From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Wed Jun 09 1999 - 06:59:29 MDT
At 04:32 AM 6/9/99 -0700, mark@unicorn.com wrote:
>
>Will you still feel the same way if that racist Australian political party
>get a majority, and hence control all the guns in government hands?
>
>>No one needs to have weapons to kill people at a distance. The only
>>reason to have them is to protect yourself from people who have them.
>
>So why is it that a large fraction (possibly the vast majority) of bullets
>are fired at little pieces of paper? I've shot an awful lot of them myself
>in the past, and precisely 0.00000000000% of them have been fired at another
>person. If the only reason to own a gun is to shoot people who try to shoot
>you, why are most guns used for target shooting or (in America) hunting?
>
Even if your only use for a gun is defense, it makes sense to be able to
use it effectively - hence target shooting. Because I practice
periodically, I am sure of hitting what I aim at.
If the real concern is 'death at a distance', we must immediately ban all
rifles and long barrel shotguns. Handguns are only accruate enough to hit a
person within 25 feet in many people's hands. Any good full choke shotgun
can kill at 50 yards. Rifles can kill at over a mile, with a good scope and
steady aim.
I have had exactly one opportunity to even have a gun in my hand in
anticipation of use against another person, in over twenty-five years of
ownership. A drunk was battering my door at 2 AM in the middle of winter. I
called the police - he was escorted to a nice warm cell to sleep it off - I
never even needed to put my finger on the trigger.
If this individual had suceeded in gaining entry, though, I would have been
able to either hold him off or disable him if necessary, to defend my
family. If I had not had the gun, my only option would have been
hand-to-hand combat with someone possibly much stronger than myself.
I will keep my weapon just in case.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:05 MST