"Cyrus Afzali"
wrote in message
news:jhara4pta32elq8vf5mk1h4g41pcn97ok4@4ax.com...> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:17:58 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
>
bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Cyrus Afzali"
wrote in message
>>news:vhmla41p5a0vr3c1sn31h95tc2v0pmhnnt@4ax.com...>
>>>>Why are you so frightened by firearms?
>>>
>>> I think the real question is why folks like you and Kent
>>> are so
>>> fearful of becoming victims. This notion that you can't
>>> have a polite,
>>> civilized society without it being armed to the teeth
>>> has
>>> just been
>>> proven false way too many times, both in our own country
>>> and abroad.
>>
>>Who is fearful of becoming a victim, Cyrus? Not I and
>>probably not David. Do you have a fire extinguisher,
>>hospitalization insurance, auto insurance, and/or
>>disability
>>insurance? A spare tire and a jack in your car? A first
>>aid kit in your home and/or car? A list of emergency
>>numbers to call in case you, your wife, or your child is
>>injured or exposed to poison or dangerous chemicals? Does
>>any of those items or policies mean you are fearful.
>>Probably not, they just mean you are taking wise
>>precautions. There is a reason for the Boy Scout motto,
>>"Be
>>Prepared."
>
> You can say that all you want, but I simply will never
> believe it.
So, in effect, you're calling me a liar. How nice.
> I know a number of people who regularly carry and the one
> thing they
> repeat is they want to make sure something doesn't happen
> to them. To
> me, that's the same as being in fear of becoming a victim.
A firearm, I repeat, is not a magic talisman. It will not
prevent anyone from being a victim. OTOH, it can even the
odds in the case of a physical confrontation. I refuse to
be a passive victim in a physical confrontation, whether or
not I'm armed. Unless I'm greatly outnumber or overmatched,
the bad guy is going to know he's been in a fight. I may
well lose, but mine won't be only blood on the ground.
I'll soon be 68. Obviously I went unarmed the first 21
years of my life. Until about 5 years ago, I didn't go
armed. I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted or
needed to go. Of course I never engaged in any risky
behavior ... bar crawling, using illegal drugs or other
illegal activities, running with wild crowds. The only
crimes where I have been a victim were property crimes ...
car broken into, home broken into, and my car stolen.
I don't present myself as a victim and that's a key
ingredent.
Something
> might happen to me too, but I'm not in fear of it to the
> point that
> I'm going to go out and buy a weapon. There are many, many
> more things
> that I'm prepared for that I honestly feel -- and stats
> back me up on
> -- that are more likely to happen rather than something
> that can be
> solved by a gun.
>
> The scenarios you list in terms of emergency numbers,
> tools, etc. are
> for emergencies that are simply more likely to happen.
>
>>> To me, the bigger problem is the way society in certain
>>> parts of the
>>> country is going to hell in a handbasket very quickly.
>>> Try
>>> as they
>>> might to institute something to turn it around, be it
>>> higher gun
>>> ownership or use, more capital punishment, etc., the
>>> tide
>>> isn't
>>> turning. That alone should tell you something.
>>
>>Ok, I'll bite. What is it telling you? Chicago is one of
>>those places going to hell in a handbasket, yet it has the
>>tightest gun control in the nation (excluding DC under its
>>skirt the court emergency gun laws). That tells me that
>>stringent gun control laws don't work.
>
> Where are the stats that say Chicago is going to hell in a
> handbasket?
> Since June 15, 2007, Chicago has had 536 homicides, for
> example. Given
> the city's size, that's not a horrible rate. It's
> certainly higher
> than NYC's on a per capita basis, but no indication of
> going to hell
> in a handbasket.
Really? You think that's acceptable? I don't, even though
probably 70%% of the victims were criminals just like 70%% of
the murderers had prior records of violent criminal
behavior. (Stats remembered from a Chicago PD report.) NYC
is larger but the homicide rate is around half that of
Chicago's IIRC. Daley is calling for even more stringent
gun control laws. Now what's that definition of insanity?
No two countries, no two states, no two cities have
identical demographics, but just for grins and giggles,
let's compare Metro Nashville and Baltimore. Close enough
in population size (Greater Nashville is growing, Baltimore
is stagnant at best). Nashville is obviously in a "shall
issue" state, Baltimore isn't. If Nashville has more than
100 murders in a given year, the mayor and the chief of
police catch hell, over 110 would probably have Surpas
looking for a new job on his way out of town. The PTB in
Baltimore are all happy with themselves since they may make
it through 2008 with ONLY 200 murders.
>
> To put it simply, we have more places in the country with
> relatively
> liberal gun laws than we do with strict and crime as a
> whole in the
> country isn't rapidly declining. You can't solve a
> societal problem
> with a gun.
You're right there and I've never suggested otherwise. But
victims of violent crime should have the most efficient and
effective means to protect themselves. I believe that a
handgun is both when in the hands of a trained citizen,
trained in the proper use and vetted on the laws regarding
the use of deadly force.
--
Security, like liberty, has to be won and re-won many times
...
Linus from Charles Schulz's Peanuts 1958
From the Music City USA
Kent Finnell
