Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:36:02 -0500 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> Cc: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, cjclark@home.com, Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <20000327223602.B11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003271847340.786-100000@acp.swbell.net>; from noslenj@swbell.net on Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:30:38PM -0600 References: <v04220811b505330f911e@[195.238.1.121]> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003271847340.786-100000@acp.swbell.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:30:38PM -0600, Jay Nelson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > > [snip] > > > The #1 killer of police is their own weapon -- they get it taken > >away from them and used against them. For obvious reasons, police > >departments don't want this statistic to get out. > > > > This also happens to be the #1 killer of people with firearms at > >home -- the intruder takes the weapon away and kills them with it. > > > > > > If we taught people (including our police) how to properly use > >their weapons, this problem would go away. > > > > You can forget every single other aspect of this argument -- > >until you can solve the problem of people who own firearms knowing > >enough about them and their proper handling to prevent them from > >being taken away and used against them, you're never going to get > >much progress. > > The problem isn't actually training people to handle the weapon -- > it's training people to deal with a violent confrontation -- which > happens very rarely in our world today -- but _does_ happen. But rarely, see we all agree. And wouldn't it be nice if in most of those cases, neither one of the people in the situation had a gun? Yes, there is always the chance that a Bad Guy will find one, but if there are just plain fewer guns to be had, the chance is lower. And what about the many times in these confrontations where neither one really is a Bad Guy, just two Good (or Not-So-Bad) Guys in a misunderstanding? > The violent criminals out there didn't learn from the movies, but from > experience. An unarmed individual that knows how to deal with violence > has an advantage over an armed individual who doesn't. But an armed > individual _will_ slow them down long enough to take the advantage if > if the armed individual is capable. > The anti-gun zealots seem to harp on the "accidental" shootings and > the dangers to the owner. In the real world -- there is no such thing > as an "accidental discharge." There is, of course, stupidity, which > the zealots don't want to address because it's far more complicated > than guns. And -- attacking arms feels better. Huh? ac·ci·dent 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design> 2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought 3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality> Shooting yourself or someone else unintentionally is almost always stupid, but it's still an accident. I don't understand how you are saying this is more complicated. It's simple. People, everyone, you, me, and everyone reading this, make mistakes. If you want to classify them all as stupid, OK, but we all do it. And when one makes a mistake with a deadly weapon, which is going to happen at a certain rate because people do screw up, the stakes are just that much higher. Where's the complexity? > Most of the reasoned discussion in this diversion of the thread seems > to come from people who clearly have never faced a violent > confrontation and are basing their logic on the movies. That will > convince people who also learn from movies. It will never sway those > who learned up close and personal -- so I think we are wasting a lot of > band width and should get back to hand-wringing over the merger. Strange. I think it's just the other way around. The people who watch the movies and the sensationalized news coverage to me are the ones who think they need to pack heat in case some random stranger comes for them, and the chances of that are remote. The few times I have found myself in violent situations, I am sure glad no one pulled a gun. Fight or flight works for me, but I can't outrun a bullet. No, let's not go back to the merger. Brett has not been to vocal on this thread... But yeah, it's old and no one is going to sell any of it to anyone else. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com 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?20000327223602.B11538>