From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:02:20 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <cthong.713584651@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>Really?  Having read design documents for a number of guns, I disagree.
>>>It's easy enough to settle; point out a feature common to many guns that
>>>is aimed at that goal, and no other.
>>easy, higher and higher calibre ranges for weapons.

>I love a straight man.

>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The "modern" (since 1900) trend has been toward
>less bullet diameter and weight.  The increase velocity hasn't resulted
>in greater momentum or KE.  If anything, the trend is towards less
>lethality, not more.

>>i mean here you have rounds that can stop a bull MOOSE in play.

>That's not evidence of "design for".  Besides, there's nothing new
>about that, or even gun-specific.  A bulldozer can kill a bull moose;
>are bulldozers designed to kill?

>The claim was that all guns were designed to kill.  At most, we have
>evidence that some guns can kill.  However, a baseball bat can do
>that, and we know that bat's aren't designed to kill, they're designed
>to hit things.

>>also as all guns fire some form of 
>>projectile, i direct your attention to the section on some ammo adverts 
>>that publicise wound statistics and (Hollow points and their increasing
>>popularity is another point-) the very fact that dummy targets (discounting
>>a canadian bull for grouping) all have desired strike zones located around
>>definitely sure kill places on the body....

>Wrong.  Hollowpoints are less lethal than FMJ when used to "stop".
>The targets designated are effective "stop zones", which is somewhat
>important since the goal of self-defense is to stop the attacker.

>>come on, nobody makes weapons
>>to wing or even to take out a leg anymore do they?

>How is a gun designed to shoot someone in the leg different than
>one designed to shoot them somewhere else?

>Shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them, unless
>you're using something that pretty much guarantees amputation, which
>is way beyond "modern" small arms.  Such amputation is likely to
>result in eventual death, more so than less extreme measures like
>shooting them in a "stop zone" with a practical gun.

>While shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them,
>they're still at some risk of death.  Anti-self-defense folk sure
>are blood thirsty.  They want to kill attackers, they just don't
>want to stop them.
 let me get this straight - stop them but don't kill them.
don't shoot them in the arms or the legs.
boy . you sure must be a REAL good shot if you can think of AND hit 
another 'disabling' area of the body eh?
>>or maybe it's the training phillosophy behind gun clubs and instructors-
>>either a vital parts shot or you fail.

>It is a failure if you don't stop the attacker.

>>it IS the few irresponsible fucks who treat it like a toy or a weapon
>>intending to go out of their way to harm others that are to blame.

>Fine.  Then why are you so damn concerned with everyone else?

>>but if you can't do anything about these people, as they will always
>>be around, then do some thing about the guns.

>What if you can't?  Feel free to provide an example of successful
>gun control, where the introduction of gun control was associated with
>a significant benefit.

>>true, they'll find some other thing with which to harm themselves and
>>others with but at least it won't be something with so much potential
>>to cause SO much harm and take so much away from others.

>Considering that Thong has demonstrated he doesn't know anything about
>guns, does he really want us to take him seriously when he makes
>comparisons that depend on such knowledge?

>I note that Thong is depressed because a registration program didn't
>result in lots of compliance by good folks.  Why is he so interested
>in whether or not good folks comply?  They're not going to do anything
>wrong whether or not they sign up.  Shouldn't he be concerned by
>registration's failures wrt thugs?

>Thong's proposals are inconsistent with his stated "control crime"
>purpose.  Why?

>-andy

>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns