At 01:15 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>And when exactly have any of us ever said that we'd use a gun as our first
>defence against any threat? Only a fool resorts to violence if they don't
>But guns imply violence, don't they? "The willingness and ability to
>protect myself" is good diplomacy, but when someone sees or knows that you
>are carrying a firearm, they know that you represent a physical threat. All
>ability to compromise on a normal level is forfeit. My stepfather always
>told me, "If you pull a gun on someone, you better be ready to shoot them,
>because otherwise, when they come down from being scared and pissing in
>their pants, they're gonna get really pissed and want to kill you." It
>applies here as well. If there is no problem, why introduce new variables
>that could cause new ones. If you don't have to resort to violence, then
>there is no need to have a gun there in the first place.
>Pope Arhat Al-Hazred Mateed XXIII
Do guns imply violence, or merely the intention of the carrier to meet attempted violence with equal force?
How can one show the ability to defend oneself unless there is some clear sign that the means to do so are present? Talk is cheap. Having the gun present may be all that is needed to prevent a situation where violence would occur.
Absolute agreement with your stepfather's advice. I have taught my children
just that, and I hope that they never need to actually pull a gun anywhere
other than the target range.
Pulling a gun is very different than carrying one. It's the difference
between being ABLE to shout threats and actually doing so. Unless someone
is considering doing you harm, why should they be intimidated by the fact
that you are obviously armed?
Pulling a gun is very different than carrying one. It's the difference between being ABLE to shout threats and actually doing so. Unless someone is considering doing you harm, why should they be intimidated by the fact that you are obviously armed?