>The fact of the matter to the best of my understanding is that you either
>have to be well enough armed yourself to deter agression ....or pay
>someone to do that little chore for you. Other wise the social
>predators run amok amongst us.
>
>And I agree with what you said. (including that which I didn't
>copy)...but I don't see any solution with present day implemented
>technology. Particulary when govenment is falling down on its
>job...and the social mores that prevailed in the fifties (check out the
>violence stats for that time frame...) have changed so much.
>
>AND I don't see any easy way to return to those days. A society is an
>ecology. There are certain "progenitor species" that prepare it and
>then go away. The progenitors that prepaired society for its
>instantiation of the fifties era are no where to be seen...and similar
>ones are
>(hopefully....<great depression...infant mortality....other great
>hardships>....not on the horizon)...
>
>So what to do? My guess is that it's up to you.
>
>Scientists, Technicians and Engineers I mean.
etc. etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong; it appears that you're advocating a society
where everybody is armed to allow individuals to protect themselves
against other 'dysfunctional' members of the society. IMHO this is only
addressing a secondary problem (ie. a recognized problem which is
actually caused by a primary, unidentified problem).
The primary problem is that the number of 'dysfunctional' members
seems to be increasing. Arming everybody is simply masking the
primary problem. The number of murders and other violent acts might
decrease, but the number of people capable of the act remains the
same. This is not something which can be solved by purely
technological means (whether gun, or ray-taser - raser?) - there
Creating a society whose principles revolve around rationality, critical
thought and individual responsibility is definitely part of the answer.