From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:04:56 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <cthong.713584651@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>Really?  Having read design documents for a number of guns, I disagree.
>>>It's easy enough to settle; point out a feature common to many guns that
>>>is aimed at that goal, and no other.
>>easy, higher and higher calibre ranges for weapons.

>I love a straight man.

>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The "modern" (since 1900) trend has been toward
>less bullet diameter and weight.  The increase velocity hasn't resulted
>in greater momentum or KE.  If anything, the trend is towards less
>lethality, not more.

>>i mean here you have rounds that can stop a bull MOOSE in play.

>That's not evidence of "design for".  Besides, there's nothing new
>about that, or even gun-specific.  A bulldozer can kill a bull moose;
>are bulldozers designed to kill?

>The claim was that all guns were designed to kill.  At most, we have
>evidence that some guns can kill.  However, a baseball bat can do
>that, and we know that bat's aren't designed to kill, they're designed
>to hit things.

>>also as all guns fire some form of 
>>projectile, i direct your attention to the section on some ammo adverts 
>>that publicise wound statistics and (Hollow points and their increasing
>>popularity is another point-) the very fact that dummy targets (discounting
>>a canadian bull for grouping) all have desired strike zones located around
>>definitely sure kill places on the body....

>Wrong.  Hollowpoints are less lethal than FMJ when used to "stop".
>The targets designated are effective "stop zones", which is somewhat
>important since the goal of self-defense is to stop the attacker.

>>come on, nobody makes weapons
>>to wing or even to take out a leg anymore do they?

>How is a gun designed to shoot someone in the leg different than
>one designed to shoot them somewhere else?

>Shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them, unless
>you're using something that pretty much guarantees amputation, which
>is way beyond "modern" small arms.  Such amputation is likely to
>result in eventual death, more so than less extreme measures like
>shooting them in a "stop zone" with a practical gun.

>While shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them,
>they're still at some risk of death.  Anti-self-defense folk sure
>are blood thirsty.  They want to kill attackers, they just don't
>want to stop them.

>>or maybe it's the training phillosophy behind gun clubs and instructors-
>>either a vital parts shot or you fail.

>It is a failure if you don't stop the attacker.

>>it IS the few irresponsible fucks who treat it like a toy or a weapon
>>intending to go out of their way to harm others that are to blame.

>Fine.  Then why are you so damn concerned with everyone else?
because it's not only people like YOU who make up society. it's made up
of people like me , my neighbours , my kids etc . who are forced if their
mericans to live with the consequences and realities of life according to
people like YOU who believe that guns are great and hell it's every person 
for themselves and screw my neighbour if they don't have a firearm .
it's these irresponsible people i was mentioning before that give you all 
a bad name and make life difficult for ALL . but if the NRA can't or won't
do anything about them , then it's up to the authorities . and a very valid
option is to ban private ownership of guns . however you have the view that
the state should ONLY do things and implement policies if they suit you
and hang others no ? 
>>but if you can't do anything about these people, as they will always
>>be around, then do some thing about the guns.

>What if you can't?  Feel free to provide an example of successful
>gun control, where the introduction of gun control was associated with
>a significant benefit.

>>true, they'll find some other thing with which to harm themselves and
>>others with but at least it won't be something with so much potential
>>to cause SO much harm and take so much away from others.

>Considering that Thong has demonstrated he doesn't know anything about
>guns, does he really want us to take him seriously when he makes
>comparisons that depend on such knowledge?

>I note that Thong is depressed because a registration program didn't
>result in lots of compliance by good folks.  Why is he so interested
>in whether or not good folks comply?  They're not going to do anything
>wrong whether or not they sign up.  Shouldn't he be concerned by
>registration's failures wrt thugs?

>Thong's proposals are inconsistent with his stated "control crime"
>purpose.  Why?

>-andy

>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu