Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hou5a!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Clar ... gun' -BAH HUMBUG! Message-ID: <1983@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Sep-83 11:06:36 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.1983 Posted: Tue Sep 27 11:06:36 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Sep-83 02:35:19 EDT References: <2995@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 135 I guess it's time to jump into this fray with both feet. (Schloop! ) There have been many articles stating something on the order of "It's a shame that xx got hurt" where xx is one of the innocent people. At the same time, these people say, "still, that's no excuse to have a gun". What isn't brought up is that the injured people were the ONLY ones hurt, as far as I can tell from the original article (its memory is slipping away at this point). What also isn't being brought out is something that was driven home in three years as a campus rent-a-cop. (I should post some tales. Yawn!) It's a sad fact that some individuals understand ONLY force. (It's also true that college students are not generally in this catagory, thank whomever!) In the case Mr. K. brings up, it's clear that the individual doing the attacking was NOT a reasonable individual, and talking/hiding was NOT a reasonable action. FLAME ON!!! I find the fact that people wish to deprive responsible people of the right to defend themselves utterly reprehensible. We know how many people are killed in auto accidents every year, but we don't hear (many) arguments for the elimination of cars. We are told that guns are different, in that they exist only to cause injury. The question of self defense is answered by "well, if your assailant had a gun". This argument is, AND HAS KNOWN TO BE, completely bankrupt since the time of prohibition. If your assailant wanted a gun, he/she WOULD HAVE ONE - LAWS, LEGALITY, and silly ideals be damned! The use of a gun in domestic disputes is not as important as it is believed to be, as Mr. K's experience shows, since a tire iron, butcher knife, or even a common brick can be used (even by a 4'6" granny) to murder any member of the human race. A gun, in UNINFORMED hands (and uninformed hands is what we will have when handguns are illegal) is very likely to cause damage. A knife is less likely to cause damage, not because it's harder to use (have you ever shot a pistol?), rather because people KNOW the power of a knife. As far as I can see, that's no excuse for taking the gun out of the hands of an informed citizen. In fact, it's a good argument for requiring ALL citizens to know just what a gun can do. (Perhaps we could require TV to show realistic injuries when guns are used? That would certainly change programming for the better!) Still, it's really stupid to require ignorance on the part of the general populace while the individuals who want such object will get them. I propose the following: Whenever anyone is injured during an event in which they would not have been injured if they were armed, (given that they are not the assailant(s)) a random person in the gun-control lobby should be arrested on criminal charges of criminal neglegence, for forcing the injured party to be defenceless. That way, the anti-gun forces will feel the pain when their ideals fail. Currently, an anti-gun person is only hurt if he or she is directly injured, and not if he/she causes injury to another individual. Whenever a person is injured with a gun (weilded by a criminal, assuming that guns are legal, for the minute), prosecute that person to the fullest extent possible under law, including exercising options such as preventing parole, hard labor, etc. I balk at the death penalty, it smacks of cutting off your nose... (In some cases, I don't balk at all, though, when mass murders, crowd snipers, and the like occur. There are clealy some people who cannot be released, EVER, into society.) I solemnly (as solemnly as I can, being a non-solemn person) submit that criminals will florish (sp) as long as it is clear that the criminal is under no threat of injury or death. It is an unpleasant fact that a great number of people understand ONLY injury or death, and that those people MUST be dealt with in a fashion that they understand. (Please don't get the idea that I'm pleased by that, I'm NOT!) When, and only when, a criminal knows that both his victim and the legal system have the power to cause him harm, will the criminal be motivated to find some other way to survive. As is true with any system, the system MUST do everything in its power to be sure of the guilt of an individual before sentencing that individual (stick it you know where, Mr. Helms). The only exception to due process must come in the case where an individual whose life and/or property are being threatened. In that case, the individual must be allowed to use any and all means APPROPRIATE to the situation to defend his or her self. In such cases (as in all cases) the presumption of innocent until proven guilty must prevail. Flame to different setting: I note that a great number of you have condemned Mr. K as being a criminal (or a morally bankrupt person) for wishing to defend himself and his family. (Or for wishing to defend ANY helpless individual for that matter, it seems.) A number of you have suggested that Mr. K's responsible actions indicate that he should NEVER be trusted to hold a weapon. Some of you have escalated this argument into a personal attack on the VICTIM of the crime. I greatly resent this. There is a news story every day about how some individual in the US has defended him/her self and who is now being prosecuted for that act. I think that the use of similar (or slightly stronger) force in defending one's self should be a REQUIRED action, assuming that the situation permits such behavior, and that those of you who suggest otherwise, or who rejoice when such an individual is convicted for "injuring an fellow human" are in fact criminals, if not by intent, by ignorance. The prosecution of (let's say) granny, for injuring two muggers who were indisputedly muggers, should be simply unthinkable. rabbit!jj To those of you who insist on knowing my name, tough, I already get, courtesy of various ill-intended individuals, every form of political literature from the John Birch natziety to the American Communist Party. I use it all in my woodstove. I don't read it, I don't send them money. (Would that they would use business reply envelopes, tee hee!)