🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7428@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) writes:
-NUT>From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis)
-NUT>In article <7343@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) writes:
-NUT>-Here we go again with the NRA propaganda.
-NUT>
-NUT>Sigh...time to drag out the standard rebuttals:
-
-Glad to see you are open minded.  God knows you
-wouldn't want to actually think about what I said.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a NUT, huh?  I don't think you're in
a position to gripe about "open-mindedness" given the generally abusive
tone of your posting.  

-NUT>-Yup, that's why Grandma has keeps a .44 magnum under her
-NUT>-pillow...because she never knows when she'll get the urge
-NUT>-for a little midnight target shooting.
-NUT>
-NUT>Or maybe she would prefer not to be raped, robbed, or have her head caved
-NUT>in next time someone decides to break into her house.  Good grief, 
-NUT>did you THINK about what you were saying when you wrote that?
-
-Typical I've-gotta-have-a-gun-to-defend-myself-from-the-muggers
-paranoia.  I'll deal with that below.

Ok, well maybe YOU can explain why Grandma thinks she needs that weapon?
She's going to rob a few liquor stores, right?

-NUT>  Require that handguns be kept at ranges.
-NUT>
-NUT>This is not going to make me happy AT ALL.  A gun locked away at the
-NUT>range isn't going to help me defend my home or my family when I NEED it.
-
-Pull your head out!  I was talking about match shooters.

You may have had match shooters in mind, but you certainly intended that ALL
handguns be kept at ranges, right?   My objection stands.

-NUT>  (about the King County handgun death study)
-NUT>This study has been torn to shreds every time it's been posted to the
-NUT>net.  The statistics used in it are flat-out dishonest.  For example,
-NUT>the study includes suicides under shooting deaths. 
-
-Well, let's ignore the facts, shall we?  As I recall, the
-study broke down as:
-
-	95% Accidental/domestic violence
-	 2% Hostile intruder (burglars, rapists, etc.)
-	 3% Other (suicides mostly)
-	
-Probably you were reading some twisted NRA interpretation of
-the study.  

The facts as I presented them were posted by none other than Tim Sevener,
who is by no stretch of the imagination a "gun nut", an NRA supporter, or
even sympathetic to my position.  Can you cite a reference to the study
so I can check the facts for myself?

-As far as hanguns being used to just wound or capture
-criminals, I doubt that this happened nearly as often as
-shooting deaths.

Who cares how often it succeeds?  The point is, it's a perfectly valid
reason for wanting to own a handgun.

-As far as preventing crime, I really doubt this.  The crime
-rate in King County is pretty low.

Then perhaps the study does not accurately reflect the motivation
of a person living in Oakland or New York City who feels the need
to own a handgun?  Have YOU ever lived in a high-crime area?  Had
your apartment or house broken into while you were in it? (This
happened to me a few months ago...)   

-  However, you want statistical proof?  

"Statistical proof" is an oxymoron.  But no, statistics don't have
a damned thing to do with whether or not I should be able to own
a weapon...it's what I DO with it that counts.

-Plot the crime rate against per capita
-handgun ownership and then against the rate of unemployment.
-Which shows the correlation?  The crime rate vs.
-unemployment scale, of course.

So if handgun ownership is only poorly correlated with the crime rate,
then what's all the fuss about?

-  People steal because they
-need the money and if they have a gun they will use it to
-steal and maybe to kill to get rid of witnesses or just for
-the hell of it.  Remove the gun from this scenario and you
-make robbery much more difficult.  

People who are so inclined will steal whether or not they have access
to handguns.  And don't kid yourself about the effectiveness of a ban;
the criminals will be able to get them easily enough!  

-If there wasn't a gun in the house, an irate wife couldn't go get it to 
-shoot her philadering husband.  

Or a wife-beater.

>Most guns are used to commit rape, not defend against it.  

"Most guns are used to commit rape."  You didn't MEAN that, did you?
No, you couldn't have....

The argument I think you intended to make is bogus anyway.  It doesn't
matter in the least what the proportion of weapons *actually used* in
defense is;  most people never find themselves in that kind of situation.
That hardly makes it foolish to *prepare* for such an encounter by buying
a gun;  in fact, by not being prepared, you're adopting an "it won't happen
to me" attitude.  Suppose your home WAS broken into by an intruder who
intended to do you harm.  Would you truthfully feel prepared to defend
yourself without a gun?  Do you have a family? Are you willing to trust
their lives to *your* judgement that wanting to own a handgun for 
self-defense is silly?

-In your average suburb, which is where most of the people owning most of 
-the handguns live, the chance of being robbed or raped is pretty small.

Gee, isn't that interesting....a negative correlation of handgun
ownership with violent crime!

- I had a run-in with some gang kids in Renton a few years ago and I
-faced them down without problems.  What would you have done,
-pulled out your gun and started blazing away?  Get real!)

A "run-in"? With some "kids"?  What did they do, call you names or give you 
dirty looks?  If they were intent on violence, you wouldn't have lived
to post about it.   Why don't YOU "get real"...how do you propose to
defend yourself against a REAL threat from a group of attackers?  Fight
them off?  What about a woman who's not confident of being able to
defend herself against a rapist....or just a small guy like me (5'8,
115 pounds) who wouldn't stand a chance in hell against even one attacker?

-The point is, in Suburbia USA those handguns are being used
-for us to shoot each other, not bad guys.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people on THIS side of the
gun debate, including me, don't live in "Suburbia USA".  Crime, to us,
is not some abstract concept that we hear on the 6-o'clock news once
in a while....we practically have to *wade* through it every day.  
Describing a desire for effective self-defense as "paranoia" as you have
done shows a remarkable insensitivity to the perils some of us have to
face.

-NUT>Yes, that is what is wanted isn't it, the *abridging of freedom*.
-
-Yes, it is abridging freedom (and don't get holier than thou
-with me on the issue of basic freedoms.  I vote the straight
-Libertarian ticket.  Do you?)

You? A Libertarian?! HAH! You sound more like a Fascist to me.  REAL
Libertarians object only to the initiation of force or fraud, and
believe in leaving everyone else alone.  Ownership or carrying of
handguns per se constitutes neither force nor fraud,  so if you
insist on abridging my freedom to do so, you are either mistaken or
lying about being sympathetic to Libertarianism.

-NUT>:-  Should we abridge the rights of a
-NUT>:-few (handgun hunters and match shooters) for the sake of the
-NUT>  ^^^
-NUT>Few?  What about the rest of the legitmate handguns owners, more
-NUT>than one quarter of the U.S. population, 60 million people?
-
-Uh, do you have problems tying your shoes in the morning?
-You seem to have a problem following my argument.  Are you
-saying that those 60 million handgun owners (what a
-frightening thought) are all handgun hunters and match
-shooters? 

Well, just what do YOU propose to do about those 60 million handgun
owners?  As long as they aren't match shooters, you think they should
be allowed to keep their weapons at home?  Or are you perfectly willing
to abridge *their* freedom because you don't consider them "legitimate"
handgun owners?  Let's not misdirect the argument away from your true
intent, which was originally an across-the-board restriction of handgun
ownership!

-Come on.  The vast majority of those handguns are sitting in
-bedside tables waiting to be used against burglars that will
-never appear.

Oh? I thought you said they were mostly used by rapists. Silly
me.

But tell me, what harm does a handgun do when it's sitting in a bedside 
table?

-Unfortunately, the
-vast majority of shootings in this country are accidental or
-homicides.  Obviously, the guns aren't being used just for
-hunting, match shooting and self-defense.

Maybe a majority of shootings are accidental or homicides, but the
vast majority of *handguns owners* don't hurt anyone!  So why do
you want to restrict the freedom of 99% of the people involved to
attempt to control the 1%, who won't be affected anyway because 
handguns will be readily available on the black market?

The vast majority of *knifings* in this country are also, I suspect,
homicides.  Do you favor a ban on kitchen knives?  Or what about
Mace...if muggers started using it on their victims, would you argue
for banning *that* too?  

-Handguns and sawed-off shotguns are.  Handguns
-and sawed-off or home defense shotguns are made for killing
-                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
-just one animal:  Man.

Evidently you are in favor of banning shotguns for home defense,
as well! (Otherwise, why lump them in with handguns or sawed-off shotguns?)
 Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people.  It's not a pretty thought, 
but sticking your head in the sand and insisting that the government interfere
with the ability to do so is not going to make the problem go away!

-  I also have a basic right to
-defend myself, but I don't have a basic right to own a
-concealable firearm that is a threat to my fellow citizens
-(as statistics show handguns are).

Well, let's see.  Automobiles are responsible for a staggering amount
of death and injury to innocent people....the statistics are 
incontrovertible: cars are dangerous! They're a threat to my fellow
citizens!  The right to own a car, like the right to own a handgun, is
not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  Better ban them!
Oh, sure, there will be some paranoid wimps out there who think
they'll never be able to manage a 10-mile commute to work...let 'em
ride bikes, or take public transportation!  Ban cars!  Never mind
that some people just enjoy driving...it's too dangerous.  Personal
freedom does not justify putting Society at risk, especially where
DRIVING is concerned.  And even when they're not being used to kill
innocent people, they pollute the environment....just say NO to cars!

-Let's get it all clear again for those of you still muddled.

Good, then I hope *you're* paying attention!

-Handguns are primarily used for killing people, most often
-for homicides and accidental shootings. 

Handguns are primarily NOT USED AT ALL...they just sit there
waiting, as YOU pointed out, for an intruder that never arrives.

- If we outlaw
-handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in
-this country.

Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug
laws have cured drug abuse.

-  We will also inconvenience a small number of
-handgun hunters and match shooters.

And a VAST number of people whose only wish is to be able to defend
themselves against violent criminals who would continue to exist
despite any restrictions you care to impose on handgun ownership.

-  We will not be taken over by
-communists since we will retain the right to bear arms.

I don't care about communists, it's the goddamned crypto-fascists
masquerading as Libertarians who scare me shitless!

-  We will not necessarily be invoking an unconstitutional law
-since the Constitution does not specifically mention handguns.

It doesn't mention rifles or shotguns either.  The second amendment
speaks of the right to bear "arms", period.  Last time I checked, 
handguns were "arms".   As for the Constitution not mentioning handguns
*specifically*....there are LOTS of things that aren't mentioned.  That's
why the ninth amendment is there.  Or did you stop at two?

-Why am I being so insulting this time around?

Because you're a CLOWN, that's why!  We rebutted your arguments
calmly and civilly, and what do we get for our trouble? 300+ lines
of abuse describing us as "nuts", "loonies", "maroons", "pinheads",
and a total lack of evidence that you understood a single point that
was raised!

- If anyone but the pistol-packing loonies are interested in this discussion,
- I invite intelligent mail about my statements.

Yeah, and who's going to read it to you?  

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley