Re: home alarm systems are for sissys

[motley me <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nathan W. Collier" <no@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:nbOdnYY4xPxc27banZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:

> "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
>

I agree with his ideas in theory..BUT, if you are going to carry a
weapon (gun,knife, big damn stick) YOU have to:

1. Know how to use it.
2. Know when to use it.
3. Know when not to use it
4.
5. BE WILLING TO USE IT.


#5 being the the top priority, because if you have a gun and pull it on
a mugger, carjacker, etc. and are not willing to pull the trigger, then
you have raised the level of violence for the mugger by an order of
magnitude. this may get you killed.


There is no 1 answer to the problem, either no guns or unrestricted
access. I don't know the answer either, but I do know that feel safer
with the option to defend my home from any threat to my family, because
though i will feel bad for having to take a life, i am willing.