A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 9:41 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.
Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that
it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to
harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.
I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your
manner of response is appreciated.
See, I told you so...
That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.
Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the
mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart
the crime.
Or back to reality,
Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal.
the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.
I"m not quite sure what you're saying
Me either, I messed that up real good. I believe I was on the phone at the
time.
ut if I have it correct, you are
claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an
armed predator than armed victims are.
Right.
I'd like to see some statistical
evidence to support this conclusion.
That would be helpful.
Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill
because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't
merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not
likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses,
unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save
everyone's lives.
So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't
make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to
experience armed resistance? Get real.
Of course they do. And most of the time, as most bank robbers are single
individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have
armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not
employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation,
and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give
the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and
nobody gets hurt.
Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses
anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends
up costing many lives.
The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should
be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other
than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot
people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any
bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much
more reluctant to rob banks in the first place (which they do BECAUSE they
know that bank policy is to give up the money without a fight) and they will
be much, much more reluctant to threaten to hurt anyone, because they won't
know who is going to pull a gun and return fire. Criminals are cowards, and
they aren't in it to have shootouts where they could get killed.
There are, of course, exceptions, like the LA bank robbery, but sometimes
all the rules go out the window and you face someone who is simply intent on
killing people. Not having a gun when faced with this kind of person usually
means you die without any chance of putting a stop to the incident.
If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying
to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my
head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife,
or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and
fingernails.
Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death
of innocent parties.
Can you cite even one such instance?
I'm waiting for your own story to break.
Thus I conclude that you cannot cite a single instance. Just as I thought.
I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a
deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a
number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID
have a gun, and was willing to use it.
One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state
representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in
Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a
gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served
alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the
law, left her handgun in her truck.
Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the
wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons.
Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been
injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer
calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she
escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from
close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her
parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because
NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN.
Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed
citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives?
I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth
anything.
You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other
mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on
the line.
Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun.
It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that.
Innocent lives are at greater risk, as is quality of life.
Again, this is simply not true, as the US experience has proven
conclusively.
That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.
No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means
of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer,
sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world.
Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of
civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or
run away
What a beautiful vision!
Your model seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a
very pretty vision.
and then you have peace.
LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace!
Um, what part of "they" did you not understand?
But, you must remain armed and ever
vigilant to prevent their return.
"The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men
do nothing." Edmund Burke
Not carrying a gun =/= doing nothing.
There's an old saying in police circles: "Trust an asshole to bring a knife
to a gun fight."
When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. When you
need one, however, nothing else will do.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser