Re: home alarm systems are for sissys

["Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

Sounds like Asimov doesn't it.  Not precisely, but close enough.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com