No, she's not. When you don't have a gun those shooting at you have a
1000 percent chance of winning the confrontation then you do, unless
you're name is David and are really good with a sling.
Why do people not get this? Where would we be today after WWII if it
weren't for massive amounts of guns? As barbaric as they may be, guns
and the like have almost always won out and created the life you live
today. Without guns would we have had the space program, computers, tv
dinners?
Jeff M
On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:19 PM, t.piwowar wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:38 PM, 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.
But you are being logical. That doe not have much currency in this
debate.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,
privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://
www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
