From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Summary: More examples.
Organization: Boye, Dewey, Cheetham and Howe, Atty's.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:16:48 GMT

In <cthong.713583502@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>... A firearm would have nullified their advantages and made
>>the cowards flee or die, yet you say there is no logical
>>need for them?
>and what if they had them anyway? no, i suspect the perps would
>still have gone in unarmed/(if they did not have guns in the first place,
>your reply did not state. what. at least they could have shot a few of
>the guys before dying themselves? no criminal ever chooses a victim
>without weighing carefully whether they can be easily taken.

Wrong.  Another example from Detroit:

Three thugs came to the home of Cedric Brown and his family,
shouted "Police!" and broke down the door.  Two of them rushed
upstairs, while the third knocked Brown down and waved a 9mm
pistol.  Brown reached under his sofa and retrieved a .45
pistol with which he shot his assailant 3 times, killing him.
The other two heard the gunshots and fled.

>if the family had guns, they would have been hit by guns too.

Wrong.  Nobody in the Brown household was hurt except the
assailant.  Further, the other two perpetrators were caught,
and their crime spree (they had done the same thing at least
twice before) was ended.

>you're right in that aspect about their cowardice.
>it works both ways bub.

It sure does, but not the way you think.  Guns work even
better against criminals than for criminals, if you can
use one without yourself automatically being a criminal.
If the law criminalizes self-protection, you're fucked.

You're from the People's Republic of Canada, where the
public isn't deemed competent to own or carry weapons in
most places and situations.  You're definitely fucked if
someone comes after you.  I don't envy your situation.
I do get amused at your provincial attitudes, though.
There's more to the world than your little corner.

>to put it drastically, and i'm pretty sure that more than a few 
>women (and men) will object... better dead than raped?

Better a rapist dead than anyone raped, certainly.  A rapist
is not going to shoot first and attract unwelcome attention.

>a strong door and a basically secure house doesn't neccessarily
>give you perfect protection but it gives you a darn sight better
>chance of prevention than a loaded gun no?

Where do I get a door which will stand up to 5 minutes of kicking
with heavy boots, much less a battering ram?  And what about my
windows, do I have to put bars on them?

A solid hit from a gun will stop a crook no matter how crazy they are.

>to look at it from a realistic point of view.

You haven't done that once yet.

>to keep from having accidents in the home, a firearm should logically
>be kept out of reach of any body but responsible family members no?
>and if this includes locking it up, tell me how it helps you if you need
>it in 10 seconds? 

Why lock it up?  Why not carry it like one's wallet?  Always
ready when needed.

>i'm talking from a realistic point of view on my realistic planet
>in my realistic universe - get a grip on reality and broaden your
>choices and horizons to include more than ONE alternative bub.

I've seen your alternative.  If shit happens, you're
fucked.  Well, you're welcome to keep your alternative.
If nothing else, I can use you as an example of what
not to do someday.

>i mean this in a friendly way of course... no offence.
>but tell it to the cop who's got to deal with a bum who's trading
>potshots with him that he doesn't wish at that point that guns were
>only for him? not an UNUSUAL situation no?

I don't know about the People's Republic of Canada, but
most parts of the USA are still populated by more or less
free citizens.  What the police wish for, whether it is
sole authority to own guns, or unlimited authority to
search persons, papers, vehicles and buildings, or the
authority to detain anyone they want at whim, isn't
always a good idea for the police to have.  If you want
to live in a police state, go right ahead.  I'll help
buy you a ticket to the nearest one, one-way.

New York City, which has a legal ban on handguns and many
other guns, has a lot more gun crime than Detroit.  Odd,
that.  The legal guns don't seem to be the problem.  Do
you have the smarts to realize this is a problem for
your thesis?

>as a matter of fact, a phone call to an RCMP P.R.O. last month
>got me a corporal who flatly told me that without a doubt, there are
>at least 10% more than the originally registered guns in peoples' 
>homes.

Well, that's encouraging.  Some people in Canada don't
believe in trusting their government with everything.
I guess there may be hope for Canadians yet.

>if a simple problem of registering for
>investigative or legal purposes all the guns in the area can't
>be done properly, then surely SOMETHING has got to change no?

Maybe if something can't be done properly, there is no point
in trying to do it at all.  Kind of like drug prohibition and
alcohol prohibition in that respect.  The thing to change is
the impossible goal.

Read up about the USA in the 1920's.  It's enlightening.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns