At 03:30 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: >On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > > > >>> Then again, "an armed society is a polite > >> society" ..
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein, _Beyond the Horizon_, 1942 > >> Bruce, > >> We have found that in general Americans are the politest > >> people we have met. > >> They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have > >> certainly > >> speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms > >> we have seen. Another possible hypothesis is that people who are familiar with firearms and their use and handling tend to be independent and self-sufficient in other ways, and so may have fewer worries about things being out of their control and so have less reason to be fearful or suspicious of strangers and their intentions. (And not just because they can pull out a .45 and blow the stranger away if he threatens them . . . :P) > >> I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a > >> supermarket car park > >> with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. > >> When the driver > >> opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there > >> was room for him > >> to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is > >> more weapons than I > >> had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in > >> beside him and they > >> had a conversation. I think from the body language that the > >> Sheriff was > >> admiring the guns, but I can't be sure Obviously I was not there to observe, but based on my experience I expect you are correct. When they get together socially LEOs discuss the tools of their trade and their relative positive and negative points in the same way geeks discuss the relative merits of different operating systems. >and I did not > >> want to hang around to > >> find out. > >> Regards, > >> Maree > > > > > > someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or > > to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy. one gun should be > > sufficient for self protection. if gun toting red necks are polite to > > you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for > > obama!~) > > jon > >If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one >rifle for doing so. (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a >sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. A gun is a tool for a particular job. A toolbox that contained only a single #3 Phillips screwdriver would not be very useful for many jobs a technician or a DIYer will encounter. Similarly, the right gun (and ammo) for one purpose may be too much or too little for another purpose. And FWIW in many cases the best load for a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler is a shot shell rather than a regular bullet. OTOH, depending on what you're hunting, you may want a large-bore sidearm with a heavy round in case when you approach something you have shot with a rifle from a distance it is not yet entirely dead. Especially if it's something that might be able to get up and hurt you before it expires . . . (And FWIW IANAH . . . ) >Just remember >to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with >that bag, m'kay?) I hope you are not talking from personal experience. >And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm >somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes >jabs. > >If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes >about people who do. > > Julia > >who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's >certainly not *weapon*-free And I doubt you or anyone else familiar with them would claim that a single type of sharp object would be adequate or even usable in all situations. . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
