🚀 go-pugleaf

Kevin, I am going to start this off by saying that I thought 
that your response to my message on dc.general was laughable, 
that you avoid completely the issues once someone answers your
questions, and that your personal comments about writing style 
or english language usage are not relevent to the discussion.
You hide behind such comments, and it is obvious to all.

Also, I will reply here, and not in dc.general because I do not
want to post gun related things to it any longer.  We can keep it
here, or not at all.

In article <1993Jan6.195228.29259@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
>> How about it?  Why don't you tell us your view?
>
>There are a lot of unecessarily dead civilians. If the military were the only
>people with guns it would have been a lot less messy, and could probably been
>sorted out through negociation. As it is every faction seems to be fighting it
>out with everyone else.

Bad news Kevin; it is both the military and civilians doing all the 
killing on both sides.  The civilians having guns is not causing 
the problems; the people hate each other, for racial and religious reasons.  
They have hated each other for generations, and they want to KILL 
each other.  They didn't decide to partition the country and start
slaughtering each other in the most brutal and inhumane ways possible
just because they had weapons.  They obtained weapons because they 
wanted to start slaughtering each other in the most brutal and inhumane
ways possible.  The problem is not with the guns in their hands, it is 
with the beliefs in their heads.  And gun control won't change that.

As with most anti-gun fanatics, you think that the gun makes the 
human pull the trigger.  

The problem needs to be worked ut, with guns or without.  Note that 
these "civilians" have military weapons that they could only have 
gotten from one place; the military.  The military is made of the 
people, and subject to the same racial and religious things that 
caused those not enlisted to implement "ethnic cleansing".

>
>My point is that neither the army (nor the CIA) should be able to act 
>indepently without accountability. In a crisis there may not be time
> to consult, but these organisations are supposed to be extensions of 
>the democratically elected government. They appear to be self-motivated,
>and are therefore IMHO untrustworthy.

The organizations themselves are not really very self-motivated, but the 
people in them are.  The problem is that you have to staff these things
with people, and people are "self-motivated".  Not much that you can do
there.  Oversight is put into effect, but there is a limit to how much
that can catch, given that you can't be everywhere all of the time
watching everyone.

In the specific case of the military, the US military actually doesn't
show all that much "self-motivation".  There is a sense that they will 
do what they are told to do, but there is always the unspoken (and 
sometimes spoken) warning that they are not blind to what they do, and
if they are asked to do something crazy enough, then the command 
structure will start to lose control of the men, and in fact may 
itself refuse the command.  

That is what I was saying with respect to the question of the military
blindly obeying every command, no matter how crazy.  

>> For home defense the full auto assault rifle is a really bad 
>> choice; you will endangeer everyone in the arc of fire,
>
>Depends on the ammo.

Really?  Name the ammo for an assult weapon which will not; name 
the weapon, name the ammo.  

>> If you want one weapon for both missions, the 12 guage shotgun
>> can hardly be beat.
>
>I said that in a dc.general posting months ago.

Something that we can agree on.

>Because the original discussion was about restricting the availability 
>of semi->auto handguns, and by your reasoning we would be better of with
>shotguns and assault rifles.
>
>Kev.

Each of these things has characteristics which fit certain missions 
well, and others not so well.  No suprise there.  The handgun can 
be more easily hidden, and is better for a number of situations,
including many self-defense situations where you are in close 
quarters.  

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.  The .45 can be easily carried while I have
my hands full and my time to draw is very short.  I will never be 
able to match my time to draw with the .45 using the shotgun, so
for that self-defense mode it has a SERIOUS flaw.  

Doug

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.

-- 
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