🚀 go-pugleaf

mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>[I wrote:]
>>Your implication that soldiers are more "skilled" and "mature" than
>>civilians is laughable.  Your further implication that civilian gun
>>ownership should therefore be severly restricted is equally laughable.

>	They are *MUCH* more accountable. You imply that you served
>in the armed forces. If that's the case, you know what I'm talking
>about. I can assume that you never shot anyone with your service
>weapon while participating in a crime, or you wouldn't be posting
>the the net, you'd be in Ft. Leavenworth making large rocks into
>little ones.

Let me see...  You're right.  I have.  I do.  You can.

>	Military gun use and access, in my experience, *was* very
>restricted (except on manuevers and then ammo was restricted).

Oh, absolutely.

>In
>fact, one might argue that the lack of gun related criminal incidents
>in the military is a good indicator of the effectiveness of restricting
>access to guns coupled with personal accountability!

I agree.  However, this restricted access applies only to *government*owned*
weapons and ammunition, and the possession of guns on *government*property*.
Military members are not at all restricted by the military from owning guns
privately.  It seems to me then, that the lack of gun related criminal incidents
in the military that you mention must be attributed to an increased sense of
personal accountability.  Or, let us say, a sense that if they screwed up
punishment would be sure, swift, and severe (to [mis]quote from someone else's
recent post).

>Especially since
>you seem to feel that the army is no more "mature" than ordinary
>civs!

In most respects, less.  Let me say again that I believe there are many,
many, fine people in the military, however most of the ones I have met
were punks and arrogant ***holes.

>If ordinary civs had as much trouble getting their hands on
>weapons and ammo without having to account for them as we did in
>the army, maybe there'd be less gun related crime, neh?

It is no harder for soldiers to get weapons and ammo (excepting
those on bases overseas) than it is for anyone else.  So the answer to
your question is: no.  The key here is an increased sense of personal
accountability through the threat of sure, swift, and severe punishment.

I believe that instilling a greater sense of personal accountability
_in_general_  would do a lot more to decrease illegal/irresponsible gun
use in our country than banning imaginary classes of guns.  Thank you
for providing a good example.

>	[Of course, since I was a '60 gunner, I really never had a
>chance to go rob and steal with my '60 or use it for legitimate
>hunting purposes, since I had to account for every belt of ammo
>I was issued, and '60s are so - distinctive.]

I guess they didn't call you Marcus J Rambo.

Aufwiedersehen,

Chris
-- 
Chris Mathes, Metters Industries, Inc.      UUCP: {..!}uunet!metter!chris
Tel:(703)418-0323                           INET: chris@metter.fmpmis.metter.com
"The Tao of Programming flows far away and returns on the wind of morning."-TToP