From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: gun control as a moral issue (like abortion)
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:42:23 GMT

From article <1992Jul30.103325.27001@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, by noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer):

[Interesting commentary on abortion deleted]
[Interesting commentary on how guns operate deleted]

> place.  A great deal of potential energy is immediately converted to
> kinetic energy and the gas propels the bullet down the barrel of the
> gun at speeds approaching 700 miles per hour (some tank and artillery
> rounds reach velocities of 2200 miles per hours).  It is an amazing
> chemical reaction.

The 700 MPH figure is close for very slow bullets, the 2200 MPH figure is
accurate for most hunting type bullets.  Many are much faster.

> 

[More interesting descriptions of the action of a bullet impact]

> 
> Society has the right to determine whether this is a tool that we need
> and should have.  In the 1700's, war was a reality of everyday life.  Not
> only that, but a gun was a tool that provided sustenance for humans.
> But today, we have many other tools for providing that sustenance.  Guns
> are not needed for that purpose - although they are still used in that
> manner.  The primary purpose of most guns today, and especially certain
> classes of guns, are not to kill animals such as deer and squirrels, but
> to kill people.

Since you are discounting the possibility of war in these civilized
times, I contend that MOST guns are not used to kill people.  The number
of guns used to kill people is miniscule compared to the number of guns
used to kill animals, and even more so compared to the number of guns
used for target shooting (basically the same type of activity as golf,
basketball, etc.).

> 
> As a society, we have to determine whether that is something we need and
> want.  There are many people on both sides of this issue.  One group
> feels they should have rights to guns for the antiquated purpose of
> providing sustenance.  They don't want to hurt any humans with their
> guns.

You may feel that hunting is "antiquated", but I and many others feel
diferently.

>        Another group sees the reality that many guns are designed
> primarily for killing people, and they don't want people killed, so they
> don't want guns.

Once again, your view of reality is very distorted, IMHO.

> 
> Unfortunately, we live in a violent society.  Guns are everywhere and
> can be obtained quickly and cheaply - even by people with bad intentions
> - such as killing people.  Because many bad people have access to guns,
> many good people want access to guns, so they can use the guns in
> offensive acts against bad people that are trying to commit offensive
> acts against them.  They believe, `boy, it would be really great if we
> didn't need guns, but there are a lot of bad people out there who might
> try to hurt me and mine, so I need a gun to defend myself and mine
> against those people.'  You might call it a "practical" approach.

Maybe we should just ban the harming of other people with guns or other
weapons.  If we did that, there would be no reason to ban objects which
are used for "good" purposes just because someone might harm someone else
with them.

> 
> We have a moral dilemma that pits sport enthusiasts and recreational gun
> users - unhappily in bed with a whole lot of bad people who want guns
> for malicious reasons, against a whole lot of people who just wish the
> whole problem would go away and believe that getting rid of the guns
> would get rid of the problem.

...but are not willing to fix the real problem and prefer to attack
inanimate objects instead.

> 
> So, I encourage the discourse on guns and gun control.  If there is a
> more enlightened, more moral position that society should take, then
> those who know that position should inform others and convince them
> with their intellectual arguments to be swayed in the appropriate
> direction.  The discourse will continue for quite some time.  All I'm
> saying, or asking, is that this is an intellectual decision that needs
> to be made by society.  What we are living with now is just a series of
> compromises made between the two factions in society - pro- and
> anti-gun.  Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, that is how things will
> continue in the future.  But arguing whether an AK-47 is a machine gun,
> or an assault rifle, or a tool for hunters is simply an argument of
> semantics.  It is a word game.  A gun is a gun.  How's that for a
> verity?  Now, knowing that a gun is a gun, argue.  Of what value is a
> gun?  What are the good attributes?  What are the bad attributes?  

A gun is a gun, just as you say.  A criminal is a criminal.  If you want
to stop crime and could only remove one of these from society, which
would you choose?

A gun can be used in many ways which do not harm others, I don't know of
any way that a criminal can be of any value to society.

> 
> I now return you to your regularly schedued programming....
> 
> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
> TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
> 

As you can tell, I am pro-gun.  When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice,
but in my own case I would only consider abortion in the worst of 
circumstances. (One possible case which comes to mind is in the case of a 
woman raped by an AIDS infected criminal.)

As you say, both are moral issues, and I don't believe that you can
effectively legislate morality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns