Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
From: alle@ihuxb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: more guns....and dogs
Message-ID: <349@ihuxb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 17:58:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxb.349
Posted: Thu Sep 29 17:58:19 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Oct-83 19:36:10 EDT
References: <673@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 29


 >From: stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don 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.

I think that the suggestion of shooting at someone with the intent of
wounding that person is very irresponsible and in practice dangerous.
If I decide to fire my handgun at some individual, it will be with the
express purpose of killing that individual.  I am convinced that I can
hit any person I shoot at from 20 feet, and if I shoot at him, he will
be stopped in one way or another.

I do agree that a handgun would not be a useful tool for survival
against grizzly bears and the like, but it *IS* useful against humans
and is certainly much more portable than a rifle or shotgun.  I also
think that the scatter from a shotgun makes it too hazardous for use
against people (you may hit someone you do not wish to hit)!

Also, Don, I can certainly see that you believe your dogs solve
your home security problems, but I do not see why you think that
this solution will work for everyone.

Allen England
ihnp4!ihuxb!alle