RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 28 May 1999 23:04:38 -0500

Date sent:      	Fri, 28 May 1999 20:30:06 -0500
From:           	Chuck kuecker <>
Subject:        	RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to:

> At 01:15 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >And when exactly have any of us ever said that we'd use a gun as our first
> >defence against any threat? Only a fool resorts to violence if they don't
> >have to.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >But guns imply violence, don't they? "The willingness and ability to
> >protect myself" is good diplomacy, but when someone sees or knows that you
> >are carrying a firearm, they know that you represent a physical threat. All
> >ability to compromise on a normal level is forfeit. My stepfather always
> >told me, "If you pull a gun on someone, you better be ready to shoot them,
> >because otherwise, when they come down from being scared and pissing in
> >their pants, they're gonna get really pissed and want to kill you." It
> >applies here as well. If there is no problem, why introduce new variables
> >that could cause new ones. If you don't have to resort to violence, then
> >there is no need to have a gun there in the first place.
> >
> >Pope Arhat Al-Hazred Mateed XXIII
> >
> Do guns imply violence, or merely the intention of the carrier to meet
> attempted violence with equal force?
Both, but it is equally true that either someone shoots first, or both begin shooting at the same time.
> How can one show the ability to defend oneself unless there is some clear
> sign that the means to do so are present? Talk is cheap. Having the gun
> present may be all that is needed to prevent a situation where violence
> would occur.
Just exactly how is someone with a concealed weapon "showing" such an ability?
> Absolute agreement with your stepfather's advice. I have taught my children
> just that, and I hope that they never need to actually pull a gun anywhere
> other than the target range.
> Pulling a gun is very different than carrying one. It's the difference
> between being ABLE to shout threats and actually doing so. Unless someone
> is considering doing you harm, why should they be intimidated by the fact
> that you are obviously armed?
> Chuck Kuecker
The fact that you're a stranger, who might well be a violent criminal or a lunatic AND legally armed (if a lot of the full mooners here have their way) should be enough to chill the typical spine, which I would be loathe to turn in his/her direction for fear of being backshot. If I had legal assurance that most likely the person wearing the gun was responsible, well that's another story.