From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:12:14 GMT

In article <Sep.24.10.42.23.1992.24186@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>
>>williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>
>>I feel safer carrying a gun.  Who wouldn't?  A gun can't twist around
>>in you hand and shoot you and you can use it to protect yourself.
>
>I wouldn't.  It can be taken away from you and used against you.
>
Hi, Susan, it's a pleasure to see comments regarding gun issues from
someone new.  Especially someone who seems to post with sincerity
and without flameage.

It's true that guns can be used against their owner.  This happens
_most_ frequently when the owner is a police officer (probably
because the gun in question is simple to operate and "on display").
However, it doesn't happen as often as you would think.  And
some rudimentary understanding of weapons retention skills would
decrease instances of this happening tremendously.  Merely
_carrying_ a gun will not protect you from danger; a gun is
not a talisman.  Some training is necessary and responsible.

However, please understand that statistically the safest course
of action when assaulted is to defend yourself with a gun --
safer than defending with a knife or fists, safer even than
complying with your attacker.

Read Kleck's "Crime Control Through The Use Of Armed Force".

>>How would you feel carrying a gun?
>
>Terrified.
>
My wife used to be afraid of guns, too.  One day I decided to
join a shooting club with some of my co-workers (requiring a
pistol permit which takes about 6-8 months and $$ here in
the Emperor's^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hire State of New York), and my
wife's attitude was "If there's going to be a gun in the
house, I sure as **** am going to know how to handle it safely."

Like I said, she used to really be afraid of her gun.  Now,
4 yrs later, she's winning league level awards (set one
league record, too)!  She's probably be one of the best
people to explain how the public's and the media's misconceptions
about guns lead to undue fear, especially when one's contact
with guns is limited to the news and movies.

>>> Guns hurt people.
>
>>No,  guns are sometimes used to hurt people.  But so are cars, baseball
>>bats, and free speech.
>
>All these things were designed with a specific purpose in mind.  So were
>guns.  Guns were designed to destroy things, like lives.  Granted, they
>were also designed to destroy targets and clay pigeons.  But the 
>destruction is the primary purpose of a gun.
>
>Other than hunting, which most people will agree is a reasonable use for
>a gun, guns are designed to kill people.  

Guns have the ability to kill people, true.  But it takes someone
to operate it to have that effect.  Further, don't you consider
self-defense to be legitimate?  The police carry guns with
the ability to kill people as a means of ensuring that they will
return home at night.  Shouldn't normal, decent, people have the
same option?  Sure, we have _some_ more control over our
surroundings than do cops (they _have_ to go into dangerous
areas), but people are also at risk sometimes.  

>
>I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry them.  Banning guns only takes
>them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while leaving them defenseless
>against criminals who do have these things.  

Ah, so you DO think self-defense is a legitimate use of guns.

>However, restrictions should
>be enforced.  I support a waiting period.  Not only to allow a check on 
>the purchaser's credentials, but to ensure that this purchase is not 
>emotionally motivated.
>
Well, first off, a waiting period is not necessary to perform
such a check.  It can be done on-line, in a matter of seconds
to minutes.   If the records are available, they can be computerized
quite economically.  If the records are unavailable, a waiting
period would be useless.

As far as ensuring that a purchase is not emotionally motivated, 
are you aware that so-called "crimes of passion" are statistical
aberrations, at least those involving perpetrators without violent
histories.  For instance, in 90% of spouse slayings, the police
were called at least one time due to the man beating his wife;  the
median number of police reports was 5!

In fact, only 2.1% of all gun murders where the source of the
gun could be determined were purchased less than one month before
the crime.

Further, the most frequent time for murders precipitated by
arguments (presumably what you meant by "emotionally motivated"
gun purchases) is between 10 PM and 3 AM -- when gun stores
are closed!  

>>If your friend had been killed in a stampede because someone shouted
>>'fire' in a crowded theatre would you be fighting free speech or
>>calling for a ban on movie theatres?
>
>He probably would.  Most people react this way when something unforseen
>and uncontrollable takes away a loved one.  They have to try and do 
>something about what has happened, even though nothing can really be done.
>Its a natural reaction and its part of the grieving process.
>
>Don't beat him up too much about it.  
>

_I_ certainly won't.  But I do applaude those who cool and logically
corrected his misstatements.  I hope that others realize that, while
it is okay to sympathize with him, it is wrong to lend undue weight
to his arguments simply because of his loss.  That is, however, one
of the tactics used by modern (so-called) journalism.

>-- 
>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
>Publications Coordinator - User Services
>Rutgers University Computing Services

If you would like the sources of the above statistics, or some great
articles regarding the above issues, feel free to E-mail me.


				Dave Schabel
				schabel@calspan.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7606 alt.politics.clinton:8319 alt.rush-limbaugh:6440