From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:23:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1k55apINNop@zikzak.apana.org.au>, speednut@zikzak.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:

> >      Essentially, if you remove mechanical aids, power resides solely
> >in physical prowess.  A less physically powerful person will always
> >be at the mercy of a more physically powerful person if he has no
> >access to a mechanical aid.  (In this case, a gun.)
> 
> Still what was intimated was some sort of anarchy where force is the
> rule. The original poster (to my mind) disregards other aspects such
> as punishment, law and police. [No I don't want to enter a debate into
> the relevancy of these].

Force is always the rule -- it's just that in a perfect liberal world, 
only the government exerts the force, and they only exert it benignly 
and always without error.

But the government isn't always around when you need them.  In certain
inner-city pockets, they're almost NEVER around, period.  And there,
force is the rule, and the "good guys" are not the rulers.

> Funny thing is that over here we may have violence against a person,
> but don't seek to redress the situation (on the whole) by arming one-
> self. Whether you need a weapon (IMO) is dictated as to whether you
> feel that the assault was a one-off thing where a change of habit,
> life-style etc may rectify the obvious danger.

Nonsense.  I don't have home fires regularly, nor does anyone I know.
Regardless, we still all possess smoke alarms and most of us possess
fire extinguishers.  I don't have automobile accidents regularly, but
I still use my seat belt.

> Agreed, but it all depends (to me) whether it is a one-off situation
> or the situation is becoming so common place that you have no
> ALTERNATIVE but to seek some form of defence other than that which
> your social structure provides for.

You may misunderstand what our "social structure provides for."  Court
cases in the US make it quite clear that a person's own protection is
his own responsibility, and not that of the government.

> Actually I realise that. What I was endeavoring to point out was that
> where there is a perceived "need" to carry a weapon because your
> chances are great that you may be assaulted (eg high crime areas) then
> I too would carry a firearm. Other than that, I see no "need" to do so.

This is a lot like saying, "I'll only wear a seat belt on superhighways."
Fine, but most accidents occur on local roads.  So then, "I'll only wear
a seat belt on local roads," right?  Great, but the accidents that DO
occur on superhighways occur at great speeds.  

Your "perception of need" may result from a serious lack of understanding.  
Suzanne Gratia saw no obvious "need" to carry her handgun into Luby's 
Cafeteria.  She was not in a high-crime area.  But most of all it was 
illegal, so against her better judgement, she left it home.  As a result, 
both her parents plus a score of other people died at the hands of the 
only armed man in the cafeteria, a psycho named George Hennard.

If I don't go where the bad boys live, does that mean that none of them
will ever come where I live?  This is a bad bet.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns