From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Mar 28 17:32:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622BE37B61D for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:32:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Received: from acp.swbell.net ([207.193.41.236]) by mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FS5006IZTLQR1@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> for freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:32:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (noslenj@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acp.swbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00838; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:22:46 -0600 (CST envelope-from noslenj@swbell.net) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:22:46 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] In-reply-to: <20000327223602.B11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Brad Knowles , Mark Ovens , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: [snip] > >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? The preferred weapon on the street is a knife and knives are consistently more lethal than firearms. I stand a better chance of surviving a gunshot than a knife wound. You should worry more about the knives than guns. [snip] >> the dangers to the owner. In the real world -- there is no such thing >> as an "accidental discharge." There is, of course, stupidity, which >Huh? When you handle a weapon, there is no excuse for _any_ unplanned event. Period, end of discussion. If you spent any time at all around people who use firearms, you would realize that there is _zero_ tolerance for "unfortunate events." The weapon is under control at all times, under any circumstance. Ask some of your police friends about that. [snip] >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? With that attitude, you wouldn't last 30 seconds in the shooting crowd. That attitude is not tolerated. >> 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. The few times I have been in that situation, here in the States, it was a knife they pulled. I would have preferred they pulled a gun; they would have been easier to disarm with less risk. But, they don't show that in the movies, either. -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message