From: EvMick@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 20 2001 - 10:13:19 MST
Two things.
1. It appears that a non-offensive type of self-defense devise is
desireable. Some type of armor perhaps? Or perhaps just non-lethal....the
classic SF "stunner".
2. It also appears that there is a significant interest in PREVENTING the
average person from having any means of self defense. Similar, as it were,
of predators dislikeing the concept of their prey having such a mechanism?
I grew up in a "dry" county in Texas. As time went by it became apparent
that one of the greatest benifactors of the anti alcohol law was the liquor
sellers in adjacent counties (non dry). The same would apply to
anti-gambling....anti-prostition....and undoubtedly anti-drugs.
Who benifits when people can't protect themselves? Why......such individuals
who are in a position to PROVIDE protection......at a price of course.
EvMick
Weathorford Tx.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:06 MST