Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: McDonald's (San Diego) Massacre
Message-ID: <3509@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 14:57:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3509
Posted: Mon Jul 23 14:57:42 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 06:37:01 EDT
References: <859@pucc-h>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 23

Wrong. Thanks to the vermin who do their best to screw up my life
with organizations promoting restrictions on gun ownership, and laws
restricting the carrying of weapons, none of the people in that
McDonalds were armed. If there were no such restrictions, a certain
percentage of those customers would have chosen to be armed, and
if it was a common thing to go about armed, those who did would be
skilled in the use of arms. Therefore, the psycho who decides to
shoot up the place might have killed two or three people (having the
advantage of surprise) before one of the armed customers or staff
would have killed him (or at least stopped him from continuing).

However, the psycho would have been much more likely to NOT HAVE
TRIED IT in the first place if he knew that he would have been
EXCHANGING gunfire, as opposed to just delivering it. Sure, some
will do it anyhow -- running amok has little to do with rational
decision-making. But having the general populace capable of 
defending themselves will minimize the effects of the isolated
psycho in such circumstances.

Instead of castigating the NRA and other pro-gun organizations,
you should be supporting them and disparaging their opponents.

Will Martin