On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:53:32 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:08:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.
Never mind the legally, what about the competently?
You're far too emotional on this issue, John. Take a deep breath,
relax, and think. Feel better yet? Good.
So if you're competent and defense is illegal, you still can't
protect yourself. What kind of fool wants that for themself or
their family?
So, because some guy in another town isn't as skilled as you are
handling a gun, he's not entitled to self-protection?
In the military I had to qualify with rifle, sub-machine gun and
pistol every year although I was not a ground-pounder. I have fired a
browning automatic pistol many times but I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.
You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?
You would rather have no defense when your wife was being raped?
You would rather have no defense if your child was being kidnapped?
You call that "FREE"? You're an odd bird, John.
To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.
Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what, so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes? Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?
But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to
Guns aren't cheap. The cheap Saturday Night Specials are imported and
can often be more dangerous to the shooter.
make a buck, and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done. Every individual you sell a
Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?
Hell no, but I'd rather have a crazy drunk stand up for me with a
gun during an attack on me by thugs. Look at the stats. When large
quantities of guns were sold just before gun control laws went into
effect in several states, no huge increase in crime accompanied it.
Yes, gun safety courses are a really good idea for every gun owner,
and refresher courses should be the mindset. But a lot of crime is
stopped merely by showing the criminal a weapon. They know it may
well cost them a -lot- if they try to commit that crime against an
armed citizen.
To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.
You sure took us off the course of my statement about freedom and the
right to defend ourselves, didn't you?
Read any or all of the cites Gunner posted today. (I -dare- you.)
Your scenario just doesn't happen in the real world.
The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on. If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.
---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications