kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (09/01/83)
Re: uicsl!preece's discussion concerning the little old lady who pulled a handgun in self-defense when she was about to be mugged by a group of kids. Mr. Preece's comments are indented. Fair warning: I am angry. Really angry. Almost mad. I am disgusted by what someone feels is the proper way of restricting the law-abiding citizens of this country, and I am going to show as much of that disgust as I can in one article, hopefully without getting *too* long. Also, this discussion started out in net.general; but due in part to the tone I am putting into my article here, and the fact that it looks like a long argument could be started this way, I am moving the dis- cussion to net.flame. All further discussion should stay in net.flame. ((flic... flic... BOOOM!!!)) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<< !!*** FLAME ON ***!! >>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Preece, I am appalled and disgusted at this suggestion of yours: What evidence do any of us have that the little old lady wasn't on her way to Central Park to pick up a few dollars for her trip home? How DARE you suggest that? Have you never heard the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? CLEARLY, the muggers were guilty. The little old lady has *no evidence against her* of any kind (except in your mind, Mr. Preece; after all, she was carrying a firearm...) That little thought about presumed innocence is supposed to be one of the funda- mental precepts in legal issues in this country, yet you assume that just because a person is carrying a firearm (which was used correctly, I might add, using it to avert a crime without harming anyone), he must be on his way to a crime himself. I was trained at the age of *7* to use firearms. This was because my father was a collector, and he knew the inherent danger of having many firearms around with many people who have no knowledge of their correct use. He took the correct path of *education*, which is so intuitively obvious that it amazes me (though it doesn't surprise me) when you can't see it. I am a *safe* user of firearms. I know the correct way to hold and fire one, I know how to check that a firearm is not loaded. I assume that any weapon on which I've turned my back for more than 1 minute is *pro- bably* loaded, unless I'm the only person in the room. I know how to keep a firearm clean so that it will not injure the person using it. Along these lines, would you care to make a bet, Mr. Preece? I'd give fantastic odds that you don't even know how to pick up a handgun, much less hand it to another person. (Answer: You should NOT pick it up by putting your hand around the grip. That is a hold for *firing* it. It should be picked up either by the barrel, or by placing the whole hand over the cylinder, in the case of a revolver.) I recently inherited 2 rifles and 3 handguns when my father passed away last December. The rifles have been moved from Wyoming (where my father lived) to Rochester, NY (where I now live). Unfortunately, the state of New York won't let me possess the handguns here until I can (1) provide 3 character references, each having known me 3+ years (I just moved here a year ago, so no one around here has known me that long), (2) provide *2* sets of fingerprints, one for the state (or maybe it's the county? I can't remember just now...) and one for the FBI, and (3) have my application for permit commented on and signed off by no less than *5* city, county, and state departments. This is absurd. There is one very significant point to be made on all of this. !!*** I AM NOT THE SUSPECT ***!! I am a law-abiding citizen. I have never stolen from any business establishment. I have never raped a female. I am not a social outcast. I have never committed a murder. There is not one shred of evidence against me *anywhere*. Yet the state has made the fun- damental assumption that I am dangerous. THIS IS FAULTY. I think the crime rate statistics for New York say more than enough about the success of handgun registration as a deterrent to crime. Her opinion as to when use of deadly force is required to protect herself is just not enough. The fact that a choice had to be made about deadly force is enough all by itself to justify using a lot of force. Again, note that the weapon was used without harm being done. Further, if you try to rob me, how am I to determine if you are intending just to rob me (just?!) or if in fact you wish to kill me? Should I *ask* you? Would you tell me if I asked? My opinion about when to use deadly force is based primarily on the evidence that some damage is about to be done, and I intend having it done to someone other than myself or my family. If you are the one about to do the damage, I will attempt with all my ability to have *you* become damaged. Specifically, if you rob my house in the middle of the night, and I wake up and know what is happening, I will not try to kill you, but I will put a bullet through your kneecap to make sure that you don't go anywhere. If you try to kill a member of my family, I will take your life without any remorse whatsoever. ...I'd put her away as a danger to society. Just *who* is the danger to society? A little old lady who was almost robbed? or the mugger who tried to work her over? I doubt we'll ever be civilized again... Well, I have to agree with you on this point, but for wildly different reasons: in *civilized* countries, it's the *criminals* who pay. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<< !!*** FLAME OFF ***!! >>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That felt mighty good. Just remember, Mr. Preece, don't *ever* try to break into my home. Your freedom will be forfeit; whether that forfeiture is through the courts or with a wheelchair is your choice. ============== Karl Kleinpaste =============== ...!allegra!rocksvax!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk ...!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk