From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:33:25 GMT

This on-going debate over whether an AK-47 is an assault weapon or a
machine gun and whether we ALL should or should be allowed to have one
over the mantle is all well and good.  However, when arguing the
specifics and only the specifics of technical details such as whether a
weapon can fire 3 rounds per second (all with one trigger pull) or 1.5
rounds per second (because of the individual trigger pulls) or what the
intent of the founding fathers was over 200 years ago when they
dictated their morality into our society, you leave out something -
perspective.  You are so entrenched in this low-level argument that you
never argue the real issues.

For example, there are several standard procedures for performing an
abortion.  To the best of my knowledge, this is one....  The mother is
sedated and some derivative of seaweed is placed in the cap of the
uterus.  This derivative expands and opens the mouth of the uterus.
While it has dilated approximately 2 to 3 centimeters (several hours
later), the doctor proceeds with the abortion.  The doctor takes a
specially designed pair of forceps and places them inside the uterus.
The doctor tears the sack surrounding the fetus, then proceeds to start
pulling at the fetus with the forceps.  Literally, the doctor pulls the
arms and legs off and starts tearing the abdomen into pieces.  The skull
is located and crushed with the forceps.  The pieces are pulled from the
uterus.  Suction is also used during the excavation process.

The process is quite morbid.  Pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-fetal murder
people use descriptions such as this (except in more graphic detail and
with pictures or videotape) to point out the harsh reality of what an
abortion is.  The pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-fetal murder camp uses a
completely different rhetoric - they use arguments filled with cries
of a woman's right to her own body, the great burden of giving birth to
an unwanted child, etc.

There is a vast polarity in the approach to the abortion debate, but at
the highest level, both groups are debating the same thing - the ethics
of abortion.  One group places a higher value on the rights of the
unborn fetus - simply recognizing it as a future human being - meaning
that it is a human being even before it is born and should, therefore,
not be murdered (or the less harsh term "aborted").  The other group
places a higher value on the human being that is already fully-grown
and developed - the right for that person to not be burdened with an
unwanted and probably unexpected child.

It is a very interesting dilemma.   Unfortunately, both sides to
the argument are relevant.  That's the problem - both points are valid.
Which one is the more valid and how do we determine this?  There is no
magic scale that allows us to weigh these two moral issues and determine
which one has more mass - which position is more moral.

And that is the dilemma with guns.

Guns have a practical purpose - to kill wild game.  A long time ago,
they were virtually a created necessity in providing food.  Humans are
also animals, and guns can kill all animals.  So, a second original
purpose for guns was to kill humans - primarily in acts of war.  War -
the by-product of a lack of communication.

When a gun is fired, a mechanism (a firing pin) within the gun is
propelled into a the back of a bullet, which resides in a chamber in
the gun.  The firing pin distorts a highly combustible substance in the
tail end of the bullet shell casing - causing an instantaneous and
dramatic amount of friction.  The friction ignites this substance.
That substance, in turn, when ignited, also ignites a clump of powder
within the bullet shell.  This powder, when it burns, releases a great
deal of energy and burns very quickly.  When it burns, it creates a
gas.  This gas builds up pressure and quickly reaches a point where
this pressure overcomes the forces that hold the end of the bullet in
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.

Where that bullet goes depends solely on where the barrel of the gun is
pointing at when it fires.  The bullet can be propelled into the air,
water, earth, plants or animals.  Many times the gun is pointed at
another human being and the bullet is hurled into the body of that
human.  Upon impact with the body, the skin distorts a small amount,
but the bullet is traveling so rapidly, its kinetic energy pushes it
through the skin.  The skin rips away and the bullet contines deeper
into the body,  It passes through muscles, veins, capillaries, fat.  If
it comes into contact with bone, the bone and the bullet have a little
contest to see which one is harder.  The bullet will distort in shape
relative to the contour of the bone.  Many times, the bone will still be
penetrated.  Whether the bullet penetrates the bone or not is primarily
a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet (how fast it was
traveling and its mass) and how hard the bullet is.  With most weapons,
other than 22 caliber shorts, the bullet wins, but the bone will
distort the shape of the bullet and alter its flight path.  In the
bullet's wake, it creates a ripple - a shock blast.  The shock blast
can further tear and destroy skin, muscle tissue, veins, capillaries,
etc.  If the bullet has been distorted greatly (and many bullets are
designed to greatly distort on impact), it is much larger when it
leaves the body than when it penetrated the body.  The exit path is
usually much larger than the entrance path.

That's the reality of a bullet firing and penetrating an animal.

That is what bullets and guns were designed for - that is their purpose.

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.

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.  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.

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.

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.

Both problems (abortion and gun control) are moral issues.  You have to
remember that.  And remember that your arguments have the most value to
society when you stick to the high-level, moral perspective.  Debating
in the trenches is fine, but make your moral connections and points.
The society in this country is undecided on both of these issues.  Both
create and are products of other problems within society.  It's a
tangled web.

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?  

I now return you to your regularly schedued programming....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  Just for everyone's information, I have two children.  I also
paid for one abortion.  I don't own any guns, but one of my brothers
owns about $20,000 worth of guns - for shooting at targets.  Another
brother owns a couple of guns solely for hunting.  I'm uncomfortable
with guns, but I can shoot guns very accurately and precisely (more
accurately than either of my brothers that own guns).  Six years ago I
outshot the National Guard Ohio State Rifle Team.  I had 51 of 52 hits
at a 200 meter target.  The majority of my hits you could cover with a
silver dollar.  I first qualified as an expert marksman 8 years ago.
One of the most horrific thoughts I could imagine is one of my children
being shot.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm just as undecided on both of these
issues as the rest of society.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns