Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:22:57 -0600 From: "G. Adam Stanislav" <adam@whizkidtech.net> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Guns ans roses Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000326112257.00a40ca0@mail85.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <38DDD723.C01AD233@outpost.co.nz> References: <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk> <38DB8D34.1A750C81@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003241806320.805-100000@acp.swbell.net> <20000325104927.B234@parish> <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20000326005810.00a9dd00@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 21:23 26-03-2000 +1200, Craig Harding wrote: >So the solution for schoolyard gun massacres is for *all* kids to be >armed at all times? Not kids. Adults. As for kids, they should be taught what guns do. As I said before, kids should be taking to a range and let experiment with firearms (under proper supervision, of course) because the main problem with kids shooting kids is that they do not realize the harm can cause with firearms until it is too late. You do not see people trained in martial arts killing other people, do you (at least not in the big way people untrained in the use of firearms do). Do you know why? Because part of martial arts training is learning the damage you can do. When I first studied martial arts, I wondered why on earth would I be required to do such a thing as break wooden boards. It seemed macho and contrary to the peaceful spirit of martial arts. Looking at it back, I realize it had nothing to do with being macho. It taught me a lesson without telling me it was a lesson. Knowing how easy it is to break wooden boards in so many ways makes it clear to me how much easier it is to break somebody's bones, kill someone with a single punch or a kick. That awareness is important. Most people are not interested in killing others. Most martial artists will think twice before getting involved in a fist fight precisely because they know they would most likely win it, and do so with serious bodily harm to the other person(s) involved. >And there's the flaw in your argument. It's not an argument, it's an opinion. >In an ideal world, with everyone >well-educated in the correct use of their firearm, your ideas might >actually work. That problem is correctable. Everyone should be required to get proper training in the use of firearms. And I don't mean going through a simple lecture. Go through at least a hundred hours of basic firearms training. There you will not only learn how to aim without missing. There you would have to shoot at targets and see them destroyed. There you would develop the awareness of what you are capable. Cars are dangerous. So everyone is required to go through proper driving training. Why not require proper firearms training? >[...] and foreign students getting >shot for knocking on the wrong door and speaking in japanese. Obviously the idiot(s) who killed that student did not go through the firearms training I would make mandatory. > Not to >mention a McDonalds full of dead bodies because everyone tried to shoot >the spree killer, and missed, hitting the other diners. Not if they were trained. >Fundamentally, you seem to be arguing for an arms race. The enemy >(criminals) have guns, therefore we need guns. No. I am not arguing, I am expressing my opinions. Nor am I saying we *need* guns. I am looking at reality, as it is in the US. Gun ownership is a big tradition within American culture. This is a fact of life. Any kind of regulation needs to account for that fact. It is not possible to take all guns away. If that were attempted in the US, what so many people argue would happen: Criminals would have weapons, others would not. It is more sensible, given the existing traditions, attitudes, and facts of life, to require all Americans to be trained in the proper use of firearms. In my six years as deputy sheriff, I carried a gun on my belt. Not once did I have to use it, except during the mandatory training and annual testing on the range. It was not just me. During those six years, we had one case of a deputy firing a single shot at an attacker, and all he did was scratch his butt. I have talked to many police officers who spent their entire lives in police work. None of them ever had to shoot or was shot at. Of course, they all were properly trained. That means they knew: - how to draw, aim, shoot; - how to avoid the above; - what damage they would do; - how to retain their guns (not have the other guy take it); - that guns are "always loaded." In other cultures, situation is different. Different attitudes, different expectations. I did not grow up in the US, so I know of the differences. It makes little sense to me to see Americans telling Australians what they should do, or the other way round. Personally, I am neither pro-guns, nor anti-guns. All I am saying that is a society in which gun ownership is viewed as important, people should be trained in proper use of firearms, and trained well. Cheers, Adam 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?3.0.6.32.20000326112257.00a40ca0>