On Oct 20, 3:20 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...
I see now you meant "good guys" make the solemn resolutions. Again, if that
were true, you wouldn't need to be armed, and I would. Since the opposite
appears to be true, based on actual crimes committed, there is something
wrong with your theory, eh?

Okay, Ed, I see you're trying. Thank you for the corrections. But we
are still not at concensus. If we want to agree to disagree, I can
live with that.

But assuming we're talking because we're trying to understand each
other, I will try to make my point which is missed above.

If someone is a good guy and has solemn resolution, he takes a stand
and some things just aren't going to go down without a response, and
if that person is at all effective, then that someone is armed.

The issue is not whether you should, or I should. The issue is not
whether you do, or I do. My point is we both need to be armed to
secure our neighborhoods, or rely on someone else who actually is. If
not you, you can be sure someone in your neighborhood is armed. If you
choose not to be armed, and you live in a good neighborhood, then
someone else has to take up your slack, and they're the one you need
to thank for your safe neighborhood.

Alfred North Whithead had this little phrase he used to describe
people who don't get the complex issues. He said they labor under "the
fallacy of misplaced concreteness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...d_concreteness

Here's what I think is overlooked in your argument. When it comes to
the safety of a neighborhood, Its not you, and its not the
neighborhood, its not dead end streets, and its not (exactly) looking
for people who look out of place. It certainly isn't that it's
difficult to buy even pellets. Ultimately, it comes down to someone is
armed and willing to use those arms. Guess where you are, its the
police, and their honest, brave, and actually think like the rest of
the community. Where I am, it's difficult to get the police to come
out, so any order that exists there is from people who are willing to
arm themselves and provide for the security of themselves and their
neighbors. From the bad guys it's the knowledge that there are a few
of them out there, so they'd better keep it down or go somewhere
else.

I don't need his protection. What's far better for me and my family is to be
in a place where we don't have enough violent crime to worry about. That's
what we have, and what you apparently don't.

I take it, by extending your reasoning (admittedly, as best I can
understand, base on what I understand of what you've told me), you
don't think our military is necessary for our safety either? You can
always just move to somewhere that's free and safe and any kind of
defense doesn't figure into it? Is that the essence of your argument?
If so, yes, that clears things up. Possibly it meansthat bumper
sticker, "If you can read this thank a teacher, and if you can read
this in English, thank a vet", doesn't make any sense either?

In any case, Ed, I'd like to thank you for carrying on a civil
conversation about ideas. You show a great deal of character and
restraint for doing so, rather than slipping to flame. For that, I
hats off to you.

Randy