From: Anton Sherwood (dasher@netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 01 1997 - 23:06:28 MDT
quoth Abraham Moses Genen, evidently not a member of JPFO,
: The claim that many people are being improperly denied the right to
: bear arms seems more than slightly specious. The high court has ruled
: on this issue as well in great detail. They have concluded that the
: right to bear arms is not absolute and can be regulated by the Federal
: government, the States and and political subdivisions thereof.
Have they really? So much for the myth that the Supreme Court has
for generations avoided hearing any Second Amendment cases.
Anyway, this element of the challenge to the Brady Act is not on Second
Amendment grounds, but on the ground that the denials are capricious. The
authority to deny a license does not imply authority to deny it randomly.
: The need for firearms in our society seem questionable as well in many
: instances.
: The arguements as to the need for self-defense against predators in our
: society is best answered by having professionally trained law enforcement
: officials in each community.
I thought we had 'em. They're the guys who broke down my friend's door
and stole his merchandise and his computers (and his wife's gun).
: I'm a bit dubious as to the need of hunters for many of the rapid fire
: arms that are readily available
De gustibus non disputandum!
: as well as the need for handguns. The collected cumulitive evidence
: indicates that most people who claim they need a handgun for self
: defense are usually incapable of using one under siuations of stress.
: They frequently end up shooting other family members or themselves.
More often, they end up shooting nobody, because the aggressor flees
on seeing the gun. The professionally trained law enforcement officials
are said to shoot the wrong person about eleven times as often as armed
civilians do. (I believe this ratio is normalized for total number of
shootings.) This suggests that delegating the power to shoot badguys
was a bad idea. If shooters are incompetent, some of the blame must
go to city councils that drive out practice ranges for being icky.
The claim frequently quoted that "a gun in the home is 43 times more
likely to kill a family member than to kill an intruder" is, even if
accurate, meaningless. People defending themselves against violent mates
are counted among the 43 -- is it better for husbands to strangle wives
than for wives to shoot husbands? The vast majority of armed encounters,
in which nobody is killed, are ignored (though surely some would have
been killed if unarmed).
: It's possible that the issue of paranoia in our society is entering the
: minds of some of you, as well as the numerous psycho-sexual implications
: of gun collecting, so I'll let this issue ride while you digest and
: consider the bigger picture.
My sex-life is disappointing, and I own a great big pistol.
I deny feeling particularly sexy when I fire it.
: For those who are sceptical about my motives. Yes, I am an occasional
: casual hunter. Yes, I use a single shot shotgun or a compound bow when
: I hunt. Yes, I've had to use deadly weapons in the distant past. No, I
: did not enjoy having to use them. The circumstances under which I was
: required to use weapons I'll leave to your fertile imaginings.
Why, don't the circumstances suit your rhetorical point?
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com
(owner of one gun, never drawn on a living target)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:32 MST