RE: Headed to exi-freedom -- Was Re: Enlarging the

From: Herb Martin (HerbM@LearnQuick.Com)
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001 - 11:55:56 MDT

> Mike Lorry wrote:

> I'm very much against arming civilians. I sincerely believe that it will
> lead to more violence and criminality, not less. And I do not see how
> this
> automatically makes my otherwise rather liberal (European measurement,
> not US) opinions socialist.

Well, that is just plain foolishness since it is counter
to all of the evidence -- governments kill far more citizens
that even crime (and armed honest citizens can defend themselves
from both.)

Increasing the number of armed (concealed carry permits) reduces
crime. No one has seriously considered attacking Switzerland
for hundreds of year -- practically all male citizens have an
ISSUED "AUTOMATIC WEAPON" in their homes and crime is lower than
almost anywhere.

> <snip>
> <snip>

[Another persons response follows]
> I know that its the habit of a lot of people to start quoting statistics
> on
> this one. Some stats are valid, others are questionable. I ultimately
> think
> this is something that should be defended on principle. I don't care if
> the
> guns do cause more crime. What I do care about is my right to self
> defense.

Actually, MORE GUNS LESS CRIME but that is -- as you say -- not
the point.

The point is that WE have the right to defend our LIFE and our
LIBERTY though arms. We have that right as long as we insist
upon that right and guard that right.

> Imagine a world with no guns, where intruders now break in your house
> with
> knives and sticks. How do you defend yourself at that point? More knives
> and

Actually there is strong evidence that baring all guns successfully
-- which is likely impossible but assume it for a moment -- would
INCREASE crime against individuals AND increase injuries from such

Without arms in private hands, only the BANKS and other places with
MONEY can afford the "armed guards" and even more criminals would be pushed
out of these niches to the streets where they would prey on the relatively

If may even be safer to robbed by an assailant with a firearm than
a stick or a knife. With the 'less' lethal weapons the attacker
is more likely to USE it for 'demonstation' purposes.

> sticks? Try and figure the odds of you winning that kind of a fight, on
> average, Id say 50/50 (if there is only one of them). I have a right to
> defend myself using the most powerful reasonable tools allowable (no, I
> obviously don't mean nukes). When someone is in my house at night and I
> am

Guns are egalitarian. A 90lb woman of average strength is equal to
a large, strong, and PRACTICED male assailant IF she is armed.

> responsible for protecting my family (not the police, or Interpol, or
> whomever), you can bet Ill take maximum precautions to protect my
> family.

In the United States it is a MATTER OF LAW that the police are
NOT required to protect you. The police are charged with mainting
the PUBLIC (general) order, and finding the criminals AFTER the

In general, ONLY THE POTENTIAL victim can reliably provent the crime.

> Understand what I'm saying, I don't care about statistics... You can
> twist
> them any which way to Sunday and so can the other side. In principle it
> is
> wrong to remove the best means of self-defense from law abiding people,


> because even if you could manage to get the guns out of the hands of
> criminals (impossible), it wouldn't change my situation of defending my
> family a whit.

RIGHT again.

> Here's the possibilities once again...
> You have gun, intruder has gun. Outcome 50/50

No, I have excercised my intelligence and due diligence to
PRACTICE with my firearm regularly, to ARRANGE my home to
my defensive advantage, and the intruder does NOT know my
home or my WILLINGNESS to resist and protect my family.

> You don't have gun, intruder has gun. Outcome 5/95 your dead

Give him your stuff. Say thank you.

> You don't have gun intruder doesn't have gun. Outcome 50/50

No, it is worse, once you resisst without arms, you get hurt more
than by passive resistance (on average.)

> You have gun, intruder doesn't have gun. Outcome 95/5 you
> win

He only gets the 5% if I am not doing what I am supposed to do.


> So if you don't have a gun, your chances are 50/50 and 5/95 your dead.
> If
> you do have gun your chances are 50/50 and 95/5 you win. Now you pick
> your
> best chance at surviving. (note: these don't count as statistics, just
> basic
> deduction :P )
> And if anyone wants to take this over to exi-freedom, Ill agree. That's
> where this discussion belongs as has been stated in the past so many
> times.
> Jerry Mitchell
Herb Martin, MCT, MCSD, MCSE
HerbM@LearnQuick.Com http://LearnQuick.Com
512 388 7339 -or- 1 800 MCSE PRO
Accelerated MCSE in a Week Seminars

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:43 MDT