Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece From: preece@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: Re: Clar ... gun' -BAH HUMBUG! - (nf) Message-ID: <3065@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Sep-83 23:48:19 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3065 Posted: Fri Sep 30 23:48:19 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Oct-83 06:07:00 EDT Lines: 52 #R:rabbit:-199600:uicsl:4300083:000:2592 uicsl!preece Sep 30 09:45:00 1983 1) It's much more difficult to kill someone with a tire iron. Bullpucky! I don't even give this one an argument, it doesn't deserve it. A three year old child could kill Mean Joe Green with a tire iron in a sneak attack, and a 15 year old would probably succeed one on one, without surprise. ---------- Ignoring the obvious quibble that a three year old couldn't reach a vulnerable aprt of Mean Joe Green, I just have to disagree with the whole idea. First, I specifically excluded ambushes, since an ambush makes effective defence impossible. If you're guaranteed a free blow you could kill someone with almost anything (although I think you'd be surprised at just how durable the human body is). A tire iron is not a great weapon. It's not maneuverable, it's just heavy. In a face to face situation, which would YOU rather face, a tire iron or a .357? ---------- 2) A gun in informed hands is just as dangerous. Quite ridiculous. It's already been disucussed on the net how a lot of "casual" gun users are stunned by the effect of a gun. Informed users of guns KNOW what they do, and are quite a bit less likely to use them unnecessarily. Ergo, guns are safer in informed hands. Lest you argue, look at your local police force, and consider what would happen if they weren't trained in the use of their weapons. ---------- I think someone who knows what a gun does and has still decided to get into a situation where that gun may be used is dangerous. The decision to carry the gun has placed the carrier psychologically one step closer to deciding to use it, because it's there, in a situation where that use is not necessary. I am not saying that there are NEVER circumstances in which a gun would be useful, I am not saying there are no circumstances in which it is justifiable to shoot someone attacking you. I AM saying that the vast majority of cases are otherwise and that the cost to society of allowing people to have handguns has been and will be much higher than the cost of taking them away. I don't think I'm going to say anything more on this issue; we've gotten to the religious level and I don't think anyone's mind is likely to be changed by anything any of us say. I'll restate my basic argument one last time and shut up: If, in a threatening situation, you have the opportunity to use a gun, you probably don't need to; if the situation is serious enough to warrant deadly force, you probably don't have the opportunity to use it. Now let's talk about something more pleasant, like New England. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece