From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:50:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) says:

>Broward Horne) writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|>    
>|>       It protects from an evil government.
>
>Do you have any example where this has been operative in the US since we became
>a country?
>

     Ban them and find out.  A negative argument carries no weight.


     I have little doubt that is coming now anyway.  You'll get 
     your test.  I won't be here.

>|>       It protects from evil people.
>
>There is some evidence to support this, although people who use guns for self
>defense tend to be killed, rather than kill.


     I personally have used a gun, twice, to protect myself in Los Angeles.
     My father once.  No shots were fired.  
     No one in family has ever had an accident, nor have we ever shot
     each other.  Lack of common sense in other people is not a particularly
     good reasoning either.  But, I suppose we should reduce all things
     to the lowest common denominator, because obviously the american
     people are stupid to make their own decisions.  Another elitist.
>
>|>       It ensures 
      Oh, please, please make my decisions for me.  You know so much 
      better than I.  I surely hope you aren't pro-abortion.  That
      would imply you actually trusted someone to make a life or 
      death decision.

my RIGHT to self-determination.
>
>???????????


    This is truly the crux of the whole argument, isn't it?
  
    A concrete, tangible argument ( a dead child ) versus a call
    for moral evaluation, a foggy notion, an intangible feeling
    
    ( to take a line from Clinton )  called "Freedom".

>|> >
>to tie their shoes should be allowed to own a gun.  In Houston, about 3 years
>ago, there was a 12 year old boy who was on the news and paraded by the local
>NRA because of his excellence in gun handling and his knowledge of gun safety.
>A year later he was back on TV.  He had accidentally shot and killed his
>sister at a shooting range

  
      So what, chum.  People die every day.  They die in cars.  They die
      in fights, they die in swimming pools.  That's life.  The one thing
      that truly bothers me here is the complete lack of objective 
      reasoning.  " A little child died ".  Emotions don't make the 
      future.  My sister is dead.  Should we ban medicine?  Should
      we ban brain sugery?  But, but, " a little child is dead ".

      America is, well, was about "Freedom".  Hey, there are around
      140 other countries where you don't have to worry about guns
      ( like Britain. hehehehe ).  You can be protected from yourself.

      Go there.  Why ruin the last one that isn't the same?
>
>People who do pass driving test are dangerous enough.  Times have changed.
>When the constitution was written, a gun was an everyday part of nearly
>everyone's life.  Hunting and local wars were the game of the day.  Young
>boys (sorry ladies - not to many annie oakley's back then) were tought
>how to use and care for a gun at an early age.  Now, most of the people 
>buying guns have not skills, training, or respect for their new toy.
>
>-- 

       And here, the most dangerous of all.  " Times are different now "

       Go to Los Angeles and tell me that.  Look at our government
        corrupt beyond belief, and tell me that.         

       The argument is moot, anyhow.  Clinton, or at least congress,
       will have it done by 1996.  There are other countries emerging
       that recognize  the value of freedom.

>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59397 talk.politics.guns:23881 ca.politics:9494 ba.politics:6962 misc.legal:19749