Cops aren't there to protect you, they are there to clean up the mess after.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Fred Holmes <f...@his.com> wrote: > The potential for a citizen to shoot back is a _very big deterrent_. Crime > rates go down. > > Trained citizens will do very well shooting back. Takes a lot of training. > Some will do it. > > Cops, law and courts are all too late. The bad guy has already taken your > money and maybe your life. > > Don't license untrained individuals (I presume that's what you mean by > amateurs). But don't require a person to be a paid police officer in order > to carry a gun. > > Fred Holmes > > At 04:38 PM 8/11/2009, Constance Warner wrote: > >Shoot back? SHOOT BACK? If you're in a shooting match, regardless > >of the source of the guns or the justice of your cause, your chances > >of death or serious injury just went up by several thousand per > >cent. Empowering citizens to shoot back at the bad guys might be > >justifiable if there were NO cops, NO law, and NO courts. [Actually, > >we have cops, law, and courts; we're luckier in that respect than > >they are in many countries in the world today.] But with a "shoot > >back when warranted" policy, you're postulating a situation in which > >amateur, untrained citizens are charge of individualized law > >enforcement, using lethal force. This is, to put it mildly, a risk > >management nightmare. > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
