From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Jul 11 2001 - 13:10:49 MDT
Herb, I DID NOT say what you are quoting that I said.
Herb Martin wrote:
>
> > Mike Lorry wrote:
>
> > I'm very much against arming civilians. I sincerely believe that it will
> > lead to more violence and criminality, not less. And I do not see how
> > this
> > automatically makes my otherwise rather liberal (European measurement,
> > not US) opinions socialist.
>
> Well, that is just plain foolishness since it is counter
> to all of the evidence -- governments kill far more citizens
> that even crime (and armed honest citizens can defend themselves
> from both.)
>
> Increasing the number of armed (concealed carry permits) reduces
> crime. No one has seriously considered attacking Switzerland
> for hundreds of year -- practically all male citizens have an
> ISSUED "AUTOMATIC WEAPON" in their homes and crime is lower than
> almost anywhere.
>
> > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >
>
> [Another persons response follows]
> > I know that its the habit of a lot of people to start quoting statistics
> > on
> > this one. Some stats are valid, others are questionable. I ultimately
> > think
> > this is something that should be defended on principle. I don't care if
> > the
> > guns do cause more crime. What I do care about is my right to self
> > defense.
>
> YES.
> Actually, MORE GUNS LESS CRIME but that is -- as you say -- not
> the point.
>
> The point is that WE have the right to defend our LIFE and our
> LIBERTY though arms. We have that right as long as we insist
> upon that right and guard that right.
>
> > Imagine a world with no guns, where intruders now break in your house
> > with
> > knives and sticks. How do you defend yourself at that point? More knives
> > and
>
> Actually there is strong evidence that baring all guns successfully
> -- which is likely impossible but assume it for a moment -- would
> INCREASE crime against individuals AND increase injuries from such
> crime.
>
> Without arms in private hands, only the BANKS and other places with
> MONEY can afford the "armed guards" and even more criminals would be pushed
> out of these niches to the streets where they would prey on the relatively
> helpless.
>
> If may even be safer to robbed by an assailant with a firearm than
> a stick or a knife. With the 'less' lethal weapons the attacker
> is more likely to USE it for 'demonstation' purposes.
>
> > sticks? Try and figure the odds of you winning that kind of a fight, on
> > average, Id say 50/50 (if there is only one of them). I have a right to
> > defend myself using the most powerful reasonable tools allowable (no, I
> > obviously don't mean nukes). When someone is in my house at night and I
> > am
>
> Guns are egalitarian. A 90lb woman of average strength is equal to
> a large, strong, and PRACTICED male assailant IF she is armed.
>
> > responsible for protecting my family (not the police, or Interpol, or
> > whomever), you can bet Ill take maximum precautions to protect my
> > family.
>
> In the United States it is a MATTER OF LAW that the police are
> NOT required to protect you. The police are charged with mainting
> the PUBLIC (general) order, and finding the criminals AFTER the
> crime.
>
> In general, ONLY THE POTENTIAL victim can reliably provent the crime.
>
> > Understand what I'm saying, I don't care about statistics... You can
> > twist
> > them any which way to Sunday and so can the other side. In principle it
> > is
> > wrong to remove the best means of self-defense from law abiding people,
>
> RIGHT
>
> > because even if you could manage to get the guns out of the hands of
> > criminals (impossible), it wouldn't change my situation of defending my
> > family a whit.
>
> RIGHT again.
>
> > Here's the possibilities once again...
> > You have gun, intruder has gun. Outcome 50/50
>
> No, I have excercised my intelligence and due diligence to
> PRACTICE with my firearm regularly, to ARRANGE my home to
> my defensive advantage, and the intruder does NOT know my
> home or my WILLINGNESS to resist and protect my family.
>
> > You don't have gun, intruder has gun. Outcome 5/95 your dead
>
> Give him your stuff. Say thank you.
>
> > You don't have gun intruder doesn't have gun. Outcome 50/50
>
> No, it is worse, once you resisst without arms, you get hurt more
> than by passive resistance (on average.)
>
> > You have gun, intruder doesn't have gun. Outcome 95/5 you
> > win
>
> He only gets the 5% if I am not doing what I am supposed to do.
>
> STAY ALERT.
>
> > So if you don't have a gun, your chances are 50/50 and 5/95 your dead.
> > If
> > you do have gun your chances are 50/50 and 95/5 you win. Now you pick
> > your
> > best chance at surviving. (note: these don't count as statistics, just
> > basic
> > deduction :P )
> >
> > And if anyone wants to take this over to exi-freedom, Ill agree. That's
> > where this discussion belongs as has been stated in the past so many
> > times.
> >
> >
> > Jerry Mitchell
> >
> Herb Martin, MCT, MCSD, MCSE
> HerbM@LearnQuick.Com http://LearnQuick.Com
> 512 388 7339 -or- 1 800 MCSE PRO
> Accelerated MCSE in a Week Seminars
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:41 MST