🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: dc.talk.guns
Article #2062

Re: figures for gun-fetiscists

#2062
From: Don Baldwin
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 15:31
80 lines
4817 bytes
In article <1obfrkINN2i6@sol.tis.com> mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>	Yeah, that's what I said. I am not particularly worried
>about knives. It takes a lot more skill and effort to kill
>someone with a knife than a gun, and if you've really had 6
>years of hand-to-hand training, you bloody well ought to know
>that by now.

That depends on who the victim is, doesn't it?  Even where physically
adept people are concerned, it takes considerable skill to defend
against someoone with a knife.  Drop by rec.martial-arts sometime, they'll
tell you that, if you go up against someone with a knife, you must
expect to be cut.  And all it takes to inflict a fatal wound is one cut.

>	Also, I'll worry about knives when the murder rate with
>knives gets as high as the murder rate with guns is today. The
>old saying about Sam Colt making all men equal wasn't a joke.
>For one thing, it is a *LOT* harder to outrun a man with a
>gun, than a man with a knife. If you've really had 6 years of
>hand-to-hand training, you bloody well ought to know that
>by now, too.

Again, the identity/condition of the victim is very relevent here, as
well.  If my asthma was significantly worse, or I was old/crippled,
running wouldn't be an option either.  In which case, if I was unarmed
I would be completely at the mercy of the assailant.

>>I may have mentioned that a neighbor once saved her husband from two
>>burglars who were kicking him by shooting at them.  It so happens
>>that they were an elderly couple...and, in that case, a gun was the
>>only weapon that would have run the criminals off.  As it was, her
>>husband suffered internal injuries from the beating.  he probably
>>would have died, if she hadn't had that gun.
>
>	I am not advocating removal of all guns from private
>hands. I believe that it's time that we stop allowing individuals
>with convictions for crimes of violence from being allowed to
>own firearms. I believe that it's time that we begin quickly
>and efficiently executing - yes - killing - individuals with
>multiple convictions for crimes of violence.

I agree.  Violent felons should be prohibited from owning guns.  Violent
felons are currently prohibited from owning guns.  We should create an
instant background check, with the caveats that 1) wrong rejections are
easily appealed and 2) no records are kept of who is checked (to prevent
back door registration).

>	I also stated that I have never had a cause to defend
>my home with a gun or any other weapon. That's true. It's also
>true that I don't know of anyone who *has*. That doesn't mean
>that there aren't situations where having a gun would be a
>great thing! The problem is, it seems around here that the
>guns are the weapon of the criminal more often than they are
>the shield of the honest person. 

No offense, but that's probably because you live in DC, where it's
mostly criminals who have guns.  In the MidWest (aside from Chicago), MOST
 homes have guns (I am told by a friend who lives there) and the crime 
rates are nearly trivial.  Here in california, firearms are fairly easy
to obtain and many people that I know, liberal and conservative, own
them.

Aside from general criinal cases, there are other instances where a gun
can save you from harm.  A lot of innocent people have saved themselves
during times of civic breakdown, e.g., during the LA riots or in the wake
of Hurricane Andrew.  In fact, I was amazed to see an Associated Press
article after the hurricane, describing in a fairly unbiased way how good
people were able to protect their homes/businesses from looters.

>I believe it's OK for someone
>who feels they need to defend their home to be able to be
>armed - but I also believe it is a sign that something is
>terribly wrong if people actually feel they *need* to be
>ready to shoot someone who attacks them!

Wrong that they're apprehensive of attack or wrong that they're ready
to employ a lethal weapon?  I think that a firearm is a valid weapon of
self defense, in the right hands.  And that, most of the time, the assailant
can be driven off without a shot being fired.

    don
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1993Mar19.153108.15252@netcom.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!donb
References: <1oars8INNf2u@sol.tis.com> <1993Mar19.030734.11540@netcom.com> <1obfrkINN2i6@sol.tis.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10162c,78ab9087c515afbd
X-Google-Attributes: gid10162c,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-19 07:50:46 PST
Newsgroups: dc.talk.guns
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!donb
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: figures for gun-fetiscists
Message-ID: <1993Mar19.153108.15252@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <1oars8INNf2u@sol.tis.com> <1993Mar19.030734.11540@netcom.com> <1obfrkINN2i6@sol.tis.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 15:31:08 GMT
Lines: 80