From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:19:31 GMT

In article <cthong.713583502@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:

>>In <cthong.713477423@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>>(There isn't a logical NEED for firearms)

>>Tell that to the family in Detroit which was held hostage
>>by a gang which invaded their home last week.  One of the
>>women was held down and gang-raped.  They were defenseless
>>against the younger, stronger, faster gang members.  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.
>if the family had guns, they would have been hit by guns too.

Excuse me?  I don't know any gunowners who post signs about their
property that say  "Criminals beware:  Occupants are armed.  Don't
forget your guns."  Most people who don't know me well, don't know
that I have guns (well, except for people on the net, but they don't
konw where I live.)  Granted, I have an NRA sticker on my car, but
my car is only home when I am.  Which means that I have immediate
access to my guns.  It is unlikely that the perpetrators could know
for sure that the family was armed.

>you're right in that aspect about their cowardice.

That cowerdice will more likely lead them to look for a victim who
is less likely to be armed.

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

I object, all right.  I object to people telling me I don't have the
right to make my own choice about whether I prefer to be raped, or to
attempt to defend myself, and with what means I may defend myself.  I
object to people who minimize the severity of rape, and the possibility
that the rapist may not dare leave a live victim who can identify him.
I object to people who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to
realize that, in this day of AIDS, rape can be a slow form of murder.
I object to people who claim that the would-be perpetrators are smart
enough to determine whether I'm armed, and arm themselves accordingly,
yet who refuse to give me credit for being able to defend myself.

>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?

No.  A basically secure house is better than an insecure one, but
that's about it.  My choice is:  a basically secure house, 2 large
dogs (an excellent deterrent and early warning system), and the
firearm of my choice in case those measures are inadequate.  In
case you're from the Suzee MacDonald school of thought, let me
state in no uncertain terms that I believe the use of deadly force
is acceptable only as a last resort.  But, all other things being
equal, it gives me a darn sight better chance of survival than
merely hoping my door is strong enough.

>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? 

In my home, the only residents are responsible adults.  Therefore,
when I am home, and unless there are children visiting (very rare)
there is no reason for my gun to be locked up.  Therefore, it isn't.
It _is_ loaded and easily accessible to me.  In the event that I
am in another room, the aforementioned dogs would likely give me the
few seconds warning I might need to get to it.  I suppose one could
say there is a risk of my coming home to find an intruder threatening
to use my own gun against me.  My solution to this would be a carry
permit, in which case the gun would be on my person when I walked in
the door.  This would have the twofold advantage of ensuring that it
was within my reach, and inaccessible to the intruder.  But I don't
suppose that would be acceptable to you, even from your "realistic
point of view"?

>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.

That's what I'm trying to do.  Why do you want to limit my alternatives?

>i mean this in a friendly way of course... no offence.

Right, "bub".  Must be a cultural thing, but around here, "bub" isn't
a term of endearment.

>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?
>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. that is to say- even asault rifles- now don't get all worked

Did you happen to ask him whether he's particularly concerned about
otherwise law-abiding citizens who keep those guns as a last-resort
defense measure?  Or is it the criminals, who will obtain their guns
regardless of legality, and who have no qualms about raping innocent
women in their homes, or trading pot-shots with police, who he fears?
The police I know are intelligent enough to see a difference.

>up , i'm JUST quoting him. 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?

So what would you propose, besides you blanket assertion that "There
isn't a logical NEED for firearms"?  It seems to me that, if the
police can't provide adequate protection, and there are criminals
bent on doing harm to innocent people, yet those people aren't
permitted to defend themselves, that SOMETHING has got to change
all right - but more registration/restriction of gun ownership ain't
it..."bub".

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns