Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:36:55 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

 *** Resending note of 08/25/92 15:03


 > >I paid attention. Here is what you said:

  > Many, quite a few, several, at least a couple of states have what has become
  > known as the "Make My Day" law.  Basically, they provide for a legal defense
  > for using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety.

 > >Using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety, compared
 > >to using deadly force when any resident of a house sees any uninvited
 > >person his/her house, whether s/he fears for his/her safety or not.

 > >Perhaps Robert thinks those are the same thing. Perhaps he thinks
 > >the distinctions involved are "syntactic."

 I admit that an intruder in my home would frighten me.  I would be inclined
 to fear for my safety.  Of course, you are manlier than most, so this may not
 apply to you.

 > >The law requires you to use less than deadly force if that's all
 > >that is necessary. Robert suggests that if you've only wounded the
 > >person you made a mistake.

 > Let me put it this way.  Don't point a gun unless you intend to use it.
 > If you use it, use it effectively.  Shooting to wound is a good way to get
 > yourself killed.  Would I reload to finish him off?  Probably not.  Would
 > I be victimized by the judicial system for letting him live?  Probably.

 > >This is really getting stupid.

 Most attempts at dialog with you tend to wind up that way.

 > >"Shooting to wound is a good way to get yourself killed." Would
 > >you care to give some evidence for that assertion? Maybe Andy
 > >Freeman would like to help you out.

 OK.  The Lone Ranger *AND* Jamie can shoot the gun out of the bad guy's
 hand EVERY TIME.

 > >You think that the judicial system would "victimize" you if you
 > >merely wounded an intruder rather than killed him? On what basis
 > >do you say so? (Here's my guess: you have no basis at all. I truly
 > >hope I'm wrong about this.)

 As usual, you've guessed wrong.  I'm sure you've never heard of someone being
 sued after wounding an intruder.  I'm sure you've never heard the claims of
 the intruders, "I was only going to steal the ghetto blaster, not hurt
 anyone".  I'm sure you've never heard the mommys say, "He's always been such
 a good boy.  He wouldn't have harmed anyone if they would have just left him
 alone".  I'm sure you've never heard of the punk winning.  I'm sure that if
 you had, you wouldn't be taking such a ridiculous position.

 > >And maybe I'm starting to see Jimbo's point. Robert's Christian
 > >respect for human life leaves a bit to be desired.

 > You see Bimbo's point because you're in basic agreement with it.  Instead
 > of an honorarium, "Logic Czar" appears to be some new form of mental disorder

 > >Hm.
 > >"honorarium" doesn't mean what Robert thinks it means, but I guess
 > >that's no surprise.

 Again, Jamie combs for fleas amidst the buffalo herd.  "Honorarium" is not
 as out of context as you may think.  Even though "honorary title" may have
 been a better selection, Webster's supports my particular usage.

 > >Rather than respond, I think I'll just leave Robert's concluding
 > >name-calling ("Bimbo," "mental disorder") to speak for itself.

 Where was your condemnation of *Jimbo* when he regurgitated his filth
 and hate upon the Christian members of this list?  Like I said, you and
 he are in basic agreement.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU