From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:32:35 GMT

In article <viking.714466691@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>
>>	If someone in a mask, or a police uniform for that matter, busts into 
>>	my house, they will probably not leave the premises vertically.
>
>	Is that because you don't think they can arrest you in your house,
>or just that you think anybody busting into your house needs to be shot as
>a matter of course?  Really, this seem too rigid a theory, especially given
>that death is not reversable.

	Ha!  The old "sanctimonious tone" trick.  Really.  But to the point
	in question: unless I feel sufficiently warm and fuzzy about the 
	identity of the persons or persons busting through my front door,
	I may well give `em what for.  As has been mentioned before, a
	uniform proves nothing since anyone can go to a uniform supply and
	get clothing that is, even upon close inspection, hard to tell from
	that worn by the real thing.

	I suppose you'd have me wait long enough so my wife and children
	could die right along with me?  Please forgive me, but if this is
	the case then I must politely admonish you to piss off.

	I don't know how much you know about tactical situations, but I have
	had my fair share of them and one thing I can say is that the tactics
	that many police departments use are extremely unsound from the
	standpoint of LAW ENFORCEMENT.  They work great for situations where
	the objective is to go in and kill the enemy, but not for arresting
	people.  You might do well to study a bit more about this before you
	go labeling me as some sort of violence mongering shoot-em-up
	madman.  You apparently do not know of what you speak.

	As for rigidity, my words imply that I might shoot someone, not that
	it is automatically the case.  I have a brain (a rather good one I
	might add) and I USE it, however when situations like this arise, 
	there is often very little time to engage in deep deliberation.  If 
	these people sneaking about your premises are for real, they should not
	be behaving the way they are.  If they are not the real thing then I
	am quite justified in assuming that the guns they carry are there with 
	the expressed purpose of doing me and mine grave harm, and I simply 
	will not allow that.
>
>	Being a martyr is perhaps a noble occupation.  Good luck in your
>new line of work.  I suggest that there are other means besides killing
>that might be employed to prevent this treatment.

	I doubt that such ingracious sarcasm serves your points favorably.
	No one said anything about martydom here, but of reacting to a 
	situation whose true meaning is sufficiently ambiguous, and whose
	superficial characteristics are sufficiently clear to warrant a
	strong defensive response on the part of those for whom attack
	appears imminent.
>
>>  	I will shoot whomever I feel I
>>	must and I will not miss.  
>
>	You never miss, eh?  

	Nope.


You're human, right?  Have you ever made a
>mistake, or not achieved a particular goal?  In other words, have you
>ever screwed up?  If not, I'll accept the above statement.  If you have,
>I suggest you talk to a life insurance agent at your earliest convenience.
>Your widow might quite possibly appreciate it.
>
	What on EARTH are you talking about?

>>	If they cannot or will not do the job in
>>	a correct manner, then let them die, one by one.  To hell with them
>>	and their miserable, corrupt lives.
>
>	My goodness, and I was seen as irrational!??!!?!  Will you extend
>that judgement (do it in the correct manner or die) to your present job?
>

	Don't be silly.  If you cannot see the difference between
	software development (my occupation) and a potential life and death
	situation, then I must regretfully submit that you are not worthy of
	such discussion.  Otherwise you are engaging in specious and/or
	gratuitous bullshitting for purposes that I suppose only you are aware 
	of.  I'm sure you are plenty intelligent, and so assuming, I would ask 
	you that if you are going to take me to task for my statememnts, then 
	at least do it honestly and forthrightly.  Trying to imply that I am 
	some sort of loonie simply because you may not agree with something I 
	may have said certainly seems like it should be well beneath you.  

>	I don't mean to flame you, but you've left nothing to allow the
>situation to be defused here, and I find that somewhat alarming.  

	Pardon me, but perhaps you should pay closer attention to what I said.
	I am talking about a situation where strange persons are running into
	my house, disguised and unannounced with guns.  In the case of real
	criminal assault, how do you suppose I diffuse the situation?  Shall
	I tell them "here, fuck my little girl?"  Please, for heavens sake, try
	to be a bit more circumspect about these things.  You sound as if you
	assume that I should be able to divine the intent of such strangers by 
	some form of psychic osmosis.  If only I could.  But things being
	as they are, what else could I do except to sit by and gamble that 
	those that invade my place are benevolent.  And even so, the cops
	often are in the hair trigger mode from the intense adrenalin rush.
	How many completely innocent persons are shot "accidentally" every
	year because some idiot police department feels the need to play
	Rambozo?  In any even I would not feel terribly secure, and I believe
	there is some said about just that feeling somewhere in our
	consitution.

>It's
>quite like the landowner shooting any tresspasser, regardless of the
>threat that tresspasser entails.  Too rigid, in other words.  I don't
>expect a follow-up post from you on this, just that you examine how
>much you mean what you've posted.  I've not made myself clear in the
>past, so I'll grant that you may not have here, and I won't make
>any judgements on this.  Still, you won't mind if I skip your
>house while selling encylopedia's, would you?  I'd hate to be shot
>for Britannica!  (insert 1/2 smiley)

	We're talking about 2 entirely different things here, and I'm sure you
	know it.  Selling encyclopediae??  No thank you sir and that's the end
	of it, but if you bust my front door down trying to make a sale, you
	MAY get yourself shot, or perhaps stabbed or pummelled with a hard and
	heavy object.  Surely you can see the unsound nature of such sales
	methods, no?  As for trespassing, unless you are armed and/or 
	behaving in a menacing fashion, you would be firmly but politely 
	admonished to vacate the premises, and probably escorted to the nearest
	property line.  If the intruder does not get cute, neither will I.


	-Andy V.

From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:55:34 GMT
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA