From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:23:16 GMT

In article <By6AuD.Fz3@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.002301.19866@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>I think you've been watching too much television. In the scenario you describe,
>only someone with police/combat training would have even the *slightest*
>chance of coming out of that alive. Somewhere between slim and none. Do you
>honestly believe that you can do three things unprepared faster than someone
>can do one who is prepared for it?

If I start moving first, yes.  That's how one exploits the
action-reaction gap.  The actor starts first; the prepared move is a
REACTION.  An actor doesn't have time to do everything, but there are
some things one can do before someone can react.  One of them happens
to be draw and fire.

It's easy enough to verify this; the relevant experiment is rather
easy to set up.  (It happens to also be a reasonable training
exercise.)  It is somewhat counter-intuitive, so try it.

>>>Don't ban the guns, ban the uses to which they are put.
>>
>>Which now-legal uses should be banned?  Murder and assault are already
>>banned.  What will be the benefit of banning self-defense?  How about
>>recreational shooting?  Hunting?  (I note that hunters are provide the
>>bulk of the habitat preservation money.  Sure, more would be nice, but
>>we non-hunters aren't kicking much in now and it isn't clear that that
>>will change if the hunters stop.)
>
>You missed the point here. I didn't say a word about banning hunting or
>recreational shooting. I was talking about violent crime in general.

It looks like MacAnndra was proposing a change in the laws regarding
use.  I'm asking for the relevant details.  What now-legal uses should
be banned?  If he's not proposing a change, what is being proposed?
Is it something other than enforcement of laws against murder,
assault, robbery, etc.?

>If there is some way to curtail the uses to which guns are put, then we
>obviate the *need* for them for self defense.

Really?  Given equal training, strength and speed wins with other
weapons.  Guns eliminate the strength advantage and can be used during
the action-reaction gap, eliminating much of the speed advantage.  How
will the weak defend against the strong if neither has guns?

>>>Greater social consciousness is what's needed, and you can't regulate that
>>>with a bunch of laws.
>>
>>Right.  So maybe we should oppose those who want to propose measures
>>that won't help but will use the resources we need to increase
>>social conciousness.
>
>I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that there are people putting
>forth measures to ban guns, knowing that they won't do any good, and then
>using the money they get from the gov't to raise social consiousness?

I'm saying that the money we waste on gun control, whether or not its
advocates know that it is wasted, is money we can't spend doing
something worthwhile.

>Or are you saying it's useless to try to raise social consciousness?

Not at all.  I think it is quite worthwhile.  It isn't cheap though,
especially if you do the other necessary things like improving living
conditions.  Resources wasted elsewhere aren't available to raise
social consciousness.

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