Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 10:32:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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?
No, it is my belief that, in general, most criminals of the caliber likely to
invade my home while I am there are neither stunningly intelligent or
ambitious. As such, if guns are difficult to get a hold of, they are much
less likely to have them.
> > I know my logic is a bit faulty (it's late, and I'm tired), but the fact
>
> It would seem that your logic is completely faulty. It IS late, and
> I'm not a stats-quoter. I'm sure Larry could do a better job of
> pointing out that your logic is broke. I'll just leave it at "I don't
> buy it."
<shrug> You don't have to.
>
> > remains that you need a firearm for protection, and I need a baseball bat.
>
> I may need a firearm for protection. I definitely WANT a firearm for
> protection. Should I choose to make use of them, I also have two
> swords, a handful of knives, a baseball bat, a barbell that could
> double as a quarterstaff, various chairs, and probably a number of
> other things that aren't meant to be used as weapons.
>
> In the event of a break-in, though, I'll choose one of my firearms,
> and after I've verified that my wife is with me (nobody else has a key
> to my home, so no chance of random friends/family stumbling about) I
> will deal with the intruder.
Or the intruder will deal with you. I prefer my odds, thanks.
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. Something tells me the message I would send to the would-be
> thieves and/or killers would be a bit louder than yours, though.
Maybe. But they aren't going to know you've got a gun before they break in, so
it doesn't make any difference to them. Also, I would suspect that, to most
petty thieves, someone else getting shot does not mean change professions, it
means get a gun.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Seems to me that the ones who'll break in while you are there *and* in a fairly gun-free area are either blindingly stupid or--more likely--intelligent and armed. After all, they're the ones who aren't caught or killed, and they rob again and (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
