shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/10/85)
In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > >The fact that the gun controllers response is emotional is of consideral >importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they >don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can >trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes >immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. >I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit >is honest enough to do so here. > This sort of statement is not only ludicrous, but insulting. I don't "hate guns". From day to day, I don't even think much about them, much less "hate" them. What I do hate is the thought of more than 30 people killed each day by handguns. And I believe that strong national handgun laws which (a) required each person buying a handgun to take a course (b) required background checks (c) required detailed record-keeping would cause the number of deaths to go down substantially. I also think banning the sale of handguns would dramatically decrease the number of deaths. Apparently Hall doesn't think so. We disagree. As for the sentence containing the word "honest"--this is a ploy that should be familiar to anyone who ever debated, and I assume most netters recognize it. Either I admit his premise, or I'm "dishonest". Pure drivel. Jeff Shallit University of Chicago
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/11/85)
In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > The fact that the gun controllers' response is emotional is of considerable > importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they > don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can > trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes > immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. > I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit > is honest enough to do so here. World-class bullshit, but Jeff has made an adequate response and I would just like to ask JoSH what his explanation is for the alleged fact that advocates of handgun control hate guns. I can't imagine why anyone would hate or even dislike guns--I love 'em, myself. For those who may be unaware, JoSH is the gentleman who "moderates" fa.poli-sci by appending his own smartass comments to each article. JoSH belongs to that unfortunate class of people who believe that their own point of view is the only possible one for a decent and reasonable person to hold (like James Watt, who divides the U.S. population into "liberals" and "Americans"). A person with this kind of outlook is the last person who should be moderating a political discussion. One need only note how JoSH attacks the motives of the advocates of handgun control in the above-quoted article, claiming that they don't care if the murder rate increases 100-fold. That doesn't deserve a reply. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/13/85)
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes, replies: > In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > > The fact that the gun controllers' response is emotional is of considerable > > importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they > > don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can > > trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes > > immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. > > I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit > > is honest enough to do so here. > > World-class bullshit, but Jeff has made an adequate response and I would > just like to ask JoSH what his explanation is for the alleged fact that > advocates of handgun control hate guns. I can't imagine why anyone would > hate or even dislike guns--I love 'em, myself. Please re-read the very paragraph you quoted... I've had considerable personal contact with people of the gun-control persuasion, and many of them have declared outright their feelings on the subject. Mr. Shallit identified himself with HCI, a rabidly gun-hating (let's be precise, handgun-hating) organization. Given his unstinting efforts in support of their point of view, what else am I reasonably to conclude? > > For those who may be unaware, JoSH is the gentleman who "moderates" > fa.poli-sci by appending his own smartass comments to each article. > Thanks for the advertising-- I'm sure that the readership can form their own opinions of my remarks and don't need to borrow yours... > JoSH belongs to that unfortunate class of people who believe that their own > point of view is the only possible one for a decent and reasonable person to > hold ... No, I'm one of those people who objects when someone tries to deprive them of their basic rights. I don't giva a damn what you do so long as it doesn't affect me; but you and the other political "control" enthusiasts would like nothing better than to cram me and everybody else into your image of the good ("nice guys who carry guns aren't nice guys"). > One need only note how JoSH > attacks the motives of the advocates of handgun control in the above-quoted > article, ... where it's perfectly alright for you to attack mine? Come now; considering the vitriolic slander that you guys have been dumping on the NRA this should come as no surprise to you. *Every* attempt at a political power play covers itself with claims to righteousness and public good. The gun-haters are no exception. Shields' rhetoric is nothing new; Hitler gave similar reasons to confiscate privately owned guns in Germany in the 30's. And more 'public good' cant when he herded the now-defenseless people off to the gas chambers. > ... That doesn't deserve a reply. How clever of you to have given one anyway. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/14/85)
> In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > > > >The fact that the gun controllers response is emotional is of consideral > >importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they > >don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can > >trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes > >immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. > >I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit > >is honest enough to do so here. > > [Jeff responds:] > This sort of statement is not only ludicrous, but insulting. > I don't "hate guns". From day to day, I don't even think much about them, > much less "hate" them. I doubt that, considering the volume of material you've submitted to this newsgroup over the month I've been reading it. I repeat: the HCI propaganda is highly emotionally charged stuff, and it's easy to read it and go rushing out to save the world with your heart on your sleeve. > What I do hate is the thought of more than 30 people killed each > day by handguns. Well, let's see. A (1981) almanac and a calculator provide the following breakdown: In the US, 5205 people die every day. Most die of disease, about half heart disease. (Major cause: smoking.) 273 of the deaths are from accidents, about half (136) auto. 38 die from falling down. 19 people drown. 17 are burned to death. 14 people are fatally poisoned. 8 people choke to death on something they were eating. ...and 5 die in gun accidents (of all kinds). Each day, 73 people commit suicide, and 55 are murdered. 5 in New York City alone, with its super-strict "gun control". If we accept Jeff's figure, more people die falling off ladders and downstairs than from handguns. --and that includes ALL handgun death. Falling is a favorite way to commit suicide but that's not included in the accident figure. (Suicide deaths are included in Jeff's number--remember what I said about panaceas?) Where is the push for stair registration? Ladder waiting periods? Mandatory sentences for swimming without a license? FOOD CONTROL!!! If you seek more corroboration for my contention that gun control is an emotionally motivated political power play, recall the recently quoted "awards" by Mike Royko (a nationally syndicated columnist) for gun accidents. Royko obviously hates gun owners; would he give an award for Person With Most Artistic Third Degree Burns All Over His Body? For Remains Most Widely Scattered in a Car Accident? For Most Broken Bones From a Stepladder Fall? No--cruel jibes that would be considered disgustingly callous and uncivilized are just fine when directed at gun owners. I believe that if Jeff were seriously concerned about people dying in the US, he might (a) lend his writing talents and net access to a graphic discussion of emphysema, perhaps causing some reader to quit smoking and thereby actually doing something to save lives; or if he is fascinated with murder per se, (b) try for stricter sentencing laws for actual crimes against persons (since a large percentage of murders are done by someone on conditional release (probation or parole) for violent crimes of which they have been convicted; (c) work to repeal the drug laws and put a large portion of the underworld out of business. Assuming that Jeff's fondest wish came true, and (another) national gun law were passed, and somehow magically all handgun owners repented of their sins, and gave up their guns to be beaten into plowshares, and nobody jumped off a bridge because he couldn't shoot himself, and nobody robbed a store with a sawed-off shotgun because he couldn't get a "Saturday Night Special", and nobody shot at a political figure with a hunting rifle because he couldn't get a .22 target pistol; THEN, the number of people who died every day might go from 5205 to 5175. I look at the rhetoric askance. --JoSH