john grigg wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> a) there is no 'thrill' or 'rush' from packing heat. Anyone who does so for
> that purpose or to get the chance to use it on somebody shouldn't be
> carrying, or should really reexamine why they are carrying. This is the
> typical response of the hoplophobes, that people who carry are a bunch of
> bloodthirsty sadists that wanna go out and kick ass. This couldn't be
> further from the truth.
> (end)
>
> I beg to differ from personal experience. I have known a few people who
> carried concealed weapons legally after having gotten a permit, and while
> definitely not looking to blow someone away, did get a certain 'rush' from
> it, and had a 'try to mess with me now, scumbags!' attitude that they shared
> with me in private.
I'm sure there are some people who have been or felt victimized or lived in fear
and have gotten their permits do feel at least at first, like a weight has been
taken off their shoulders, that they can stand up straight for once. Thats a
natural consequence of empowerment. If that doesn't fade into calm acceptance of
the added responsibility that the freedom to carry is, they they have some
issues to work out. What I understood you meant by a rush is the 'hoo-raw, lets
go find some perps to wax' kind of swat/marine attitude. Thats really
unacceptable.
> Fortunately, they had gone through a class that taught them well to think
> twice before pulling the gun out. The full ramifications had been explained
> in detail. And they were basically sound individuals who just did not want
> to be threatened by punks.
As any free person should be able to do.
> you continue:
> b) in a society where everyone took such responsibility for themselves, you
> wouldn't need to go at it alone. There would be a good couple dozen other
> responsible citizens right there along with you. In such a society, there
> would be no such thing as a 'dangerous area'.
> (end)
>
> Mike, remember the wild west?? Even if everyone carried today, there would
> certainly still be dangerous areas because of the nature of the local
> populations and the gangs there! But if you went there with your 'posse' of
> friends and not alone you would have a decent chance of surviving because
> the 'bad guys' would not want to risk their lives with such odds.
As James Rogers said, the wild west was actually not so wild. Outside of a few
events like the OK Corral shooting, which were touted and sensationalized by a
very bored and sleepy press looking for stories to publish and glamorize, there
was little violence outside of the occasional conflict with recalictrant
natives, etc. Keep in mind that Dodge City Oklahoma, Tombstone Arizona, and Fort
Sumner New Mexico were all towns that did not permit the carrying of guns within
city limits, so these 'hotbeds' of western violence were actually the Chicago,
New York, LA, and DC's of their day crime and gun control wise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:39 MDT