X-Ftn-To: Ben C

Ben C wrote:
>so you think we should have access to chemicals like the military has? Why
>not firearms?

Because firearms create more trouble than they're worth, and pepper
juice is more effective.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> ... Imagine, an 80-year old,
>> going
>> through her purse in search of a gun, and then, managing to find it,
>> does what?
>>
>
>Puts a bullet in her assailant's chest. What else?

While he, of course, scratches his nuts, what else?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Attila

"Attila" wrote:
>> I agree. Only, I think she would be much better off if that gun were
>> in hands of a policeman. If not, maybe some kind of a knockout spray
>> would do a better job than a gun.
>
>Hmmm.....and you know of just such a spray? One that works instantly, at
>that?

If the US military didn't manufacture such chemicals so far, as a part
of chemical warfare, well, they deserve to be fired.
How about a combination of tear gas and formic acid? Won't knock you
out, but you'd wish it had. Pepper spray?

http://www.ddsp.com/spray.htm
http://www.udap.com/

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Ben C

Ben C wrote:
>Don't you understand that it is a God
>given right to protect yourself. It's only up to you if you choose to
>excercise this right.

Actually, the matter was not wheter it's better to protect yourself or
not, but how to protect yourself better. I argue that the best
protection is to create a safe environment. Within this safe
environment, some degree of personal protection might also be
necessary in order to handle the exceptions. I'm simply not convinced
that the guns will do the trick, because they might ruin the safety of
the environment in the process.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>>>1) Armed police available on request who will arrive some time later
>>>2) Armed police on station outside the school
>>>3) Armed police on station inside the school 4) Armed non-police
>>>working inside the school
>>
>> Why not 5) An armed guard at the school gates, otherwise quite
>> inconspicuous, but ready to jump in on the first sign of trouble, and
>> who is on the school's payroll?
>>
>
>That appears to be the same as my approach 2.

I'd say it's more like your 4), but we agree.

>As the people at Columbine
>found, having your help outside when things go bad inside doesn't help
>very much.

Yes.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: John Black

summerville25@yahoo.com (John Black) wrote:
>There is nothing more appealing to me than having a Military or Police
>Warlord dominate me because his boys has AK-47's etc. and guess what I
>have my FISTS. Yeah that's a winner there!!! How many South and
>Central American and African countries are going through this process?
>
>Please don't give me the line that because you live in Northwest
>Europe that you are safe from this either. You believe that because
>you and your criminals don't use and/or have guns that your government
>can't turn on you. All it takes is the wrong person in power as has
>been demonstrated time and time again.
>
>Or how about foreign invaders. What happens when your precious
>military and police gets it's rear handed to them by a invading force
>with lots of weapons and all that's left is you and your fists?

These are very good questions, and I have to think about it.

However, if you can't trust your own government, it probably means
that you didn't elect it, and you already live in a totalitarian
regime. If you did elect it, then either trust it or vote against it
on the next elections.

Regarding the invaders, you are right. But, the USA was never invaded
and it's the Americans who demand to own firearms. Also, in today's
world, a .357 magnum is just slightly better than the fists, compared
to the military weapons. From experience: in Croatia, we had pistols
against tanks and airplanes. Not very helpful. So, it's "either arm
the entire adult population with modern military weapons, or leave it
to the army".
If you face an opponent that will crush the US army and invade the
USA, well, I guess your pistols and rifles won't succeed where the
airplane carriers failed.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bill Twist

cj697@bfn.org (Bill Twist) wrote:

>It's the noise. :-)

Or just the feeling of power and control.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> I agree. Only, I think she would be much better off if that gun were
>> in hands of a policeman.
>
>If she can convince her assailant to wait the 5 minutes for the police
>to arrive. Assuming she's in a position to make the phone call.

Maybe this is a better alternative. Imagine, an 80-year old, going
through her purse in search of a gun, and then, managing to find it,
does what?

>>If not, maybe some kind of a knockout spray would do a better job
>>than a gun.
>>
>Oh, MAYBE? Nice of you to prescribe these alternate solutions on which
>others should trust their lives.

Actually, a KO spray is a much better weapon than a gun, at least from
the point blank range. You see, it's much more difficult to miss,
accidental misfire won't kill you, and the villain is badly
incapacitated. He can't see, he is in pain and shock, and he drops
down unconscious, if the chemical is serious enough. Then the old lady
picks up her cellular and calls 911.
If you shoot with a gun, which is heavier and clumsier, BTW, you can
miss, or even worse, you can not wound him seriously enough, which
will in turn piss him off and make him kill you. Not the best
scenario, you will agree?
If you miss with a spray, you deserve to die. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> would you protect those children in Tokyo? Arm them all with guns,
>> just in case? Arm the teachers with guns?
>>
>Please explain the practical and moral differences among these
>approaches:
>
>1) Armed police available on request who will arrive some time later
>2) Armed police on station outside the school
>3) Armed police on station inside the school
>4) Armed non-police working inside the school

Why not 5) An armed guard at the school gates, otherwise quite
inconspicuous, but ready to jump in on the first sign of trouble, and
who is on the school's payroll?

>Why does maintaining schools as attractive, conveniently located,
>gift-wrapped boxes of victims seem to be such a good idea to you?

Why do you think that putting words in my mouth is a good idea?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Jeffrey C. Dege

jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>Victims, on the other hand, do not get to choose their assailants.
>Only a gun will enable an 80-year-old woman to defend herself against
>someone younger and stronger.

I agree. Only, I think she would be much better off if that gun were
in hands of a policeman. If not, maybe some kind of a knockout spray
would do a better job than a gun.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org