From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:59:16 GMT

In article <2AFC2A45.1829@news.service.uci.edu>
   cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.101343.29619@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
   billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>: 
>>: >1. Gun control. If you feel as I do that it's a bad idea, make a
>>: >habit of contacting the White House...
>>: 
>>: I do not feel as you do.  Guns I have no problem with -- but there is no
>>: reason in HELL why any sane individual should have an assault weapon, or
>>
>>Why not? A so called "assault weapon" is no different than any other
>>firearm. It is no more accurate or lethal than any other.
>
>Are you serious?  Something capable of killing many hundreds of poeple
>in seconds is equivalent to a revolver, which has to be reloaded after a
>mere five or six shots and has to be shot individually for each round?
>Do you class cherry bombs and H-weapons together, too?
[...]
>Blessings,
>Janis 

Janis, 

You're falling prey to the standard response of the pro-gun forces here.

Have you noticed that whenever someone brings up the issue of assault 
weapons, the immediate response is that they are no different than a 
semi-automatic hunting rifle. Here's the rub. By strict definition, they
are turning aside the argument by latching onto the fact that an assault
rifle is a semi-automatic weapon, and of course, most people are opposed
to automatic weapons. As most of us don't know all the technical points
and "brand names" of these weapons (apart from the well-known Uzi and others)
we are guilty of mislabelling our concerns. 

You did bring up a good point regarding magazine size. Why do these
people always assume that even a semi-automatic "legal" assault weapon
should be legal? Do hunters need a magazine of 50? A pretty stupid 
argument. The incidents of both automatic and semi-automatic weapons
abuses (such as the schoolyard killing in Stockton, California a few
years ago, the Texas restaurant attack, or the recent schoolyard incident
in Sacramento, just to name a few I'm familiar with) involve non-hunting
style weapons, ie., automatic or semi-automatic weapons designed for
military use. I still fail to see ANY argument justifying public access
to these weapons. And this ignores the issue that many semi-automatics
can be easily modified to become automatics; in fact, there are small
pamphlets on how to do so.

The most recent incident involved some lone nut who wasn't making it
in the real world, so he blamed one of his high school teachers. He
got all outfitted Schwarzenegger-style complete with combat boots,
camouflage, assault rifle and boxes and boxes of ammo, then walked 
nonchalantly onto the schoolyard, into the classroom and blew away the
offending teacher. Then he proceeded to shoot a few kids and hold the
rest hostage for half a day before finally giving up. Usually these
jerks shoot themselves in the head when they're done, which is what I
wish this guy would have done. 

Bill, maybe it will take one of your kids (if you have any) getting killed
by a nut case or a drive-by shooting before you start considering some
gun control legislation. I'm not for an all-out ban, but I sure as hell
would like to see it harder for people to get a gun without demonstrating
responsibility and ability, and of course no criminal record or mental
problems. This would not stop the problem, but as things stand right now,
they can't get a whole lot worse, especially in some parts of the country.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: alt.pagan