From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Gun control
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: Five & You're Dead
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:33:09 GMT


In article <1juvioINNcs7@digex.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.203140.5215@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
> >
> >> The automobile analogy works a little here;
> >
> >But not very well.
> 
> You don't address any of the points that I make, you just 
> blow them off with a one liner.  This is one reason why 
> it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you....

Guns are not cars. I need a car to get to work to earn my living. I do not need
a gun. Hopefully I will never need a gun.

> >There is a happy medium in most things. While we know that if there were no 
> >guns no-one will get shot, we also know that there will always be some guns 
> >around.  Not everybody wants to carry a gun, so they are automatically at 
> >a disadvantage to criminals who do. The aim of a democracy is to find the
> > happy medium, and that will require compromise on both sides.
> 
> Not everyone wants to wear seat-belts; if they do not, they are 
> making a choice that might lower their safety, but it is their
> choice.  
> Not everyone wants to carry a gun; is that a reason 
> why nobody should be allowed to do it?

People can drive without seat-belts as far as I care - provided they are covered
by their insurance for the potentially larger hosplital bills they are likely
to incur.

> Not everyone wants to carry a gun; is that a reason 
> why nobody should be allowed to do it?

Not everybody can use a gun (it requires some level of physical ability and
skill). And once again I never advocated a "ban".

> They are not "automatically" at a disadvantage.  Through their action
> or inaction they are at a disadvantage.  They make a concious decision
> to be at a disadvantage.  That is not "automatic".

Not true - they are automatically at a disadvantage because they have to make
a concious decision to arm themselves (we are not born with guns).

> >> >My point was that a shotgun is a perfectly good home defense weapon, 
> >> >but it is difficult to carry concealed. It is therefore a weapon that
> >> >I have no objection to people owning.
> >> 
> >> Ah!  Then you might consider a law to allow open carry?  Open 
> >> carry laws are VERY strict about concealment.
> >
> >No, the idea is to make it difficult to buy weapons that are easily concealed,
> >which makes it difficult to carry guns on the streets without it being obvious
> >(to the police etc.).
> 
> But in the paragraph above you state "we also know that there will always
> be some guns around".  What kind of guns are you talking about?

Shotguns and hunting rifles will always be available.

> Are these "guns that will always be around" concealable?  If so, and the 
> bad guys have them, then limiting the good guys to shotguns might 
> put the public "so they are automatically at a disadvantage to criminals
> who do." to use your own words.
> Inconsistant logical application Kev.

What's limiting about a shotgun ?  - and the risk is the same in DC anyway
since you can't carry legally.

> >> But, I have to question the belief system that causes you to 
> >> have a problem with concealment.  Is it the fact that the weapon
> >> is concealed that is a problem to be solved, or is the danger 
> >> something to do with the person who is carries the weapon?
> >
> >Ideally no civilian should need to carry a concealed gun, therefore people
> >carrying guns would be either criminals or mentally deranged.
> 
> What does that have to do with reality?  Ideally?

Reality is far from ideal. I would like to think that society was on a path of
improvemnet towards some "ideal" - but then people like yourself keep standing
in the way of progress.

> >> Does someone who knows a deadly martial art have to have that 
> >> fact tattoed on his or her forehead in bright colors so that their
> >> "weapon" is not "concealed"?
> >
> >Muggers and thieves are not generally martial artists as far as I know.
> 
> Really?  Cite your references.  Name the dojo and the instructor 
> that gives you this enlightened information.

You brought it up, cite your own references saying they are a threat.

> By the way, I am still waiting for your information on ammo that 
> will allow an assault weapon to be safe as a home defense weapon.

Haven't had the time to do the research yet - but I will. It's a familiar problem
to the British army in N. Ireland where they patrol housing estates - so I know
someone has done it, even if it isn't public knowledge.

> Put up or shut up Kev.  Do you know anything about this, or are 
> you just a know-nothing blowhard asshole who loves to hear himself type?

You type more than I do :-)

Kev.
--