From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: More Gun Control
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:05:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.141747.18945@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com
(A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>|>>But we don't *need* the guns.  If they weren't around, then that's 1400
>|>>people that would still be here today.  Since 1970, it must be in the
>|>>thousands.  I'm sure that you could cite the astoundingly low number of 
>|>>accidental deaths that occur from bungee jumping or leaping out of a perfectly
>|>>good plane with a parachute on your back, but that doesn't make the 
>|>>activity any more defensible or intelligent.
>|> 
>|> First off, what this goes to show is that the chance that you will be killed
>|> as a result of a gun accident is MUCH lower than the chance that you'll be
>|> killed in either an auto accident, in your home, in a pool or while eating
>|> in your favorite restaurant.
>
>I understood that. *My* point is that I need a car, a home, and food, and I
>don't think I could avoid being around water even if I wanted to.  Can't say
>the same about the gun thing.

So?  Do you really mean to imply that YOUR needs should be the basis for
legislation?

>|> Secondly, the trend in gun accidents is obviously down, FIFTY PERCENT over
>|> the last 20 years.  This is primarily due to education, a large part of which
>|> was accomplished by the NRA.
>
>Yep, and yet another school kid was blasted here in NC the other day because
>another kid had a gun in a backpack and it went off when he reached inside
>to get something else.  When gun accidents get down to 0, get back to me.

And that kid shouldn't have had a loaded gun in his pack.  So punish him
and whoever got the gun for him, not the millions of people out there who
can handle the responsibility...

>|> Thirdly, I imagine (pure speculation) that those people who were killed
>|> were NOT people who have been trained to handle guns safely.  So, if you
>|> want to reduce your chances (and the chances of your family) of being hurt
>|> or worse in a gun accident to near zero, you'll go with your family to a
>|> gun safety class, instead of treating guns as yucky things that only
>|> rednecks have.  A good 50% of the people I know with guns are at least as
>|> liberal as me.
>
>I never said anything about rednecks or yucky things at all. I used to hunt.
>I used to shoot for sport.  I can get those chances a whole helluva lot 
>closer to zero by not having a gun in my house.

Are you teaching your kids what to do if someone pulls out a gun?  Or just
hoping vaguely that they'll do the right thing?

>|> Finally, it's not your business to say whether people "need" guns.  Some
>|> people do need guns.  Close to 50% of the households in this country have
>|> guns in them, so people living there clearly feel they need guns.  And a
>|> lot of people LIKE guns, get pleasure from using them safely.  Those
>|> people will have guns, period, and the only way to get those guns away
>|> from them would tear the country apart as surely as if the Supreme Court
>|> had criminalized abortion.  The time for extremism and prohibition in
>|> this country is OVER.
>
>Close to 100% of the households in this country have a television in them.
>Would they be better off without them?  Probably.  Do they *need* them? I
>seriously doubt it. I challenge you to come up with one, good, defensible
>reason that anyone *needs* a gun.  The closest that I've ever heard anyone
>come up with is "Defense of my home and family".  You can lock up your home
>tighter than a ten-cent mainspring to keep out all but the most single-
>minded intruders, and if somebody is *that* determined to get you, then 
>they'll get you when you leave your house, so you and your family had better
>carry that gun with you everywhere you go.

Again, you're implying that gun owners NEED to justify their possession of
guns.  The fact is, we do not.  Some of the reasons why people own guns are:
1. Self defense
2. Hunting
3. Other sporting uses
4. They are very interesting machines

Frankly, I'm sick of this simplistic attitude that people have towards 
preemptive law enforcement.  For example, one of my hobbies is keeping smallish
pythons.  Since greater than zero people have been killed by these animals,
(and a lot of people feel a primitive fear regarding these elegant creatures),
many cities have laws against keeping snakes above a certain size, regardless
of species or cage security.  Thus, they equate an 8 foot bull snake in a
secure cage with an 8 foot anaconda (string fucking snake with an attitude)
kept in a cardboard box.  And rather than punishing people whose pets hurt
others through negligence, they seek to enact absurd bans.

>|> I've got news for you Dave:  life is 100% fatal.  Everyone alive today is
>|> going to be worm food withing a century, as will their kids and THEIR kids.
>|> So I refuse to spend my life in a futile attempt to make life safe.  Instead,
>|> I'll spend it doing things that I enjoy and not interfering with things that
>|> other people enjoy, aside from things like test-driving race cars past
>|> shools during lunch break and dueling with tactical nukes.
>
>So where do you draw the line?  I won't take a chance on running down any
>innocents with my race car, but I'll fight to the death to make guns readily
>available to the population at large.

Who said that I wanted just anyone to have a gun?  What I propose is that
current laws be enforced, instead of enacting new ones in the feeble hope
that they'll do some good.

>I've got news for you Don:  I refuse to adopt a fatalistic attitude about
>life being 100% fatal and therefore I'm going to have *my* fun, dammit.  If
>I'm crossing the road and I see a Mack truck bearing down on me at 60 MPH,
>I don't say to myself that it's been really fun while it lasted; I get out
>of the way.

Very good.  however, be advised that life IS 100% fatal (unless you're taken
during the Rapture) and SOMETHING will get you someday.  Trying to make
everything you're afraid of illegal won't get you anywhere in life.

>BTW, it's quite a pleasure to be able to express differing opinions in the
>group here without taking personal shots.

Heh heh, we're just getting started...

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To quote James Wright:
    "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
    gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds.  I have
    nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
    I have come in contact over the past years.  They are, for the most part, 
    sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
    reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
    person must share.  I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
    barking up the wrong tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroups: alt.peeves