Let's arm Joe and Jane! - misc.legal

Message from discussion Let's arm Joe and Jane!

Bob Kirkpatrick

View profile

More options Dec 15 1990, 3:39 pm

Newsgroups: misc.legal

From: r...@dogear.UUCP (Bob Kirkpatrick)

Date: 15 Dec 90 20:39:58 GMT

Local: Sat, Dec 15 1990 3:39 pm

Subject: Let's arm Joe and Jane!

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

}> In Article 20317 of misc.legal {Inder} & J. Barret Wolf writes:
}> As an ex-cop with a Bronze Medal of Valor from the San
}> Francisco Police Department, I suppose you would expect me to
}> laud the advertisement by Handgun Control, Inc., in your
}> Nov/Dec 1990 issue.
}>

No, I don't expect anything.

}> it's the `party line' to be for gun control, and in fact I am
}> more than happy that automatic weapons are not being sold under
}> the absurd guise of hunting instruments, but wait a second,
}> kids, hasn't anyone told you the news?
}> If one takes responsibility for one's own life and limbs,
}> theree are few choices other than to carefully prepare for the
}> possibility that some socially disadvantaged (or merely insane)
}> person might threaten you with extinction.
}>

No, sonny, I guess I must have missed sixty-minutes. You see, I'm one of
those who believe that the avergae citizen is not trained or equipped to
be a law enforcement officer. The step from self-protection to protecting
others is a tiny one. The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.

To suggest or encourage to average person to invest themselves in violence
without the back-up machinery of the police is amazingly ludicrous. I've
been robbed at gun and knifepoint. I'm here today because I simply coughed
up the few personals asked for and posed no threat. Sure, there's always
the one who'll shoot you anyway, but if you reach for a piece while being
drawn down on, you're gonna depart this planet with dispatch. Even if not,
your opinion evokes images of running gunfights... isn't that a nice image
for those of us who've seen the news depicting innocents killed in their
homes by random misses or riccochets.

}> The illusion that police actually deter those who have
}> crossed the line into criminal behaviour is a deadly one. While
}> working the streets, I was called to pick up the pieces more
}> often than anything else. When the violence was happening it
}> was Joe or Jane Citizen versus the villain, pure and simple.
}> It falls to us to defend ourselves, as frightening as that may
}> be for the anti-gun forces to accept.
}>

And there you make my point. Joe and Jane got dusted.

No, I think only the naieve believe that POLICE are a deterrent, except when
present on the scene. Like the law, their mere existence doesn't mean squat
unless the perpetrator is directly confronted.

The problem is, it's too easy to get away. The perpetrators, when caught,
face rather little retribution upon prosecution because of economic reasons.
We have over-crowding in jails, a massive concentration of cases which make
plea-bargaining common --to the loss of society, and a severe lack of concept
of victims rights. I recognize these a problems, but am hard pressed to know
the solution. But to encourage Jane and Joe to pack a rod... Get serious.

}> I needn't advocate massive arming of the American public,
}> mainly because this is already the case. The guns are already out
}> there. If citizens could be _legally_ armed after a realistic
}> background investigation and extensive firearms training, there
}> might be some real crime deterrence in our cities.
}>

Most states already require a certain background check --at least of sorts.
Convicted felons aren't supposed to be able to buy guns. They do, of course,
which demonstrates your idea of extensive checking is bound to fail at the
outset. You can't possibly suggest that ALL guns are purchased in stores.
The garage sale type purchase requires only the money. And many will sell
on the 'black-market' because of profit motivations.

As to training, well, that would help some. But the truth is, that it would
be difficult to train to competence and maintaining that competence. Chiefly
because the mechanics of shooting are trainable, but appropriate judgement
under severe stress isn't so easy to instill in people.

While I was in Viet Nam, I was involved in, and witnessed quite a few con-
frontations which involved firearms, and had nothing to do with the war. I
was sitting on a guy's 'favorite spot' --not knowing it was, and had all my
stuff entrenched about me. This doof locked and loaded with no prior
discussion. My response was to draw down on him. There we stood in a dumb-
ass Mexican standoff. It was resolved when the company XO drew down on both
of us. Together, we laid down our M-16's and that resolved it. We later
were talking about it. Both of us were really embarrassed and feeling dumb.
To invite such things into the home front seems to be an aggravation of the
problem, not a solution.

I'm not a member of the NRA either, and disagree with some of what they say
and also agree with some.

--
I own a gun. No, I don't want it taken from me. But neither would I like to
see everyone carrying them as a matter of routine, or being encouraged to use
them with social impunity. Our society, I believe is in dire need of some
serious restructuring of it's priorities and methodologies. Gun regulation
is likely a part of this, but I doubt that total arming or total disarming
are part of the solution; mainly becaue I don't think it can be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Reply To: tau-ceti!dogear!r...@isc-br.com (Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems)
Do the Bartman --everybody back and shake it side to side.

Reply to author Forward