Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 05:32:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> Ed Jones <edboxer@aol.com> wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > There is no need for EVERYONE to be armed. An armed populace does not
> > > mean 100% heated. 1% or even 1/10% is all it takes.
> >
> > OK, who decides who needs to be armed? By what criteria? And armed to what
> > extent?
>
> The free citizens who are guaranteed the right to arm themselves make
> that decision for themselves. Probably sounds wacko in today's
> society, but I'd say let the people who want to own firearms do so and
> let those who don't want them not own them.
I've been trying to stay away from this thread, but I can't just let this slide
by.
I do not want to own a gun, but if I lived in an area where guns were commonly
available (as in your suggestion above), I would likely need to get one. Why?
The simple availability of them would necessitate, that for my own protection,
I would need one.
I live in an area that has a low level of violence, and fairly strict gun
control laws. Odds are that the average criminal that would be likely to
invade my home will not have a firearm. So, to protect myself from said
criminal, I need a fairly minimal level of personal combat training, and the
willingness to use it. Depending on the amount of training I have, I may want
access to a melee weapon of some sort - likely a club or a knife.
If I were to live in an area with minimal to no gun control laws (as you seem
to be suggesting - my apologies if I am mistaken) - the odds are that anyone
likey to invade my home would have a firearm - which means I am at a serious
disadvantage, regardless of how good I am in a fistfight. Therefore, I would
need to own a gun, for my own protection, despite my unwillingness to do so.
When any weapon is freely available, the ones who are first to have it,
generally, are those who want to use it, either for intimidation purposes, or
for violence. Others who wish to maintain their freedom then need to acquire
said weapon, or be at a disadvantage. Typically speaking, the first variety
will (assuming the option is available), upgrade to the next weapon that will
give them the advantage again, and the cycle will continue.
I know my logic is a bit faulty (it's late, and I'm tired), but the fact
remains that you need a firearm for protection, and I need a baseball bat. An
invasion of your home would likely involve a fatality, an invasion of mine
would likely not. I would guess that the odds of either being a successful
invasion are about equal, since we are both prepared for the most likely
eventuality.
Note: I think that the chain of reasoning leading to most of the other
arguments supporting the "pro-gun" lobby are valid - I just think that the
foundation they are built on is faulty.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) So it is your belief that in areas with strict gun control laws criminals simply choose, out of fear of the law or something, to arm themselves with knives and baseball bats? (...) It would seem that your logic is completely faulty. It IS (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) It doesn't bother me much when the fatality is the invader. What DOES bother me in your (contrived (1)) scenario is all the little old ladies clubbed to death with baseball bats because they can't swing a big stick as well as a 6'2" 240 pound (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) If you live in the US (do you?) guns are readily available to criminals. When I was in highschool (roughly 1985-6) I was periferally associated with a group of kids who brought guns from Texas to Missouri and sold them to other kids at a huge (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) The free citizens who are guaranteed the right to arm themselves make that decision for themselves. Probably sounds wacko in today's society, but I'd say let the people who want to own firearms do so and let those who don't want them not own (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
