Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people

Chuck Kuecker (
Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:59:29 -0500

At 04:32 AM 6/9/99 -0700, 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.