From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.125845.8767@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca writes:
>Which would require a bullet in the chamber.

A bullet in the chamber can't do a thing....

>I can just see mommy contending
>with her child (or daddy) while keeping her hand on her unexposed, ready to
>fire hand gun. Do you have any idea how many accidental shootings occur in 
>this nation each year? Carrying a gun with a bullet in the chamber with
>children regularly nearby is an accident waiting to happen.

Marx seems to believe that guns must be carried stupidly; since most
cops do carry stupidly, that's not a surprising belief, but it isn't a
correct one.

The reference to accidental shootings is irrelevant (and exaggerated)
because they don't happen in the described situations, except to cops.

Also, while a child can't have access without being nearby, being
nearby doesn't imply access.  Moreover, many people have figured out
how to gun-proof their kids, just as they have pool-proofed them.
Kids too young to gun-proof are easier to protect.

>Incorrect. My statement revolves around the theory of something called "The
>Killer Instinct". It is a well proven much documented fact that women do not
>have the same inborn instinct to kill as (most) men. Some men do not even
>possess it.

The relevant instinct isn't that of a killer, but of a "with the use
of lethal force" protector.  Women are more likely to have that than
men....  (Military training involves enlarging their view of
"protection", as in, "by obeying orders and going out to shoot those
people, you're protecting ....")

In any event, we're discussing a subpopulation, the subpopulation
willing to carry.  The characteristics of other populations aren't
all that relevant.

>> Women generally learn *faster* than men do, because they don't have their
>> ego to get out of the way.
>
>But since you're not a man, you don't know about 'ego', so this isn't
>particularly useful.

Huh?  Instructors are the population who can have the relevant
experience and they can be both male and female.  Female instructors
might notice it sooner because of experience in other areas, but ....

>> 	Mace and other chemical sprays *do* require training to use
>> 	properly. AWARE in Massachusetts regularly offers training
>> 	in the proper use of these tools.
>
>Okay, ready for your mace training? Here goes - point the red arrow at the
>target and push the button on the top. The end.

The equivalent gun training is "point it at the target and pull
the trigger" plus instructions on loading.

>>>Lastly, a small container of mace is several times cheaper than a handgun.
>> 
>> 	Not necessarily.
>
><sigh again> "Not necessarily"???? What exactly does that mean? Oh, you know
>where I can buy an effective, reliable hand gun for less than thirty dollars -
>PLEASE TELL US.

Since one can't buy an effective, reliable can of mace for $30, that's
not all that interesting a question, especially since a $300 can of
mace isn't much better.  An effective reliable handgun can be
purchased for under $150 and handguns that are more effective than
mace cost around $50.  A bit of shopping can result in even lower
prices.

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