('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:10:49 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: Headed to exi-freedom -- Was Re: Enlarging theReply-To: email@example.com
>Herb, I DID NOT say what you are quoting that I said.
>Herb Martin wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 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
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:43 MDT