Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!akt
From: akt@mcnc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Missing Handgun
Message-ID: <1844@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Sep-83 19:22:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1844
Posted: Mon Sep 26 19:22:16 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Sep-83 01:52:16 EDT
References: unc.5902 ccieng5.147
Lines: 25


note that karl could have taken his rifle out to the parking lot with him
if he felt threatened or in danger.  his attacker would not have known that
the rifle was unloaded.  perhaps karl could have loaded it.  (i do not know
about relevant laws governing this.) then karl could have pointed the
rifle at his attacker, who, if sane, would probably have calmed down.
the point is that a rifle may be used for self-protection in the same manner
that a handgun may be used for defense.  when staring down the barrel of a
rifle, an attacker does not worry about the permeability of walls to bullets.

i am not advocating that everyone go out and buy a rifle for self-defense,
rather that anyone who feels unsafe learn how to use a rifle or shotgun,
buy it, and keep it under their bed at night. this would cut down on the
number of people who use guns in 'crimes of passion' since anyone who
knows how to use a rifle knows what will happen when the trigger is pulled.
(it was recently suggested on the net that many people who commit crimes of
passion using handguns do not really understand what pulling the trigger will
do, because of their irrational state of mind.  i contend that the better one
is trained in something, the less likely one will forget the training in
times of stress or duress.) banning handguns would then deprive the
criminals (to some measurable degree, although, being criminals, some of
them will always have handguns) of cheap guns.  people could still
protect themselves without buying handguns.

akt at ...decvax!mcnc!akt