"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.
There you go.
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.
OK.
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.
How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and
those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd
ready to draw and fire?
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
Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known,
they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular
armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery.
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.
I'm sure you are dreaming of the day!
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 haven't actually devoted my life to gun culture.
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.
I don't think so Scotty.
In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that
the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves.
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.
LOL. 30,000 plus gun deaths per year say otherwise.
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
What is that model, Scotty?
seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a
very pretty vision.
You seem rather obsessed with visions of my ass. Is sublimation of your
homosexual tendencies part of your underlying mental health issues?
and then you have peace.
LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace!
Um, what part of "they" did you not understand?
Oh, that's right, Scotty is such a superhero that he can actually control
the outcome when a bunch of vigilantes blast away at each other.
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."
There's another old police saying:
"It started out as an argument and then Scotty pulled out his gun and now 5
people are dead. All because Scotty had a hard time calculation the tip."
When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless.
Until innocent people end up dead.
When you
need one, however, nothing else will do.
If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely.