🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.200914.20689@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
>
>You didn't answer the question because you didn't read/understand it properly.
>
Ah!  A thousand pardons.  

>> As with most anti-gun fanatics, you think that the gun makes the 
>> human pull the trigger.
>
>The gun allows people to kill others with relative ease, you cannot argue with
>"if there were no guns, nobody would get shot", and if you read all my 
>postings you would know that I am not an "anti-gun fanatic".

Well, there are times when it is difficult to distinguish you from
"anti-gun fanatics" because you hold a large number of beliefs in 
common, most of which are, in my view, discredited beliefs which do
not have factual backing, only emotional appeal.

Your statement of "if nobody had guns nobody would be shot" is a perfect
example.  If nobody had _____ then nobody would ever suffer the 
consequences of having _____.  An obvious statement, but deliberately
incomplete, and thus misleading.  It is not possible to address this without
also addressing the questions of "What other things would be possible
if nobody had _____." and "What things would no longer be possible
if nobody had _____." 

One thing that you and the anti-gun fanatics have in common is the 
love for static analysis, vs. dynamic analysis.  Static analysis 
allows for the changing of a factor or factors, and then the drawing 
of some new conclusion about what that change means without taking
into account the effects that the changes made have on the whole system.
A statement like "if nobody had _____ then nobody would have to suffer
the consequences of _____", without further discussion of the consequences 
of that change, is static analysis.  It is bogus, without value, when
attempted in a real, dynamic situation such as the societal structure
in which we live.  

The automobile analogy works a little here; 50,000 peoples lives would 
be saved a year if we just stopped driving.  How can anyone possibly
be against that?  It is such an obviously *good* thing to do.  
(actually, 50k is just drunk driving deaths I think; what is the total
number of automobile involved deaths?  Maybe a quarter of a million?)

To make that statement, and then just leave it there with no further
discussion, is static analysis.  It is said "this will be gained
if that is done and it is desirable".  It ignores completely the fact
that there is a benificial side effect to the driving of cars (getting
places, moving stuff) and that people will then have to find different
means for moving around, and those means will have their own death rate,
their own financial costs, etc.  

In summary, if you looked less like a duck, sounded less like a duck, 
and displayed evidence of less duck-like belief systems, I might be 
less inclined to mistake you for a duck.  


>I would just like to be able to visit the Union Station food hall without fear
>of getting caught in someone elses crossfire.

There are many things to fear in this life; I agree that there is 
extra risk involved with going into DC.  I go down to a facility 
in DC fairly often on business; if you think that Union Station
represents a threat of crossfire, you should stop in the area that
I go into some time.  Still, I do not believe, after giving it much 
thought, that someone telling me that I can not have my guns in my home
will impact at all the ability of those guys who had the guns on
them in DC from having guns.  I have yet to hear a persuasive
case be made for the cause and effect, for a restriction on my 
right to have firearms preventing them from getting theirs.  We 
don't get them from the same place, or in the same way.  

>> I will say this though; if I can carry a loaded Mossberg Security
>> shotgun in public, wherever I go, without being given any trouble
>> for it whatsoever, then maybe I give up the old .45 ACP in favor
>> of it; but maybe not. 
>
>So, you carry a .45 ACP all the time ?

All the time?  No.  I won't get more specific than that.  
I will note that the gun laws in the district limit people
in a much more severe way than do those of MD, and I avoid
travel into the District as much as possible because it 
further limits by options for self protection.

>My point was that a shotgun is a perfectly good home defense weapon, 
>but it is difficult to carry concealed. It is therefore a weapon that
>I have no objection to people owning.

Ah!  Then you might consider a law to allow open carry?  Open 
carry laws are VERY strict about concealment.

But, I have to question the belief system that causes you to 
have a problem with concealment.  Is it the fact that the weapon
is concealed that is a problem to be solved, or is the danger 
something to do with the person who is carries the weapon?  
Does someone who knows a deadly martial art have to have that 
fact tattoed on his or her forehead in bright colors so that their
"weapon" is not "concealed"?

>> P.S.  I am very serious about the assult weapon ammo question 
>> up above; name the ammo, its characteristics, the weapon to be
>> used, and why you think that it won't be capable of killing 
>> everyone in its arc, given some degree of normal home construction.
>
>I'll check my latest copy of "Guns & Ammo".

My copy didn't have much in the way of low power factor loads
for rifles; in fact, most semi-auto rifles won't cycle on anything
but full power loads.  Still, maybe you know things about an SKS 
or AR-15 that I don't, so please educate me on this.

I await your findings eagerly.  

Doug

-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." - DEVO