From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Travelling armed
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:56:57 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Jul21.220714.5347@u.washington.edu> fetrow@biostat.washington.edu (David Fetrow) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul20.060118.234@u.washington.edu> davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
>>> >In article <1733@rwing.UUCP>, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>> >> WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
>>> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> >I don't want to even get started on that one (or did I just volunteer
>>> >myself to write a several-hundred-line essay on it :-) ).
>>> 
>>> This is something I completely and absolutely agree with.  It only took one
>>> experience set set this firmly in my mind after an interesting experience in
>>> a hotel.
>>> . . .
>>
>
> As a former motel nightclerk on Aurora you have no idea how happy that
>thought makes me. Nothing is more fun than dealing with an armed guest. Yes
>sirree. 
>
> ..and yes, I once had the happy task of cooling down a situation where an
>armed drunk guy was trying to break into his ex-wife's room. No fun but at
>least there was only one gun instead of two (didn't know about the gun when
>I got involved).

From the above, I gather that the individual didn't use the weapon on you
so the fact he was armed had no effect on you (other than giving you something
to complain about when you found out about it later).

Entering Weary tell-the-basics mode

FYI, I also worked a graveyard shift, ALONE in a convenience store on
85th and Aurora.  I spotted a lot of armed folks come in the place (one
learns to tell), and they never caused problems.  The problems due to armed
individuals were ALWAYS with individuals ILLEGALLY armed (underage, dealers
in better living through chemistry, etc).  Seeing as the illegaly armed
individuals seem to not be too concerned about packing guns, knives, etc
in spite of the law, one can conclude that the laws were not worth the
paper they were written on as far as the criminal element was concerned.
The legally armed folks didn't make me feel uncomfortable, in fact I
felt that they are someone who realizes that the only person that they
can depend on if all hell breaks loose is themself.  Its for sure that
the police ain't gonna help them (they will come by about 30 minutes
later - MAYBE), and its for sure that folks that feel as I perceive you
do won't help them out, either.  They know that they are on their own.

You will run into folks that are irresponsible, drunk, whatever with a
weapon REGARDLESS of the law.  If they decide to try to use the weapon,
at least I prefer to have a viable option.

I would much rather run a very remote chance of offending your sensibilities
by being armed while travelling (although you would not know I was armed
unless I told you I was), then go unarmed to please you, and end up dead
because I was unable to effectively deal with violent assault committed on
me.  I'm sure you would prefer it were the other way around, but that's
life.  Perhaps if I were built like and had the skills of Mike Tyson,
I wouldn't need the help of a weapon, but I'm afraid I am no match toe to
toe with several 200 lb plus thugs in their prime who want my belongings
and my life without some technological help.

To repeat an old saw, I would much rather have the gun, and not need
it, which is 99.9999 percent of the time, than desperately need it and
not have it.  From your perspective, it would be just another statistic
buried in the newspaper, but from my perspective the impact would be
considerably greater.  I learned the lesson the hard way - via a knife
buried in my back cuz I didn't have enough money on me to please the
misunderstood victims of society who wanted a 'donation'.  Much to your
dismay, I suspect, it hung up on a bone so no real damage occurred.
Next time I am stuck on a street alone I might not be so 'lucky'.  So,
whether folks who believe as you do like it or not, I resolved to *NEVER*
let myself be in a no-option situation like that again.  So I choose to
follow the advice I have in my .sig - legally.  I suspect the fact I
can do it legally also tends to stick in your craw, since judging from
your post you would prefer folks like myself be at the mercy of the
street population and/or when (if?) the police get around to clean up
what is left of us.

You will understand that I get just a tad offended when I get the message
someone prefer I remain totally vulnerable, because they are uncomfortable
when someone *MIGHT* be in their presence that has the means to have a
decent chance at prevailing if attacked.  You wouldn't be concerned
because you want to have total control of your environment and everyone
in it, would you?  I guess the possibility someone might be descreetly
armed would kinda prevent that, wouldn't it.  If you feel you need to
totally control your environment and everyone in it, hire a couple of
beefy dudes, and have them shake down everyone that desires to have
the honor of being in your presence.  Me - I'll pass. I just prefer
seeing to my safety over running a remote chance of making folks such
as yourself nervous on the off chance we cross paths (which is highly
unlikely).

Exiting Weary tell-the-basics mode.
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: seattle.general