Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: RE: Handguns, mob rule, etc - (nf)
Message-ID: <2905@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Sep-83 00:23:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2905
Posted: Tue Sep 27 00:23:29 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Sep-83 04:42:44 EDT
Lines: 28

#R:rabbit:-195100:uicsl:5400025:000:1273
uicsl!preece    Sep 20 08:26:00 1983

	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.
----------
This isn't very surprising when you consider the entertainment media
view of guns. My generation grew up on tv westerns in which people
could take dozens of gunshots wounds and still linger for long
periods until their peaceful dying words were needed. Since my
childhood the trend has been to police/detective shows, but most
have the same feeling that bullet wounds are minor injuries except
in a few critical places. So when somebody takes a shot at his wife
and blows half her head off he is most likely surprised.

I wouldn't mind seeing the militia clause in the Constitution taken
to require universal military TRAINING (as opposed to service). I can
see a clear moral difference between a country saying "everyone must be
prepared to defend the country" and saying "everyone must take up arms
when we say so." I'm not even sure I'd accept conscientious objections
to training, since the individual would still have the opportunity to
make a moral decision at the time the call to arms was made.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece