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!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: RE: Handguns, mob rule, etc
Message-ID: <1951@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Sep-83 11:53:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1951
Posted: Mon Sep 19 11:53:19 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Sep-83 22:36:13 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 34


Seriously, I think that being trained in the use of a 
gun, and being shown graphically what a gun can/will
do to anything in the projectile's path, will have quite
a moderating influence on the user of the gun, barring
psycopathic tendencies.  I think (and I gather that various
studies have shown, not very well, though) that knowlege of
the effects of a gun has a strong influence on the user.
Simply put, someone who had a gun, but who has shot it only once
at a target, rather than several hundred times, at  dummies, etc,
has no idea of the destruction that a .45 hollow nose can cause.
Someone who has seen a dummy blown apart by a single bullet, or
seen a few cans full of water exploded, has a better idea, and
isn't as likely to shoot unless they really need to.

This could account for the Swiss record of murder.
The population is trained, and knows just what a gun
is for, and what it will do.

Someone who bought a gun in a fit of paranoia, or fear,
and who has never even shot the thing, isn't as likely to
understand what will happen when the trigger is pulled.
According to police, in a good number of cases where a gun
has been used in a domestic incident the person who
used it is in shock when the police arrive,
and doesn't seem to be able to understand
what happened.

That certainly doesn't mean that the user of the gun
should be treated in any other way than as a murderer,
but it does indicate that the person didn't REALLY understand
what would happen when the trigger was pulled.

rabbit!<isn't this politics, as in net.politics>jj