🚀 go-pugleaf

m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>All right, I can see your mind is set in concrete so this message is
>probably futile.

	Actually, I'm mostly interested in trying to figure out the
thought system you're employing. You assume my mind is set in concrete...?
So - I guess that means you know my opinions about gun laws? Would
you care to hazard a few guesses about how I vote and how many guns
I own?

>If you want to give in to the criminals, fine.  Be a sheep.

	You're mindlessly blatting generic NRA invective and it's
boring. My observations attempted to inject a note of reality into
the context of your previous statements. You have implied that having
guns helps prevent crime. I described a situation in which someone
had the drop on me, and postulated that whether or not I'd been armed
was irrelevant.

	Please explain how that is "giving in to the criminals"?
You didn't answer my implied question as to how having a gun helps
defend you if someone gets the drop on you, and you haven't made
a convincing argument that having everyone go armed helps fight
crime. Is there evidence of this? Certainly, there is excellent
evidence that being *disarmed* doesn't fight crime either, but
the NRA logic consistently ignores the fact that it does not
mean that arming everyone will help.

	Crime is a complex problem. I find your oversimplistic
view of solving it (being ready to shoot first, deterrent) to be
kind of poorly thought out. Deterrence has proven effective in
military situations *only* in cases where preemptive strike is
not feasible. Unfortunately, guns are excellent tools for
preemptive strikes.

	In other words, you have a lot of neat verbiage but I don't
see you offering a workable solution.

>But don't expect me to live by your rules and don't dare attempt to
>force your ideas on me by way of passing laws preventing me to defend
>myself, because that is the direct result of gun control.

	The gist of this statement appears to be that gun control
prevents you from defending yourself. Therefore are you implying
that un-control of guns helps you defend yourself? Is this your
position?
	If free access to guns helps you defend yourself, how do
you reconcile that with the fact that guns are constantly being
used on the defenceless? Are you arguing that we should all be
required by law to carry guns, like we are to wear seatbelts?
Do you feel that this would *reduce* gun related incidents? Please
justify this position.

> When honest
>people are forced by law to submit to crooks, we get high crime rates.

	You didn't note the fact that in my earlier posting I never
mentioned whether I was carrying a gun at the time. The fellow had
the drop on me. Had I been carrying  agun, would it have helped?

	I just want to hear you say that carrying a gun makes you
safer, so I can laugh so hard my sides hurt.

mjr.
-- 
                                                 "guns don't die. people do."