From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:26:26 GMT

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

>Original Message From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
>
>>In article <1jvd0tINN8jv@werple.apana.org.au>
>>speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>>
>>>>Well, it depends.  What you are advocating is a return to the jungle
>>>>where the most physically powerful and/or gangs run things.  A lot of
>>>
>>>I can't see how he is advocating any such thing; or am I missing
>>>something?
>>
>>      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. 

       What people usually fail to realize is that force is always the rule.
The theory behind our Republic is that though the force resides in general
among a populace ready to use it, they also respect the law.  The scales
have become tilted.

>>       Whether violence "dictates" the need for a weapon is an
>>interesting question.  My position is that the need for a weapon is
>>no greater in these United States than there is in Britain or Canada.
>>If you are the victim of a violent assault by a physically more powerful
>>individual, you need a weapon.  If you aren't, then you don't.  The
>>likelihood may vary, but not the need.  The need is 100% if it happens
>>to you, no matter what the numbers say the possibility is.
>
>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. 

       You apparently have different methods, or at least different 
perceptions of the problem.  Police officers aren't nearly as portable
as a gun, and I don't know about your country, but it's when a police
officer isn't around that a problem is most likely to occur.  Our
criminals usually wait until the cops are not in the area.

>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.

       This reminds me of the "Dressed for Rape" thread.  Prudence is always
a good thing, but danger isn't always obvious, or avoidable all the time.

>>not fractions, like the statistics say.  You may be the only person
>>in your entire country who is attacked, but if you *are* that only
>>person not all the low violent crime rates in the world are going
>>to change that you are in need of *some* aid.
>
>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.

       Essentially what you're saying is that it's a crap shoot.  That
you're solely worried about the odds of whether you are going to be the
statistic.  If your assault statistics are low, then you are taking a better
gamble than if they are high, but the situation is that you are still
taking a gamble.  You may feel that gamble is perfectly acceptable.  Many
don't.  Personally, I wouldn't play russian roulette no matter how many
chambers are in the gun.

>>       Things are not, as some would have you believe, as awful in the
>>U.S. as you appear to think.  Certainly not across the entire country.
>>The U.S., like Australia, is a big place.  Iowa isn't the same place as
>>New York isn't the same place as Tennessee and shouldn't be treated
>
>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.

       Then you are operating solely on perception, and possibly 
an innaccurate one at that.  Perhaps not a bad one, but sometimes
perceptions fool you.

>Again it gets back to whether you feel threatened in your environment. If
>you do then, by all means arm yourself for protection.

       As some people have pointed out, it isn't simply a matter of 
feeling threatened.  I don't expect my house to catch fire, nor do I 
feel "threatened" by other drivers on the road.  Despite this, I have
fire, collision, and medical insurance.  Risk should be minimized, 
but minimizing does not eliminate it.  I suppose you just get to the
point where you have to make a decision of whether carrying the 
weapon is justified by the risk you are taking.        

>>argues is that violence in the U.S. is mostly in small geographic areas,
>>and it's a mistake to generalize them to the rest of the country, most
>>of which have rates fairly comparable to elsewhere.
>
>My aplogies, I didn't wish to offend you. 

       Have no fear of that.  I've been called far worse with far more
emotion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns