stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (01/14/85)
> I am curious as to possible reasons for the alarming >level of violent behaviour during driving disputes in >the U.S. ... such as the person whose passenger caught >a bullet between the eyes because he flashed his headlights >at a guy going the other way. Every country has its own informal "code of the road" which may seem peculiar to the foreign visitor. In the USA it is common practice to shoot out street lights and traffic signs to relieve the boredom of a long trip. Owing to the difficulty of shooting a passenger in an oncoming car between the eyes, it is likely that the unfortunate victim was the unlucky recipient of a stray bullet aimed at a highway sign or headlight. Not to worry, Jim
blt@cbscc.UUCP (Brian L. Tymchak) (01/14/85)
to bring up, gun control has to be the most volatile. But, since
you did it, I've got to say a few things.
The proponents of gun control, not all, but certainly most of
the vocal majority, are, in my opinion, ignorant of the
effects that removing handguns from the population that would
result. (I figure I'll hear about that one. Also, before I go too
far, let me say that these opinions are my own, and so on.) Now,
let me explain my basis for making such a statement. Guns are a
tool by which acts of crime have and will be committed. No argument
there. Gun control would at the very least require registration
and a permit to own a handgun. At the very most, it will remove
handguns from the most of the people in our society. Theory has it
that if the means are removed the desire and consequently the result
will be squelched. I say that gun control will only treat a symptom.
If the desire to murder or otherwise assault is present, it will be done
with whatever is available. Knives are much more common in any household,
and are used in more assaults than guns. Shall we remove knives
from the society, or at the least, register them. Of course not.
The technology needed to construct a weapon to kill is so prevalent
that any youngster could do it if so inclined. Consider a case of gun
control that was institued in Britain. It was made illegal to purchase
a handgun. Murders committed by handguns dropped, but, murders
committed by knives and other "crude" weapons increased by nearly 300%.
Britain actually showed an increase in the number of crimes committed
with a weapon. Incidentally, I believe that handgun control in Britain
has since been dropped. It has been some time since I've read the
article, so I am a bit hazy on the details. I'll try to dig it up
and reread it. Anyhow, my point is that controlling guns is a
useless effort. Crime, and especially violent crime, needs to be
stopped at the core of the problem, namely the attitudes of the people
in society and how those attitudes are developed. Consider another
case: I remember reading, rather recently, of a small town that passed
laws requiring everyone to own some form of a weapon, preferrably
a handgun. Violent crime became non-existent and burglaries and related
crimes dropped dramatically. If anyone can cite the town and where
I can get the literature, please let me know.
Well, this is getting a little long and this isn't really the place
for such a discussion. I'm all in favor of establishing a dialogue
on the subject, but only with those who can do so in a rational and
intellectual manner. Emotional outbursts rarely contribute to
anything except wasted time. For anyone out there who would like
to take opposition, lend support to my views, or otherwise lend
their views, feel free to contact me through email. This will
keep the gun issue out of net.auto.
Brian L. Tymchak
AT&T NS, Columbuspmk@spuxll.UUCP (P. Kelliher) (01/16/85)
People who advocate gun control are not the people who are a little ignorant of reality. These people who go around trying to get the US and Soviet governments to stop making nuclear weapons just can't grasp the gravity of what they are doing. If a constitutional ammend were passed that banned the manufacture of atomic weapons it would put our country in a precarious position. The Russians would have no reason whatsoever to not invade us after they have built up a huge arsenal. You say that they would honor any arms agreement we made with them. I say bullshit, they should not be trusted at all. The only thing this mad no-nuke craze can succeed in doing is to make our country one big sitting duck. I for one do not like that prospect. Come on guys be a little realistic; your ideological ways will only get you killed. I may not agree with or condone everything that Reagan has done, but I support his defense buildup. He's just listening to Teddy Roosevelt. P Kelliher AT&T-ISL S Plainfield, NJ
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (01/16/85)
> > ... such as the person whose passenger caught > >a bullet between the eyes because he flashed his headlights > >at a guy going the other way. > Every country has its own informal "code of the road" which > may seem peculiar to the foreign visitor. In the USA it is > common practice to shoot out street lights and traffic signs > to relieve the boredom of a long trip. Owing to the > difficulty of shooting a passenger in an oncoming car between > the eyes, it is likely that the unfortunate victim was the > unlucky recipient of a stray bullet aimed at a highway sign > or headlight. > > Not to worry, NOT TO WORRY? You've GOT to be kidding! -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Extend USENET to omicron Ceti.
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (01/17/85)
> I am curious as to possible reasons for the alarming >level of violent behaviour during driving disputes in >the U.S. ... such as the person whose passenger caught >a bullet between the eyes because he flashed his headlights >at a guy going the other way. *** Quick, duck! There's on-coming traffic! *** As to the why, I think that in todays very regulated society a lot of us feel somewhat 'impotent' (males and females). If someone kicks your dog you can't go and punch him because then he'll sue you for $1,000,000. So you end up sueing him, it only takes several years and a lawyer ends up with most of the settlement anyway. But get inside your car and you have a $10,000 dollar suit of armor in addition to a fast get-away. Now you can take-on everyone else on the road because you're reasonably safe behind your shield. Did that wimp with the glasses and the Porsche 928 pass you? Bump him off the road. Did that 230lb redneck with a IQ of 46 sneer at you? Push him into a telephone pole. What a great way to work off all your frustrations. You're just another faceless non-entity behind your tinted windshield getting even with the rest of the world. Maybe you have to be meek and mild with your boss, but on the road it's Offensive Driving, otherwise known as Driving Through Intimidation. Of course it's also possible that these people are just jerks. -- Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin "It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself but I'm told they can be very effective."
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (01/17/85)
I remember about the town that required handgun ownership. What you didn't mention is that people there are REQUIRED to be proficient in the use of their handguns. Education can eliminate a lot of the accidents that occur with handguns. BTW, I don't remember the town name, but I do recall that it is in Georgia. What the whole issue of gun control, drunk driving, etc. is that we need to promote responsibility, not restrictions. Outlawing guns, alcohol, drugs, or whatever won't eliminate any problems, it just punishes the majority of responsible people. Make everybody responsible for their actions, and PUNISH those who aren't! What gets me really flamed up is when you see on the news someone who committed a crime state, "I was high, I didn't know what I was doing" BULLSHIT!!!! Hang the fucker for getting in the condition where he didn't know what he was doing. I'll bet if you grabbed all the obnoxious drunks at parties, not even half would really be drunk, they're just using drinking as an excuse to change their personalities. Some assholes use any excuse they can to get attention, they don't realize that I, and I suspect others, think that this shows them for the morons they really are. mikey at trsvax Of course, my own opinins, not necessarily those of my employer or anyone else.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (01/18/85)
> Every country has its own informal "code of the road" which > may seem peculiar to the foreign visitor. In the USA it is > common practice to shoot out street lights and traffic signs > to relieve the boredom of a long trip. Owing to the > difficulty of shooting a passenger in an oncoming car between > the eyes, it is likely that the unfortunate victim was the > unlucky recipient of a stray bullet aimed at a highway sign > or headlight. I think the rest of us would prefer you speak for yourself and not the whole country! We have a poor enough image in the motoring world (and the world in general) without this type of generalization.
mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (01/21/85)
> I am curious as to possible reasons for the alarming >level of violent behaviour during driving disputes in >the U.S. ... such as the person whose passenger caught >a bullet between the eyes because he flashed his headlights >at a guy going the other way. Personally, I don't think the level of violence is all that alarming, or all that high for that matter. It does exist, but it is overhyped by the media. (The news, when it is about people or events that I know of firsthand, is usually wrong.) How many people do you know who have been involved in accidents? How many of those accidents led to subsequent violence? On a related topic, I have noticed that guns and gun control is starting to pop up on net.auto lately. An interesting topic to debate, but isn't there a better place for it? net.legal or net.politics, maybe? -- Mike^Z [ allegra!, ihnp4! ] pegasus!mzal Zaleski@Rutgers
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/22/85)
> > Every country has its own informal "code of the road" which > > may seem peculiar to the foreign visitor. In the USA it is > > common practice to shoot out street lights and traffic signs > > to relieve the boredom of a long trip. Owing to the > > difficulty of shooting a passenger in an oncoming car between > > the eyes, it is likely that the unfortunate victim was the > > unlucky recipient of a stray bullet aimed at a highway sign > > or headlight. > > I think the rest of us would prefer you speak for yourself and > not the whole country! We have a poor enough image in the motoring > world (and the world in general) without this type of generalization. Uhhh. . .I think the original article is a, uhhhh, joke, y'know? Mike Gray, BTL, WH
jeff@wjvax.UUCP (Jeff Albom) (01/26/85)
would a 50+ grey haired executive type cut you off with his Porsche and
then get all huffy and jacked up about you almost hitting his car!
Sometimes I wish I had a small thermonuclear device.
JEFF