Jan Coffey wrote: > > Remember we didn't invade > pakistan just becouse they > have nukes.
That sentence is a bit ambiguous, are you saying that the only reason we haven't invaded Pakistan is because they have nukes? If so, I would disagree, beginning with the fact that Pakistan seems to be our new-found ally in middle Asia followed by the situation between Pakistan and India. Tensions are stretched very tight over there, and adding a lot of weight would make a lot of people snap. > > To carry it further, when we all have guns, > > do we all then upgrade to personal tactical > > nukes? > > No, guns alone are sufficient to balance power. They don't, however, since they sill require the minimum conditions of skill and intent. Learning the technical skill of shooting a gun is easy, but there is a considerable amount of conditioning required to actually shoot someone. That's why we have police. That's why we have a military. This society you describe where everyone feels the need to carry a gun in order to defend himself is a bleak one indeed. > > Anicdotaly: if one finds themself in a position > of being overpowered by a criminal then the > experience generaly leaves them with one of 2 opinions. > > A) All guns should be illegal. > B) I should of had a gun. > > Which one is more realistic. > > My opinion is go a step further > > C) everyone should have a gun. > > Why? Becouse if that criminal knew that everyone > was likely to be packing, they would not have done > what they did. Texas and Navada have it right. > Make the gun be concealed. That way no one knows > who is armed and who isn't. Or, they would go in expecting a fight, and expecting to kill or be killed. They would show up prepared and better equipped than they calculate their targets would. They would get the first shot, probably get to aim if they cared to, and would get to choose the time and location. And, since they know you're packing, would have to make sure that you were disabled or dead before approaching, then take whatever it was that they wanted. How is this better than getting mugged and maybe beaten? Gang wars have not gotten any less lethal since the lifestyle started demanding that they carry. The only things that seem to work is to remove them from the lifestyle, either through intervention or death. > It proactivly fights crime. The other alternative > is to be a society of victems. > That's so warped, I don't even know where to begin. -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
