James Rogers wrote:
> If they are kicking in your door for reasons that make
> one's shooting at them a defensible action, then I would
> question just how "good" those officers were that you killed.
> After all, if they were willing to kick in your door and
> shoot you on whatever illegal basis, then they don't meet
> my definition of "good". In the long run, justice is better
> served if a few officers take a bullet for doing something
> patently illegal/stupid that has the strong potential for
> killing another human being.
Considering just this paragraph, I would be inclined to agree. If someone
was kicking at my door trying to kill me, I would love to have the
opportunity to shoot the hell out of him.
The fact is, if that's some cowboy land there that you live in, having
weapons to protect yourself against these threats is the only reasonable
attitude. If the probability of such an attack on your person ever happening
is great enough, you need to have a way of protecting yourself. With a gun.
I'm quite sure that was the case when your constitution was written.
I'm not quite sure that the probability is still high enough to warrant
everyone's posession of firearms, though. It might just be that you're
artificially sustaining a belief in how great that probability is, just so
that you might cling on to your weaponry.
Like ol' Michael S. Lorrey over there, who tried to impress the world with
the claim that Europe has 100 the rate of firearms killings compared to the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT