to >wake up in the middle of the night, rip that pistol out from under your >pillow, and plug that sucker square between the eyes. Starting from a sound >sleep, and beating the guy to the draw. RRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTT. >If you're quick enough to beat the guy to the draw, I bet it turns out to be >your brother on a surprise visit. Any *really* dangerous intruder is going >to be armed, cocked, and jumpy. > For anyone interested in protecting his life and the lives of his family, I recommend a short-barrel 12 gauge shotgun, behind a simple home security alarm system. Total cost in the neighborhood of $400. The alarm wakes you up, you get the shotgun, and, if the jerk hasn't left, you have sufficient reason to believe he doesn't intend to, so kill him. I suggest #6 or #8 birdshot rather than anything heavier because it won't penetrate walls and, therefore, isn't a danger to your neighbors or family members. >Royko's first prize went to a fellow who picked up his gun instead of the >ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. That's the sort of thing sleepy >people do. > Geoff Kuenning Yes, they do. We all do stupid things occasionally and we all have to pay, in one form or another, for our mistakes. If I ever do something like this, go ahead and laugh at me, I'll deserve it. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull ihnp4!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
bermes@ihu1m.UUCP (Terry Bermes) (01/10/85)
Sunny Kirsten writes of the NRA:
"It also supports the second ammendment to the US
Constitution, which many people seem to forget exists."
However, the second amendment, in its entirety, reads:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This hardly seems to support a private citizen's claim of the right to
own a handgun. As a matter of fact on October 3, 1983, the Supreme Court
refused to overturn a handgun law in Morton Grove, Illinois. The Supreme
Court let stand a Court of Appeals ruling which stated,"....possession
of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms...".
The quote above comes from the phamphlet "Handgun Facts" distributed by
Handgun Control, Inc. Of course this will probably be immediately discounted
by those opposed to handgun control because the information comes from a
pro-control (not pro-ban) organization.
Terry Bermesdevine@asgb.UUCP (01/10/85)
> > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > 10,728 in the united states > > > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > -- > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > The question raised by the numbers given in the original > letter, most of which you have left out, is whether these > People who kill People would have done so if they did > not have access to handguns. Studies say no; what do you say? > > David Albert -- ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (ARPAnet) The answer is not a strict 'yes' or 'no' to this. The studies that I read (some 3 years ago) show that in situations where a person has a knife instead of a gun, that person is only 1/5th as likely to kill someone. The study attempted to even out the differences so that the 20% figure was not for an apples-and-oranges type of comparison. Bob Devine
daly@nybcb.UUCP (daly) (01/11/85)
>From cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!CSL-Vax!pallas Fri Jan 4 12:41:49 1985 >Subject: Re: Merry Christmas from the NRA >Newsgroups: net.politics,net.rec >Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. >Guns shoot bullets. >People shoot guns. >Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. >The NRA does NOT shoot criminals, fools, or hunters. >Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. >Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? >Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? >Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange >vest looks like a 12-point buck? >Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their >own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or >how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a >gun right there? > >If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi >semi-automatic machine guns. But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's >and shoot everyone in sight won't. > >joe > >Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better. In regards the above statement about the NRA being composed of criminals, fools, and hunters: Well one out of three isn't too bad,for a warped liberal, that is. I take particular offense to your remark. I have a lot of friends who are NRA members & although they are hunters, they are not criminals or fools. I, myself am not a member, but I do think it is a good organization. I am now considering joining. seismo!cmcl2!nybcb!daly
wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) (01/11/85)
In article <1924@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >This country was founded on the principle of rugged individualism and >self sufficiency and self-responsibility. I see you're too much of a >wimp to watch out for your own life, and so would have the government >deprive the rest of us of our constitutional right to defend ourselves >against the nuts you keep seeing fit to release on the street, no >matter how many times they commit violent crimes. You obviously also >have never lived outside an urban area or you'd realize that the police >can't do a damn thing to keep your ass alive, and will merely come >after the fact to mop you up and file reports and explain (not very) >sadly to your widow how you died. For those of us who have lived or do >live in rural areas, there simply aren't enough police to go around, >nor would we want to live in the required police state to have same, >and we feel we must take responsibility for our own lives, and protect >our own asses from death at the hands of some nut you city folk have >released after he's committed numerous crimes against humanity. There >is NO substitute for a handgun in the defense of your own life. >Although it might seem to you to be a bad idea to have everyone >wandering around the city with a sidearm on their hip, there is no >substitute in the country. If Sunny's representative, I not sure graduate school in the US is such a good idea! --andy fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/11/85)
In article <297@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Royko's first prize went to a fellow who picked up his gun instead of the >ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. That's the sort of thing sleepy >people do. Me, I like Larry Niven's/Jerry Pournelle's phrase: "think of >it as evolution in action." >-- Well, Geoff, if that's the way you think of it, why do you want to stop evolution? You aren't one of those creationists, are you??? "Same as it ever was..." Frank Adrian
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/11/85)
Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America?
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (01/12/85)
> If Sunny's representative, I not sure graduate school in the US is > such a good idea! > > --andy fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe > wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet > If Andy is representative, I'm not sure attending graduate school in Canada is such a good idea! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) Ed Sheppard Bell Communications Research
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/12/85)
> ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff Geoff Kuenning writes: > In article <1912@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: > > >> > >> Last year, Handguns killed > >> > >> 10,728 in the united states > > > >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > Bullshit, Sunny. You had to quote out of context to make your assertion > anything less than ludicrous. Let's remember the whole article: 41 people > in West Germany, 11 in Great Britain, etc. So you are telling us that > Americans are 26165% more murderous than Germans. Yes, I am. Our culture is rampant with violence. Turn on your televison and watch how we're being indoctrinated to ACCEPT violence as normal. You don't see any where near as much real love (ref: net.singles: what is love?) as you do real violence on the BIG BROTHER BOX > > [numerous ancedotal evidence of bozos having accidents] there are more accidental deaths from automobiles than from guns. > > John D. McDonald said it best. The difference between a handgun and a knife > is that a handgun is impersonal. To successfully murder with a knife, you > have to come close enough to engage in a struggle (and usually do so), and > most of the time you have to stab repeatedly to actually achieve a kill, > despite the fact that blood is very likely gushing from the first wound. > Not a project for the weak of stomach. > > With a gun, on the other hand, you can be across the room. A small sickly > person can, in a moment of anger, snatch up a gun, point, squeeze, and fell > a burly man. The first shot is usually enough. This is not at all the same > thing. So fucking what? And you'd deprive your grandmother the right to stop an intruder in her house from raping her visiting grandaughter? > > Another thing McDonald said: "the only two things you can kill with a > handgun are beer cans and people." I have never heard that successfully > refuted. Handguns are good target weapons; like anything they can be fun > to collect. They are not good for hunting. Wrong again. There are quite a few who take handgun hunting quite seriously. > So I have to confess real > suspicion about the people who are so rabid about defending handguns. Who > do they want to shoot? Rapists, criminals, burglers, and anyone else who invites themselves into my home > > Oh, right, the burglar. RRRRRIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTT. You're going to > wake up in the middle of the night, rip that pistol out from under your > pillow, and plug that sucker square between the eyes. Starting from a sound > sleep, and beating the guy to the draw. RRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTT. No, I'm not that stupid. The burgler alarm will let me get the drop on him and perform a citizens arrest. > If you're quick enough to beat the guy to the draw, I bet it turns out to be > your brother on a surprise visit. Any *really* dangerous intruder is going > to be armed, cocked, and jumpy. Yes, but so am I, especially when awakened in the middle of the night by things which go bump. > > Royko's first prize went to a fellow who picked up his gun instead of the > ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. That's the sort of thing sleepy > people do. Me, I like Larry Niven's/Jerry Pournelle's phrase: "think of > it as evolution in action." > -- Oh, it is, it is. Welcome to 1984, you lover of Big Brother. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/13/85)
> If Sunny's representative, I not sure graduate school in the US is > such a good idea! > > --andy fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe > wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet say what? I don't know any graduate schools teaching firearms safety, I haven't been to graduate school, and I didn't see any other mention of graduate schools in the rest of the discussion on: the right to arm bears. Therefore, I presume you've reconsidered coming from Canada to the US for your graduate work? In any case, I'm only representative of myself. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/13/85)
> Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the > teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? Yes, fix the revolving-door "due-process" system so that criminals are kept off the streets, so they don't keep getting out of the slammer to repeatedly mug,rob,rape and kill. When there is the fear of death in the minds of criminals, then crime will stop, and not till then. Because they know they can get away with murder and literally be back out on the streets in a max of 7 years with good behaviour even on a "life" sentence, they continue to find crime profitable. When they fear that plain-vanilla citizens will shoot back (un-ban handguns), or that they will in fact either remain in jail for life, or get killed by the justice system, then they will stop being criminals. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/13/85)
> > > > Last year, Handguns killed > > > > 10,728 in the united states > > > > > > Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. > > > People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > > > -- > > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > > > People who kill People would have done so if they did > > not have access to handguns. Studies say no; what do you say? > > > > David Albert -- ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (ARPAnet) > > [If] person has a knife instead of a gun, that person is only 1/5th as > likely to kill someone. > > Bob Devine So what? All that this means is that when you intend to kill someone, you're more likely to pick a gun than a knife. This may reflect the ease of use of the tool, or only its reputation. And what does it have to do with gun "control"? In Japan, with its strict controls, assault is twice as likely to result in death as in the US. My personal interpretation is that Japanese are much less likely to attack unless they really intend to kill. --JoSH
cjn@calmasd.UUCP (Cheryl Nemeth) (01/13/85)
In article <tty3b.569> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the >teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? I would doubt it. -- Cheryl Nemeth All opinions expressed in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Calma Company or my cats. "Life is a series of rude awakenings" R. V. Winkle [Robert Asprin]
cjn@calmasd.UUCP (Cheryl Nemeth) (01/13/85)
How about creating a net.guns (or net.politics.guns)? There is definately enough interest. -- Cheryl Nemeth All opinions expressed in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Calma Company or my cats. "Life is a series of rude awakenings" R. V. Winkle [Robert Asprin]
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ihu1m!gadfly / 4:47 pm Jan 4, 1985 >-- >[Sunny Kirsten] >>> Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >>> People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > >Perhaps. If armed with knives, clubs, or nothing at all, people >who kill must feel the destruction of another's flesh (unless they're >drugged into oblivion). With a gun, though, you can shoot at an >abstraction, deal death at a distance. People who fire guns at others >may not, in their own minds, be killing real individuals. But I don't >know, I've never done it. Are there any war vets, ex-cops, or other >folks out there who have intentionally fired a gun at a person? Look, Ken. In the case of handgun-only control, these squeamish people you're talking about would NOT arm themselves with knives, but with long guns, or perhaps sawed-off shotguns. Those advocating controlling, or banning ALL such weapons, please say so.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / desint!geoff / 9:26 pm Jan 10, 1985 >In article <1912@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: > >>> >>> Last year, Handguns killed >>> >>> 10,728 in the united states >> >>Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >>People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. > >Bullshit, Sunny. You had to quote out of context to make your assertion >anything less than ludicrous. Let's remember the whole article: 41 people >in West Germany, 11 in Great Britain, etc. So you are telling us that >Americans are 26165% more murderous than Germans. > >To quote Bill Cosby, > > RRRRIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT. > What a remarkable article -- Sunny was making the point that whatever number of killings with guns there was, it was due to people, not guns. YOU on the other hand, do the following computation: 10728 killings (America) ------------------------ = 261.65 41 killings (Germany) Therefore, Americans are 26165% more murderous than Germans. This, all by itself, probably deserves a chapter in "How to Lie with Statistics". You did not correct for relative population, (just as a start), nor do you have any control for Germans and Americans under the same laws (so that you can evaluate how they respond to different ones), nor do you compare the relative homicide rates for ALL types of killings. And you have the GALL to claim that Sunny "quoted out of context"! Next time, take it to net.flame: we have SOME standards here (I hope!)
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/14/85)
---------- >Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the >teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? ---------- Good heavens, yes. I don't exactly walk around with a firearm under my arm now myself. Nor do I wish to. But I expect to be able to do so if I feel it's necessary. Just for starters, how about properly enforcing the laws already on the books concerning crimes committed with a deadly weapoon? The frequency with which a criminal convicted of a violent crime is released on probation is alarmingly high. I personally am in favor of a minimum sentence of, say, 5 or 10 years with no chance of parole for those convicted of such violent crimes. This is one of the gun owner's primary complaints with attempts to "control" firearms of any kind: they add to the legislative burden of the gun owner himself while expressing no readily-identifiable concern to deal properly with those who have already demonstrated their antisocial behavior. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (01/14/85)
> No, I'm not that stupid. The burgler alarm will let me get the > drop on him and perform a citizens arrest. > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny Ahh yes, the armed homeowner v.s. the unidentified intruder. Let's assume for the moment that it is an intruder, not your child, or a guest you forgot you had. Scenario number 1: You shout "Freeze buddy, I've got a gun, and I'm making a citizens arrest!" The intruder, also armed, given your kindly warning about your gun, turns and blows you away. Scenario number 2: Not wanting to be shot, you shoot the intruder at first glance. Could you handle number 2? Really? Becasue it's the only way you'll get him. He's prepared to kill, or he wouldn't be in your house with a gun. Are you? Really? "Christ never carried a gun." Chuck Jones "Christ was never mugged!" ...mgnetp!ll1!cej "...Oh..."
cjn@calmasd.UUCP (Cheryl Nemeth) (01/14/85)
In article <sun.1936> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the >> teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? >Yes, fix the revolving-door "due-process" system so that criminals are kept >off the streets, so they don't keep getting out of the slammer to repeatedly >mug,rob,rape and kill. When there is the fear of death in the minds of >criminals, then crime will stop, and not till then. Because they know they >can get away with murder and literally be back out on the streets in a max of >7 years with good behaviour even on a "life" sentence, they continue to find >crime profitable. When they fear that plain-vanilla citizens will shoot back >(un-ban handguns), or that they will in fact either remain in jail for life, >or get killed by the justice system, then they will stop being criminals. >-- >{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny Brilliant idea, banning due process. Why not just toss out the Constitution? After all, there are lots of things in it that aren't useful in a modern society. (banning slavery, freedom of the press, trial by jury; you name it and it's in there.) Just think of all the people we could keep in jail if it didn't exist! -- Cheryl Nemeth All opinions expressed in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Calma Company or my cats. "Life is a series of rude awakenings" R. V. Winkle [Robert Asprin]
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (01/15/85)
> > Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the > > teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? > Yes, fix the revolving-door "due-process" system so that criminals are kept > off the streets, so they don't keep getting out of the slammer to repeatedly > mug,rob,rape and kill. When there is the fear of death in the minds of > criminals, then crime will stop, and not till then. Because they know they > can get away with murder and literally be back out on the streets in a max of > 7 years with good behaviour even on a "life" sentence, they continue to find > crime profitable. When they fear that plain-vanilla citizens will shoot back > (un-ban handguns), or that they will in fact either remain in jail for life, > or get killed by the justice system, then they will stop being criminals. > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny The cities that have adopted MANDATORY weapon ordinances (e.g., the one in Georgia that did it just to spite Morton Grove) have all experienced a significant DECREASE in crime. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/15/85)
* > Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the > teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? "An armed society is a polite one." Robert A. Heinlein -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) (01/15/85)
In article <1935@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> If Sunny's representative, I not sure graduate school in the US is >> such a good idea! >> >> --andy fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe >> wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet > >say what? I don't know any graduate schools teaching firearms safety, I >haven't been to graduate school, and I didn't see any other mention of >graduate schools in the rest of the discussion on: >the right to arm bears. >Therefore, I presume you've reconsidered coming from Canada to the US for >your graduate work? >In any case, I'm only representative of myself. > Sunny >-- >{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny The figures, as I recall, were about 50 deaths in Canada, 10,000 in the US. About 200 times more, for a country only 10 times larger. What you are trying to tell me is that these figures reflect the relative danger in living in the US (after all, you seem to think you *need* to own a hand gun, while I've never felt that threatened here). Do I want to spend 5 years living in the US if it's as bad as you make it seem? Just for the record, how does crime in general compare? Does the 20 times figure (one tenth of 200) still apply? (Might be interesting to compare these figures, particularly the armed vs unarmed crimes.) I thought the word "militia" was right next to "right to bear arms". Must mean something else to me. Clearly we have very opposite and strongly held viewpoints, so I'll be quiet now (there's no point in arguing -- it'll go nowhere). --Andy Fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/15/85)
> >>> > >>> Last year, Handguns killed > >>> ... I'm sure you're all tired of seeing this by now... > >.... So you are telling us that > >Americans are 26165% more murderous than Germans. > > This, all by itself, probably deserves a chapter in "How to Lie with > Statistics". > > You did not correct for relative population, (just as a start), nor > do you have any control for Germans and Americans under the same > laws (so that you can evaluate how they respond to different ones), nor > do you compare the relative homicide rates for ALL types of killings. That particular comparison, as the astute reader will have inferred from something I posted earlier, is straight from HCI's "Guns Don't Die, People Do." It can be distinguished from "How to Lie with Statistics" in that it consists only of the examples. --JoSH
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/15/85)
------- > Ahh yes, the armed homeowner v.s. the unidentified intruder. > Let's assume for the moment that it is an intruder, not your > child, or a guest you forgot you had. > Scenario number 1: You shout "Freeze buddy, I've got a gun, > and I'm making a citizens arrest!" The intruder, also armed, given > your kindly warning about your gun, turns and blows you away. > Scenario number 2: Not wanting to be shot, you shoot the > intruder at first glance. > Could you handle number 2? Really? Becasue it's the only > way you'll get him. He's prepared to kill, or he wouldn't be in > your house with a gun. Are you? Really? ---------- We've gone the rounds on this one before, I think. S#1: If you're stupid enough to stand where you can be seen when you make the statement, you deserve what you get. "Evolution in action," and all that. S#2: No person trained in firearms fires at anything until it is completely identified. Nor would he fire without provocation; the courts have a hard time with that, and for good reason. Go ahead, create such scenarios. All they demonstrate is your own lack of understanding of the proper use of firearms, and they do not detract from the validity of the arguments of those of us who do understand. A better solution all around, given the above conditions, is to hide first, out of sight, then announce your intentions about arrest and such. If he fires at you then (he'd be firing rather blindly since you're out of sight), you are entitled to return fire in self-defense. If he flees, so much the better. Suggestions for better solutions than this are certainly welcome. If you're not willing to fire at all, you'd best not challenge any burglar any time. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/15/85)
> > No, I'm not that stupid. The burgler alarm will let me get the > > drop on him and perform a citizens arrest. > > > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > Ahh yes, the armed homeowner v.s. the unidentified intruder. > > Let's assume for the moment that it is an intruder, not your > child, or a guest you forgot you had. > > Scenario number 1: You shout "Freeze buddy, I've got a gun, > and I'm making a citizens arrest!" The intruder, also armed, given > your kindly warning about your gun, turns and blows you away. > > Scenario number 2: Not wanting to be shot, you shoot the > intruder at first glance. > > Could you handle number 2? Really? Becasue it's the only > way you'll get him. He's prepared to kill, or he wouldn't be in > your house with a gun. Are you? Really? > > > "Christ never carried a gun." Chuck Jones > "Christ was never mugged!" ...mgnetp!ll1!cej > > "...Oh..." Yes, I really am prepared to pump 7 hollow-point slugs into the guy. It may cost me an incarnation or two of bad karma, but I really would blow-away anyone who trys to deprive me or mine of life, or the property required to sustain that life. And those who live in my house and who have keys to legally enter it, are well known to me, and are well aware of the need to not sneak around in the dark, and are also educated in the ways of firearms. The way to prevent accidents with firearms is not to keep them away from {the spouse,children}, but to educate them in their useage and their dangers. Yes, I understand the need to either appear unarmed or immediately blast away. You never point a gun at anything you wouldn't hesitate to kill. Otherwise you're only increasing your chances of death by escalating to deadly force an otherwise non-deadly confrontation. The laws are very clear that there are no restrictions on carry or concealment of weapons at your office or on your property (home). You may see fit to re-re-re-release criminals onto the streets, but I ain't takin' no shit from no-one on my property or in my home. I ain't the fastest draw nor the surest hit, but I ain't yielding to threat of force neither. ... down on the farm ... in the wild west Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/15/85)
> In article <1935@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: > >> If Sunny's representative, I not sure graduate school in the US is > >> such a good idea! > >> > >> --andy fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe > >> wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet > > > >say what? I don't know any graduate schools teaching firearms safety, I > >haven't been to graduate school, and I didn't see any other mention of > >graduate schools in the rest of the discussion on: > >the right to arm bears. > >Therefore, I presume you've reconsidered coming from Canada to the US for > >your graduate work? > >In any case, I'm only representative of myself. > > Sunny > >-- > >{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny > > The figures, as I recall, were about 50 deaths in Canada, 10,000 in the > US. About 200 times more, for a country only 10 times larger. What you > are trying to tell me is that these figures reflect the relative danger > in living in the US (after all, you seem to think you *need* to own a > hand gun, while I've never felt that threatened here). Do I want to > spend 5 years living in the US if it's as bad as you make it seem? Just > for the record, how does crime in general compare? Does the 20 times > figure (one tenth of 200) still apply? (Might be interesting to compare > these figures, particularly the armed vs unarmed crimes.) > > I thought the word "militia" was right next to "right to bear arms". > Must mean something else to me. > > Clearly we have very opposite and strongly held viewpoints, so I'll be > quiet now (there's no point in arguing -- it'll go nowhere). > > --Andy Fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe > wjafyfe@waterloo.csnet Far better to take the Swiss approach of arming every citizen and letting the people defend their country, than to have a band of mercenaries hired by the government (sometimes called an Army) at the political whims of the President. This country was founded on the principle of the wisdom of the People to carry out a just government, and keeping all the people armed to let them defend against the tyrrany of a government out of control. Those who left europes tyrranical governments to found the U.S of A. were determined that they should not again find themselves under a tyrranical government, and that that government should answer to the people. The only guarantee of that is the ability of the armed populace to oust the government by force when the governmentally enacted procedures fail to keep it in check. When the government trys to disarm the populace, you know it's become tyrranical. For a just government has no fear of an armed populace. Thomas Jefferson was quite a revolutionary radical, no? Go ahead, forfeit YOUR freedom and arms to the government. That's the first step toward state slavery. I believe in the constitution. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the united states of america. And to the republic for which it stands. One nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our President, congressmen, and senators are sworn to uphold the constitution of the U.S. It's not clear to me they weren't lying. I'm prepared to give my life upholding that constitution, and the principles it embodies. It very clearly indicates that it supports the rights and freedoms of the individual, free of the tyrrany of oppressive government. Support your country, but never trust it's government. It takes eternal vigilance to keep your hard-won freedoms. There are many who would take away your personal freedoms in the interest of furthering their economic or political interests. Watch them carefully, and vote them out of office when they threaten personal freedoms. When voting fails to remove them, the government has become tyrranical. And when that is the case, the "government" is no longer a constitutional government, and no longer IS the government of this land which is governed by a piece of paper, the constitution. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
johnsson@chalmers.UUCP (Thomas Johnsson) (01/16/85)
In article <1912@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> >> Last year, Handguns killed >> >> 10,728 in the united states > >Fact is, Handguns never kill anyone. >People kill People, and they use a variety of tools to do so. >-- >{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny That may well be so. But a Nervous Human Being behaves the same way wherever he/she are; and is a weapon is available in a nervous situation, it is likely to be used. A handgun is an unusually effective way of killing the other guy. The figures speak for themselves. -- Thomas Johnsson ..decvax!mcvax!enea!chalmers!johnsson Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/16/85)
> The figures, as I recall, were about 50 deaths in Canada, 10,000 in the > US. About 200 times more, for a country only 10 times larger. What you > are trying to tell me is that these figures reflect the relative danger > in living in the US (after all, you seem to think you *need* to own a > hand gun, while I've never felt that threatened here). Do I want to > spend 5 years living in the US if it's as bad as you make it seem? Just > for the record, how does crime in general compare? Does the 20 times > figure (one tenth of 200) still apply? (Might be interesting to compare > these figures, particularly the armed vs unarmed crimes.) Alright...all the below figures are RATES, ie crimes per 100,000 population per year, and are thus directly comparable: The murder rate in the US varies considerably depending on where you live. In North Dakota, it's 1.2, in New York, it's 10.3. In Canada, by comparison, it is 5.9. Violent crime rates: N.Dakota, 67, New York 841, Canada 592. Property crimes, N.D. 2405, NY 5792, Canada 4672. New Jersey is similar to Canada on all counts. In general, the denser the population, the higher the crime rates. The US is more urbanized than Canada. But if you're moving, you can (should) pick your spot... By the way, the "handgun deaths" figures the gun-haters quote is quite misleading; the number of homocides per year my almanac lists for Canada is 1400. Canada's pistol laws seem only to have altered the *distribution by weapon* of its murders. --JoSH
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/16/85)
> In article <tty3b.569> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: > >Do the pro-gun people have any suggestion other than arming everyone to the > >teeth and shooting it out in the subways and streets of America? > > I would doubt it. > -- > Cheryl Nemeth I already answered "No". Please stop this plagiarism at once.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/16/85)
>
It is sort of an aside, but it is not wise to confront
an intruder in your home. The best thing to do is to shut
the bedroom door and say in a loud voice.
"There is someone in the house dear. I have the shotgun,
you call the police."
You probably do not even need a shotgun, though I would
prefer to have one.
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382
109 Torrey Pine Terr.
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
ihnp4!pesnta -\
fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny
ucbvax!twg -/wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) (01/25/85)
The right to Bare arms? Shouldn't this discussion be in net.rec.nude? :-) wm