[net.general] The little old lady had it all together...

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