"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

They are never used for good. They are only used for different
degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time,
guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece
of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be,
and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent
attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates
that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that
doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop
that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

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.

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, the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.

Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death
of innocent parties.

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.