Date sent: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:02:21 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people Send reply to: email@example.com
> dwayne wrote:
> > den Otter wrote:
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: dwayne <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > > My neighbours don't have guns. No one I know has a gun. I live in a
> > > > country where guns are banned. I like it here. I think anyone who wants
> > > > to live in a country where everyone has guns is mad.
> > >
> > > Tough restrictions on guns is one thing, but the real problem is IMO
> > > the general anti-personal empowerment attitude which is the driving
> > > force behind gun bans.
> > I don't see guns as in any way empowering the citizenry, rather than
> > forcing people to confront aggressors, it strikes me as quite easy to
> > just pull a trigger and kill them. I would argue that a country where
> > everyone is armed is far less polite than one where people can't just
> > blow their problems away.
> You could not be more wrong. Here, the cities where guns are most regulated,
> people are the most rude (NY, Washington DC, Chicago, Boston). Other cities,
> like Seattle, Burlington, Portland, etc people are very polite and
> > And OF COURSE the government is trying to take this "empowerment" away,
> > that is the entire idea behind police forces, we have highly trained
> > professionals to apprehend people etc., as opposed to scared, highly
> > agitated amateurs with powerful weaponry.
> Considering that a 'highly trained' policeman is five times more likely to kill
> an innocent civilian in any given crime situation than a gun bearning law
> abiding citizen, you could not be more wrong here.
That's only because the cop is not sure, if both have guns, which is the perp and which is the victim. It is also true that hundreds of times as many civilians, armed or not, are blown away by criminals each year than are cops, who know how to use what they pack.
> > > The same people who deny citizens the
> > > right to defend themselves with lethal force, are also very likely to
> > > deny them other rights too (like the right to carry non-lethal weapons
> > > like mace or stun guns,
> > What's wrong with hands and feet?
> How well can a 90 lb old lady use her arthritic hands and feet against a 200 lb
If she's not nuts or a violent criminal herself, let her pack. Hell, if she is packing anything with real penetrating power, the recoil alone's likely to kill her.
> > > or even worse, the very right to defend
> > > yourself at all when attacked by a criminal -- this is already quite
> > > common where I live).
> > Now, before this descends into histrionics: are you *really* saying that
> > people are forbidden to defend themselves when attacked, or is this just
> > another example of the weird rhetoric which pervades this list?
> Considering how much womens groups teach women not to fight against rapists,
> wrongly claiming the chance of injury is greater, I beleive it.
Others teach them to gouge eyes and knee gonads. Yes, it's more of Mike's weird rhetoric, which isn't really unusually weird, considering the source.
> Michael S. Lorrey
> Owner, Lorrey Systems
> Director, Grafton County Fish & Game Assoc.
> Member, Extropy Institute
> Member, National Rifle Association
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> - General John Stark