Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck
From: stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: more guns....and dogs
Message-ID: <673@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 15:11:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.673
Posted: Thu Sep 29 15:11:52 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Oct-83 19:23:42 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 53

The following is an excerpt of a letter I sent in reply to a letter received.
It is something I want to share with the net, as a possible argument on the
anti-handgun side (of which I am, I suppose, a member).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I solve the problem another way.  I have two of the friendliest
dogs you have ever laid eyes on.  But they weigh about 140 pounds each.
(a Newfoundland and a Great Pyrenees).  Kids and strangers do not approach
them, even though if they did they would merely be licked to death (drowned
is dog spit.)

	My neighbors all know my dogs, and can watch my house while I am on
vacation.  My dogs have shared a 1-bedroom apartment with my wife and infant.
They are very gentle, and are no danger to anyone, but their very appearance
is enough to keep strangers away.

	If guns could likewise be used - that is, if their presence was obvious
and the intruder could not decide in advance whether they would be used on him
or not, then maybe, and only maybe, would I approve of having handguns at home.

	The problem is that by far the greatest number of intrusions occur when
no one is at home.  Your gun is not helping you when you are not there to use
it, and, indeed, law enforcement officials admit that absent gun-owners are the
largest single source of guns for amatuer criminals.  (as opposed to organized
crime).  My dogs are there (usually) even when I am not - solving the problem
of intruders when I am not at home.

	My other problem with guns (and I should point out I am only refering
to handguns, not rifles, shotguns, etc.) is that they are designed only for
the purpose of killing people.  Handguns are not good survival weapons, as they
(especially the cheap ones) are notoriously poor at putting a bullet where
they are aimed.  My dogs, on the other hand, are playmates for my son, friends
to my wife and I, great points of discussion with people we meet, and in
general everybody loves a dog.  True, they cost more to keep, may have cost
more to get initially, and will not be useful as long (they will probably
die before your gun rusts out).

                Don Stanwyck            ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the reasons for submitting this was Karl's suggestion that from twenty
feet he could, with his .357 Magnum, hit a person's shoulder, and not kill
the person.  It MAY be true, but if it is, he is unusual among the gun owners
I have known.  Most have not shot their gun in better than a year, if ever,
and certainly could not guarentee that they could hit the shoulder and miss
the {heart, lung, head, neck} of the MOVING person they were aiming at.

My dogs, on the other hand, will never miss their target (nor could I even
attempt to aim them--they have never even heard the word attack).  They
do, however, always leap up on anyone who enters the house believing them
to be another playmate.  Try getting hit by two 140 pound dogs simultaneously
from different angles, and see how effective you are at continuing your attack.
(If you didn't turn tail and run to start with!)