--- Matt Grimaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > Remember we didn't invade
> > pakistan just becouse they
> > have nukes.
>
> That sentence is a bit ambiguous,
> are you saying that the only reason
> we haven't invaded Pakistan is
> because they have nukes?
>
> If so, I would disagree, beginning with
> the fact that Pakistan seems to be our
> new-found ally in middle Asia followed by
> the situation between Pakistan and India.
> Tensions are stretched very tight over
> there, and adding a lot of weight would
> make a lot of people snap.
No that is not what I ment. I was providing a counter example.
> > > To carry it further, when we all have guns,
> > > do we all then upgrade to personal tactical
> > > nukes?
> >
> > No, guns alone are sufficient to balance power.
>
> They don't, however, since they sill require the
> minimum conditions of skill and intent. Learning
> the technical skill of shooting a gun is easy,
> but there is a considerable amount of conditioning
> required to actually shoot someone. That's why
> we have police. That's why we have a military.
>
> This society you describe where everyone feels
> the need to carry a gun in order to defend himself
> is a bleak one indeed.
Obviously you have never been a victum. I assure you that if that event were
to occure you would very easily be able to pull the triger.
> > Anicdotaly: if one finds themself in a position
> > of being overpowered by a criminal then the
> > experience generaly leaves them with one of 2 opinions.
> >
> > A) All guns should be illegal.
> > B) I should of had a gun.
> >
> > Which one is more realistic.
> >
> > My opinion is go a step further
> >
> > C) everyone should have a gun.
> >
> > Why? Becouse if that criminal knew that everyone
> > was likely to be packing, they would not have done
> > what they did. Texas and Navada have it right.
> > Make the gun be concealed. That way no one knows
> > who is armed and who isn't.
>
> Or, they would go in expecting a fight, and expecting
> to kill or be killed. They would show up prepared and
> better equipped than they calculate their targets would.
> They would get the first shot, probably get to aim if
> they cared to, and would get to choose the time and
> location. And, since they know you're packing, would
> have to make sure that you were disabled or dead before
> approaching, then take whatever it was that they wanted.
> How is this better than getting mugged and maybe beaten?
>
> Gang wars have not gotten any less lethal since the
> lifestyle started demanding that they carry. The
> only things that seem to work is to remove them from
> the lifestyle, either through intervention or death.
>
> > It proactivly fights crime. The other alternative
> > is to be a society of victems.
> >
>
> That's so warped, I don't even know where to begin.
>
I feel the same way Matt. The sinario you suggest above could happen today
and if you didn't have a weapon, you would simply be at the mercy of the
criminal. At least with a gun you have a fighting chance. Criminals do not
generaly take the kind of odds with their lives you are suggesting....unless
you have something specific they really really want. And in that case, more
security than locked doors would be required.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
