From: Doug Jones (random@qnet.com)
Date: Fri May 28 1999 - 17:18:24 MDT
Implications vs violence...
Joshua Clingenpeel wrote:
> [quoting Mark]
> And when exactly have any of us ever said that we'd use a gun as
> our first defence against any threat? Only a fool resorts to
> violence if they don't have to.
>
> Mark
>
> But guns imply violence, don't they? "The willingness and ability
> to protect myself" is good diplomacy, but when someone sees or
> knows that you are carrying a firearm, they know that you represent
> a physical threat.
A potential threat, yes. A menace, probably not. I was in a
restaurant with friends, waiting to be seated, when four tough young
men pushed their way ahead of us. Keith mildly said, "It's
customary to give your name to the hostess and wait to be seated,"
whereupon the bravos clenched fists & teeth as their leader snarled,
"What are you gonna do about it?!" Keith's son and I backed him up,
then his wife placed her hands on her belt by her (open carry) 9mm
pistol and sweetly said, "We're just asking you to show good
manners."
The bluff and bluster went away, as did the four belligerent young
men.
> If you don't have to resort to violence, then
> there is no need to have a gun there in the first place.
The presence of the gun made resorting to violence unnecessary. It
could have gotten very ugly had Pattie not been armed. Armed
citizens deter far more crime than they commit.
-- Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber Rotary Rocket Company
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:52 MST