Microsoft the NSA and you!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mike, Sep 9, 1999.

  1. Mike Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    Given that I don't conduct confidential information on my computer, all they'd find out about me is that I like UFOs, the paranormal, and engaging conversation. Although I wonder how intelligent the CIA is trusting Microsoft to build them a quality back-door. I mean, did you ever hear the one about the helicopter that got lost in Washington state?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Mike,
    Very scary! Wait until they get our
    guns and then see what happens.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Alien,

    Puhleeease. Ladies and gentlemen, we have here yet another victim of NRA brainwashing (they do possess quite a marketing talent...)

    Do you seriously think that if the Government (and its police, army, navy, airforce, FBI, CIA, GODKNOWSWHATELSE) came at you with their high technology and military firepower, that you little shotgun, or pistol, or whatever-have-you would make any difference?????? If "they" want you dead, you will definitely be dead -- and no gun or even a cannot could possibly save you, nor present any challenge to "them".

    The right to carry arms was never intended as a protection from the government (because even in 1776 the government was too powerful for anyone to resist it). It was intended as personal protection against bandits and such, in the days when police was powerless or altogether non-existent. And that's the only argument that still may apply today -- guns are for *personal* protection, not for protection of citizens against possibly hostile government agencies. Also note that assault rifles do not fit under the 'personal protection' umbrella. Remember that the "government" is not trying to confiscate handguns from law-abiding citizens; they are trying to ban assault rifles, and prevent convicted criminals from obtaining guns.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  8. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,
    No I don't because they want to control us not destroy us. Ask yourself how many innocent people the government killed
    over the years and how many people were
    killed by the NRA. Yes,if enough people
    wanted to over throw the government in
    the 1700's I think it would have happened
    by citizens with arms. Regardless of
    our technology the greatest threat is an armed person. I agree that they are not after the law abiding citizen yet but
    lets wait and see.This is how I feel
    about it right or wrong.

    Alien
     
  9. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Oh, so they don't want to kill you; they only want to <u>control</u> you?

    And may I ask how owning a handgun would save you from being "controlled"??? What would you do with it, go and assassinate some politician or something? Because if you are thinking armed militia, it would be considered a threat to national security, and we all know how armed militias defying the government are handled these days...

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  10. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,

    A single person nothing but thousands of people and then you have a problem. Just because one fringe militia group
    does something bad people think they are all up to the same thing. I can see that
    you are listening to big brother. Why
    don't you go out and get a paper and you'll see that there is a 15 million dol ar plan to buy guns from the public in rural areas.This is the first step believe me. Also if the miltias are such
    a threat why are thousands joining every day including a lot of military personnel? If you want documentation I'll happily supply you with some. Why do you
    think what I say is so far fetched?

    Alien
     
  11. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Alien,

    First of all, lest you think that I am a pain in the neck debunker determined to suck your blood, I want to tell you that the reason I keep up such a pace of debate here is because the issue genuinely interests me, and I have not debated this particular one before. So, if I seem to come after your every post, please don't think it's personal (because it's not). Now...

    <hr>

    I have nothing against militias as such; in fact I think they are rather akin to political parties. However, I do not believe that as military units they any longer wield a force, nor have any hope to in the future.

    Consider the situation. Our government is a representative democracy. This means that the main issues in political campaigns are determined through the interests of the majority. If the majority becomes particularly dissatisfied with the current government, we all know it will be changed within at most two years (House elections.) Now, if the government somehow gets so out of hand as to overthrow the Republic and discard the Constitution, going against the wishes of the majority -- then they will have not just thousands, but hundreds of millions of p.o.'d citizens -- and this many people don't need weapons to effect change.

    On the other hand, if a relatively small group (even on the order of thousands of people) arms itself and starts behaving aggressively against the majority government, they will most likely be suppressed by force -- similar to what happened in the ex-Confederate states following the Civil War. And this time, the suppression will be swift and brutal -- because no handgun can protect you against remote-controlled smart weapons, stealth/supersonic airborne attack, state-of-the art surveillance or ultra-high-tech infantry specialized for urban combat. If a militia group really goes to war (otherwise, what are the guns for?) -- it stands absolutely no chance with an all-out combat against the combined State and Federal forces.

    As we enter a global and economy-dominated information age, war seems to be on its way out. This is easily seen from the current trends in Western military forces toward a defensive/suppressive, as opposed to aggressive stance. Businesses benefiting from world-wide trade dominate GNPs of countries; the military sector is no longer the heavyweight it used to be. As a result, economic policies dominate, and armed aggression is increasingly discouraged. Just look how U.S. is treating China, for example -- the economic sentiments are clearly dictating the policy here, despite the ideological objections from the right wing. Military forces are on a continual decline, and as the trend continues they are being reduced to a mere high-tech global police aimed at suppressing rogue states. This ought to be a hint for the old-fashioned groups that still espouse military strength as the ultimate form of empowerment.

    I think it's more likely that in the future dissatisfaction with the government will be unfailingly manifested through political movements, akin to the Civil Rights movement or the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. To my knowledge, in U.S. militia groups have not altered government policies for well over a century; contrast that with political parties and you should see that armed resistance is really a thing of the past in the first-world nations (not just U.S.) For another example, look at the Ireland's struggle with Great Britain: their militia resulted in intensified oppression, and proved a huge hurdle in achieving a resolution. Ultimately, the resolution is achieved between political bodies with international backing. If your movement does not appeal to the worldwide politicians, you are probably just going to be subjected to extreme violence like the Muslim insurgents were in Russia, or like the Palestinians were in Israel before they came out onto the world's political stage.

    I therefore maintain that personal handguns (or indeed any personal weaponry whatever) are not an effective protection against persecution or control. Political wavemaking is. Armed insurgencies rarely garner sympathy from bystanders; peaceful yet determined political movements, on the other hand, usually do. So I am still convinced that the only justification of having a lethal weapon on you is for protection on the street or in your home. I do not at all see how arming yourself is an assurance of freedom from politically-orchestrated persecution.

    And by the way, there are dozens if not hundreds of gun buy-back programs throughout U.S., and a lot of them are not even orchestrated by elected governments but rather are spearheaded by various non-profit foundations. Furthermore, the gun-control measures coming out of the elected governments are aimed to outlaw weapons of too much power from civilian use. For example, you probably would not object to the stipulation that ordinary civilians should not have access to nuclear weapons, or to cluster bombs, or to high explosives, or to biological weapons. These could of course all be used for self-defence, but they represent too much destructive power to entrust to individuals, some of which are guaranteed to be untrustworthy. The trick is to cut a line between weapons adequate for self-defense, and weapons designed not merely to defend, but to kill en masse. Assault guns have too much penetrating power, and shoot too many bullets too quickly, to be deemed adequate for mere self-defence; on the contrary they are designed for efficient murder, and present a threat to law-enforcement personnel as well as ordinary civilians.

    One could argue for a slippery slope leading from elimination of assault guns to elimination of all weaponry capable of killing a person. And I think you would be correct. With appearance and eventual perfection of non-lethal weapons, I can see the day when civilians are forbidden from bearing any arms that may cause death to an assailant, and would instead be restricted to devices which incapacitate or otherwise reliably thwart aggressors. Until such devices are perfected, however, ordinary handguns (not of assault variety) seem suitable for the self-defence goal.

    Some people are enamoured with weaponry either because of the power it bestowes, or due to some nostalgic sentiment. However, just as the principles of the Constitution (including its amendments) were crafted for its own day, modern policies cannot fixate upon 200-year-old precedents without considering the changing circumstances. The Constitution was purposefully designed to be flexible, to accomodate precisely the kind of policy shifts necessitated by the evolving world. While certain principles of the Constitution, such as representation, democratic elections, checks and balances, or fundamental rights, are unlikely to ever fail, things like the second amendment must be interpreted in a modern context; just as a court of law must consider the circumstances of a precedent to judge its applicability, so must we consider the modern circumstances as contrasted to those 200 years ago, when we consider applicability or utility of certain parts of the Constitution. Blindly following rules with no consideration for their intent is a bad policy; that's why we have separation of church and state.

    To that end, I would ask you to come up with a hypothetical situation in the not-too-distant future which would have no good resolution other than that provided by armed citizenry. Can you really think of a situation where given U.S.-like social structures, private guns become more fruitful than public outcry, with respect to opposing, altering, or abolishing government policies or agencies?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 09, 1999).]
     
  12. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,
    I agree with some of what you have posted. Yes the government would like to kill all militia organizations. If they
    did more innocent people would die. I know the government has a lot of people believing they are criminals and out to kill everyone.Something happens and right away its the militia.I've talked to these people and lived near them all my life
    and can tell you for sure that what the government tells you is false. Militia leaders work with senators they do not run around killing people and I'm not talking about the wackos that they try to
    group militias with. Now if the government wants to enslave the american citizens I believe thousands of people
    (military and civilian ) could overthrow
    the government with handguns and rifles.
    If the government wants to do this they would not want the people to be armed.Shooting or rounding up an unarmed
    citizen is easier.This was the point I was making. The question is does the government have a take over in mind?

    Alien
     
  13. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    I forgot to add that there will be a lot
    of people within those state and federal forces you talked of who will side with
    the militias remember they have families and believe in the constitution also.
     
  14. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    And therein lies your problem. The 'government' is not some sinister independent body; it is made up of people just like me and you. They are people with careers, families, neighbourhoods, and investments. It is silly to suggest that our government would somehow attempt to enslave its citizens, at least in the short term, because then they would be enslaving themselves as well as their own children. Not only that, but with what army would they proceed in this enslavement? As long as American ideology is kept alive, 'enslavement' would be impossible. But on the other hand, if ideology dies, then even handguns would be of no help. Our only defense against enslavement is our creed of fundamental endowment, equality, and independence; guns provide no extra assurances.

    The typical scenario envisioned by fatalists is a slow descent down a slippery slope into some Orwellian nightmare. There is a popular belief that surrendering one 'right' would inevitably lead to eventual surrender of all rights, creating an unprincipled police state. Guns could play no role in arresting such regress, as it must by definition be gradual (spanning many generations), as well as widely accepted and even endorsed by the majority.

    But you see, not all rights are created equal. The right to life, for example, is a far more important, fundamental, and inelienable one than the right to bear arms. In the Confederate days, plantation owners might have cited a right to enslave as fundamental, but today we clearly see that it is not. So the idea of gradual loss of rights from the fringe to the core is not necessarily valid. While we may give up the 'right' to bear arms, we could never give up the right to free speech. The difference is that the former is merely an outdated and increasingly meaningless symbol of empowerment and independence, while the latter is absolutely vital for democracy, and is the true, actual pillar of said independence and empowerment.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  15. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,
    I don't think it is a silly theory
    at all. Not all those in the armed forces or govt. would side with the citizens.If
    less than 50 percent did could it be possible? What about other countries
    who lost the right to bear arms have you spoke to any of them? I want to know why
    you think the NRA brainwashes people
    when all they want to do is protect our
    right to bear arms. The people I have talked to say the govt. wants all guns.
    Right here in Idaho govt. bought all guns
    in a auction last year which were mostly
    collectible firearms.They outbid everyone
    with our taxes so what did they do with them? They destroyed them!! Its very clear to me that they are not after just
    assault rifles and nuclear weapons.
    I do agree with you on certain ideas and
    yes maybe what I think is highly unlikely
    but the data shows its clear on thier plan concerning guns. I believe we the
    people were given the right to bear arms
    thats why people did then and still do now and they can twist the meaning to suit them but I'd rather trust my neighbor over anyone in DC.

    Alien
     
  16. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Alien,

    With respect to NRA, 'brainwashing' might have been a little too strong a word, but: have you ever considered the possibility that their prime interest is not to protect your right to bear arms, but to protect the right of their sponsors to sell those arms to you? They are pushing a product, while at the same time claiming ideological motivations. At least for me, it doesn't add up very well (at least not in our capitalistic world...) In particular, it starkly reminds me of the tobacco industry's campaign to convince their victims that smoking was actually good for them, and that smokers were not addicts.

    As regards the right to bear arms, you said you believe we were "given" that right. By whom, may I ask? By God? (not by a Christian one!) By the Congress? But then we weren't really "given" that right; we merely chose to legalize personal weaponry. In which case, you have to ask yourself, for what reason, and whether that reason remains applicable, or whether it will forever remain applicable (as it would have to, if the right to bear arms was truly 'inalienable').

    Finally, on 'trusting the neighbor'. It is good when you live in a closely-knit community where you actually know your neighbor. Most of us city inhabitants, however, never even met our neighbors. And a lot of us are actually afraid of our neighbors (*especially* when they have guns.)

    Now, you alluded that countries where personal guns are outlawed must necessarily be worse off than we. Then I should ask, what do you think of Japan? I have to question the connective logic in your assertion. It is akin to observing that all birds have beaks, and concluding that, therefore, to fly one must have a beak. I claim that gun restrictions do not cause less freedom or less economic success; rather, the very social structures present in the country are the real factors influencing life, and that gun legality is usually decided almost as an afterthought, when the main principles have already solidified. Thus, freedom to own guns is not a causative factor, but rather a kind of random pseudo-effect.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  17. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,

    Have you every been to Australia?
    Japan may be an exception but what about
    Europe and why are we here now in this
    country. The founding fathers gave us the
    right to bare arms and they made it clear
    that this right will not be infringed.
    So the NRA may be making some money off
    firearms manufactures but can we really blame them for that? I'd rather see them make some money to protect our rights
    rather than see millions of dollars being
    funneled into black programs that Congress can't get info on! Sure, as I'm sure you'll agree any large organization has its problems even charities. When the NRA starts to experiment on people with radiation then I'll see things a little differently. The ironic part of this issue is if we do not have the right to
    bear arms criminals will still get them
    and they will be used on defenseless
    citizens.I for one do not want that to happen.
     
  18. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    You know what would be neat? A political debate forum. I really didn't want to jump into this one. I am very biased towards guns because I live in a violent neighborhood. Police response is very slow, and who can blame them. I always say that I support the right to return fire. Sure, it would be nice not to get shot at, but I'd own a gun anyway.

    My father taught us gun safety when we were very young. The gun was just like one of his tools. We didn't know how to use it, so we weren't supposed to touch it. No problem. We didn't know how to use his power tools, either, and we'd never dream of playing with those. When we got older and , presumably, more intelligent, we went out to the desert where he set up some targets. He taught us how to aim and got us used to the feel of the guns he owned. As we looked steady enough to hold them without looking like kids in a toy store, he loaded them and we fired them. We started on .22s and my brothers quickly took to the .38s.

    We spent a lot of time shooting targets out in the desert. As he stood there, teaching us the art of the quick-draw and hip-shooting, he told us something that very few people bother to pass along when teaching someone else how to shoot. WHEN to shoot.

    Unless we were hunting, we were never to shoot animals unless they were attacking.

    Never point a gun at anything unless you fully intend to squeeze the trigger.

    The gun knows no loyalty. It will kill you as well as it will anyone else, so never let someone else hold it, loaded or otherwise (a good friend of ours bought the farm this way).

    Keep your gun in easy reach. If someone breaks into your house while you're asleep, you'll most likely hear them. If that gun is nearby, it should practically leap into your hand.

    Never shoot to wound.

    Twice so far I have had to draw down. Somebody named Gomez had lived in our place before, and he had gotten into big trouble with some dangerous people. We constantly had people coming by looking for him, and these weren't the kind of people you'd invite in to tea. We figured word would get around that Gomez had moved. They didn't take the hint. I was in high school when somebody came to the door. I was home alone and had the door chained while I watched TV. There was no peephole, so I opened the door slightly, bracing the bottom with my foot. Some big hairy guy asked for Gomez and I told him that Gomez hadn't lived their for two years now. He said "oh" and I thought he was going to leave. Instead he used the oldest line in the book. "I need to use your phone."

    Yeah. Right. I told him it wasn't working. He repeated himself and hit the door hard enough to almost rip the chain out of the wall. Fortunately, I know how to set myself against a door. Also fortunately, my mother kept a .22 Magnum in the sewing machine right by the door. With one flip of the lid I had that nickel-plated sweetheart in my hand and shoved through the opening and into this guy's gut. I am told that this gun, though small, packs a lovely wollop. I was ready to find out. "How bad do you gotta use that phone?" I asked. He answered by taking off at a dead run.

    Of course, I told the family about this guy. Two nights later there's a knock at the door that wakes me up. It was about 2 or 3 in the morning. My bedroom window was right over the front door. Some guy what appeared to be a uniform stood at the door. From my window I asked him what he wanted. He said he had to talk to Gomez. I told him "For the last time, there ain't no (expleteive deleted) Gomez here! He got away from you guys, so quit looking here!" You'd think they'd have learned by now, but this guy steps back a little and says "Can I use your phone?" (Remember, he was wearing what looked like a uniform.) I asked him who the hell he was. His answer? "It's okay. I'm a cop." I asked him for his badge. "I left it in the car," he says.

    Yeah. Right.

    I popped back into my room and came out with a gun I had been keeping for my brother, a WW2 Russian Infantry Carbine. From my window I told him to run. He did.

    Both times these guys might have been able to pull a weapon if they'd had one. Neither time did they. This leads me to believe that they were unarmed. If I had let them in they wouldn't have needed guns.

    I believe that what is needed as far as guns go is education, not legislation. We can't enforce the laws we have now. Why put more in the books? The media always plays it up big when guns are involved in a crime. This adds to the image and the glamour of the gun, which makes it appealing to kids and people of less than rational personalities. If we can teach people that a gun is used primarily for hunting and self-defense and is not a one-way ticket to a murder spree, nor does it make you invincible (as many gang-bangers seem to think), we can prevent criminal activities by people who otherwise would never give a gun a second thought.

    Case in point, my neighbor's grandson. He had just the age where the gangs looked glamorous. I didn't want to see this kid end up dead in a gutter somewhere. I took the bolt out of my rifle and let him hold it (the ONLY way you ever hand your gun to someone else). His eyes lit up and I let him hold it as I showed him some history books involving people like Al Capone, Amchine Gun Jack McGurn, Dion O'Banion, Bugs Moran, and all the old-school Chicago boys. I made sure he saw how they died. Bowling, standing in a flower shop, syphyllis...

    He told me last week that he doesn't want a gun anymore. he told me that three members of the gang that wanted him to join were found floating in the river. One was a friend of his. He said he'd decided that he wanted to be an anthropoligist instead of a hit-man. Then we went a did some shooting anyway. We shot baskets at the playground. Hey, I had the basketball, so why not?

    Education, not legislation. It won't work for everybody, but it'll work for the majority, I'm wiling to bet.
     
  19. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Alien,

    What about Afghanistan? They have armed militias patrolling everywhere; shouldn't they be better off then? Your logic is faulty; please re-read my previous post more carefully (especially the last paragraph).

    Secondly, though it's a technical detail, the 'founding fathers' (the Constitutional Convention) did not give us the right to bear arms. Amendments are instituted by Congress, and the right to bear arms is worded within the second amendment. See my applicability objections in the previous posts.

    Thirdly, what, are you arguing that if the criminals can get something it should be available to everyone else???? Then what about crack? Or, maybe, stolen cars? Heck, why have any laws at all, if the criminals can break them any time they choose? What kind of an argument is that??? I am not saying that everyone should go defenseless, and until non-lethal weaponry is perfected small handguns ought to be OK. But what about assault weapons? Also, the NRA is vehemently opposing absolutely any restriction on gun use or manufacture. For example, they are arguing against mandatory gun locks. They are arguing against mandatory background checks upon gun purchase. How, in view of all their activities, can you possibly think that it is your rights that they have at heart?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  20. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Oxygen,

    First of all, I do not argue against abolising all personal weaponry; indeed it is good to be able to defend oneself. However, when non-lethal multiple-application ranged weaponry is designed and becomes available, I will be strongly arguing for abolishing all lethal weaponry from civilian use.

    You argue for guns as a means of self-defense. Then, how could you claim that one should "Never shoot to wound"??? Is preemptive murder the only way to stop an attacker?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  21. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,

    I don't relate our militias with those in Afghanistan and I don't think they should be better off.What does that have to do with what I posted? I think you
    misunderstood what I wrote about criminals being able to get guns if they
    are outlawed.If this happens law abiding
    citizens obviously will not own a gun
    making it so much easier for them to come into your house and take what they want.
    Now how is this faulty logic? Are the citizens suppose to defend themselves
    with a stun gun? Think about how appealing it would be to the criminal if they knew citizens were unarmed.Also,you cannot compare the US with other countries if guns are taken away because our way of life is much different.If the
    founding fathers did not give use the right to own guns then why did we have them? Wasn't it an extension of our
    bodies hence the word firearm?To protect
    our persons and property back then.
    I have nothing against background checks or locks for guns.However, I don't think locks should be mandatory because there would be some problems associated
    with it. I think the NRA feels if the government gets thier foot in the door
    with some gun legislation then eventually
    the government will have thier way with the rest.
    Alien
     
  22. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    We have always been taught that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I know it doesn't make any sense if you get the death penalty, in which case all eighteen get their hands on you. But if somebody's coming at you with an obvious intention of attack, I believe it's better to end his story quickly. Draw down and give him one chance to break off if your life can afford the luxury. Technically, the law around here says you have to give them three chances before you shoot. In both of my cases the mere presence of the gun was enough to break off the attack.

    Why not shoot to wound? The standard scenario involves shooting to wound, the guy goes to the hospital (chance to get free here), goes to trial, and either has a smart lawyer who gets him off on a technicality or wins sympathy from the jury because his daddy used to beat him with a wet noodle(and now this nut is running around free once more and knows where you live and may be nursing a vendetta), or else (and I see this all the time on America's Most Wanted) he gets put into a minimum security prison or else on work detail because he was such a good boy in prison from whence he promptly escapes (and now this nut is running around free, etc.).

    If I was into eugenics, I'd say it's also a nifty step in cleaning out the gene pool of some of the scum. I'm not that callous in regards to human life, though. It would be better if we could spot people with criminal inclinations early enough and take steps to correct them without having to lock them up like rabid animals. I would rather believe that the stranger who stops me on the sidewalk at night and asks me what time it is has genuinely lost his watch and needs to know the time. I'm no Bernie Goetz.

    Of course, not all attackers are necessarily ill-intentioned, believe it or not. One night I was borrowing my father's Buick to get to work. The key didn't quite work, so I had to fight with it. Since I was guarding a vacant property that had often proved too tempting to the criminal element, my mother insisted that I pack that little magnum with me. So there I am, fighting with this stupid lock when I hear footsteps running up. I turn to see a man in a black jacket running up with a huge hunting knife drawn. I whipped out the pistol, aimed it head high and told him to stop. He did, but stayed in an attack stance. Behind him was another person who turned out to be his girlfriend watching in horror. "What the hell are you doing to Chuck's car?" he demanded. Only close associates know him as 'Chuck'. I introduced my self, never lowering the gun until this guy identified himself by the nickname I had heard my father refer to this guy by. I don't remember what it was, but it wasn't something anybody could make up on the spur of the moment. Identified to a satisfactory degree, we put our weapons away and laughed about it. I told my father about it the following day and this guy got a hefty bonus in his paycheck for his courage. (It's a good thing I was taught not to shoot if the attacker is not pressing the attack.)

    Don't get me wrong. I don't go for the gun all the time. I have found that a baseball bat or a lead pipe works wonders in non-lethal combat. I have also since taken karate lessons for those questionable moments at ATMs.

    Maybe not shooting to wound was my father's way of driving home how serious it is to use a gun, so you'd better be damned sure about what you're doing.

    [This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited September 12, 1999).]
     
  23. Alien Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Boris,

    Out of curiousity, in the post you addressed to Oxygen if we abolish
    firearms and go with non-lethal weapons
    are the criminals going to comply by using non-lethal weapons also. So if your
    quicker the criminal goes to jail and eventually gets out.If hes quicker with
    a firearm your dead.I don't know what you
    would use but if I were a criminal I
    would want a firearm of some sort.
    Oxygen brought up a very good point that the mere sight of a firearm will deter
    most attackers.
    Alien
     

Share This Page