Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!amdahl!apple!zardoz
From: zardoz@apple.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Nothing to do with Gun Nuts
Message-ID: <6504@apple.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 11:54:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.6504
Posted: Mon Oct 19 11:54:14 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 01:17:04 EDT
References: <Who> <needs> <'em> <?> <1877@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: zardoz@apple.UUCP (Phil Wayne)
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 63

In article <7187@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes:
>In article <21300@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>
>>Well, it's not so much that I'm attached to *guns*; I AM attached to
>>my life and want the right to effectively defend myself.
>
>Then why don't you do what I did?  Take a REAL self-defense course (as
>opposed to shopping mall store front "black belt in 4 weeks, pay us
>$2,000" or no contact or semi-contact stuff).  You don't have to
>search your car or house or purse for it, and your family can't use
>it accidentally.  Possibly best, however, is that nobody can take it
>away to use against you. [granted, against a gun, you have to have been
>trained MANY years, AND be in range, AND the person with the gun has
>to be slower than you, etc.  but most crime in your home is committed
>without guns, as are most rapes]
>

So? I will match my long barrelled .45 at 100 feet against your karate. I win,
hands down :->

>>are plenty of workable ways to do this.  Banning handguns is not one of
>>them.  I suggest tougher sentencing for those who use guns to commit acts
>>of aggression.  Jails overcrowded?  Fine; get rid of drug laws and concentrate
>>on *violent* rather than victimless crimes!  
>
>Good idea.  I agree that bans will not work.  But I would like to see
>a stop in the manufacture of handguns, a stop in their imports to this
>country, and the cops melting the damn things down when they are confiscated
>from criminals, AND a check on the records of people before they can get
>any kind of firearm.  Even APPLYING for a gun permit if you are a convicted
>felon or mental patient with violent tendancies should be a violation of
>law.
>

Uh...it is a violation of federal law if your are a convicted felon. 

>>good reason!  The police are unable to protect them, and their only option
>>is to protect themselves.  Why should these people be prevented from owning
>>handguns?  Especially when a handgun ban wouldn't have prevented the
>>violence they fear in the first place?
>
>I would argue that rifles or shotguns would be better for protecting
>one's home than handguns are.  I would argue that handguns best use
>is for committing crime.  I would also argue that banning handguns, as
>much as I would like to, would not work.  Since I HATE guns (and it is not
>because I am ignorant of them.  I have learned to shoot and am quite good
>at it), my home protection weapon of choice is myself.  I also recommend
>military grade mace (a can in each room), and knowledge of exactly what
>in your home can be used as a weapon, and how to get to it, even in
>the dark.  Since most handgun deaths in this country are accidental, and
>damn few of them are actually homeowner shooting criminal, I would never have
>one in my home unless I could be absolutely sure that NOBODY else could
>use that gun but me.  Unfortunately, not everyone takes those precautions.
>And it is usually the innocent that suffer.

Did you ever try to load and fire a rifle with any speed. Unless you have an
Uzi, or some other weapon with a clip, it can't be done. 

As far as people blowing each other away, think of it as evolution in action.
With any luck, there won't be any problem in a couple of years.

=== These ideas are mine. MINE!
1