From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.132226.24861@talon.ucs.orst.edu> dodd@OES.ORST.EDU (Stirling S. Dodd) writes:
>    There have been a lot of good and pertainent (sp?) points made on this
>thread concerning the use of handguns. I believe a few have been left out.

Let's see.

>Guns are expensive, bulky and generally dangerous (duh... no really), finally
>guns have a nasty habit of killing people who are not the intended target.

No, they don't.  We know what the gun accident rate is; it's in the noise.

>Guns generally run from one (small twenty-two's) to several hundred dollars,
>not counting training, ammunition, etc...

One can spend as much on a gun, up to the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
as one is willing to spend, but guns can be much less expensive than
Dodd suggests.

>A woman with a handbag may conceal one, but it then becomes difficult to
>obtain in a hurry (sorry Mr. Rapist, but my gun seems to be stuck...:->).

Once again, we see the "it's possible to carry a gun in a way that
makes in inaccessible, therefore women MUST do so" assumption.  It
turns out that there are other ways to carry.  They're called
holsters, but there is a wide variety.  Some LOOK like purses, and
have purse compartments, but the guns are elsewhere, and quickly
accessible.  Some are worn on the body, and thus immediately
available, yet not accessible to others.  Then there are the holsters
that police use....

Moreover, we know that lots of women have some notice.  They know
something bad is about to happen, but they don't have an escape.  They
can use this time to locate a gun buried in the bottom of the deepest
purse, but only if there's a gun there to be located.

>A gun in a bag presents no threat until it is pulled out.

So?  The woman is going about her biz.  She's not interested
in offering a threat until that becomes necessary.

>The point is, the military learned long ago that a big visible gun was far
>more effective than a concealed weapon.

The military has different goals.

>A person might be tempted to use their gun before truly looking at all other
>options. People are very resourceful when forced into action.

So, if a few women die, that's an acceptable cost of encouraging
others to look for an alternative way of dealing with an attacker.
It's not often that we see someone admit that they value the attacker's
life more than that of the victim.

>Do they want to keep loaded guns around their children?

Why not give them the choice?  After all, they keep plenty of dangerous
items around their children.  Guns are the least of their worries.

>How many times have you heard about experienced hunters, people who
>grew up around guns all their lives, being killed while cleaning their
>guns, etc...

It turns out that it doesn't happen, at least not in the US.

Incidents that are so reported turn out to be covered up suicides.
"gun cleaning accident" is police-speak for "he killed himself with a
gun, and this family really needs the insurance, so let's call it an
accident so they'll get it."

>It is best not to keep them around.

Except for manly men like Dodd.

>Do you really want to spend so much time worrying about what your gun is doing
>when you're not around?

What's to worry?  I know how to keep kids safe from household chemicals
and knives; guns are no different.

>What about the drive by shootings...

What about them?  They aren't committed by people who carry for
self-defense.  They're committed by people involved in a smuggling
biz, so disarming the self-defenders can't affect them at all.

>The only situation where I would want a gun would be if I were in my house
>and someone entered with a gun, and then it would be a shotgun.

Shotguns are fine for some situations, but if Dodd thinks that
shotguns are the best choice for the situation he described, he
doesn't know anything about shotguns.

>On the street
>you had best be able to talk and run fast, and watch your back...

"..." means "And lie back and enjoy it when things don't work out."

>I'm 6'5", 210#

So, his advice is appropriate for someone who doesn't have
his size and strength.  NOT!

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