From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:11:47 MDT
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, john grigg wrote:
> Michael Lorrey writes:
> 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.
IIRC, the "wild west" had a lower homicide rate than the modern west.
Guns do not equal shootings; the character of the individuals has a lot to
do with it. The old wild west had a rather strong selection pressures
against irresponsible behaviors.
As a matter of fact, there *are* places where everyone still "packs heat"
in the West: rural Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, etc. Guns are to
those places like cell phones are to Silicon Valley. Honestly, I
would be much more likely to trust one of the armed strangers in those
parts than the unarmed strangers in the more "civilized" areas; I don't
fear their guns because I trust their character. I wish I could say the
same about the urban police.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:08 MST