Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!amdahl!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.rec Subject: Re: Re: Merry Christmas from the NRA Message-ID: <888@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 22:49:35 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.888 Posted: Mon Jan 7 22:49:35 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:08:28 EST References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <568@unmvax.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 150 Xref: watmath net.politics:6666 net.rec:191 Ok, ok, I give up. I'll bite the bullet and put my two sense worth in here. :-) (though I still think this belongs in net.politics.gore... ) First we get some emotional drivel. > > Guns don't shoot people, bullets shoot people. > > Guns shoot bullets. > > People shoot guns. > > Criminals, fools, and hunters shoot people. > Then we get some emotional follow up drivel. > Now then, "people" shoot guns and "criminals, fools and hunters" shoot > "people". If "people" would carry their guns then criminals and fools > would not be able to shoot them as "people" would shoot the criminals > and fools. Hunting accidents do occur, unfortunately. So do driving > accidents. I don't see anybody here discussing taking away everybodies > car. They just want them to be responsible while driving. The NRA > would like to see hunters use their guns responsibly. That is > why there is an NRA sponsored hunter safety course available almost > everywhere in the U.S. > The NRA does push for responsible gun use. NRA members are generally reasonable folks who can back up what they say with facts. They are also often at odds with the position of the NRA organization. They do push for gun safty and are generally fanatic about it. They are also often fanatic about their political position too... > > Too bad, since the NRA seems to be composed of criminals, fools, and hunters. Why lump hunters in with criminals and fools? While I may not like the idea of someone blasting holes in Bamby, it is legal; and for many folks it is not foolish. (Venison does taste good... even if I can't bring myself to shoot a deer when it looks at me. They are *SO* cute. ) Though some of the Sunday Warriors from the city can be a hazard and foolish, they are rarely serious enough to join the NRA. Also, the NRA is very down on criminals. Seems that they are more of a bunch of red neck types.... There is a very high percentage of military and police in the NRA. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the NRA is not a place for criminals or fools. These guys tend to be very picky about technical details, almost as bad as hackers...:-) > > Which category wants armor-piercing bullets to be legal? Define for me please an 'armor-piercing bullet'? No can do. There are armor defeating energies, and bullets that can defeat armor at lower energies than others, but no such thing as a magic 'armor-piercing bullet' exists. True, the special coated bullets can pierce armor at lower energies. Also true that *ANY* average deer rifle can pierce police soft body armor with *ANY* bullet. The NRA has stated that it wants the special composition bullets reserved for police use. It also wants to retain the standard hunting bullets for hunting use. Most proposed laws have ignored physics. Defining an armor piercing bullet without regard to the energy with which it travels is an exercise in futility. On to some more emoting... > > Which category believes Saturday-night specials are used for sport? > > Which category thinks a man in a red plaid shirt wearing a bright orange > > vest looks like a 12-point buck? > > Which category ignores the statistics on how many people are shot with their > > own guns, or how many shoot family members they thought were burglars, or > > how many people are shot because someone was blazing angry and there was a > > gun right there? > > Ok, back it up. Please publish the number of NRA members who shot people > in this last year. I do not have these figures at hand but I have the > distinct feeling that the number is small. If so, then maybe everybody > should join the NRA, huh? > This is not a good challenge to issue. Given the high percentage of police and military in the NRA, the average NRA member has a higher probability of having shot someone than the average 'guy on the street'. (Though these shooting would have been 'OK' shootings... sigh ) > > > > If Uzi semi-automatic machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have Uzi > > semi-automatic machine guns. But at least psychos who walk into McDonald's > > and shoot everyone in sight won't. > > Another technical error. There is no such thing as a 'semi-automatic machine gun'. This is an oxymoron. Machine gun means full automatic. You can't have a semifull auto... The full automatic Uzi is illegal. The semi-automatic Uzi is less lethal than most semi-automatics as it uses a handgun cartridge (and thus has far less energy than a true rifle.) > > No, the psychos would undoubtedly find another method. This is really > a cheap shot. Though it is true that the guy used a gun to commit this > act. From what I have read he would have been just as happy to hack > those people up with a sword. You use the incident to inflame people > by emotion. Like I said, a cheap shot. > Yes, a cheap shot. And speaking of inflaming people, why not walk into someplace, dump out 5 gals of gas and light a cigarette? Guns are much more effective at killing than most other things *the average person can think of*. But I can walk into the local harware or garden store and walk out with the ingredients for 2 pounds of explosives for less than $5. If some bulk fertilizer is available and some diesel fuel I can make 50 pounds of high explosives for about $8. Want to outlaw fuel? Fertilizer? Knowledge? (No, I won't tell anyone how to make it. Don't ask. I will forward your name to the FBI.) The NRA does manage to ignore the fact that for the average person, the gun is the easiest way to kill. > A people with rights at least has the chance to be free. The ability > to change ones government (with weapons if need be) is a very > difficult people to oppress when they do not choose to be. I believe > this is the reason why we (the citizens of the United States) were > given this right. Sorry Lee, we don't have the right to change the government with weapons. That is strickly a no-no. We do have the right to defend our government against outside agressors by the use of weapons. (To those who will inevitably ridicule the idea of deer rifles against Agressors military: Please look up the muzzle energy of a 30-06 deer cartridge, then a .223 Remington as used by our military. The deer rifles in use today have far more range {especially with telescopic sights} than military guns. They are far more lethal. The foot soldier is still the cornerstone of military force. Those soldiers with modern hunting equipment would be far more deadly. Most hollow point and similar hunting ammunition is outlawed for military use because of the damage it can do. We must be civilized in our warfare, now mustn't we... *BIG* sigh.) > > > joe > > > > Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come shoot me. You'll feel better. > > Naw, that's ok. You're drastic enough for the both of us. > > -- > --Lee (Ward) > {ucbvax,convex,gatech,pur-ee}!unmvax!lee ONE LAST TIME: Can we please move this to net.politics? I'm tired of all this and I must admit that I would love to have it move to a group to which I don't subscribe... -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.