On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Kristin A. Ruhle wrote:
> > I have always been a pro-handgun supporter, but I have always said that if
> > someone comes up with a suitable non-lethal way (like a stun gun) to
> > incapacitate a perpetrator from a distance that I would support the
> > disarming of the public (like anyone would really care about my position!)
>
> I have doubts about "non lethal." Everything touted as "non lethal"
> hws wound up being blamed (justifiably or not) for killing somebody.
> Taser guns, choke holds (cops and PCP user typically), you name it.
> Can you really be sure that out of zillions of people some one
> wouldn't be hypersensitive and get a fatal overdose of stun rays, or
> whatever?
Someone got hit by something that may have been a non-lethal "rubber
bullet" here in Austin Saturday night, and he may lose an eye.
Sensitivity to something may very well follow a Bell curve, and the dose
needed to temporarily incapacitate 90% of the population might very well
be incredibly bad for a small minority at the more sensitive end.
I'm not big on firearms, myself, but I know enough responsible adults that
own them for legitimate purposes that I'm not going to back any additional
gun control regs without looking at them and thinking about how they'd
affect those individuals. (Anyone looking to outlaw pistols/handguns
altogether can come hunting and throw themselves between the hunters and
the rattlesnakes, for one.)
(My thing is blades, by the way. I'd like to go to a gun & knife show
sometime to admire knives....)
Julia
