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: Handguns (well, rifles would be bett - (nf)
Message-ID: <3096@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Oct-83 23:09:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3096
Posted: Mon Oct  3 23:09:47 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Oct-83 12:28:16 EDT
Lines: 28

#R:utcsstat:-112600:uicsl:4300086:000:1300
uicsl!preece    Oct  3 09:07:00 1983

I like laura's suggestion that we all get military training. I think
there are times when a nation does have to defend itself and that
its people ought to know how to do so. I wouldn't want to see rifles
passed out to everyone unless some adequate scheme of bonding was
devised to inhibit their use for any other purpose. Perhaps mandatory
annual target sessions coupled with a check of the home weapon's
seal? I'd want to see pretty vigorous penalties for misuse.

On the other hand, I have to confess I don't feel any particular
fear that the Russians might invade us but I do have some worries
about the safety of Europe, so I'm less sanguine about getting rid
of nuclear weapons. (I have and wear a Freeze t-shirt, but I'm at
a loss to suggest an alternative to nuclear stalemate.) What I worry
about most is accidental war. The margins are so tight on those
decisions that the probabilities of misinterpretation or other error
are much higher than I like.

An armed populace doesn't help prevent nuclear blackmail (send us
a megaton of wheat or we'll remove Denver), which is much more
believable than an intentional nuclear war. We can't allow ourselves
or the world to be put in that kind of position. I'd sure like to know
any workable alternatives.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece