Please - remember to put "GUNS" in the heading, when the discussion goes off
in that direction. This will hint at the contents of the discussion, and
save some of us lots of time (if we so choose ...). Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Martin" <HerbM@LearnQuick.Com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: Headed to exi-freedom -- Was Re: Enlarging the
> > 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
> 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.
> STAY ALERT.
> > 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