🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Apr 1998 08:53:21 GMT, post@fc.hp.com (Dave Post) wrote:

>Chris Pollard (cpollard@teal.csn.net) wrote:
>
> >All objects have that capability it's just that they are not as efficient.
>
>That is right.  If you are in need of self defense, you want to have trained
>and be able to use the most efficient tool to stop the deadly threat.

....right NOW!

>
> >Having a CCW permit doesn't bother me much - as long as they are for real
> >cases of need.  I believe there are reasonable controls in place and the
> >number issued is low.  I see no extra risk.
>
>Yes, the numbers issued are low, even in "shall-issue" Florida.  It is
>less than 1% of the population.  The same is expected here in Colorado.

I think it's about 5% national average.

>
>But how do you determine "real need"?  Most victims never could show "real
>need" until after they are dead.

Indeed, which is why Sheriff Epp changed his long-standing policy of
denying CCW permits as a matter of policy.  Many thanks and kudos to
him for recognizing this important concept.
>
>NB:  The "43:1" study is not credible and is not about CCW.

"Not credible" is a gross understatement...it's a deliberate
fabrication created from whole cloth.

Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1997 by Scott Weiser

Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.