Re: Gun stuff

[Guest guest]

> What I do not understand is why so many firearms are still being

> manufactured at an alrmaing rate today, every single day.

Simple supply and demand. People buy them, so manufacturers make them.

If people didn't buy guns, manufacturers would stop making them.

> They pour like candy off the assembly lines. I mean aren't there

> enough out there already? Every single gun manufactured is one more

> just not needed. I figure there are so many made already, that we

> just don't need to keep them rolling out.

There are other reasons for buying firearms than self-defense, and

" need " is a red herring. If someone wanted to start his own newspaper,

would you argue that he shouldn't because there are " enough newspapers

out there already " and another newspaper is " just not needed " because

every day, millions of newspapers " pour like candy off the assembly

lines " ?

> It that there are programs in place where communities are 'buying

> back' guns to get them off the streets and here they are rolling off

> the lines, its damned scary.

They are not " buying back " those guns. To buy something back, you have

to have owned it in the first place. The term " buy back " is a

misnomer.

> senseless. When kids at age 7 in underpriveleged countries overseas,

> we've all seen them are carrying semi-automatics, desensitized to it

> all, on the streets...where do they get them?

[Guest guest]

@LyndaHoboken wrote:

> Insofar as guns are concerned, I am glad someone remembers the Goetz

> thing, I do as well.

Not correctly, though, as the citations below will show.

> I can only imagine his frustration as it built over time, but it

> doesn't mean I condone his vigilante justice. i.e. 2 wrongs don't

> make a right, and revenge doesn't equal justice, yada yada, etc. etc.

Calling him a 'vigilante' was media spin, not fact. He defended himself

against a group of thugs that wielded sharpened screwdrivers (which can

kill quite easily). That is self-defense, and self-defense is legal

(which is why he was acquitted of murder charges). Vigilantism is

getting revenge on someone after the threat has passed (and it is not

legal).

> I am a bit scared of guns....yes.

And that tends to cloud people's judgment about them. I am no more

afraid of guns than I am of toasters, cars, or television sets. They

can't do anything by themselves. They're just objects. It takes a

person to make one into a killing device-- and in that case, I would

fear the person, not the tool he uses.

> ...but it goes to show I'm humaan, I walk alone, I get

> frightened, and I am saying he lives under a bridge I have to cross,

> and I do carry a knife. Its illegal because its long, but I *feel*

> better.

Knives are much more difficult to use effectively, and against a man

with a knife (of equal skill), you are still at a distinct disadvantage,

since physical strength still matters (and certainly that is true of an

attacker with a gun). And if you think that a knife is less deadly than

a gun, you are incorrect... the wounds a knife makes are horrific indeed.

A gun is a much more effective tool for self-defense, and carrying one

(instead of a knife) would increase your chances of surviving an attack.

Now, whether that is legal is another thing entirely. It should be;

you should not have to rely on the goodwill of criminals to go about

your business unharmed.

[Guest guest]

> What I do not understand is why so many firearms are still being manufactured

at an alrmaing rate today, every single day.

> They pour like candy off the assembly lines. I mean aren't there enough out

there already? Every single gun manufactured is one more just not needed. I

figure there are so many made already, that we just don't need to keep them

rolling out.

> There's not a need for more production.

IIRC, gun production is on the decline.

That said, guns can and do wear out and break. Just like any other

mechanical machine. My rifle that I've shot 20,000 or 30,000 rounds

through definitely looks like it has shot that many rounds - much of the

rifling is gone (even though lead is soft, 30,000 shells of it *will* wear

things down). I wouldn't target shoot with it anymore, as the aim isn't

very good.

Car production, on the other hand, is on the rise. I suspect cars do much

more harm - guns only harm the people directly involved when misused.

Cars, when properly used, harm us all.

--

[Guest guest]

> > I am a bit scared of guns....yes.

>

> And that tends to cloud people's judgment about them. I am no more

> afraid of guns than I am of toasters, cars, or television sets. They

> can't do anything by themselves. They're just objects. It takes a

> person to make one into a killing device-- and in that case, I would

> fear the person, not the tool he uses.

Yes, agreed.

I respect a gun as a tool with a lot of power. Like any powerful tool,

you have to treat it with respect. But, as for motor coordination issues,

guns are fairly easy to use safely compared to knives (as you mention),

power tools, automobiles, etc. With a gun, there are simple things you

have to do: Point it only at things you want to shoot, don't hold the

trigger when not intending to fire, etc. If you are saying that you would

shoot someone accidentally when shooting an attacker, you shouldn't take

the shot. You certainly don't shoot an attacker in a crowd. That's part

of the training. I used to shoot with a friend that had fairly severe CP,

though, so I know even bad motor control it is possible to shoot safely.

Guns don't go off randomly, and if you follow proper safety guidelines,

you'll never shoot if you don't mean to - even if you are extremely

clumsy. You probably won't be an expert marksman either, but that isn't

required for safety.

> Knives are much more difficult to use effectively, and against a man

> with a knife (of equal skill), you are still at a distinct disadvantage,

> since physical strength still matters (and certainly that is true of an

> attacker with a gun). And if you think that a knife is less deadly than

> a gun, you are incorrect... the wounds a knife makes are horrific indeed.

Yes, I have cut several fingers, some very deeply (to the bone) with

knives. I would much rather handle a loaded gun then a steak knife as far

as safety!

> A gun is a much more effective tool for self-defense, and carrying one

> (instead of a knife) would increase your chances of surviving an attack.

> Now, whether that is legal is another thing entirely. It should be;

> you should not have to rely on the goodwill of criminals to go about

> your business unharmed.

Agreed. I would not want to be a dyspraxic in a knife fight.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Car production, on the other hand, is on the rise. I suspect cars do much

> more harm - guns only harm the people directly involved when misused.

> Cars, when properly used, harm us all.

>

Now that's a load of bull. Strictly gun propaganda. How is the child of

an accidental shooting victim directly involved? Cars may do some harm

but they sure do far more good. Guns on the other hand only have value

when used to harm.

Red

[Guest guest]

> wrote:

>> Car production, on the other hand, is on the rise. I suspect cars do

>> much

>> more harm - guns only harm the people directly involved when misused.

>> Cars, when properly used, harm us all.

>

> Now that's a load of bull. Strictly gun propaganda. How is the child of

> an accidental shooting victim directly involved?

's point was that car usage affects everyone. Gun usage does not.

> Cars may do some harm but they sure do far more good. Guns on the

> other hand only have value

> when used to harm.

Not so. As has already been pointed out, most self-defense uses of

firearms don't even involve firing a warning shot, let alone actually

harming anyone. In such instances, the criminal's fear of the gun

*prevents* anyone from being harmed.

Besides which, so many people these days seem to have the strange idea

that it is never acceptable to injure or kill another human being.

That's not the case at all. There are times when it's perfectly

acceptable -- and legal -- to shoot someone. (There are even times

when I, for one, would argue that it's a moral imperative.)

Admittedly, such instances are rare, but they do exist.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

> > Car production, on the other hand, is on the rise. I suspect cars do much

> > more harm - guns only harm the people directly involved when misused.

> > Cars, when properly used, harm us all.

>

> Now that's a load of bull. Strictly gun propaganda. How is the child of

> an accidental shooting victim directly involved? Cars may do some harm

> but they sure do far more good. Guns on the other hand only have value

> when used to harm.

You misunderstood me.

An accidental shooting victim is *directly* involved in the shooting. He

may be innocent, but still involved. You are confusing innocence and

uninvolvement.

Cars hurt people on the other side of the planet from where you are.

When you drive your car in North America, you are impacting the climate in

Africa. When I shoot my gun, someone not relatively close (yes, up to

miles sometimes) is not in danger. That's the distinction I was trying to

make.

--

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > Car production, on the other hand, is on the rise. I suspect cars

> > do much more harm - guns only harm the people directly involved

> > when misused. Cars, when properly used, harm us all.

> >

>

> Now that's a load of bull. Strictly gun propaganda. How is the child

> of an accidental shooting victim directly involved?

When properly used, there are no accidental shootings.

> Cars may do some

> harm but they sure do far more good. Guns on the other hand only have

> value when used to harm.

I have to wonder if you are really as myopic as you appear, or if that

is a deliberate debating technique you are using. Each year in the US,

guns save many thousands of lives. Have a look at the list of

self-defense uses of guns that I posted in response to Andy's post. Or

consider this one.

Last year, there was a banquet celebrating ten years of concealed carry

in Arizona (for anyone without a felony record, essentially). The guest

of honor (or one of them, not sure) was a woman who carried a small

revolver called a Ruger SP-101. One day, she was approached by a

menacing truck driver carrying a rope. He sneered at her and said,

" We're gonna have a little fun. "

She presented her revolver, and the attacker's demeanor changed. He

dropped the rope and started saying " BITCHES with guns " over and over.

He backed up and disappeared into the darkness.

Who, exactly, did her gun harm that day? Are you really going to tell

me that her gun did not offer any value to anyone, because it did not

harm them? In well above 90% of cases, this is what self defense with a

gun is like-- the attack is stopped, no one is hurt, and there were no

rounds fired.

Guns are excellent lifesaving tools, and they are the means by which

liberty has been won from those who would take it away, again and again.

Banning guns makes as much sense as banning seat belts or fire

extinguishers.

[Guest guest]

> > Cars may do some harm but they sure do far more good. Guns on the

> > other hand only have value

> > when used to harm.

>

> Not so. As has already been pointed out, most self-defense uses of

> firearms don't even involve firing a warning shot, let alone actually

> harming anyone. In such instances, the criminal's fear of the gun

> *prevents* anyone from being harmed.

Or hunting. Or enjoyment value (shooting targets is enjoyable to me - and

that enjoyment *is* a benefit, even if someone else doesn't get a

benefit).

Honestly, I never plan on shooting another person. That's not why I have

guns. It's like saying cars are bad because they are used as escape

vehicles for criminals. If that was the *ONLY* use of a car, I'd agree.

But it's not, just like guns aren't only usable for criminals to shoot

good people.

> Besides which, so many people these days seem to have the strange idea

> that it is never acceptable to injure or kill another human being.

> That's not the case at all. There are times when it's perfectly

> acceptable -- and legal -- to shoot someone. (There are even times

> when I, for one, would argue that it's a moral imperative.)

> Admittedly, such instances are rare, but they do exist.

I got to visit a law enforcement academy here and see how cops are trained

to use guns. I was very impressed.

I'm glad they are trained in that. I'm glad that a cop will shoot a gun

at a criminal, attempting to kill the criminal, if my life is threatened

by one and a cop is nearby. Heck, I'd be glad if a passer-by did the same

thing.

Life *is* precious. I'm against abortion and the death penalty. I don't

want to see anyone have to shoot anyone. But I'm also a realist and know

that saying " Please go to prison, you bad guy! " isn't always enough to get

the bad guys to stop ruining the lives of the good guys. Sometimes you

need persuasion, sometimes even the ultimate persuasion of the threat of

death. That's sad and unfortunate, but it's also a reality.

--

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>

> Who, exactly, did her gun harm that day? Are you really going to tell

> me that her gun did not offer any value to anyone, because it did not

> harm them? In well above 90% of cases, this is what self defense with a

> gun is like-- the attack is stopped, no one is hurt, and there were no

> rounds fired.

So, in over 90% of cases there is no need for ammunition, the guns could

be unloaded, in fact it would not even have to be a gun. It just needs

to look like a gun.

>

> Guns are excellent lifesaving tools, and they are the means by which

> liberty has been won from those who would take it away, again and again.

> Banning guns makes as much sense as banning seat belts or fire

> extinguishers.

And guns are also by far the most used tool in the taking of liberty.

Calling guns lifesaving tools is like having the fox guard the hen house.

Red

[Guest guest]

> So, in over 90% of cases there is no need for ammunition, the guns

> could

> be unloaded, in fact it would not even have to be a gun. It just needs

> to look like a gun.

This statement is so foolish that I can't believe you actually think

that it's the case. You're not that stupid. You're starting to sound

like a troll (hint, hint). But I'll address it anyway...

The only reason that a handgun is a credible tool for self-defense is

that it *can* be used to cause harm if necessary. If a prospective

victim attempts self-defense with a cap gun or water pistol, and the

attacker discovers the deception (which is not outside the realm of

possibility), the attacker will merely be enraged and more likely to

harm the victim.

>> Guns are excellent lifesaving tools, and they are the means by which

>> liberty has been won from those who would take it away, again and

>> again.

>> Banning guns makes as much sense as banning seat belts or fire

>> extinguishers.

>

> And guns are also by far the most used tool in the taking of liberty.

> Calling guns lifesaving tools is like having the fox guard the hen

> house.

Guns *are* tools. They are no better or worse than the person who is

holding them. They possess no mysterious magical powers; they do not

spontaneously turn a normal person into a maniac if he picks one up,

and keeping them away from bad people does not spontaneously turn them

into good people. Like any tool, a firearm can be used for good or for

ill. (Or even for activities with no ethical content, such as target

shooting.)

If you are so thoroughly convinced that guns cause naught but

undesirable harm, do you favor disarming the military and law

enforcement? (I've noticed that very few gun control advocates do.)

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>

> When properly used, there are no accidental shootings.

Well if guns were always properly used there would not be any laws

against them. The trouble is that they are far to often improperly used.

When properly used there are no car accidents. When properly used, power

in the hands of politicians helps only the constituents and never lines

the pockets of the politicians or their friends.

Red

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> Each year in the US,

> guns save many thousands of lives.

And each year in the US, guns kill many thousands more.

Red

[Guest guest]

> Klein wrote:

>> When properly used, there are no accidental shootings.

>

> Well if guns were always properly used there would not be any laws

> against them. The trouble is that they are far to often improperly

> used.

> When properly used there are no car accidents. When properly used,

> power

> in the hands of politicians helps only the constituents and never lines

> the pockets of the politicians or their friends.

To which the proper approach is not to ban cars or political authority,

but to acknowledge that cars and political authority have legitimate as

well as illegitimate uses, and pass laws to punish illegitimate uses

while still allowing legitimate ones.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

>

> >

> > When properly used, there are no accidental shootings.

>

> Well if guns were always properly used there would not be any laws

> against them.

Sure there would. A lot of politicians have a vested interest in having

people be helpless, fearful, and wholly dependent upon the government

for everything. If they can have that, they will always be in power. I

don't think most of the politicians that want to ban guns actually

believe the nonsense arguments against them. Facts are stubborn things,

and no matter how much people want to deny or twist those facts, the

fact is that no gun control law has ever been shown to have any kind of

positive effect-- but they have led to many genocides across the world,

where despots have used gun control laws to disarm people before killing

them.

Guns are tools of independent, self-reliant people that do not rely on

the goverment for their protection. Governments find that threatening,

and so they do like they do every time they wish to curtail freedom--

they scare people. Sheeple willingly hand over their rights when they

are afraid; they cower and beg their just protectors to DO SOMETHING,

even if that something has little or no chance of helping to solve the

problem. That's how we got the USA PATRIOT act, which is an abomination.

> The trouble is that they are far to often improperly

> used. When properly used there are no car accidents.

Right. And cars kill a LOT more people than guns do. So why don't you

want to ban cars?

> When properly

> used, power in the hands of politicians helps only the constituents

> and never lines the pockets of the politicians or their friends.

And yet you trust these politicians to have a monopoly on the use of

guns (lawfully). They, and the criminals that get guns illegally,

should be the only ones to have guns, in your book. Does that make sense?

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

> > Each year in the US, guns save many thousands of lives.

>

> And each year in the US, guns kill many thousands more.

Incorrect. Wishful thinking does not make it so, no matter how badly

you want it to.

Each year, there are over _two million_ defensive uses of guns in the

US, by the estimates considered the most reliable. Even the anti-gun

groups admit that there are at least 80,000 per year. Contrast that

with about 8,000 murders with guns each year (the vast majority of which

would have happened even if guns did not exist-- guns don't create the

will to murder someone).

Like I said, facts are stubborn things, and you can only obscure them

with irrational fear of inanimate objects for so long.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> redhottech@... wrote:

>

>

>> Klein wrote:

>>

>>>Each year in the US, guns save many thousands of lives.

>>

>> And each year in the US, guns kill many thousands more.

>

>

> Incorrect. Wishful thinking does not make it so, no matter how badly

> you want it to.

I think the stats say 80,000 per year. In my book that's a lot more than

many thousands.

The whole point of all of my posts is that gun toting Americans slant

stats to prove their point. Anti gun lobbyists slant stats to prove

their point. Neither side portrays them accurately.

Red

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> > Incorrect. Wishful thinking does not make it so, no matter how

> > badly you want it to.

>

> I think the stats say 80,000 per year. In my book that's a lot more

> than many thousands.

No. Look at the murder rate you cited before, of 6.8 per 100,000.

About half of the murders are done with guns. We have a population

approaching 300 million. Do the math-- it's 8,000.

> The whole point of all of my posts is that gun toting Americans slant

> stats to prove their point. Anti gun lobbyists slant stats to prove

> their point. Neither side portrays them accurately.

We don't have to slant anything; we have facts on our side. Lott

wasn't pro-gun before he started his research-- he expected to prove

that gun control works. His work shows that allowing people to carry

concealed guns reduces violent crime. Even the Clinton Administration's

research failed to show that any of Clinton's gun control measures

reduced crime in any way.

If you want an example of what absolute gun control does, look at the

UK. Their violent crime rate is skyrocketing, as is the gun murder

rate. The UK was in a gradual downward trend of violence, but that

reversed a bit after the total handgun ban (1997? I can't recall the

precise year), and now it is climbing at a nearly geometric rate. The

violent crime rate in the UK (and in Australia too) exceeds that of the

US. We still have a higher murder rate, for now... but if theirs keeps

increasing, and ours keeps decreasing, they will cross in the near future.

Since the politicians over there think that the answer to their failed

strategy is more of the same (banning BB guns after the real guns, then

toys, then prosecuting people for carrying non-weapon items that could

be used as defensive implements in a pinch), it's a cinch that their

crime rate is going to keep going up. Those who fail to learn the

lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

At least in the US, there have been a few brave politicians who decided

to try the opposite of gun control, since gun control failed so

miserably-- and as a direct result of that, 2/3rds of the states now

allow any lawful citizen to carry a concealed gun. Florida started this

trend in 1987, and most of the intellectually honest critics now admit

that their fears were unfounded. Crime is down, there are no shootouts

in the streets... and the debate about gun control has shifted. Now

it's not about how much gun control reduces crime (or if it does)...

it's about how much concealed-carry reform reduces crime.

I hope, for their sake, that some politicians in the UK wake up soon.

Many cities in the UK are following the example of Washington, DC, which

is now a terrifying hotbed of murder and violence after dark. It wasn't

always like that-- that happened after guns were banned there. But as

long as people stick to the " guns are bad " ideology instead of facing

the fact that violence is a social issue that has nothing to do with

guns, they are doomed to continue the trend of spiralling crime rates.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>AndyTiedye wrote:

>

>

>

>> We were discussing what would happen if most people carried guns.

>> There would certainly be a lot more gunfire in the streets in such a

>> place, as gun-toting citizens respond more or less accurately to real

>> or imagined threats to their person, and the bad guys respond with

>> even more guns and more bullets. Then comes the arms race into

>> automatic weapons with ever greater risks to innocent bystanders.

>>

>>

>

>This is a response based on fear, not on fact.

>

It is a response to a hypothetical question:

Mircea Pauca wrote:

>If almost everyone in a locality is armed, doesn't

>the " risk shift " on the few people known to be unarmed ?

>

" Almost everyone " is the key word here. At that point you have not

only armed those who

like guns and are skilled in their use. You have made it an

expectation, and a lot of people

with little (if any) training and poor marksmanship skills will be

carrying and attempting to

use them in a state of intense fear (which causes most people to shake

a lot). That would

scare me more than the criminals do.

>more than 300,000 Floridians have gotten licenses to carry concealed handguns,

>

>

That isn't even close to " almost everyone " .

>> I'd rather not share a subway car with Bernie Goetz, and I'd rather

>> not live in a city where guns and bullets are pervasive.

>>

>>

>

>I would much rather share a subway car with him than with the miscreants

>that tried to attack him with sharpened screwdrivers.

>

Screwdrivers were found in their pockets. They did not attack or

threaten to attack Goetz

with them. What is the criteria that made them fair game?

> Goetz only used his gun to defend himself against them.

>

Seems more like a pre-emptive strike. Except for that last shot. The

one at the kid lying

helpless and bleeding on the floor. That was just plain attempted murder.

>Yet you single out Goetz as the one you would fear being around.

>

Perhaps on his next subway trip, he'll get the idea that the

shifty-eyed, twitchy Aspie

next to him is about to rob him. BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

>Isn't that kind of odd?

>

>

*I* am a bit odd. So are you and everybody else on this list. We're

all odd here.

We are odd in ways that sometimes make NTs nervous. A society in which

it is OK

to respond with deadly force to the mere perception of a threat could be

a very

dangerous one for odd people like us.

>Would you feel better about Goetz if he had been stabbed to death with a

>screwdriver?

>

I would have felt better about him if he didn't say the sorts of things

he said,

and if he hadn't taken that last shot when there was no longer any

possility of a threat.

I would have felt better if it really were self-defense.

Since he had his gun out before any screwdrivers or other assorted

hardware had made its

appearance, there was no concrete threat that justfied firing it. If

he had given them

an opportunity to retreat, they certainly would have done so.

>> Improving reactions and motor skills in people like us can be

>> especially challenging. The stuff that works for NTs often doesn't

>> work for us.

>>

>>

>

>This is a complete guess with regard to guns.

>

It was a general statement, though my own experience with target

shooting (or more often,

target-missing) bears it out. There, reactions weren't an issue

because the target didn't move.

My body does, however. I don't do still.

>you are just making stuff up to try to support your side.

>

>

I haven't got a side.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to ban them.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

AndyTiedye jotted this down:

> You have made it an expectation, and a lot of people with little (if any)

> training and poor marksmanship skills will be carrying and attempting to use

> them in a state of intense fear  (which causes most people to shake a lot).

> That would scare me more than the criminals do.

Exactly my thought.

I don't care either way about the guns. However, the vast majority of people in

this country I wouldn't want to be near if they were armed. (I wouldn't want to

be near them anyway, but doubly so if they were armed.) Parrish I trust with

his guns, provided he's in a good frame of mind, nobody startles him, and

nothing else happens to show up as a threat. Beyond that, no... If even the

most trustworthy person I know isn't somebody whose " firearm mentality " feels

safe, I sure wouldn't want to be near a *less* calm/friendly individual while

they were armed.

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

> " Almost everyone " is the key word here. At that point you have not

> only armed those who

> like guns and are skilled in their use. You have made it an

> expectation, and a lot of people

> with little (if any) training and poor marksmanship skills will be

> carrying and attempting to

> use them in a state of intense fear (which causes most people to shake

> a lot). That would

> scare me more than the criminals do.

" Poor markmanship " or shaking is definitely not a dangerous thing with a

gun. Shooting into a crowd, even if you are a good shot *IS* a dangerous

thing and is one of the cases a gun shouldn't be used.

I can't catch a ball, I can't do *anything* fast, and have overall

piss-poor motor skills. In my high school of 3,200 students, only two

people in the school had more limits on their physical abilities then

myself (both used wheelchairs). The " quick draw " and shooting the

criminal holding a knife to the innocent victim's throat are both Hollywood

images. And both good ways to hurt someone you don't mean to, as anyone

who has trained even a little bit in gun safety knows. So I know what I'm

talking about as far as reaction time (mine is very slow), shaking

(a gun is a lot of weight to me, so I shake trying to support it if I

stand upright), poor motor control, etc. I might chop fingers off cooking

dinner, so if you have an accurate assessment of risk, you should be much

more concerned if you see me with a steak knife then if you see me with a

handgun.

Defensive use of a gun is going to be at close range. It's not going to

be in a direction where a slight miss can seriously injure a bystander -

that's not an appropriate place to fire a gun (even police and military

won't typically take those kinds of shots). A whole lot of knowing about

firearms is knowing what not to point them at (basically, they shouldn't

face the direction of things that you don't want to possibly shoot).

Now, if there are autistics here worried about motor control issues and

would like to shoot a gun sometime, there are many options, even for

dyspraxics among us. For me, a small-bore rifle is my preference, as I

don't have the body frame type to handle a gun with a lot of kick and I

need something I can support the front of while I'm shooting, to steady my

aim. With that, I can easily hit a target at decent range. I've enjoyed

firing handguns when I've done it (I don't own one - I don't see myself

needing one at the moment or wanting one, I prefer rifles), but obviously

I can't hit my rifle target with a handgun (nor can most people I shoot

with - handguns aren't supposed to be accurate at 200 yards!).

--

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>

> No. Look at the murder rate you cited before, of 6.8 per 100,000.

> About half of the murders are done with guns. We have a population

> approaching 300 million. Do the math-- it's 8,000.

>

There you go again changing words to suit your bias. I was wrong though.

The figure I was trying to quote is 40,000, not 80,000.

>

> Many cities in the UK are following the example of Washington, DC, which

> is now a terrifying hotbed of murder and violence after dark.

A more accurate statement would be one city in the UK.

Red

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

> >

> > No. Look at the murder rate you cited before, of 6.8 per 100,000.

> > About half of the murders are done with guns. We have a

> > population approaching 300 million. Do the math-- it's 8,000.

> >

> There you go again changing words to suit your bias. I was wrong

> though. The figure I was trying to quote is 40,000, not 80,000.

Changing words to suit my bias? I'm illustrating the truth for you.

40,000 is still wrong. It's 8,000. That's a fact.

> > Many cities in the UK are following the example of Washington, DC,

> > which is now a terrifying hotbed of murder and violence after dark.

> >

>

> A more accurate statement would be one city in the UK.

It's more than Manchester... I read the British press too.

[Guest guest]

AndyTiedye wrote:

> > This is a response based on fear, not on fact.

> >

> It is a response to a hypothetical question:

Yes, but it it still one that does not match the facts.

> " Almost everyone " is the key word here. At that point you have not

> only armed those who like guns and are skilled in their use. You

> have made it an expectation, and a lot of people with little (if any)

> training and poor marksmanship skills will be carrying and attempting

> to use them in a state of intense fear (which causes most people to

> shake a lot). That would scare me more than the criminals do.

Not me.

> Screwdrivers were found in their pockets. They did not attack or

> threaten to attack Goetz with them. What is the criteria that made

> them fair game?

Disparity of force. There were four of them, against one victim. That

makes the use of lethal force against them legal. If you had ever taken

a defensive firearms class, you may know that.

> > Goetz only used his gun to defend himself against them.

> >

> Seems more like a pre-emptive strike. Except for that last shot.

> The one at the kid lying helpless and bleeding on the floor. That

> was just plain attempted murder.

The jury did not see it so. Again, if you knew anything about how human

beings behave under the stress of a lethal encounter like this (one of

the things you learn about in firearms training), you would know that

the mind is not sitting there considering each shot individually and

rationally. When you have entered the " shoot to live " mode, it is not

easy to turn it off. The decision to shoot has been made; the mind

carries that out. The perception that the threat is over takes a long

time to reach your conscious mind.

> > Yet you single out Goetz as the one you would fear being around.

> >

> Perhaps on his next subway trip, he'll get the idea that the

> shifty-eyed, twitchy Aspie next to him is about to rob him. BLAM!

> BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

And perhaps Godzilla will come, pick up the subway car, and throw it to

the ground, killing everyone inside.

There are millions of armed civilians in the US at this time, and as far

as I know, there has never been a case of an aspie being mistaken for a

robber. In fact, armed citizens have a much lower rate of shooting

people that are not threats than the police do. Once again, your

objection is based on irrational fear, not fact.

> *I* am a bit odd. So are you and everybody else on this list.

> We're all odd here. We are odd in ways that sometimes make NTs

> nervous. A society in which it is OK to respond with deadly force to

> the mere perception of a threat could be a very dangerous one for odd

> people like us.

There was more than a perception of a threat with Goetz. He was

approached by four individuals who demanded he pay them. That is just

as much a threat as one person wielding a knife and demanding to be

paid. Disparity of force is equivalent to the overt display of a

weapon. The fact is that these miscreants were trying to commit the

violent crime of robbery, and they were dealt with appropriately. The

only things I do not like about the case are that (1) Goetz was tried

for murder, (2) he was found guilty of unlawful carrying of a concealed

weapon, and (3) that he was sued in civil court.

> > Would you feel better about Goetz if he had been stabbed to death

> > with a screwdriver?

> >

> I would have felt better about him if he didn't say the sorts of

> things he said, and if he hadn't taken that last shot when there was

> no longer any possility of a threat. I would have felt better if it

> really were self-defense.

He did say some unfortunate things, and if he had taken a defensive

firearms class, he would have known better than that.

> Since he had his gun out before any screwdrivers or other assorted

> hardware had made its appearance, there was no concrete threat that

> justfied firing it. If he had given them an opportunity to retreat,

> they certainly would have done so.

Yes, there was (that there were four of them). There is no duty to

allow the miscreant to leave before using lethal force. If a situation

justifies lethal force (and having four individuals against you does),

then you may lawfully and ethically shoot then and there. If the

attackers manage to retreat before you get off your first shot, you

should certainly stop the defensive shooting, but as I mentioned, it is

very difficult to stop the defensive action once the decision has been

made to shoot.

> > This is a complete guess with regard to guns.

> >

> It was a general statement, though my own experience with target

> shooting (or more often, target-missing) bears it out. There,

> reactions weren't an issue because the target didn't move. My body

> does, however. I don't do still.

Target shooting is only tangentially related to combat shooting.

However, as one that is horrendously clumsy in general, I can tell you

that I am adept with handguns (as Parrish will probably tell you <g>).

Even so, no one is suggesting that guns are for everyone. People need

to be responsible enough to know if they are not able to handle them...

just as people have to be responsible enough to know that they are not

able to drive a car safely. Several members of this list have made that

decision... that is important with firearms too. Perhaps if firearms

safety was taught in school like driver's education is, things would be

different. Now, the lesson people get is that guns make you bad-ass and

" hard, " which is the lesson they get from the only source of info that

most people have, which is TV and movies.

If I were to have kids (which I will not), I would not allow them to

have (realistic) toy guns. I certainly am not one of those that think

guns are bad; that much is obvious. But, to me, they are very serious

things, and not something that should be the subject of play. I would

not want the child to get in the habit of seeing guns as potential

toys-- if they ever saw a real one, I would not want them to think they

could play with it. Similarly, I don't like to joke about guns-- I

don't say things like " people that do [x] should be shot, " which is a

common expression.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>if you knew anything about how human

>beings behave under the stress of a lethal encounter like this (one of

>the things you learn about in firearms training), you would know that

>the mind is not sitting there considering each shot individually and

>rationally.

>

Before firing the last shot, Goetz said, " You don't look too bad --

here's another. "

That sounds like considering each shot individually to me.

When he speaks, he sounds very much like a man acting out of hatred.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye