Abrasha wrote:


Yes he does, because he's stuck, hopelessly stuck. If he'd move to greener
pastures, he'd have to give up so much of his old self, he wouldn't know what to
do with himself.

He's a skilled man, and a survivor, who could find a job almost anywhere, and
for some reason he's tied himself down to ... what exactly? A large pile of
metal and other assorted junk in his back yard judging from his web site.

I suggest honest selfexamination, many years of it. With the help of a trained
professional.


If I've read his posts correctly, Gunner hasn't had much trouble at his
home, but while working his business or otherwise away from home.

Hell, I live in one of the reputedly safest neighborhoods in Ohio and
not long ago a neighbor ran off two gentlemen of color and "colors" from
Akron at gunpoint. Apparently they'd secured the son's name and address
from a friend at BMV and were intent on evening a score for "dissing"
them at a dance club. At least that's what they reportedly said.

Of course, I didn't get to hear their stories, but their coming 20 or
more miles from home into a strange neighborhood, bearing knives and
clubs and destroying a family's front door, doesn't induce me to think
their purpose was entirely benign.

Unless one lives in a gated, guarded community, the chance of
encountering "street violence" is non-zero, even if you _don't_ live in
a bad neighborhood. The bad neighborhood might just come to you.

And one just might encounter problems other than at home. Must one
surrender all freedom of movement for avoiding danger or criminality?
Once it was considered an honorable civic duty to hinder or stop a crime
in progress, if possible, and self-defense is always a good reason for
counter violence, though not for initiating it.

I try not to forget that "to Protect and Serve" is a motto, not a promise.