Re: home alarm systems are for sissys

["Nathan W. Collier" <no@xxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MJwWi.166230$Da.121196@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> I simply don't understand the "need" some feel for having a gun in the
> house...  or in your case, several.

this is because you live under the belief that the police will always be
there to protect you, and you wont understand that need until its to late to
do anything for you.  one of the founding fathers of this country (thomas
jefferson) stated that it is your responsibility as an american to be "at
all times armed".  that does not just mean when youre at home.  "at all
times" leaves little room for interpretation.

i legally carry a concealed handgun _everywhere_ i go.  if i cannot legally
carry a gun there, i simply do not go there.  it is not because i am afraid
or paranoid, it is not some perceived "need" for having it.  i carry a gun
simply to eliminate vulnerability.  an unarmed man can be attacked with
confidence every time.  id like to quote an internet post from another user:

----------
Why The Gun In Civilization
By The Munchkin Wrangler


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in
physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat-it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force.
It removes force from the equation.and that's why carrying a gun is a
civilized act.
----------

i would also encourage you to read my thoughts on personal security found at
http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=233

--
Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://p99sw99.com
http://PPStalk.com
http://P7talk.com