From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Article-I.D.: martha.1993Apr6.162820.19369
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 47

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)
>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?

       The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce
the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease
by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that
improvement worth what you've paid?

>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.

       If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun,
is that any comfort to that tenth?

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks. 

       I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have*
a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that
*he* was interested in cutting *me*.

>Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

       "Anyone trained in self-defense." 

       Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires
substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm.
It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim,
which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch
your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant
can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  
