Re: Weapons
Bill Sills (whs@IDCNET.COM)
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:07:16 -0500
Goodness me, but "armour piercing bullets" don't exist
except as an appellation for a solid bullet. Actually,
most elk, antelope and mule deer hunters use what the
anti gunners call "armour piercing bullets". Such non
existent bullets are in the same category as "assault
rifles". That term was applied, as a propaganda tool, to
firearms classified by COSMETICS!!! Fully automatic
weapons have required very difficult to obtain licenses
since well before even I was born.
The above silly terms are understood to be absurd by
people familiar with firearms. They are often accepted
by those unsophisticated when it comes to arms. That
sort of thing is, in my book, abjectly dishonest. It is
similar to the same propaganda I studied in college, It
epitomizes the falseness of the Goebbels propaganda of
my youth.
Regarding "stabbing", it should be noted that the
Japanese use that method quite effectively rather than
firearms and manage to do themselves in with similar
numbers albeit utilizing a different technique.
Regarding Sue Klukan's alleged "misuse [of] statistics
and facts" - frankly she does not do so!
Gun control advocates blame everything on the
individual's freedoms. Apparently, they admire socialism
and its "SENSIBLE BANS ON CERTAIN FREEDOMS." My oh my,
the intellectual elite will pick and choose which
rights we should enjoy because they are infinitely wiser
than we "Great Unwashed" and our forefathers!!!
Every failure of "Gun Control" is blamed on something
else!!! Everything is our fault for not supporting the
theories of those far "brighter tan we are..."
Only ships and Venturing Crews may engage in pistol and
revolver shooting. Boy Scouting is prohibited from
enjoying anything but rifles and shotguns.
Sue didn't say she didn't like guns. She basically said
they were tools. I don't like my Cuisinart nor my
telephone nor my computer. (I don't assign human emotions
to inanimate objects.) However, I have learned to
use them. What the heck does "like" have to do with it?
Is it because those wishing to "demonize" firearms
impute "personality" or "human emotions" to them?
Firearms are tools to be used well or ill just like
automobiles, aeroplanes and boats. Good Lord, firearms
deaths simply don't exist statistically. We are far more
likely to die swimming, bicycling or even picnicking
than by a gun. Is it just possible that there is a
political agenda lurking here? Boy, talk about the misuse
of statistics!! :-)
The statistical work by the CDC National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control (Violence) (The section of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which
tracks firearm injuries and fatalities.) has been proven
to be statistically flawed by academe. NONE of its studies
could be replicated by the academic world. That means that
one of the lesser known types of "plagiarism" has been
committed by that repudiated section of the CDC.
The only worthwhile and replicable statistical studies
are in the Annual Report of the National Safety Council. An
honest debater will only use their untainted figures. The
best way to find out if the debater is honest is to examine
his/her underpinning material. If he/she is using flawed
statistics, that brings into question not only the argument
but the premises thereof.
For example, no objective, unimpassioned exercise
would attempt to use a report published by a protagonist
on either side. I certainly would call into question a
group that hides its avowed advocacy by using a seemingly
objective name. One of the two most virulent advocates
of abolishing the right to own firearms is the sneakily
named "Violence Policy Center". Goodness me, what a
"stealth" name for a registered lobbying group. <VBG>
It appears that the "antis", sans supporting statistics,
have resorted to "war by sound byte!"
An article was quoted which had US Attorney General
Janet Reno observing that, "No corner of America is safe
from increasing levels of criminal violence..."
Oh come now, Janet. Every statistical study indicates
that violent crime is decreasing AND that it is at an
historically extremely low rate as a percentage of
the population!
If there is a case on one side or the other, it should
be made with objective, replicable studies. Emotions are
wonderful and every human being should have some!!! :-)
However, they are seldom the basis for good decisions.
YISS;
Bill Sills
