Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > Well from James' more recent post it seems that I had *him* wrong when I
> > > suggested that he was espousing summary execution for cops who did bad
> > > shootings. He seems to understand the overarching impracticality of
> >such an
> > > extreme measure. You, however, seem to think it would be a good thing.
> >So
> > > I pose the question now to you - where in the world do you think you
> >would
> > > find people to take the job of a cop if a mistake in judgment would lead
> >to
> > > their summary execution? How much do you think such brave souls would
> >have
> > > to be paid to take the job?
> >
> >There are many millions of law abiding citizens who carry concealed
> >weapons every day (myself included), who live under the same standard
> >every day. If I kill someone I beleive is committing a crime with a
> >deadly weapon, why should I be held to a higher standard of behavior
> >than a cop who does the same thing? Since the cop is supposedly more
> >trained than I, he should be the one living up to the higher standard
> >than I (why should he have more authority if he isn't more trained?). If
> >I make a mistake, and kill someone, I can be held responsible, just as
> >you describe. I accept that risk, because I know that there is a greater
> >risk if I DONT carry that gun that someone WILL get hurt by my inability
> >to either defend myself or someone else. And, I don't get paid a dime to
> >take that risk.. Howz them apples?
>
> Yeah I suppose there are some people who get their thrills by packing heat
> and the anticipated rush of actually getting to use it on somebody. But
> still being a citizen packing heat while going about your office cubicle
> routine of a life is a far cry from having a job description which requires
> you to go into the most dangerous areas of your city everyday looking for
> the most dangerous people in those dangerous areas and convincing them to
> accompany you downtown to begin the process of possibly being incarcerated
> for a substantial fraction of their lives.
a) there is no 'thrill' or 'rush' from packing heat. Anyone who does so for that
purpose or to get the chance to use it on somebody shouldn't be carrying, or
should really reexamine why they are carrying. This is the typical response of
the hoplophobes, that people who carry are a bunch of bloodthirsty sadists that
wanna go out and kick ass. This couldn't be further from the truth. To have a
carry permit, you have to be one of the more squeaky clean and non-violent
people in your society. When I applied for my permit, the cops called around to
at least half a dozen people who knew me (not people I had given as references,
as, according to the police chief, "Those people are gonna say nice things about
you.") and asked questions like 'is he a violent person?', 'has he ever been
mean to animals?', etc...which led to some interesting phone calls to me later
in the week....they also did a 50 state and a federal background check for any
criminal record (even though state law says its not required).
b) in a society where everyone took such responsibility for themselves, you
wouldn't need to go at it alone. There would be a good couple dozen other
responsible citizens right there along with you. In such a society, there would
be no such thing as a 'dangerous area'.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:37 MDT