Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 17:58:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.eduSPAMLESS
|
Viewed:
|
795 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
>
> > > 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.
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 profit. I don't know the details of how
they got them, but I know that the 800 miles they travelled was worth
it. Are guns readily available anywhere within 800 miles of your location?
> 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
I suspect that the average robber (in the US) has a gun...he may not
bring it to your house though.
> 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
No matter what, an encounter involves personal risk. By having a gun at
your disposal you can dump more of the risk on the intruder and minimize
the risk to yourself. If you enter a knife fight, you can still die,
and who's to say that you're better trained and more brutal than your opponent?
> 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.
On the other hand, if you have a gun, you are more versatile. You can
deal with intruders who also have a gun, which you can't do with a bat
or a knife, and you're still equipped to deal with a knife-weilding
thug, but better so than without the gun.
> 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
They'll have it anyway.
> 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.
OK, so in what way is it continuing? Intruders may have big guns, I can
have a big gun. Do you suggest that they're then going to start
burglarizing with kevlar vests and AKs? I don't see that happening.
> remains that you need a firearm for protection, and I need a baseball bat. An
Most people don't need (i.e. have never needed, thus far) anything for protection.
> 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.
But with a gun, I'm prepared for all eventualities, and you are simply not.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I do not live in the US. Define 'readily available'. I can, with a certain amount of paperwork, go down to my local sporting goods store, or outdoor supplier, and pick up a hunting rifle or shotgun. I don't even know what I would have to do to (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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? (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
