Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:18:24 -0700 From: Doug Jones <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights] Send reply to: email@example.com
> Implications vs violence...
> Joshua Clingenpeel wrote:
> > [quoting Mark]
> > 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.
> A potential threat, yes. A menace, probably not. I was in a
> restaurant with friends, waiting to be seated, when four tough young
> men pushed their way ahead of us. Keith mildly said, "It's
> customary to give your name to the hostess and wait to be seated,"
> whereupon the bravos clenched fists & teeth as their leader snarled,
> "What are you gonna do about it?!" Keith's son and I backed him up,
> then his wife placed her hands on her belt by her (open carry) 9mm
> pistol and sweetly said, "We're just asking you to show good
> The bluff and bluster went away, as did the four belligerent young
Guns can do wonders for manners in the right hands, and terrors to innocents in the wrong ones.
> > If you don't have to resort to violence, then
> > there is no need to have a gun there in the first place.
> The presence of the gun made resorting to violence unnecessary. It
> could have gotten very ugly had Pattie not been armed. Armed
> citizens deter far more crime than they commit.
I would like to believe that, but I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but strive to be a realist. Since so much either way goes unreported, I can only say that not only do I not know, but I do not think anyone else honestly does, either.
> Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
> Rotary Rocket Company