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.