🚀 go-pugleaf

Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@netcom.com> wrote:
>      If for some reason the armed forces did get into a  war with
> armed civilians, the armed forces would win easily and the destruction
> of life and property in the country would be enormous.

Ummm ... No. Even if the military 100% sided with the government, the
conclusion would be the inevitable destruction of the armed forces, then
whatever is left of the government.

All those pretty tanks, helicopters and planes can do a number on
guerrilas in the open, but they sure can burn pretty well on the ground,
or the supply depot, as well.

You might want to understand warfare before making such a claim again.

> : That is a gun-phobes often repeated nonsense.  It is completely untrue.
> 
>      It is completely true.  The only point of argument about this
> statistic is that it includes suicides among those who are killed
> with their own weapons.  Some feel this aspect should not be in the
> statistic; I feel suicide prevention is as good an argument for gun
> control as any of the others.

It is completely false, as a) it included suicides, for which gun control
offers no amelioration, b) it labeled anyone you know the name of as a
'family member or acquantaince' and c) it traded body for body, meaning
that your gun wasn't an effective crimestopper if you just wounded the
assailant.

Somewhere, the DoJ has a study that indicates resistence with a firearm is
5x as likely to get you out of harms way than any other method, when under
criminal attack.

Combine that with Lott's study on CCW and crime, and add in Kleck's study
on defensive useage of firearms, and the arrow seems to lead back the
other way.

--
"Frankly, Agent Mulder, alien abduction is the more believable option."
			Agent Skinner, X-Files, 3/09/98 [paraphrase] 
-- John E. Jasen  // DNRC Ambassador to Earth \\  jjasen1@umbc.edu --
-- My views are those of the DNRC only. Prepare to be domesticated --