ganns@hound.UUCP (R.GANNS) (05/24/85)
At the risk of sounding like I'm taking any of this seriously, I'll
say that the .45 ACP and the .44 Mag were designed for very different
purposes; the ACP was designed for self defense against human assailants
while the .44 Mag was developed for big game hunting (for very experienced
pistoleros only) by a Montana cowboy named Elmer Keith, who actually used
it to bring down an elephant, several bears, and even a pronghorn antelope
on the run at the incredible distance of over 400 yards; Elmer was a good
shot.
The 44 mag is not a good self-defense weapon; the muzzle blast and recoil
make it hard to handle, and the penetration of the bullet makes it too
dangerous for use in urban situations; even Dirty Harry knew that, and
used watered-down handloads in his S&W M29.
The .45 ACP is probably the most reliable man-stopping handgun ever
designed, but it requires much regular practice to maintain proficiency,
and in the dark, a frightened home-owner may not be able to use it
well, even if (s)he is a good shot at the practice range.
The best home defense firearm is the 12 Ga. pump shotgun, with the shortest
barrel you can legally get. The deterrent value of just the sight of this
gun will make any sane assailant think twice before attacking. If you do
have to use it, it will be far easier to hit a moving target with the
shotgun than with the pistol, especially in the dark. The sound that
the pump slide makes is also very distinctive, and will quickly convince
any hiding prowler that his life is in mortal danger.
Finally, if you confront a prowler in your house, and he (how likely is
it to be a "she" ??) has a gun, then you must shoot first, and shoot
to kill. You'll be doing yourself and society a big favor.
-- Rich Ganns ihnp4!hou2a!hound!gannshga@mit-eddie.UUCP (Harold Ancell) (05/25/85)
The points Rich Ganns makes about a shotgun being generally superior to a 45 ACP pistol for home defense by the unpractised are generally correct BUT remember this: Shotguns are unwieldly, especially in the close confines of a house. Be \very/ careful checking out the "bump in the night." And it is very easy for an assailant to take a shotgun away from you. Someone grasping the outside of your grip has better leverage, so you are best treating a shotgun as a stick if things get that close. If you are holding him at gunpoint and are the only one in the house, you'll have to call the police with one hand and hold the shotgun with the other. You will do well to keep him as far away from you as reasonable. Your best bet is to 1) buy a Colt 45 auto (most variants and "improvments" over John Browning's design are inferior, including the latest Colt Officers ACP) and a shotgun (Remmington 870 is probably the best available) for the person backing you up, GET SOME TRAINING (send mail to me if you want pointers to places), and pratice every month or so. Get an air pistol if getting to a range is difficult. And get the book "The Truth about Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob. Its the best and most experienced source I've found. And for the unexperienced with guns, for God's and your loved one's sake, remember 1) a gun is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS loaded, even if you just checked it, 2) Don't point a gun or fire at anything you haven't positively identified as something you want to destroy, and 3) Think about what is behind your target; a bedroom, perhaps? I hope none of us ever is in one of the situations, and I hope you find this useful. - Harold
emery@gypsy.UUCP (05/30/85)
(into the fray...)
If I were buying a weapon for myself, I'd agree with a pump shotgun. But,
for my wife (5'2, somewhere around 100 lbs, she won't tell me), I think I'd
go with a M-1 Carbine or an AR-15 (civilian M-16).
First, I doubt my wife could hold a .45, let alone fire one. Secondly, it is
easier to shoot yourself with any pistol than a rifle/shotgun. Third, a rifle
in the house is not considered as threatening as a rifle. (This may be good
or bad, but it is best if no one knows you have any weapon in the house.)
For a smaller person, particularly one who is scared #@$%^&*less, a shotgun's
recoil would be too hard to handle. Remember, you have to be ready for a
12 guage; in the dark with some father raper/mother stabber on the loose,
you probably are not as composed as you should be. Therefore, despite
the 6 round magazine, you would probably not get off more than one good shot.
This brings up the argument of: is one shot sufficient? Your intruder,
having been shot at, hopefully will leave the house. Well, I for one do
not want to bet ALL my cookies on this one hope. Therefore, although I
hope he leaves after the first shot, I want to be ready in case he isn't
cooperating.
So, why an M-1 Carbine or AR-15? Several reasons. They are small and light,
and therefore easy for a small female to handle. Although they kick,
it's nowhere near as bad as a shotgun. Being rifles, they are easier to
hold with two hands, also useful as clubs and maybe a bit harder to turn
on their owners. There is one more reason. If I decide to shoot at
an intruder, then I figure if the first 5 or 6 shots don't get him, the next
10 will. In other words, you can shoot (almost) forever. 30 rounds of
ammunition can last a Long Time. This is important especially if there is
more than one bad guy.
Between the two rifles, I'd rather have the M-1. The primary reason is
cost; an M-1 Carbine is much cheaper than an AR-15. However, I suspect
that a ballistics expert might argue for the AR-15 in an enclosed area.
Dave Emery
{princeton|ihnp4}!siemens!emery
p.s. I do NOT have a weapon in the house, but my wife and I have talked
about it.wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/31/85)
Re using an AR-15 or M1 Carbine for in-house defense: the main problem with either of these is that, for ultimate reliability, you want military-type full-metal-jacket bullets in the cartridges you use. Yet those are also highly penetrating, and can zing right through most modern (= shoddy) construction, through your house walls into your neighbors' houses, through several rooms within your house, etc. Now, if you live in a good solid old house, and/or you live out in open country, this might make no difference, and those would be good choices for the other reasons mentioned (plus being longer-ranged for outdoor use, like eliminating a biker band or whatever). However, if you live in a suburban tract house or urban townhouse or a condo, this can be bad news. In that latter case, look into a *20-gauge* shotgun, which reduces the problems you cited with a 12-gauge shotgun, yet has just about all the advantages. You can get nice pump 20-gauges for $130 or so on sale at K-Mart or the like, or fancier ones for ~$220 (like a Remington 870), or a semiauto Remington 1100 for ~$250 (even less recoil with that, though you trade off a modicum of reliability). At home-defense ranges, a 20-gauge is just as lethal as a 12-gauge. Use #6 shot for minimizing wall penetration; it is just as deadly at close range as buckshot or slugs -- 1 1/4 oz. of lead (or thereabouts) has a similar effect no matter how it is divided up, when it is travelling in a compact bundle (which is what you have at close range). Plus you can easily practice at skeet & trap ranges, easier to find than rifle ranges these days. Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/01/85)
> go with a M-1 Carbine or an AR-15 (civilian M-16). > > First, I doubt my wife could hold a .45, let alone fire one. Secondly, it is > easier to shoot yourself with any pistol than a rifle/shotgun. Third, a rifle > in the house is not considered as threatening as a rifle. (This may be good > or bad, but it is best if no one knows you have any weapon in the house.) > I'd go with an M-1. It's hard to shoot yourself while cleaning a tank. :-)
dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (06/01/85)
In article <27200001@gypsy.UUCP> emery@gypsy.UUCP writes: > >This brings up the argument of: is one shot sufficient? Your intruder, >having been shot at, hopefully will leave the house. Well, I for one do >not want to bet ALL my cookies on this one hope. Therefore, although I >hope he leaves after the first shot, I want to be ready in case he isn't >cooperating. > >... > > ... Being rifles, they are easier to >hold with two hands, also useful as clubs and maybe a bit harder to turn >on their owners. There is one more reason. If I decide to shoot at >an intruder, then I figure if the first 5 or 6 shots don't get him, the next >10 will. In other words, you can shoot (almost) forever. 30 rounds of >ammunition can last a Long Time. This is important especially if there is >more than one bad guy. > >... Meanwhile, since you are not a person trained to act well under the stress of a situation like that, you have fire off all thirty rounds, taken out the television, two of your children, and the family dog. If you really MUST have any kind of fire power around for "defense", learn how to use it, learn to use it well under adverse and stressful conditions, and then invest in some good home security equipment in place of firearms. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER turn the thing around and use it as a club. Unless you are positive that there is not a live round in the chamber (and I don't think you have time to break the weapon down far enough to check and be sure) you are looking to shoot yourself. Meanwhile, your intruder, who is 6' 65" will take the thing and club the last whisper of life out of you. At least she couldn't do that with a pistol. Now my personal feelings ... Unless you are positive that you are prepared to shoot and kill another human being, don't keep a weapon around in the hopes of scaring someone off. Any offensive weapon (even if it is for "home defense") can quickly enough become an offensive weapon in the hands of the intruder unless you are very effective with it. Remember, he has a higher motivation than you as soon as you fire that first shot. If you want to find out if you have the guts to kill another person, first go out deer hunting with a borrowed rifle. After you have shot the deer in the gut and it is lying on the ground with its innards pouring out, if you can calmly walk over and put that last bullet in its head (or heart) and then get a good nights sleep, then you MIGHT have what it takes. Once you have decided you can face the prospect of killing someone, then plan to do it. Get trained, and don't take pot shots in the air. Aim for the face and do it right - once. Personally, as you might have guessed, I do not support having weapons in the house except for hunting and those should be locked so far away as to be useless for intruders. I think your one's defensive money is better spent in good home security devices -- alarms, window bars, steel doors with deadbolt locks, etc -- that stop the possibility much sooner. BTW - if you do want to install deadbolt locks on the doors, there are some made that have a free moving hardened steel rod in the centre of the deadbolt. These are a touch more expensive, but can't be cut through with a hacksaw. D. Katz
jfh@phs.UUCP (Fran Heidlage) (06/01/85)
In response to the person who is considering an M1 carbine vs. an AR-15 for home defense: All firearms are loud, but an AR-15 is !LOUD!! I suspect that anyone who fired one in an enclosed space (e.g. indoors) without ear protection would permanently damage their hearing. Of course, when you are faced with the threat of a possibly armed intruder, this becomes a secondary consideration, but its worth thinking about when choosing a gun for home defense. Fran Heidlage duke!phs!jfh ----------------------------------------- | | | Do right in this space! | | | -----------------------------------------
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/01/85)
> > So, why an M-1 Carbine or AR-15? Several reasons. They are small and light, > and therefore easy for a small female to handle. Although they kick, > it's nowhere near as bad as a shotgun. Being rifles, they are easier to > hold with two hands, also useful as clubs and maybe a bit harder to turn > on their owners. There is one more reason. If I decide to shoot at > an intruder, then I figure if the first 5 or 6 shots don't get him, the next > 10 will. In other words, you can shoot (almost) forever. 30 rounds of > ammunition can last a Long Time. This is important especially if there is > more than one bad guy. > I think that this was a valuable article. I have a woman friend who lives alone in the mountians and she has been wondering what kind of a gun to get. On the other hand I can't help but chuckle at the idea of a gun battle in my condo in which dozens of shots were fired. Would I have some shook up neighbors!! pesnta!idsvax!steiny twg!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (06/04/85)
> > > > So, why an M-1 Carbine or AR-15? Several reasons. They are small and light, > > and therefore easy for a small female to handle. Although they kick, > > it's nowhere near as bad as a shotgun. Being rifles, they are easier to > > hold with two hands, also useful as clubs and maybe a bit harder to turn > > on their owners. There is one more reason. If I decide to shoot at > > an intruder, then I figure if the first 5 or 6 shots don't get him, the next > > 10 will. In other words, you can shoot (almost) forever. 30 rounds of > > ammunition can last a Long Time. This is important especially if there is > > more than one bad guy. > > Give me a break, swinging an assualt rifle around inside an appartment is not the efficient way to deal with intruders. The only thing to have is an semi-auto pistol. If you can handle a 45ACP with efficiency, and I can understand why someone might not as mine has taught me to flinch in spite of my best efforts, then buy a 9mm pistol. Anything less than a 9mm parabellum does not knock them out quickly enough. Any female can learn to handle a 9mm, my wife can shoot the 45. If you don't have enough motivation for survival to learn to shoot a 9mm pistol profficiently then you might as well commit suicide now because you simply aren't serious enough about your survival. If your state won't let you have a pistol in your home for your protection then I suggest moving to another state that will. I don't see why anyone loves New York. Never bother to load anything other than the nastiest hollow point rounds you can find in either gun. The only reason should want to point a pistol and pull the trigger is that the assailant is about to do you or someone else serious bodily harm. You need to stop him right now and not 5 seconds later. For this you need the best hollow point you can get and if they made nuclear tipped bullets thats what you would want, you would want the intruder far enough down range in that case :-). Winchester silvertip ammunition is fine buisness for this and feeds reliably. If they feed reliably, Glaser safety slugs are even better. The problem is that they are too expensive to find out if they feed reliably, but they are great on water jugs! Who says you can't have fun with your pistol! After you get your pistol, you should go to the range with at least every month or so and get used to using it. A course or two in combat style shooting will also be a very good thing to do. Most armed assailants don't look like a paper target with scoring rings on it. On that day when you are faced with an assailant in your home you should be thinking only one thing, FRONT SIGHT. If you do, and you have practiced properly, the first shot is going to get him and the next shot will get the next assailant if there is one. I am sure that you will feel bad about it afterwards but it will be him and not you on the slab at the morge later on.
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (06/04/85)
> Unless you are positive that you are prepared to shoot and kill another > human being, don't keep a weapon around in the hopes of scaring someone > off. Any offensive weapon (even if it is for "home defense") can > quickly enough become an offensive weapon in the hands of the intruder > unless you are very effective with it. Remember, he has a higher > motivation than you as soon as you fire that first shot. If you want to > find out if you have the guts to kill another person, first go out deer > hunting with a borrowed rifle. After you have shot the deer in the gut > and it is lying on the ground with its innards pouring out, if you can > calmly walk over and put that last bullet in its head (or heart) and > then get a good nights sleep, then you MIGHT have what it takes. How can you compare killing a poor defenseless deer to stopping someone who is about to you harm! What a piss poor analogy, now put the deer in a position where it is about to kick your face in and ask the person if he can shoot it in the rear to stop it from kicking. That is more like it. So what if you can't sleep afterwards, at least you aren't sleeping permanently. > Once you have decided you can face the prospect of killing someone, then > plan to do it. Get trained, and don't take pot shots in the air. Aim > for the face and do it right - once. Again the wrong viewpoint, you should not have the intent of killing someone, that is illegal and immoral, you are out to stop someone from doing you grave bodily injury. If the assailant just happens to break through your best deadbolt lock and the police don't arrive in time, they rarely do, the last line of defence is your pistol. The first shot should be square for the chest as its the biggest target that will produce man stopping shock when hit. The second shot should be there as well. If the bugger is still moving after that and he still presents a threat, the only condition under which you can fire in the first place, then he ought to be moving slowly enough for a shot to the head which is guarranted to stop even if he is totally wacked out on pain killer. The fact that fellow dies as a result of being stopped is an undesireable side effect. There simply isn't a reliable way to stop him otherwise and I will be a proponent of a new non-killing way if it is proven to be reliable.
daleske@cbdkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske ) (06/04/85)
shotgun For the safety of those living nearby (within about one mile) PLEASE do NOT use a rifle!! The round from an M-1, AR-15 (equivalent to an M-16), or other rifle will penetrate the walls of most houses very easily. For a person of slighter build what is wrong with using a lighter guage shotgun? How about a 4-10?? The first round could even be a dummy load (still able to kill at close distances) or salt load. If you are looking for a good, light rifle which is relatively inexpensive then check out the Ruger Mini-14. The maintenance is much simpler than the AR-15; the line of rifles is lighter and smaller; the accuracy is excellent. One comes with built in mount for sites. Another is made of stainless steel for fewer rusting problems. I have seen nothing better. John
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (06/05/85)
> > > (into the fray...) > > If I were buying a weapon for myself, I'd agree with a pump shotgun. But, > for my wife (5'2, somewhere around 100 lbs, she won't tell me), I think I'd > go with a M-1 Carbine or an AR-15 (civilian M-16). > > > Dave Emery > {princeton|ihnp4}!siemens!emery > > p.s. I do NOT have a weapon in the house, but my wife and I have talked > about it. I'd hate to live anywhere near you if you think an AR-15 is a good home defense weapon. If you mean "defense against your house" - :-) you'd be right, because a .223 jacketted bullet will go through half the interior walls of a normal home without even slowing down. Yes, a 12GA shotgun will kick real bad, but 0 or 00 shot will only go a little way without losing its energy. Much safer in an enclosed area. AR-15s are light, but they are also relatively long, which means poor manueverability in a building. If someone grabs the barrel, guess who has the leverage? A short pump shotgun wins again. The idea of "only getting one shot off" may also apply - so why not go with a 6" impact pattern instead of a .3" single point. If the pump seems too slow, there are also very good semi-auto shotguns around (and for a lot less than an AR-15). I guess it all depends on what you want to protect your home from and what you want to risk in the process. Gary
tooch@avsdS.UUCP (Michael J. Tuciarone) (06/07/85)
You've all missed the boat.
I'm not a violent person, and I certainly don't advocate random
acts of senseless violence, but if there's one thing I won't
compromise on it's the safety of my little woman and her family.
That's why I didn't buy a pistol, shotgun, rifle, or any other of
those pissant sissy guns.
I bought my wife an Uzi.
It's great! It's light, it's quick, and it hardly ever jams.
Here's why:
1. The way I see it, if the first bullet doesn't get the
low-life sleazy junkie commie rapist ax-murderer, the next
thousand or so should. I'm willing to trade some holes in my
wall, couch, garage, car, dog, lawn, and next-door neighbor for
the knowledge that there's not a piece of the assailant bigger
than his ear left in MY house.
2. OK, so it's a little hard to control just where
you're spraying bullets. Big deal. See (1) above.
3. OK, so it's a little loud. But when the second perp
hears the first getting sliced 'n' diced, you can bet your
sweet kazoo he's gonna move out. And when word gets
around, there's NO criminal (not even the hard cases from
Seacaucus) that's going to even consider breaking in your
personal domicile.
4. There's been some talk about psychological
preparedness. ("Come on, you don't *really* want to ven-
tilate another feeling, caring human being, do you?")
With a submachine gun, you don't need to be prepared for
anything at all. A couple of pounds on the trigger, and
boom, swiss cheese.
I'd love to say more (I have at least three or four more points),
but I'm tired and I have to go oil my Kalashnikov.
Let's do it to them before they do it to us.
Mike Tuciarone
Ampex Corporation--Audio/Video Systems
...!ucbvax!decwrl!amdcad!fortune!dsd!tooch@avsdS [I think...]dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (06/15/85)
In article <621@lll-crg.ARPA> brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes: >> Unless you are positive that you are prepared to shoot and kill another >> human being, don't keep a weapon around in the hopes of scaring someone >> off. ... >> .... If you want to >> find out if you have the guts to kill another person, first go out deer >> hunting with a borrowed rifle. After you have shot the deer in the gut >> and it is lying on the ground with its innards pouring out, if you can >> calmly walk over and put that last bullet in its head (or heart) and >> then get a good nights sleep, then you MIGHT have what it takes. > >How can you compare killing a poor defenseless deer to stopping someone >who is about to you harm! What a piss poor analogy, ... > Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an analogy. More like a provocation to make people think about their attitudes on killing before they freeze up standing in the middle of their home holding a pistol, rifle, whatever on an intruder. I agree the situations are entirely different, but the first question that you have to ask yourself is "Am I prepared to KILL?" If you are buying a weapon for a loved one, are they prepared to kill? Ask them honestly, don't pressure them into an untenable position.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/18/85)
> >> Unless you are positive that you are prepared to shoot and kill another > >> human being, don't keep a weapon around in the hopes of scaring someone > >> off. ... > >> .... If you want to > >> find out if you have the guts to kill another person, first go out deer > >> hunting with a borrowed rifle. After you have shot the deer in the gut > >> and it is lying on the ground with its innards pouring out, if you can > >> calmly walk over and put that last bullet in its head (or heart) and > >> then get a good nights sleep, then you MIGHT have what it takes. So, after having trudged up and down mountainsides for anywhere from 3-10 miles, wearing 10 lbs of restrictive clothing and heavy boots, carrying a ~7 lb rifle, attempting to remain totally alert and quiet at all times, you manage to get your deer (if you're lucky enough to see one, in range, the right sex, etc., long enough to get an accurate shot off.) Then you drag the deer (which should weigh 100-125 lbs or so) for anywhere from 1-4 miles, over rocks, around trees and brush, etc. Then you drive home. And remember, kiddies, that you got up at 5:00 am. And this guy thinks you might have trouble sleeping! Only if you're too dim to realize that there is no moral difference between killing a deer and ordering a quarter pounder (with or without cheese) at McD's. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
brown@utcsri.UUCP (Edward Brown) (06/19/85)
> ..you might have trouble sleeping! Only if you're too > dim to realize that there is no moral difference between killing a deer and > ordering a quarter pounder (with or without cheese) at McD's. > -- > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Woa there! There is a definite moral difference between killing wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). Sorry to get off topic, but that's net.misc for you. Ed Brown ..utcsri!brown "Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry"
dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (06/22/85)
I previously wrote: >> >> .... If you want to >> >> find out if you have the guts to kill another person, first go out deer >> >> hunting with a borrowed rifle. After you have shot the deer in the gut >> >> and it is lying on the ground with its innards pouring out, if you can >> >> calmly walk over and put that last bullet in its head (or heart) and >> >> then get a good nights sleep, then you MIGHT have what it takes. In article <955@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) replies: > > So, after having trudged up and down mountainsides ... > > And this guy thinks you might have trouble sleeping! Only if you're too >dim to realize that there is no moral difference between killing a deer and >ordering a quarter pounder (with or without cheese) at McD's. I don't believe the knee-jerk reaction...who cares about moral differences. Some people can kill other creatures -- fish or ants or deer or people -- and some cannot. Some people pay others to do their killing for them. I'm sure all of us know at least one person who won't kill a mosquitoe but will wolf down (heaven help them) McD's hamburgers. The question is still where YOU fall in the spectrum. If you have the stuff, good. Get a gun, and use it for home defense. If you don't, then don't fool around with false courage. And don't try to put courage into someone else (eg your wife, husband, ...) if they aren't prepared to accept it.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/24/85)
> > ..you might have trouble sleeping! Only if you're too > > dim to realize that there is no moral difference between killing a deer and > > ordering a quarter pounder (with or without cheese) at McD's. > > -- > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > Woa there! There is a definite moral difference between killing > wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised > for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). > Sorry to get off topic, but that's net.misc for you. > Ed Brown So what is that difference? (I hope you won't think I'm trying to retroactively change the question if I specify here hunting where the hunter plans on eating the meat obtained. I certainly don't feel like defending psychotics who just enjoy blowing things away.) If there's a definite moral difference, Ed, I'm sure you wouldn't mind letting me know what it is? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
ped@mtuxo.UUCP (p.davidson) (06/25/85)
REFERENCES: <1195@utcsri.UUCP>, <962@mhuxt.UUCP> For those of you who call deer wildlife and cows domestic, Y'all best change you description of what is raised for killing. We do have place's that raise deer for slaughter and food. NO I won't tell you where because I buy there and don't want a bunch of people picketting my food store.
dmh@dicomed.UUCP (Dave Hollander) (06/27/85)
In article <1195@utcsri.UUCP> brown@utcsri.UUCP (Edward Brown) writes: >> ..you might have trouble sleeping! Only if you're too ..... > > Woa there! There is a definite moral difference between killing >wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised >for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). >Sorry to get off topic, but that's net.misc for you. > > Ed Brown > ..utcsri!brown > "Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry" Your state wildlife service (what ever their name) does maintain the deer population above the *natural* environment's carring capacity because of the assumption that hunters will reduce the population. I call this 'raised for that purpose'. The only problem is Darwin gets all messed up! dave hollander
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/27/85)
> > > Woa there! There is a definite moral difference between killing > > wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised > > for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). > > Sorry to get off topic, but that's net.misc for you. > > Ed Brown > So what is that difference? (I hope you won't think I'm trying to > retroactively change the question if I specify here hunting where the > hunter plans on eating the meat obtained. I certainly don't feel like > defending psychotics who just enjoy blowing things away.) If there's a > definite moral difference, Ed, I'm sure you wouldn't mind letting me > know what it is? > Jeff Sonntag I do not favor any morality or another, but in "Spy of the Century" a book about the leader of the German Intelligence, Reinhart Gehlen, it mentions that Hitler was a strict vegetarian who was concerned about the killing of animals and even saw to it that laws were passed dictating that animals be killed in as painless a manner as possible. The fellow definately had non-standard priorities.
brown@utcsri.UUCP (Edward Brown) (06/28/85)
[Only two weeks to first line season] >> There is a definite moral difference between killing >> wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised >> for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). - me > So what is that difference? > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j This is what I perceive as a moral difference:: the domestic animal was brought into existance, raised, fed, and cared for by human for the express purpose of becoming somebody's food. As such, it is conceiveable that these humans have some sort of claim to its life. None of these considerations apply to the wild animal, it came into exisistance without direct human intervention and therefore man cannot claim propriety over its life using the same (however valid) reasoning. I hope I've managed to express my feelings comprehensibly. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about it, and I do recognize there are attitudes out there like "It's our country, so anything out there belongs to us." Ed Brown ..utcsri!brown
magik@wlcrjs.UUCP (Ben Liberman) (07/02/85)
In article <1212@utcsri.UUCP> brown@utcsri.UUCP (Edward Brown) writes: >[Only two weeks to first line season] > > >>> There is a definite moral difference between killing >>> wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised >>> for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). > - me > >> So what is that difference? >> Jeff Sonntag >> ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > This is what I perceive as a moral difference:: the domestic animal >was brought into existance, raised, fed, and cared for by human for the >express purpose of becoming somebody's food. As such, it is conceiveable >that these humans have some sort of claim to its life. >None of these considerations apply to the wild animal, it came into >exisistance without direct human intervention and therefore man cannot >claim propriety over its life using the same (however valid) reasoning. Gosh, I hope that my parents aren't on the net. I mean, they did raise, feed and care for me (for quite a while, I might add) I'd hate to wind up as lunch for the PTA or something. -- ----------------------------------------- Ben Liberman {ihnp4|ihldt}!wlcrjs!magik
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/11/85)
I see only two questions on the source of your food (plant or animal): 1) Did you harm or terminate the individual (plant or animal)? 2) Did you harm or terminate the species? the latter is obviously inexcusable under any circumstances. The former is your only practical question. Example scenarios: 1A) You milk a tame barnyard cow, eat the meat and tan the hide when the animal dies a natural death. 1V) You harvest the fruits of plants (apples, seeds, potatoes, etc) 2A) You keep the animal overly confined as in modern volume veal production, or in modern chicken/egg production. 3A) You terminate a live animal and eat it. 3V) You pull up a carrot and eat it. Scenario 1 is morally justifiable, period Scenario 2 is justifiable only on an economic scale, but is morally worse than 3, for the suffering is prolonged, rather than a one time death. Scenario 3 is justifiable only if you believe the individual unimportant... not quite what the founding fathers of our country had in mind. And, finally, the META-QUESTION: Is the life of the individual important, or is it only the life of the species which is important? If you kill a deer who would otherwise compete for food and reduce the QUALITY of life for all deer in the area, and you eat the meat and tan the hide, is the universe better or worse off than if you hadn't? p.s.: Meta-Meta-Question: Are humans the only animal (or plant) privy to reincarnation? p.p.s.: Meta-Meta-Meta-Question: Do reincarnations cross species lines? p.p.p.s.: When you eat a seed, is that equivalent to abortion? Is a sunflower seed part of the plant you left alive? or is it an autonomous life? > [Only two weeks to first line season] > > > >> There is a definite moral difference between killing > >> wildlife and supporting the butchering of domestic animals that were raised > >> for that purpose. (Not that I exclusively object to or condone either). > - me > > > So what is that difference? > > Jeff Sonntag > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > This is what I perceive as a moral difference:: the domestic animal > was brought into existance, raised, fed, and cared for by human for the > express purpose of becoming somebody's food. As such, it is conceiveable > that these humans have some sort of claim to its life. No "one" has any claim to the life of any "other", period. > None of these considerations apply to the wild animal, it came into > exisistance without direct human intervention and therefore man cannot > claim propriety over its life using the same (however valid) reasoning. > > I hope I've managed to express my feelings comprehensibly. I'm not > sure how strongly I feel about it, and I do recognize there are attitudes > out there like "It's our country, so anything out there belongs to us." > > Ed Brown > ..utcsri!brown Q: How can you sleep at night with the knowledge that you've become a murderer in order to not commit the crime of suicide? A: There is only one life force, which manifests in many forms. Sunny ... becoming more vegetarian all the time... p.s. An acre of land feeds more vegetarian mouths than carnivore mouths. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/11/85)
In article <2410@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: >I see only two questions on the source of your food (plant or animal): >1) Did you harm or terminate the individual (plant or animal)? >2) Did you harm or terminate the species? > >the latter is obviously inexcusable under any circumstances. Pseudo-mystical hogwash. Last I heard, the smallpox organism was nearly extinct thanks to our strenuous vaccination efforts around the world. Are you seriously suggesting, Ms. Kirsten, that these efforts were immoral because the act of terminating a species is immoral by its very nature? If so, what is your scriptural, scientific, or philosophic justification for this position? >And, finally, the META-QUESTION: > Is the life of the individual important, or is it only the life of the >species which is important? Important to what or to whom? And what precisely does 'important' mean? And what makes you think the Universe or Mr. Goodvibes or whatever you call it gives a grand hoot about this question? > If you kill a deer who would otherwise compete for food and reduce the >QUALITY of life for all deer in the area, and you eat the meat and tan the hide >is the universe better or worse off than if you hadn't? Who's to decide: YOU, Ms. Kirsten? >p.s.: Meta-Meta-Question: > Are humans the only animal (or plant) privy to reincarnation? And does Santa Claus really have a white beard and slide down my Chimney every Christmas? Give us a break, Ms. Kirsten. Most of your net companions probably do NOT believe in 'reincarnation.' >p.p.p.s.: When you eat a seed, is that equivalent to abortion? > Is a sunflower seed part of the plant you left alive? or > is it an autonomous life? Good Lord. This kind of hazy thinking is as ridiculous and obsessive as the solipsistic hypothesizing many adolescents go through while they're growing up ("Maybe this is all a dream, and I'm the only thing that really exists. Or maybe everybody else knows what's REALLY going on and they're all conspiring to keep it from me..."). Fortunately, most of them grow out of it. >p.s. An acre of land feeds more vegetarian mouths than carnivore mouths. I have no quarrel with this statement. There are many rational arguments in favor of vegetarianism, and this is one of them. A vegetarian diet is also much better for you. Many of us are fed up with the kind of antirational ramblings typified by the rest of your article, however. Most of what you say is totally unproveable, gives environmentalists AND vegetarians a bad name, and turns off many of the people you should be trying hardest to reach. By the way, I suggest this be moved to net.politics (or better, net.flame). -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/15/85)
> In article <2410@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: > > >I see only two questions on the source of your food (plant or animal): > >1) Did you harm or terminate the individual (plant or animal)? > >2) Did you harm or terminate the species? > > > >the latter is obviously inexcusable under any circumstances. etc. > Pseudo-mystical hogwash... > ... > And what makes you think the Universe or Mr. Goodvibes or > whatever you call it gives a grand hoot about this question? > ... > Who's to decide: YOU, Ms. Kirsten? > ... > And does Santa Claus really have a white beard and slide down my > Chimney every Christmas? Give us a break, Ms. Kirsten. Most of > your net companions probably do NOT believe in 'reincarnation.' > ... > Good Lord. This kind of hazy thinking is as ridiculous and obsessive as > the solipsistic hypothesizing many adolescents go through while they're > growing up ("Maybe this is all a dream, and I'm the only thing that > really exists. Or maybe everybody else knows what's REALLY going on > and they're all conspiring to keep it from me..."). Fortunately, most > of them grow out of it. > ... > Many of us are fed up > with the kind of antirational ramblings typified by the rest of your > article, however. Most of what you say is totally unproveable, gives > environmentalists AND vegetarians a bad name, and turns off many of > the people you should be trying hardest to reach. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly I would like to know what Sunny Kirsten did to you to deserve this of attack. Her ideas may seem a little far out to you (as some of them do to me), but she expressed them calmly and non-aggressively. I see no reason to bite her head off just because her ideas seem unlikely to you. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/17/85)
In article <555@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> In article <2410@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: [quote from Ms. Kirsten's article] >> Pseudo-mystical hogwash... >> ... [a number of quotes from my response] >I would like to know what Sunny Kirsten did to you to deserve this >of attack. Her ideas may seem a little far out to you (as some of them >do to me), but she expressed them calmly and non-aggressively. I see >no reason to bite her head off just because her ideas seem unlikely to >you. My admittedly emotional reaction to Ms. Kirsten's posting was a response to her judgmental and self-righteous attitudes towards those of us who don't share her 'enlightened' ideas, not to the preposterous nature of those ideas. At least that's how I interpreted comments like the following: > the latter is obviously inexcusable under any circumstances. > The former is your only practical question. ... > Scenario 1 is morally justifiable, period > Scenario 2 is justifiable only on an economic scale, but is morally worse than > 3, for the suffering is prolonged, rather than a one time death. > Scenario 3 is justifiable only if you believe the individual unimportant... > not quite what the founding fathers of our country had in mind. > No "one" has any claim to the life of any "other", period. > Q: How can you sleep at night with the knowledge that you've become a murderer > in order to not commit the crime of suicide? > > A: There is only one life force, which manifests in many forms. The use of phrases like 'obviously inexcusable', 'only practical', 'morally worse', etc. sez to me that Sunny has her mind made up about these issues, and operates from a moral and philosophical stance that's just as unflexible and absolute as (say) Jerry Falwell's or a Shiite fundamentalist's. I don't care for fanaticism and intolerance, no matter what the cause or political stance of a person. If Sunny is NOT fanatical or judgemental about these issues, I apologize. Words are all we have to respond to on the net, and my reaction was to my interpretation of Sunny's meaning. If you have a different interpretation, please let us know. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly