Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!clyde!akgua!emory!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Another one bites the dust
Message-ID: <2295@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 11:31:32 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.2295
Posted: Mon Nov 21 11:31:32 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 10:05:54 EST
Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta
Lines: 59

This has been discussed to death here, but the incidents I'm about to
relate compell me to submit yet another note on the subject.  I'll
probably get all sorts of insults on the net and vitrol in the mail,
but hey, it makes life interesting.

What I want to talk about is handguns.  Somebody suggested that if guns
weren't available then people would use bow and arrows.  Damn right.
You see, people against gun control are concerned with our population
growth rate and know that giving people an easy method of killing each
other helps keep that rate under control.  And people who want to
control weapons are just misguided fools who want to deprive
law-abiding citizens of their rights to protection and recreation.

For instance, the guy last week who shot and killed his 3 kids, his
wife, and then himself.  Can you imagine him stalking through the house
with a drawn bow trying to kill his kids?  It wouldn't work.  But now
we have a whole family less likely to become potential criminals or add
to the population.  Bravo! And can you imagine him killing himself with
a bow and arrow?  Hey, we're just talking personal freedom here, right?

Or how about the case here in Atlanta last Friday: a little 4 year old
boy and his 2 year old sister playing in a van while their mother used
the phone in a store.  The little boy somehow got his hands on a .22
and shot his sister in the head.  She died later that day.  We should
encourage our children to express themselves and learn about guns
early, right? I mean, a 4 year old kid would never have been able to
pull a bow and thus would have been deprived of his first unique
experience of using a gun.  And killing something.  Let's find out who
would be so careless as to leave a .22 lying around and punish him.
After all, owning guns is a right and someone shouldn't leave their
precious guns about where they could get wet or corroded.  I mean, that
little kid could have spilled a coke or something all over that nice
gun!  As it is, he probably got it all bloody.  You know how careless
kids are.

Or how about the 2 kids, 13 and 14, out with their guns in the woods in
Iowa.  They just accidentally shot into a bunker full of 12.5 tons of
dynamite.  The blast was felt over 45 miles away and investigators have
only found shreds of clothing as remains.  I mean, think of it as
evolution in action -- if they had been using bows and arrows then the
gene pool might end up with the genes of some people stupid enough to
shoot into dynamite, right? But their "rights" were protected -- they
wanted to go kill something, and they certainly got to do as they
wished.

We have the same reasoning behind nuclear weapons.  Someone else has
them and we just have to protect ourselves, right?  We can't allow
ourselves to be pushed around by someone else.  And we certainly can't
protect ourselves with bows and arrows, now can we? It's our right --
we paid for 'em, we developed them.  *WE* are responsible and will only
use them in defense.  It's those other uncouth people that everyone has
to worry about....

Well, I'm worried.  And it isn't just about "them."  It's "us."
-- 
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf.GATech @ CSNet-Relay
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf