From: malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:10:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: skinner.9204161910.AA02376
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego

In article <susan.703388254@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>	Indeed it has.  What was that T(w)ermie and Roy were saying back
>in November about those victims of mass murderers who chose to use a gun?
>
>	"Martyrs to liberty"?
>
>	I didn't see too many pro-gun people publicly taking them to task
>over their extreme, uncaring statements.

How many people would these 'mass murderers who chose to use a gun'
have been able to kill if their victims had been permitted to carry
the means to defend themselves? In the Killeen killings, one of the
survivors lamented that she had obeyed the law and left the pistol
that she carried -- for her own protection -- in her car, and was
unable to take action to defend herself and the others in the
restaurant..

>	Well, perhaps its time that you realised that not everybody can
>be protected all the time and that in the process of getting crime under
>control through better gun regulation that some might have to be victims. 

And here we have the fundamental point you make -- that getting crime
under control _requires_ more gun regulation, a premise not supported by
the data available worldwide. Nor one accepted by the majority of the
posters to this newsgroup.

>Just as you refuse to admit that under the utopia of universal gun ownership
>you desire 

Misrepresentation of my position. I want the universal freedom for
individuals to choose the means of their personal defense, whether
that's a gun, a knife, a rock, or expecting the police to show up
before they're robbed/raped/murdered.

>           that some people are going to become the victims of crazed
>gun men and the criminals who do dare to continue to prey upon "law abiding
>citizens" (I would presume by shooting them before they have a chance to
>draw their mandatory gun).

People are becoming victims _now_ to 'crazed gunmen and the criminals
who do dare to continue to prey upon "law abiding citizens"', and
those victims are being shot before being able to employ the means of
their own defense. But governmental restrictions _guarantee_ that an
individual won't be able to defend themselves; as long as the
individual can carry the means of their own defense, then the
preventable victimizations would decrease.

And 'their mandatory gun' again misrepresents my position. You employ
a Straw Man fallacy in attacking my position, distorting my position
to make your attacks more effective, as you and the other coombs.anu.edu
accounts claim is being done to your arguments. 

>	Yet, how under your hypothetical would I be able to "go for my gun"
>unless I am carrying it in my hand, all the time Sean?
>
>	To me, in this situation, I would be simply giving my gun to the
>assailent anyway, as he has the drop on me, and despite what you think,
>I know I wouldn't be going out of my way to provoke him by attempting to
>draw my gun to defend myself.  If he's close enough to threaten me with
>a knife, he's too close to be able to draw a gun without being stopped IMO.

From my experience, the range at which someone will begin to threaten
you with a knife is sufficiently outside contact range to give you
time to draw your own weapon. Of course, if they grab you from behind
and put the knife to your neck, then even your oh-so-perfect solution
of having a police officer there won't protect you, because your
throat can be cut before the officer can react.

>	So?  Then make the police more accountable.  Fund them better,

The current setup isn't working, so instead of figuring out _why_ it
isn't working, just throw money at the problem. Levy another tax on
the individual, they don't have any legitimate cause to complain about
it. Unfortunately, despite repeated evidence that this doesn't work,
the US Congress is apparently _still_ unable to recognize that fact,
which is one of the reasons our budget deficit is so high.

>provide better incentives to them to actually accomplish the job they are
>employed to perform.

What _kind_ of incentives? This is just another way of throwing _more_
money at the problem. Where does it come from?

>                      Don't assume that simply because they fail today,
>that if you make them more effective they will always fail Sean.

Don't assume that simply because you throw more money at a problem,
the problem becomes easier to solve Susan.


-- 
random sig #106:
Sean Malloy                                  |           THINK
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | If you are already thinking,
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | please disregard this message
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        |