jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/19/83)
Seriously, I think that being trained in the use of a gun, and being shown graphically what a gun can/will do to anything in the projectile's path, will have quite a moderating influence on the user of the gun, barring psycopathic tendencies. I think (and I gather that various studies have shown, not very well, though) that knowlege of the effects of a gun has a strong influence on the user. Simply put, someone who had a gun, but who has shot it only once at a target, rather than several hundred times, at dummies, etc, has no idea of the destruction that a .45 hollow nose can cause. Someone who has seen a dummy blown apart by a single bullet, or seen a few cans full of water exploded, has a better idea, and isn't as likely to shoot unless they really need to. This could account for the Swiss record of murder. The population is trained, and knows just what a gun is for, and what it will do. Someone who bought a gun in a fit of paranoia, or fear, and who has never even shot the thing, isn't as likely to understand what will happen when the trigger is pulled. According to police, in a good number of cases where a gun has been used in a domestic incident the person who used it is in shock when the police arrive, and doesn't seem to be able to understand what happened. That certainly doesn't mean that the user of the gun should be treated in any other way than as a murderer, but it does indicate that the person didn't REALLY understand what would happen when the trigger was pulled. rabbit!<isn't this politics, as in net.politics>jj
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/27/83)
#R:rabbit:-195100:uicsl:5400025:000:1273 uicsl!preece Sep 20 08:26:00 1983 According to police, in a good number of cases where a gun has been used in a domestic incident the person who used it is in shock when the police arrive, and doesn't seem to be able to understand what happened. ---------- This isn't very surprising when you consider the entertainment media view of guns. My generation grew up on tv westerns in which people could take dozens of gunshots wounds and still linger for long periods until their peaceful dying words were needed. Since my childhood the trend has been to police/detective shows, but most have the same feeling that bullet wounds are minor injuries except in a few critical places. So when somebody takes a shot at his wife and blows half her head off he is most likely surprised. I wouldn't mind seeing the militia clause in the Constitution taken to require universal military TRAINING (as opposed to service). I can see a clear moral difference between a country saying "everyone must be prepared to defend the country" and saying "everyone must take up arms when we say so." I'm not even sure I'd accept conscientious objections to training, since the individual would still have the opportunity to make a moral decision at the time the call to arms was made. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece