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!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Karl and Guns Message-ID: <1995@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 11:20:39 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.1995 Posted: Thu Sep 29 11:20:39 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Oct-83 19:10:38 EDT References: <209@houxu.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 48 Larry Welch appears to believe that anyone who wants a hand gun is by defination stupid. He alleges, without support (especially offensive since he clearly cannot know the entire situation), that Karl was responsible for his own injuries. He then argues that, since Karl was "responsible" for his own injuries, Karl should not be allowed to carry a gun. I propose that these ad-hominem attacks on Karl, and on his supporters, demonstrate that Larry, and others, feel that victims deserve to be victims. Larry has run on and on and on about how Karl was responsible for his own injuries. He hasn't shown why that was the case (it seems that some people feel that the act of calling the police solves all problems. The obviously have no idea what to do until the police arrive.), but he continues to argue that Karl acted so stupidly as to not deserve a handgun. The argument is certainly specious. I think it's also slanderous. I notice that no one has made a similar judgement about the actual criminal in this case. Perhaps some of you folk feel that the criminal had a right to take lives, since he was a criminal? I think that the knee jerking arguments against handguns show clearly that those capable of self defense should be allowed to act in their own behalf. After all, those who think that self defense should be illegal have shown by their arguments that they feel that a criminal's life has more value that a victim's life. The arguments about domestics just don't hold water. Certainly the presence of a handgun in a domestic argument can be threatening. So can the presence of a knife, baseball bat, or tire iron . The stigma attached to handguns in the US DOES effectively prevent the casual owner from knowing how his gun works, and what it will do. That's NOT the fault of the gun. It IS, however, the fault of the society around him . I don't think that anyone here has argued that anyone should own a handgun that they are not familiar with, a tendency that will continue regardless of law until the stigma against owning a gun is replaced by a stigma against owning a gun and NOT KNOWING its operation and effects. Enough. Stop picking on Karl, start proposing ways that he could have protected himself against deadly force. Calling the police only counts AFTER they arrive. I suggest that we form a net.flame.willingvictim in which to continue this incredibly irresponsible argument.