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!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Another one bites the dust - (nf)
Message-ID: <2460@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Nov-83 16:04:47 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.2460
Posted: Sat Nov 26 16:04:47 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Nov-83 07:10:56 EST
References: <4099@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta
Lines: 56

My submission was not just about handguns, it was about the possession
of any form of gun.  I am very distressed at the mentality of
individuals defending their "right" to own guns, or our rights to
deploy more nuclear weapons, or  to invade other countries, or drink
while driving, or any number of other things classed as "personal
freedoms."  Invariably, the argument is something like:  "Well, I don't
want my rights abridged just because some psycho hasn't got the
judgment or training or morals to behave responsibily." That argument
is also used to justify national policies -- "We're defending democracy
or freedom or human rights...."

Who gave them (you) the imprimatur to pass such judgment?  Just who is
it that has labeled you as morally acceptable and free from the
potential of reckless and dangerous use of your weapons?  You can
justify it only on the basis that "I'm responsible because I say so,
and because others like me who have contributed to my training say so,
and because no one has caught me doing anything to the contrary (yet)."

Just because you have had training, or own only rifles, or label your
weapons as "defensive only" or "collector's items only" does nothing to
make me feel any safer or more at ease.  I can walk into a sporting
goods store in a nearby suburban mall and buy an Uzi machine gun for a
little over $500.  The 19 year old girl behind the counter very
casually informed me that I didn't need a federal permit to convert it
to fully automatic -- she could give me the addresses of places where I
could mail-order kits to convert the gun from semi-automatic.  I don't
care how the hell much training you have or what kind of label you put
on it -- I don't like the idea of private citizens owning machine
guns.  I asked her what kind of person buys these guns -- she says it
is the responsible gun collector.

I'm also very tired of people comparing guns to automobiles (I got a
number of mail responses to my original article about how car accidents
kill thousands of people, but we shouldn't ban cars).  Automobiles are
not intended for killing; guns are not intended for transportation.  I
know of no other (normal?) use for guns other than causing damage and
death.  I won't argue the fact that we need much stricter automobile
regulations.  However, I never heard of any armed conflict where one
side was equipped with automobiles as weapons.

I'm not going to convince anyone here of my position.  I'm not really
going to try.  If you believe that you are so moral and responsible as
to have the "right" to own a weapon, then there is nothing I can say
which will make a difference.  Neither can I convince anyone who
believes that we should funnel so much of our energy and treasure into
the continuing development of weapons of global destruction because "we
must be able to defend ourselves and our way of life."  I'm not
entirely sure that any way of life which promotes such an attitude is
worth defending.  No, I can't convince.  But I can fear.  And pity.
And pray.

-- 
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