Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:22:17 +0000 From: "Frank Pawlak" <fpawlak@execpc.com> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu>, Gary Kline <kline@tera.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <980628232217.ZM939@darkstar.connect.com> In-Reply-To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu> "Re: Does it's true?" (Jun 28, 3:06pm) References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980628145509.2460F-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 28, 3:06pm, Jason C. Wells wrote: > Subject: Re: Does it's true? > On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Gary Kline wrote: > > > C'mon, guys, let's get _really_ real... We need to > > abolish handguns altogether, since, let's face it: > > the only thing a .454 Colt Bisley is meant to kill > > is a human target. --One, maybe two for the expert > > shooter. > > > > Rather than mess around, we need a new paradigm in > > the way of personal weaponry. I suggest something > > like the Personal Grenade. Something that would > > take adversaries out at, oh, say, 20 feet and leave > > oneself entirely safe. > > Most of the folks here are actually discussing this issue. What is this > second paragraph intended to do? > > I will agree 100% with one statement. I hope everyone reads this and > understands what I am going to say. > > Handguns are designed with the express purpose of killing. Such is the > case with all weapons. Even target weapons are simple the "auto-racing" > verions of a more mundane instrument of death. > > The Toledo of the conquistador broadsword is intended purely to kill > people. So is the Dai Katana of the Samurai. Excalibur was wielded by King > Arthur in "defending the faith." But the intentions of the wielder of > these weapons vary widely. > > The point is that a weapon is inanimate. A weapon is neither good nor > evil. A weapon has no intentions. A weapon cannot be tried for a crime by > an court on the planet. > > Can you even imagine such a trial? > > Mr. .454, where were you on the night of... This is ludicrous. Why is it > ludicrous? Because the _human being_ is responsible for the use that the > weapon is put to. > > Let me be more cliche. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." > > I invite anyone to show me a case where a weapon has been found guilty of > a crime and has been convicted under the law of that government. > > Catchya Later, | UW Mechanical Engineering > Jason Wells | http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jcwells/ > | 206-633-5994 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message >-- End of excerpt from Jason C. Wells Jason, your arguement is correct as far as it goes. But, you miss a key point when you state that all weapons are designed to kill. That is true by definition. It does indeed require a human finger to pull a trigger or set off a bomb. So yes, guns by themselves don't kill. Only a human is responsible for killing. Back to weapon design. All weapons can and do kill. However the firepower differs by means of weapon design. Weapons designed for hunting purposes are designed for very limited firepower. For example, a round has to be chambered, the fireing mechanism cocked and the trigger squeezed, and the round fired. This can all be acomplished in two steps with a semi-automatic weapon, hand gun or shouder fired. Older military weapons were of this type. Any weapon of this type is useful for hunting, both wild game or human. This type of weapon has to be aimed and the user a good shot to hit a target. Now comes the difference. Certain weapons are designed to lay down a massive field of fire power, in other words a weapon of mass distruction. These are fully automatic weapons equiped with a large magazine of cartridges. The use of this type of weapon involves a shooting process that differs greatly from that used above. For example, to hit a target the weapon is not aimed as stated above, but rather pointed in the general direction of the intended target, the trigger is pulled and the target area is sprayed with bullets. The rate of fire of this type of weapon is extremely high, hence the mass distruction. This weapon has no other purpose than the mass killing of humans. As a hunting weapon it is totally useless. Any game taken with it would be turned into hamburger on the spot. This is strictly an assault weapon, that does not belong in the hands of any civilains for any reason, just by nature of design. Gary was having a bit of fun with this in his suggestion. Yet this is the type of weapon that should be banned and anyone caught with one required to face serious consequences. This is the type of shit that is often carried around the streets and highways of this country. I am not necessarily in favor of gun control, but something is clearly needed to stop the carnage that goes on daily in the US. We have already tried making the individual responsible for their actions, the prisons of are filled with people that have commited crimes using weapons. The state of Texas executes people for even thinking about killing. State sanctioned killing is no different than an individual killing someone. The death penality has done nothing to stem the tide of crime in the US. If it did Texas would have a very low crime rate, which it does not. The answer is to get the guns out of the hands of those individuals that would use them to commit crimes. How you seperate them from the persons that would use guns for legitimate reasons is a feat without and answer. In the US we have allowed easy access to firearms and other weapons, now we may have to pay the piper for our lax ways. Frank To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?980628232217.ZM939>