Let's arm Joe and Jane!
Bob Kirkpatrick
}> In Article 20317 of misc.legal {Inder} & J. Barret Wolf writes:
}> As an ex-cop with a Bronze Medal of Valor from the San
}> Francisco Police Department, I suppose you would expect me to
}> laud the advertisement by Handgun Control, Inc., in your
}> Nov/Dec 1990 issue.
}>
No, I don't expect anything.
}> it's the `party line' to be for gun control, and in fact I am
}> more than happy that automatic weapons are not being sold under
}> the absurd guise of hunting instruments, but wait a second,
}> kids, hasn't anyone told you the news?
}> If one takes responsibility for one's own life and limbs,
}> theree are few choices other than to carefully prepare for the
}> possibility that some socially disadvantaged (or merely insane)
}> person might threaten you with extinction.
}>
No, sonny, I guess I must have missed sixty-minutes. You see, I'm one of
those who believe that the avergae citizen is not trained or equipped to
be a law enforcement officer. The step from self-protection to protecting
others is a tiny one. The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.
To suggest or encourage to average person to invest themselves in violence
without the back-up machinery of the police is amazingly ludicrous. I've
been robbed at gun and knifepoint. I'm here today because I simply coughed
up the few personals asked for and posed no threat. Sure, there's always
the one who'll shoot you anyway, but if you reach for a piece while being
drawn down on, you're gonna depart this planet with dispatch. Even if not,
your opinion evokes images of running gunfights... isn't that a nice image
for those of us who've seen the news depicting innocents killed in their
homes by random misses or riccochets.
}> The illusion that police actually deter those who have
}> crossed the line into criminal behaviour is a deadly one. While
}> working the streets, I was called to pick up the pieces more
}> often than anything else. When the violence was happening it
}> was Joe or Jane Citizen versus the villain, pure and simple.
}> It falls to us to defend ourselves, as frightening as that may
}> be for the anti-gun forces to accept.
}>
And there you make my point. Joe and Jane got dusted.
No, I think only the naieve believe that POLICE are a deterrent, except when
present on the scene. Like the law, their mere existence doesn't mean squat
unless the perpetrator is directly confronted.
The problem is, it's too easy to get away. The perpetrators, when caught,
face rather little retribution upon prosecution because of economic reasons.
We have over-crowding in jails, a massive concentration of cases which make
plea-bargaining common --to the loss of society, and a severe lack of concept
of victims rights. I recognize these a problems, but am hard pressed to know
the solution. But to encourage Jane and Joe to pack a rod... Get serious.
}> I needn't advocate massive arming of the American public,
}> mainly because this is already the case. The guns are already out
}> there. If citizens could be _legally_ armed after a realistic
}> background investigation and extensive firearms training, there
}> might be some real crime deterrence in our cities.
}>
Most states already require a certain background check --at least of sorts.
Convicted felons aren't supposed to be able to buy guns. They do, of course,
which demonstrates your idea of extensive checking is bound to fail at the
outset. You can't possibly suggest that ALL guns are purchased in stores.
The garage sale type purchase requires only the money. And many will sell
on the 'black-market' because of profit motivations.
As to training, well, that would help some. But the truth is, that it would
be difficult to train to competence and maintaining that competence. Chiefly
because the mechanics of shooting are trainable, but appropriate judgement
under severe stress isn't so easy to instill in people.
While I was in Viet Nam, I was involved in, and witnessed quite a few con-
frontations which involved firearms, and had nothing to do with the war. I
was sitting on a guy's 'favorite spot' --not knowing it was, and had all my
stuff entrenched about me. This doof locked and loaded with no prior
discussion. My response was to draw down on him. There we stood in a dumb-
ass Mexican standoff. It was resolved when the company XO drew down on both
of us. Together, we laid down our M-16's and that resolved it. We later
were talking about it. Both of us were really embarrassed and feeling dumb.
To invite such things into the home front seems to be an aggravation of the
problem, not a solution.
I'm not a member of the NRA either, and disagree with some of what they say
and also agree with some.
--
I own a gun. No, I don't want it taken from me. But neither would I like to
see everyone carrying them as a matter of routine, or being encouraged to use
them with social impunity. Our society, I believe is in dire need of some
serious restructuring of it's priorities and methodologies. Gun regulation
is likely a part of this, but I doubt that total arming or total disarming
are part of the solution; mainly becaue I don't think it can be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply To: tau-ceti!dogear!ro...@isc-br.com (Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems)
Do the Bartman --everybody back and shake it side to side.
Andy Freeman
>I've been robbed at gun and knifepoint. I'm here today because I simply
>coughed up the few personals asked for and posed no threat.
Translation: "I've trained a number of folks to believe that they can
take whatever they want with absolutely no risk.
>Sure, there's always the one who'll shoot you anyway, but if you reach
>for a piece while being drawn down on, you're gonna depart this planet
>with dispatch.
If that were true, with-gun self-defense would be less successful than
non-resistance, which it isn't. People who use guns for self-defense
are less likely to be killed or injured than people who don't resist.
On the other hand, people who don't resist are less likely to be
killed or injured than people who do nothing. Part of the reason is
that the action-reaction gap, the time between when you do something
and when the perp can do anything about it (like pull a trigger) is
barely long enough to draw and fire. It isn't long enough to close
(which few of us are capable of taking advantage of anyway) and it
isn't long enough to run.
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
BELLNET: (415) 723-3088
Michael P. Deignan
>The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
>killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
>perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.
Really? I haven't seen one here in months, but I continually see stories
of people killed in their own homes by assailants.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. --
-- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 --
-- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 --
-- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
34A...@cmuvm.bitnet
>
>No, sonny, I guess I must have missed sixty-minutes. You see, I'm one of
>those who believe that the avergae citizen is not trained or equipped to
>be a law enforcement officer. The step from self-protection to protecting
>others is a tiny one. The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
>killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
>perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.
>
Well, Sir, in my humble opinion:
This is nothing more than elitist, supremecist drivel, to say nothing
of a calculated, deliberate insult in your use of the term "sonny".
You cannot back up these grandiose hallucinations with anything like
solid facts. On the other hand, it is quite possible to document
the everyday use of firearms in the preservation of life and property
by the ordinary, untrained "Dick and Jane" (your term) citizens
whom you seem to so roundly despise as incompetent to manage their
own lives.
Since you profess some passing familiarity with the NRA,
I suggest that you consult the column entitled "The Armed Citizen",
which appears in every monthly issue of the NRA publication "The
American Rifleman", for *concrete* documentation of citizen use of
firearms in self defense. The original source of the information
is always cited for each case mentioned.
Can you do the same for your claims? I rather think not.
bill nelson
>No, sonny, I guess I must have missed sixty-minutes. You see, I'm one of
>those who believe that the avergae citizen is not trained or equipped to
>be a law enforcement officer. The step from self-protection to protecting
>others is a tiny one. The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
>killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
>perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.
This is mostly drivel. No, the average citizen is not equipped or trained
to be a policeman - fortunately. We are not saying that they should be. As
far as the "news littered with stories ...", this is garbage. Such occurances
are rare and highly publicized nationwide when they happen.
>To suggest or encourage to average person to invest themselves in violence
>without the back-up machinery of the police is amazingly ludicrous. I've
Why? What are the police needed for, if they could get there in time? I
should not have to rely on the police to protect me and my family.
>...
>your opinion evokes images of running gunfights... isn't that a nice image
>for those of us who've seen the news depicting innocents killed in their
>homes by random misses or riccochets.
Once again, these instances are rare. More innocent people are killed
accidentally by the police.
>}> The illusion that police actually deter those who have
>}> crossed the line into criminal behaviour is a deadly one. While
>}> working the streets, I was called to pick up the pieces more
>}> often than anything else. When the violence was happening it
>}> was Joe or Jane Citizen versus the villain, pure and simple.
>}> It falls to us to defend ourselves, as frightening as that may
>}> be for the anti-gun forces to accept.
>}>
>And there you make my point. Joe and Jane got dusted.
If they were armed, at least they would have a chance. That is more than
they often have now. The police have to be reactive, they cannot be
proactive.
>No, I think only the naieve believe that POLICE are a deterrent, except when
>present on the scene. Like the law, their mere existence doesn't mean squat
>unless the perpetrator is directly confronted.
Precisely. Why are you so set against this confrontation?
>...
>I own a gun. No, I don't want it taken from me. But neither would I like to
>see everyone carrying them as a matter of routine, or being encouraged to use
>them with social impunity. Our society, I believe is in dire need of some
>serious restructuring of it's priorities and methodologies. Gun regulation
>is likely a part of this, but I doubt that total arming or total disarming
>are part of the solution; mainly becaue I don't think it can be done.
So, it is OK for you to have a gun, but not for John and Jane. Hypocrite!
Bill
Bob Kirkpatrick
> Well, Sir, in my humble opinion:
>
> This is nothing more than elitist, supremecist drivel, to say nothing
> of a calculated, deliberate insult in your use of the term "sonny".
> You cannot back up these grandiose hallucinations with anything like
> solid facts. On the other hand, it is quite possible to document
> the everyday use of firearms in the preservation of life and property
> by the ordinary, untrained "Dick and Jane" (your term) citizens
> whom you seem to so roundly despise as incompetent to manage their
> own lives.
>
The fact that I said 'sonny,' was a response to the article as well, where
we readers were referred to as 'kids.'
I do _NOT_ despise the average untrained citizen. You not only misquote,
but attribute statements to me that YOU make, not I. Interesting tact you
have there.
Elitist, supremacist drivel? No, that's you again. My comments are directed
in terms of hoping for the safety of my fellow man (woman) and a belief that
returning to the days of yesteryear and .45 calibre immediate justice is a
thing to be abhored.
> Since you profess some passing familiarity with the NRA,
> I suggest that you consult the column entitled "The Armed Citizen",
> which appears in every monthly issue of the NRA publication "The
> American Rifleman", for *concrete* documentation of citizen use of
> firearms in self defense. The original source of the information
> is always cited for each case mentioned.
>
> Can you do the same for your claims? I rather think not.
I don't have to justify my claims, like yours, the opines expressed in any
NRA publication or here on the net are simply opinions. They reflect our
individual interpretations of events we see, read about, hear about or
simply extrapolate with our own brand of sense of the subject.
I work in Electronic News Gathering, and have access to quite alot of
materials which lead me to my opinions. Police reports, statements by
witnesses and accused, and many 'experts' on the varied subjects. There's
nothing like watching a convenience store video showing a clerk killed
when they reached for an under-counter gun. Perhaps their last thought
was something like --hey, I'll equalize the odds here. Can I document my
claims? I think so.
Yes, my familiarity with NRA is definitely 'passing.' I am not a member. I
don't favor total deregulation, neither do I favor total regulation. I'm
somewhere in the middle, reasonably unpolarized. My belief is that there
are some competent to handle violent confrontation, and many who are not.
I suggest that you might widen your reading material --and your openness to
it. Whether or not you do, at least I respect your right to feel as you do.
Nice talking to you.
Bob Kirkpatrick
Well, I just may be a hypocrite. It wouldn't be the first time. There are
times when all of us border on conflicting with ourselves in our opinions.
My point to Joe and Jane is simply this:
I am dead against wholesale arming of the public. I don't believe that
it would be wise. To assume that EVERYBODY can use restraint, judgement,
and the other qualities necessary to carry a weapon makes about as much
sense to me as assuming that all people can lift the same amount of weight
a professional weightlifter can. It's just that simple.
I have, as we all have, seen broadscale training in a variety of areas. The
training takes well for some, and others just never quite seem to get a grip
on the subject matter.
I work in the news media, telling me that what I see on a daily basis is hog-
wash makes a staggering assumption...considering we don't know each other.
I'm sorry you think I spout 'drivel.' I wouldn't say the same about you. One
might get the impression that you could be a hypocrite...you seem to believe
in some guaranteed rights while not believing in others. I believe I'm as
welcome to my opinions as you are yours. Maybe? Huh? Whaddaya think? 8-)
Merry Christmas!
David Chesler
I've been wondering about this, as follows.
Throwing the moral and constitutional arguments aside, it's been demonstrated
to my satisfaction that a given citizen, if properly trained and of the right
demeanor, is overall safer armed than unarmed. (His chance of being killed by
a robber or rapist drops significantly, his chance of harming himself, or
finding himself arrested for harming another are not significantly increased,
his chance of being greater harmed by the burglar who gets his gun are not
significantly increased, dispite that popular misconception.)
Now, on purely pragmatic grounds, is an individual gun owner, let's say
Carl Rowan, or John Silber, who has the means to legally have a gun, or
the power or chutzpah to keep one illegally, and who realizes the criminals
also have guns, better or worse off if all the other citizens were disarmed?
Using my factors above, is it more likely that a third-party citizen will
use his armedness to benefit the subject gunowner or is it more likely that
the third-party citizen's armedness will harm the subject gunowner?
-- David Chesler (che...@netrix.enet.dec.com) formerly da...@prism.tmc.com
Earning my living at Digital in Littleton, Mass; speaking for myself.
"Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor." Ovid, Metam., VII, 20.
Andy Freeman
[yup, me. Maybe I can be less confusing this time.]
>>Sure, there's always the one who'll shoot you anyway, but if you reach
>>for a piece while being drawn down on, you're gonna depart this planet
>>with dispatch.
>
>If that were true, with-gun self-defense would be less successful than
>non-resistance, which it isn't. People who use guns for self-defense
>are less likely to be killed or injured than people who don't resist.
>On the other hand, people who don't resist are less likely to be
>killed or injured than people who do nothing.
Correction: "On the other hand, people who don't resist are less
likely to be killed or injured than people who resist in other ways."
The reason for the difference between using a gun for self-defense and
using something else is the action-reaction gap, the time between when
you do something and when the perp can do anything about it (like pull
a trigger). That gap barely last long enough to draw and fire. It
doesn't last long enough to close (which few of us are capable of
taking advantage of anyway), let alone do something useful after
closing, and it isn't even close to long enough to run.
-andy
ps - As always, references on request.
Johnny Zweig
>
>Well, I just may be a hypocrite. It wouldn't be the first time. There are
>times when all of us border on conflicting with ourselves in our opinions.
>My point to Joe and Jane is simply this:
>
>I am dead against wholesale arming of the public. I don't believe that
>it would be wise. To assume that EVERYBODY can use restraint, judgement,
>and the other qualities necessary to carry a weapon makes about as much
>sense to me as assuming that all people can lift the same amount of weight
>a professional weightlifter can. It's just that simple.
>
necessary to operate an automobile without huritng anyone, use alcohol or
tobacco wisely or halt the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? If we are
going to start protoctecting everyone from their own stupidity and the
stupidity of their fellow man, we can save a hell of a lot more lives than by
worrying about firearms. Aty least someone who is going to shoot me probably
wants to hurt me; when I'm in the parking lot of the grocery store I never
know for sure....
-Johnny Safety
Andy Freeman
>in terms of hoping for the safety of my fellow man (woman) and a belief that
>returning to the days of yesteryear and .45 calibre immediate justice is a
>thing to be abhored.
Actually, the "wild west" violence was different from current violence
in a rather interesting way. Unless you went looking for trouble, you
wouldn't find yourself in any. If you did, someone was sure to oblige
you. The result is that the bad guys shot other bad guys more often
than they do today, but good guys were shot far less often than today.
If you're a bad buy, the current situtation is an improvment, but if
you aren't ....
>I work in Electronic News Gathering, and have access to quite alot of
>materials which lead me to my opinions. Police reports, statements by
>witnesses and accused, and many 'experts' on the varied subjects. There's
>nothing like watching a convenience store video showing a clerk killed
>when they reached for an under-counter gun. Perhaps their last thought
>was something like --hey, I'll equalize the odds here. Can I document my
>claims? I think so.
Given the evidence, it is just as reasonable to conclude that their
last thought was "This is the only chance I have". Their failure
doesn't imply that something else would have worked better.
All those incidents document is that guns are not a fail-safe
self-defense technique. Since there aren't any fail-safe
alternatives, that's a rather uninteresting result.
Police reports and the like suffer from an interesting bias* which
makes them rather useless for determining the effectiveness of any
self-defense technique. That bias is that no one has any incentive to
report a successful incident that does not result in any injury, so
they are underrepresented. (In many jurisdictions, a with-gun
self-defender may even have significant disincentive wrt reporting an
incident.)
It is rather well known that the typical result of with-gun
self-defense is such a "no foul" situation. While it would be nice if
the defender would bring in the unsuccessful perp, it is
understandable that they don't. Moreover, even that "no foul" result
is a far better deterrent than teaching people that crime does pay.
Likewise, it is silly to use arguments like "75% of people who don't
resist aren't killed or injured" because it doesn't account for the
fraction that don't resist. For example, 85% of the victims don't
resist, and only 75% of the people who aren't killed/injured didn't
resist, non-resistance is less successful than some alternative.
While I made up the numbers "75%" and "85%", it is true that people
who self-defend using guns are less likely to be killed or injured
than people who don't resist at all. On the other hand, people who
resist using something other than guns (including fists and feet) are
more likely to be killed or injured than people who don't.
That analysis is somewhat incomplete, because people who have the
ability to resist may well choose not to in a given situation because
they judge rightly that they're not going to be killed/injured, which
inflates the success rate for non-resistance. It does show that
either with-gun self-defenders are significantly more competent than
people who use other tools, or that guns are significantly more
effective.
BTW - Police "experts" who argue that guns aren't useful for
self-defense aren't credible. They carry for self-defense, so either
they're incompetent or they're lying. (No, police don't have good,
let alone extensive, training. However, if you want to argue that
guns are effective for police self-defense because of their training,
I'll be happy to go along with that iff we agree that anyone who meets
police standards should also be allowed to carry.)
-andy
* - A related bias is present in the "warden's fallacy". That bogus
argument is based on the rather unsurprising fact that people in
prison do not feel deterred by the legal system. From that evidence,
the "argument" concludes that the legal system has little deterrent
value. That doesn't follow, because the sample excludes people who
were deterred, so it inherently understates the any deterrent value;
it only includes people who weren't deterred.
>Yes, my familiarity with NRA is definitely 'passing.' I am not a member. I
>don't favor total deregulation, neither do I favor total regulation.
Hint: no one favors total deregulation. The crime argument is over
whether controls on ordinary people affect criminals in a useful way.
The culture argument is over whether people who don't cause problems
should be allowed to have guns.
bill nelson
>I work in the news media, telling me that what I see on a daily basis is hog-
>wash makes a staggering assumption...considering we don't know each other.
>I'm sorry you think I spout 'drivel.' I wouldn't say the same about you. One
>might get the impression that you could be a hypocrite...you seem to believe
>in some guaranteed rights while not believing in others. I believe I'm as
>welcome to my opinions as you are yours. Maybe? Huh? Whaddaya think? 8-)
No, I believe in guaranteed rights - period. I do not believe the government,
or anyone else, has the authority to take these rights away until I show that
I do not deserve to have them.
You are welcome to your opinions, and have the right to express them. I would
even argue in your favor if someone tried to deny that right. Your opinions
can still be hypocritical.
Bill
Keith Lowe
|>
|> }> In Article 20317 of misc.legal {Inder} & J. Barret Wolf writes:
|> }> it's the `party line' to be for gun control, and in fact I am
|> }> more than happy that automatic weapons are not being sold under
|> }> the absurd guise of hunting instruments, but wait a second,
|> }> kids, hasn't anyone told you the news?
|> }> If one takes responsibility for one's own life and limbs,
|> }> theree are few choices other than to carefully prepare for the
|> }> possibility that some socially disadvantaged (or merely insane)
|> }> person might threaten you with extinction.
|> }>
|>
|> No, sonny, I guess I must have missed sixty-minutes. You see, I'm one of
|> those who believe that the avergae citizen is not trained or equipped to
|> be a law enforcement officer. The step from self-protection to protecting
|> others is a tiny one. The news is littered with stories of 'wrong man
|> killed' because some dipstick with a piece thought they were shooting a
|> perpetrator --instead killing an innocent.
Really? That's strange because I have never read even one. Oh, you mean
littered with stories about the police shooting innocent people who they
thought were drug dealers but were not! That's a different case.
If you want stories about people who have successfully defended themselves and
their families with guns without hurting anyone but their attacker, then I can
show you lots of them.
|> To suggest or encourage to average person to invest themselves in violence
|> without the back-up machinery of the police is amazingly ludicrous. I've
|> been robbed at gun and knifepoint. I'm here today because I simply coughed
|> up the few personals asked for and posed no threat. Sure, there's always
|> the one who'll shoot you anyway, but if you reach for a piece while being
|> drawn down on, you're gonna depart this planet with dispatch. Even if not,
|> your opinion evokes images of running gunfights... isn't that a nice image
|> for those of us who've seen the news depicting innocents killed in their
|> homes by random misses or riccochets.
It is interesting that in Canada where there are far fewer guns in the home,
the majority of house robberies occur when the victims are at home and in
America, the the majority occur when the house is empty. I guess Canadian
thieves work different hours. (-:
|> The garage sale type purchase requires only the money. And many will sell
|> on the 'black-market' because of profit motivations.
I guess gun control laws will stop these. (If you didn't mean it like that,
sorry).
|> I'm not a member of the NRA either, and disagree with some of what they say
|> and also agree with some.
I am a member, with the same disclaimer.
|> I own a gun. No, I don't want it taken from me. But neither would I like to
|> see everyone carrying them as a matter of routine, or being
encouraged to use
|> them with social impunity. Our society, I believe is in dire need of some
|> serious restructuring of it's priorities and methodologies. Gun regulation
|> is likely a part of this, but I doubt that total arming or total disarming
|> are part of the solution; mainly becaue I don't think it can be done.
I don't want to see everyone carrying them but if a person wants to have one
at home to protect himself/herself and family, they have and should continue
to have that right. I think that you are right in that total disarming cannot
be done. At least not of the criminals.
--
#### W. Keith Lowe Program Development Tools (205) 730-6050 ####
#### Intergraph Corporation Huntsville, AL 35807 ####
#### ...uunet!ingr!lowe (UUCP), lo...@ingr.com (Internet), or b11!lowe!lowe ####
34A...@cmuvm.bitnet
>
>I work in the news media, telling me that what I see on a daily basis is
Ah, now I think I see. The rapidity of your glib reply surely must
indicate the presence of one who feels himself elevated to the ranks
of the Illuminati. One Who Knows.
You are privvy to information denied the working classes.
You move in circles too rarified for the rest of us to comprehend.
We are therefore expected to unquestioningly accept your unsubstantiated
pontifications as statements of fact because YOU KNOW BEST FOR US.
Of course, any of us who disagree with you (like me) must be poor
ignorant commoners who cannot see "the big picture" you have before you.
Yes, of course. How foolish of me. I have been told this same thing
by so many others who also knew what was best for the rest of the world
over the years, I cannot understand why I still fail to believe it.
Do think about that. Think about something. Anything.
Have a really superior day.
all@everywhere
>
> Ah, now I think I see. The rapidity of your glib reply surely must
> indicate the presence of one who feels himself elevated to the ranks
> of the Illuminati. One Who Knows.
> You are privvy to information denied the working classes.
If you have opinions on a subject, this is a great place to post. If you
wish to argue points, great. But lets keep the personal maligns in alt.flame
and try to reserve this area for discussion of legalities, and the opines
which pressure lawmakers.
DAO4@lehigh
them out as freebies when you listen to their pitch...I do not want
them banned, nor do I want them totally un-regulated...I am a pacifist,
a VietNam Veteran, and a gun owner... Current Laws were written by
Long-Eared Cousins of Horses who wanted to write something quick to
impress this or that group...and it matters little whether the group
they are trying to please is the Moral Majority or the NRA or the IRA
supporters or etc..blah blah blah,...what matters is that LOGIC and
REALITY are missing from too many phases of life today...On the subject
of gun control, why not educate and regulate gun users? Also the places
and conditions under which they may be carried...such as not in bars or
after having been in a bar for a period of time...DON'T make them
illegal to carry, since the likelihood of needing them for defense
WITHIN the home is minimal while on the streets is, in many
communities, maximized... Many of the handguns on the street started as
legitimate purchases but were stolen by burglars of empty homes where
they were-MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR OWNERS COULD NOT LEGALLY CARRY THEM
with them where they were actually needed...Not everyone should be able
to purchase and carry a handgun, nor a rifle though in most states they
can, allowing them to use it from a distance rather than seeing their
victims...and, the education should include realistic information on
times and conditions under which the weapon should be used...If I were
a store owner and had a weapon under the counter should I use it if I
am being robbed?...There is NO answer except to use your best
judgement, which doesn't come from a can or book...it comes from
education and experience...In classroom simulations, the average
homeowner could get a better feel for this than is offered in most
police academies...In one case I am aware of, an individual who was
attacked by a gang, was charged with carrying w/o license, even though
he could have and did not pull the weapon, because he felt he did not
need it against the threat even though he , in his own words, "had the
shit scared out of" him...Doesn't make sense to me... On the other
hand, I think when you walk into a bar and are armed you should have to
surrender the weapon for a period of time after...Many shootings of
friends or acquaintances,( which USED to be the major murder condition)
occur following the taking of substances affecting judgement...Of
course the major drawback to all of this is ... the cost of
education... If only the rich could afford training to become a weapon
carrier, then the vast majoity of victims ( 61% by most lists ) will
not be able to protect themselves, since they are "poor"...Yet we spend
Millions currently on projects involving this issue that could instead
be spent on providing the education and regulation...pushing for both
sides of the full-all-or-nuthin' issues, etc. doesn't make sense to
ME... guess that's why I am a danged independent...I am a true
Libertarian...Maybe a dinosaur...but, tell me, HOW WRONG AM I?
bill nelson
Why? The poster he was responding to deserved the flame.
Bill
Don Dellatino
> >wish to argue points, great. But lets keep the personal maligns in alt.flame
> >and try to reserve this area for discussion of legalities, and the opines
> >which pressure lawmakers.
>
> Why? The poster he was responding to deserved the flame.
>
> Bill
CALL FOR OPINION:
Should this area be used for information about legal matters, or should it
be a child group of alt.flame? Up until 'Bill' and the guy who posted the flame
I saw no intent to offend or an attempt to be superior.
I'd like to know, because personally, I found this an interesting place to be
until these two guys started flaming that other guy (root@dogear?).
Don
Jonathan A Woodman
>CALL FOR OPINION:
>
>Should this area be used for information about legal matters, or should it
>be a child group of alt.flame? Up until 'Bill' and the guy who posted the
>flame, I saw no intent to offend or an attempt to be superior.
>
>I'd like to know, because personally, I found this an interesting place to be
>until these two guys started flaming that other guy (root@dogear?).
It seems like all the fuss has pretty much died down by now, but in answer
to your question, I have always enjoyed misc.legal because, unlike other
newsgroups, there is a noticeable lack of flaming and personal attacks.
I like to think that people on misc.legal talk about the issues,
not each other.
Jonathan Woodman