X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:45:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject: Re: Firearms; a rational viewpoint
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt383699@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>>when the robbers opened fired on him, one might think that innocents
>>might get hurt.  Especially when the criminals said "Someone will die
>>tonight"  Such hero antics is not that commendable.  Trying to attack
>>robbers while being outnumbered at least 4:1 with others in danger
>>isn't that great of a path of action.
>
> Huh?  They said that someone was going to be killed whether or not
> anyone did anything.  How do we get from that to "resistance
> endangered people"?  In other words, if you're going to die if you do
> nothing, there's little downside to doing something, no matter how
> steep the odds.

if you are with a manaic, I don't suggest you encourage them manaic
by punching him

>
>>The person noted is trained as a security officer; manadating people to
>>take such training isn't being put on the table, nor is such people
>>the ones anti-gun people are worried mostly about.
>
> Try again.  I've got significantly more training than most police, yet
> I can't get a permit because the mayor doesn't kiss my butt.  That

good for you Andy, but is Robert?  I wasn't addressing _you_
nor should you address all anti-gun people since I'm not speaking for
them

>>this appears to be very debatable even if you find that guns do
>>prevent crime.  Especially in the 19th century, a high saturation of
>>guns added to agression;
>
> Huh?  Where?  Not in the "wild west" - see McGrath's "Gunfighters,
> Highwaymen, and Vigilantes".  Not in rural american today.

I read differently, my location was Washington D.C.

>>"no danger"?  Guns implicitly contain some danger, the question is is
>>it too much to uphold the 2nd amendment?
>
> "no danger" is Kates-speak for "we accept far greater dangers every
> day".  Consider the dangers that come from letting anyone own a modem

good, say that then.  "no relative danger" or "all things considered,
the danger is minimal" is better than "no danger".  I said that the standard
should be a cost benefit analysis on the dangers of guns v. the danger of no
right to bear arms, so what's the problem?

> We can repeal the 2nd amendment if we think it's wrong - should we
> really set the "let's just ignore it" precedent?

I didn't say this.  I spent the whole post making inquires about this
special case, but did not once suggest that we should limit the right
to bear arms.  Are you implying I did?

> My comments were prompted by the beliefs attributed to anti-gun folk.
> They don't believe those things.  I realise that they claim to be
> "reasonable", but look at their proposals.
>
> -andy
> --
Your comments appear to be prompted by an inclination to believe I'm
trying to lessen the right to bear arms in some reasonable way when I
didn't even mention anything to that fact.  I may be somewhat flawed
in my protection of the 2nd amendment in my eyes, but at least wait
until I say how before you attack.

          -Jjoe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU