Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people

dwayne (
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:05:04 +1000

"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:

> > And OF COURSE the government is trying to take this "empowerment" away,
> > that is the entire idea behind police forces, we have highly trained
> > professionals to apprehend people etc., as opposed to scared, highly
> > agitated amateurs with powerful weaponry.
> Considering that a 'highly trained' policeman is five times more likely to kill
> an innocent civilian in any given crime situation than a gun bearning law
> abiding citizen, you could not be more wrong here.

Well, I don't know, I look at the death rate in the US from gunfire, and the death rate here, and, well, it doesn't look too good for the pro-gun people.

> > What's wrong with hands and feet?
> How well can a 90 lb old lady use her arthritic hands and feet against a 200 lb
> attacker?

Are you a 90lb old lady?

> > > or even worse, the very right to defend
> > > yourself at all when attacked by a criminal -- this is already quite
> > > common where I live).
> >
> > Now, before this descends into histrionics: are you *really* saying that
> > people are forbidden to defend themselves when attacked, or is this just
> > another example of the weird rhetoric which pervades this list?
> Considering how much womens groups teach women not to fight against rapists,
> wrongly claiming the chance of injury is greater, I beleive it.

But you can't actually point to any laws which show this, i.e. you are practising your sophistry again.

Bah, I refuse to participate any further in this thread. Feel free to reply to this directly to me.



"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and