"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
But it does not follow that people being armed results in increased
violence. It has worked both ways historically. Presently, it seems to
be reducing violence in the USA.

Don't get me wrong.
I don't for a second suggest that the U.S. should seek to restrict gun ownership.
That horse has well and truly bolted.
Thre may well be a valid argument for arming more U.S. citizens - but I'm not
familiar with the U.S. situation. (Unless TV counts!)


I would favor and support such a requirement, however, so long as
"everyone" was defined as every legal adult not convicted of a felony
crime of violence, of no demonstrable mental disability, and not
religiously or ethically scrupulous of carrying weapons.

I wouldn't, because I simply don't trust *everyone* (minus your listed exceptions) to
exhibit sufficient presence of mind to avoid (or not *cause*) unnecessary bloodshed.

IOW, that man is angry, nay FURIOUS, but unarmed. He may do a fair measure of
damage.
-or-
That man is furious and armed. BANG Dead people.


But then I also would favor the return of the concept of Outlawry, where
a person declared an Outlaw after due process, having demonstrated
unwillingness to accept the authority of law, also forfeits its protection.

Thats a dangerously slippery slope. I don't favour pampering criminals, but:
That man is stealing my car therefore I can shoot him.

Is that an acceptable outcome of "Outlawry"?

I make no claim to being civilized, a term whose root meant simply
citified or a city dweller. Civilization has no claim to moral superiority.

Moral? Maybe not.
But in every other sense superior.

Without civilisation, I'd have no lathe, no mill, no metal and no time to play with
them. EEurgghhhhh.

Jeff