The potential for a citizen to shoot back is a _very big deterrent_. Crime rates go down.
Trained citizens will do very well shooting back. Takes a lot of training. Some will do it. Cops, law and courts are all too late. The bad guy has already taken your money and maybe your life. Don't license untrained individuals (I presume that's what you mean by amateurs). But don't require a person to be a paid police officer in order to carry a gun. Fred Holmes At 04:38 PM 8/11/2009, Constance Warner wrote: >Shoot back? SHOOT BACK? If you're in a shooting match, regardless >of the source of the guns or the justice of your cause, your chances >of death or serious injury just went up by several thousand per >cent. Empowering citizens to shoot back at the bad guys might be >justifiable if there were NO cops, NO law, and NO courts. [Actually, >we have cops, law, and courts; we're luckier in that respect than >they are in many countries in the world today.] But with a "shoot >back when warranted" policy, you're postulating a situation in which >amateur, untrained citizens are charge of individualized law >enforcement, using lethal force. This is, to put it mildly, a risk >management nightmare. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
