Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Gun Control again... A Position Paper Message-ID: <799@ihuxx.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Jul-84 01:10:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxx.799 Posted: Sat Jul 28 01:10:06 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Jul-84 00:15:48 EDT References: <859@pucc-h> <898@pyuxa.UUCP> <801@ihuxp.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 100 Gosh, I really hate to see the bi-annual gun flame get restarted. But as I've avoided commenting in the past, I'll briefly reply to Walt Pesch here: I still don't see a reason for the storing of a gun in your home. ... But we don't need to keep this at home anyway, it can be kept safely under control at a local place (i.e. the local Police Station.) This is also true for the Target Shootist. Ah, actually, there would be reasonable reasons for wanting to keep the weapons at home. A good target rifle is a significant investment--the last time I priced the one I wanted (1976), it would have run me $6-700.00 (Anschutz 1413 with custom-carved, glass-bedded stock, Schuetzen butt plate, iron sights, etc.) This is a personalized, somewhat fragile, very complex and accurate tool. I wouldn't want some ham-handed trooper slinging it around; or even to have it out of my sight! Correspondingly, a good target pistol is an expensive and very personalized piece of equipment. I'd want it somewhere that I could keep an eye on it. Also, please consider the insurance problems--because I'm certain the Police aren't going to accept responsibility for the things! And please consider--the police are overworked and underpaid as is. I'm sure they'd just *love* to be turned into gun baby-sitters. And consider the additional expense of making sure that everyone stores their weapons there, etc. As to the argument of needing it for self-protection, I personally would never see a reason for pulling a gun on a bergular (sic). If the mug has a gun, he will have it out, and he will psychologically be ready to use it. Meanwhile, I sit their (sic)in my nightclothes groping in the nightstand for my .38. BOOM. I'd rather lose a little in wealth than my life. Anyway, I have insurance. Well, I guess I can understand this. I don't have a weapon, and never intended to get one to clobber an intruder. But not see a REASON?? This jerk has knowingly violated your home, and put you and/or your loved ones in a life-threatening situation. He (or she) has abrogated any consideration from me. If I could drop the guy dead in his tracks, by any means, he deserves it. And you suggest that it's only wealth they're after--you're not a woman. Sad to say, a solitary woman encountering a burglar is most likely going to have an experience not covered by insurance. I'm all to sorry to say that I can sympathize with those who want a weapon for home defense; I can't agree with the apalling ease with which they can get one. More below. Lastly, there is the problems of both accidental firing and also the use of the gun in anger. How many stories does one hear of little Jonnie blowing his friends away while there (sic) playing Dirty Harry. And neither do I want it used in an argument that gets out of hand on me by my spouse. Well, then, why in hell do you have the bloody thing loaded and available? If there are small children in the house, this thing should be treated just as poison or gasoline--locked up and inaccessable. With the ammunition locked up, too. In another place. (Two small lockboxes, with combinations that can be set.) Is this inconsistent with home defense? Not really. If the bad guy is already in the bedroom, or wherever, then it's too late to get a gun, loaded or not. Otherwise, you can quietly open two boxes if needful. More appropriately, why is it that I have to go through extensive tests to operate, say, a ham radio, yet just have to be 16 to get a gun? I swear to you, if you really understand what that .45 will do if it hits someone, you wouldn't even *dream* of shooting your spouse. Therefor (sic): my proposal is to allow private ownership of rifles and target shooting handguns as long as it is kept at the local Police Station, and must be checked out for your weekend of hunting or the day of skeet shooting. And also put an automatic five-year imprisonment doing hard-labor for anyone that has a gun outside of the previous guidelines. I believe that a Bergular (sic) wouldn't carry a gun except to protect himself from the crazed Homeowner/ Vigillante (sic), especially when it led to a long time automatically in the slammer. My counter-proposal: have one of these hyper-pro gun groups, such as the NRA, become training organizations. Make it mandatory for all gun owners to go through their exhaustive training course--at least as hard as that to get a ham license, or even a private pilot's license! And impose strict quality control and inventory on new weapons. And we fully agree on the legal punishment, except I think it should be even more stringent: any posession or use of a firearm in any crime, no matter how trivial, carries such a henious penalty that it might even eclipse the penalty for the crime being comitted. (And if you really believe that an amateur burglar wouldn't carry a gun except to protect himself, you are more trusting than I. In general, police have confirmed that 'professional' burglars don't carry weapons--they know they'll get off, one way or the others. Amateurs carry weapons because they're scared, and because it makes them feel more powerful.) You're not going to get rid of guns; so make sure the legal owners are highly skilled, and make sure the illegal users are SEVERLY punished. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignat