"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.
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and
wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....