Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan
From: ryan@fremen.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Bastille... actually about gun control
Message-ID: <128@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 18:20:27 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.128
Posted: Mon Dec  3 18:20:27 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 00:12:17 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 61

Jeff Hull says (quoting the Official NRA Cliche Handbook):

>	To repeat a simple truth, guns do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL
>	PEOPLE. (No? Really? You mean to tell me that hammer built that
>	house? (:-)

	No, the hammer did not build the house alone. However, try banning
hammers and see how many houses get built (hint:  you don't see too many
brick houses built these days :-).

	The point, of course, is that guns alone do not kill people, but
they make it much easier to kill people (in more ways than one - keep
reading).

>	The only difference a gun makes is that with a gun a person who
>	is physically smaller and weaker has a much better chance of
>	winning a violent argument than without a gun.

	No, there are other differences.  For one thing, a gun can be used
from a distance, therefore removing the responses of fight or flight which
are possible against other weapons (knives, blunt objects, etc.).  If you're
standing 30 feet from me and want to kill me, I'd much rather you tried it
with a knife than with a gun.

	Also (and this is a point which doesn't receive much attention), it
is psychologically much easier to kill with a gun than with a knife.  You
don't have to get too close to the victim (no blood on your hands), and it's
almost as if you're not directly attacking them at all - you pull a trigger
here, the victim falls down over there.  Plunging a knife into someone or
beating their head in is much more difficult to do, both physically and
psychologically.

	Finally, I'd like to ask what good a gun really does a law-abiding
citizen?  You may say it's for self-defense, but the fact remains that if
it gets used at all, it will be for
A. The shooting of a family member or friend either accidentally ("Honestly,
officer, I didn't know it was loaded...") or in the heat of the moment ("You
two-timing no-good *&($*$...").
B. Against you by a burglar (you know, the guy who it was going to protect
you from).
C. If you do get to it first, the burglar is not likely to waste time in
preventing you from using it.
D. Ah yes, there is a slim possibility of your actually using it against a
burglar.  Of course, this means you will go to prison for manslaughter (or
justifiable homicide if you're lucky).  Please remember, burglary is not
a capital crime in this country.

	I still don't know of any valid justification for the ownership
of handguns by law-abiding citizens.

	Oh, I almost forgot NRA top 10 cliche #2: If you outlaw guns, only
outlaws will have guns.  Well, as I've tried to point out above, no one else
really has any need for guns anyway.  At first, it would be true.  However,
it would make it much harder for new outlaws to get guns and for old outlaws
to replace their guns, and in time the number of guns and the resultant
bloodshed would diminish.

	Mike Ryan, DEC, Merrimack, NH
Need I say it? The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those
of DEC, its employees, its customers, residents of New Hampshire, or any
Celtics fans.