At 01:15 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>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. All
>ability to compromise on a normal level is forfeit. My stepfather always
>told me, "If you pull a gun on someone, you better be ready to shoot them,
>because otherwise, when they come down from being scared and pissing in
>their pants, they're gonna get really pissed and want to kill you." It
>applies here as well. If there is no problem, why introduce new variables
>that could cause new ones. If you don't have to resort to violence, then
>there is no need to have a gun there in the first place.
>
>Pope Arhat Al-Hazred Mateed XXIII
>
Do guns imply violence, or merely the intention of the carrier to meet attempted violence with equal force?