> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Which is why giving citizens the ability to carry their own guns is so
> > important. There is no surer or swifter, certain or consistent
> > punishment than to be shot by your victim at the scene of the crime. Its
> > the only death penalty that works.
> I believe that in the majority of cases where the intended victim is armed, the
> criminal successfully flees.
Yes, 2.5 million annual non-violent employments of guns by law abiding citizens for self defense purposes, while according to Newsweek, there were around 9,000 gun deaths in the US in 1997 (August 15th issue).
> If you want to insure consistent punishment, I think camera technology superior.
> Cameras can record criminals in the act during all types of crimes (the victem need
> not be present). You don't have problems with victims being caught unaware (even
> armed cops get killed sometimes) or the problem that women tend to have of being
> too afraid to use a weapon. You don't have to send out the paramedics and waste
> space in emergency rooms. You don't have to try to figure out what happened after
> the fact. And your ex-girl friend can't tear her dress, shoot you, and then claim
> you attempted to rape her.
I've never known a criminal to be afraid of a camera. Now, a camera AND a gun is definitely a win-win combo. I would guess that that is probably the most non-lethal combo.