From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: Killeen
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:03:30 GMT

In article <73907@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
> In <1992Nov6.041425.24217@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >Guns are a lot different from knives.  I can sit a block away with
> >a knife and be considered a mild threat - but a gun makes me a 
> >major threat.  I've had this argument before  "oh then let's ban
> >steak knives" - tell that to the people in Killeen.  If that guy
> >had a steak knife 90% of his victims might be alive.  Guns are
> >a very different matter.
> 
> Ahem. The guy in Killeen had a Glock. This is a relatively short-barrelled
> pistol.  Like most pistols, the range at which you can actually hit anything
> is about 10 feet, good knife range. Beyond that, only the most amazing amount
> of luck, practice and a much better pistol than a Glock will allow you to hit
> the side of a barn. TV shows far too many cops picking perp's off from
> a block away with a snubby revolver, try it yourself some time.

I'd like to hear from other experts on this, but if the Glock is such 
a crappy gun - why is it so popular, and didn't I hear that a police
force or two is/or wanted to use it?  If 10 feet is "knife range" why
wasn't he knifed to death as he killed all those people?  Advantage gun -

> As most police officers learn, even an arthritic old woman can cross 10 feet
> and put a knife in your gut before you can draw a pistol. Knives can
> be in the end more deadly since people often don't take them as seriously.
> 

If you're not careful - but with gun she wouldn't have to get out of her
wheelchair, just pull the gun out of her knitting basket and shoot.

> The guy also had had his driver's license taken away earlier. This didn't
> seem to prevent him from driving his pickup truck through the front of the
> restaurant. How can I make this clear? Nut cases like the guy in Killeen
> don't care about your silly bans or regulations, and they will *not* stop
> them. At least take the time to find out the facts of the matter before
> trying to use Hennard as a poster child for the evil-gun-disease. Seems
> like there was a copy of a fairly complete account posted a while back,
> perhaps someone will repost?
> 

Why is it we hear the same arguments (i.e he drove without a license) - are
they posted somewhere?  Yes, you can drive without a license, yet I haven't
heard anyone use that as an excuse for making it legal to do so.  As for
Hennard being a poster child - why not?  Would you prefer the shooter
in California, or some other?

> I might also point out that at least one young lady in the restaurant
> in Killeen had left her pistol in the car since Texas law doesn't
> allow concealed carry by citizens for *any* reason. Her parents are
> both dead because of this she claims, and she is campaigning to change
> Texas law so citizens can get carry permits. If she had had her gun,
> it might have ended much quicker also.

Could have been, but what has that got to do with the idea of gun control?
She could have shot him down, or frozen, or been shot down as she tried,
or hit another innocent person - it happens in combat, it happens in 
police raids, why do you assume some relatively untrained (I doubt a
shooting range is enough preparation for the real thing) person would have
simply stood up and taken him out?  Eliminating all rules might have stopped
the guy or might have simply created more people with the firepower to settle
fender bender with guns.  Keeping the guns out of the hands of people like
Hennard will save lives, not arming every moron with the cash to buy one.



marc colten