I forgot to add something. Some of you are spending way to much time
in front of your computers. Take some time and look at the animal
kingdom. The best defense and offense almost always wins out. If we
humans were ruthless at our defense and offense we probably wouldn't
be having this conversation.
Jeff M
On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:19 PM, t.piwowar wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:38 PM, 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.
But you are being logical. That doe not have much currency in this
debate.
*************************************************************************
** 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/ **
*************************************************************************
