From: lev0@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ron Levy (Armchair))
Subject: Abortion, Guns, two sides, etc
Reply-To: lev0@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Worshippers of Yig
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:55:20 GMT


A good post here.. but with just a few problems.

>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.

     War may sometimes be, but is not always the by-product of a 
lack of communication.  Very often the reasons for war are obvious.
One side has something (land, food, goods, position) that another side
wants.  However they may talk, the one side won't just give it to the
other side, and the other side decides to try and take it by force.
The Serbs and the Croats both know what the other is.  They've been
living with one another for years under an artifical regime.  Now that
that regime has fallen, they are both trying to take control.  They don't 
want to communicate, they want to take it all.  It's obvious.
     Stances exist which cannot be reconciled by chatter; which was
pretty much the actual point of the original posting.


(Useful and largely correct bit about exactly how guns work and do
physical damage removed.)

>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.

     Does it?  Why should society be able to determine what tools you
can have instead of how you use those tools?  Everyone has hands with
opposable thumbs.  But if you make a fist, you've created a terrifying
weapon, a tool.  Society cannot determine against the fist, only that the
fist should not be used to hit people pre-emptively.  

     "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

>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.

     What say you 'we?'  Perhaps most americans.  But not all
americans.  Many americans live in places where hunting is much
cheaper than buying meat from a store.  This may or may not be what
the original poster meant when he/she said 'most guns today and
especially certain classes of guns' but most military-class guns are
designed to wound humans, not kill them.  Whether or not a handgun
bullet will kill a human is usually more a matter of luck and shot
placement than it is the design of the weapon (there is only so much
power you can put into a handgun before it becomes too big).

>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.

     Don't forget the group that feels that they have the rights to
guns for the completely up-to-date purpose of defending themselves,
their family, home, and possessions from enemies foreign or domestic.
It's a very important group.

>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.

     If someone initiates an attack against you (this is you we define
them as 'bad' I think) and you launch an attack back, you are acting
defensively.

  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.

Exactly.

>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.

     Bad people who want guns for malicious reasons are not in league
with sport enthusiasts and recreational gun users.  Criminals do not
need to lobby for gun rights or join the NRA.  They will get their
guns illegally, and defy society's wants and desires.  That's why we
call them criminals.  They consciously do not adhere to the social
contract.

How may people believe that getting rid of the guns will get rid of
the problem, against how many people who believe that removing guns
from the populace under false pretenses will make them easier to
control by Those in Power?  We don't know.  The magic machine to look
into people's hearts and souls and determine their true motives has
not yet been invented.


>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.

Have you taught your children any basic (Don't touch, go tell an
adult) or advanced gun safety?  As an expert marksman, have you taught
your children how to shoot with accuracy, first as a sport, second to
increase their knowledge of what guns are, third to allow them to make
their own, informed decision about guns?  

I think information is a key to society's decision-making process, and the
control of information, and the skewing of information, is what makes
this process so difficult especially in the case of guns.



-- 
Snake Owner's Safety Tip #3: 
	Never, EVER say, "Do da wittle snakie-wakies wanna come out to pway?"
anywhere near their cage.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women