a gun to defend oneself

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs
wrote:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus
So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Pan Ohco wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs
wrote:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

wrote:
:: On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Pan Ohco wrote:
::: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs
::: wrote:
:::
::::: The obsession is not with guns dear.
::::: It's with being able to defend yourself.
:::
:::: There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
:::: will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
:::: __faster__ on the draw ?
:::
:::: Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
:::: But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
:::: who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?
:::
:::: mikus
:::
::: So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?
::
:: Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
:: pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
:: often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
:: against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

You see this often? Explain....

On Oct 11, 2:04 pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Pan Ohco wrote:



On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs
wrote:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

What a lot of folks see is the home invader holding their very own
firearm
on them.

What others see is a criminal who brought the gun as a threat,
threatened
and forced to use it.

Still others see other "externalities" to the legal gun - legal gun
owner
transaction.

I recall, when I lived in Missouri, a referendum in favor of concealed
carry
was defeated by the voters. The same congress then passed the law
anyway. Representative democracy my ass.

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

What we seem to see most often in Texas is people, homeowners, shooting
intruders. Unfortunately, most of the intruders have been shot in the back
by the homeowner chasing them down the street. One guy saw a teenager
running from his pickup truck and the window on the truck broken, so he
chased the teen and shot him in the back. Another involved somebody waking
up and startling a robber and the robber ran away. However, the homeowner
chased him down the middle of the street, shooting wildly until he hit the
guy.

So, what do we have? Some idiots thinking "Hey, it's my chance to shoot
someone and get off scot-free!"
There was controversy over these in-the-back shootings, so the legislature
fixed it from a "Protecting yourself and property from direct threat to
okay-you-can-shoot-anyone-on-your-property" situation.

Pat in TX

On Oct 10, 10:11 pm, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

i was threatened the other day and if i had a gun i would have felt
safer

"Mikus Grinbergs" wrote in message
...
The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on the
draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee, lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

On Oct 11, 5:36 pm, "em" wrote:
"Mikus Grinbergs" wrote in message

...

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on the
draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee, lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

More like this:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same thing, really.

"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 11, 5:36 pm, "em" wrote:
"Mikus Grinbergs" wrote in message

...

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will
be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on
the
draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But
if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

More like this:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same thing, really.


You therefore shouldn't carry a gun, but also don't try to abridge my right
to do so.

Idiot.