From: hal@finney.org
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 14:28:31 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote, quoting me:
> > And for it to be useful in the examples cited, you have to be ready to
> > kill in response to an assault of less than lethal magnitude. You need
> > to be ready to kill in response to robbery, for example.
>
> Hal, thats clearly false, since she did say one person was beaten to death,
> and given the statistics of risk of being killed during a rape, robbery, etc,
> there is a significant probability of deadly harm in such events, and given
> that its been proven that you are at least 30% more likely to survive such a
> crime if you are armed with a gun, then not carrying one is simply stupid.
I don't think what I said is false. In most cases a rape, robbery,
etc., is "an assault of less than lethal magnitude", don't you agree?
And by being armed in case of such confrontations, "you have to be ready
to kill in response", don't you agree? This is exactly what I said.
Don't you agree that if you are carrying a gun and will use it in
case you are robbed, then "you need to be ready to kill in response
to robbery", as I said? As you and others have stated many times,
you should not carry the gun unless you are willing and ready to kill.
And if you are going to carry and use it in cases of robbery, then you
must be ready to kill in response to robbery.
Or have I misinterpreted you?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:08 MST