trio@idis.UUCP (04/20/85)
[]
I was walking home late last night, when a guy asked me what time it was.
Being a generally nice person, I told him. Then, he turned around and
attempted to mug me while his friend across the street came over to assist
his compatriot.
NOW I'M GETTING P***ED.
This is the second goddamn time this has happened to me this month.
Let me continue with the story. One took my wallet while the other said that
he had a gun. I was carrying a sum of money, but not in my wallet (all they
got was my student I.D. and some miscellaneous garbage).
While this is happening, I thought about what I should do (after reading the
discussion about personal defense). I didn't have any weapons on me.
However, I knew what I was going to do...
As soon as they let me go (after relieving me of my wallet but not finding my
money), I decided to run. However, instead of running the opposite way, I
RAN AFTER THEM! I yelled FREEZE and they bolted. They split up, so I tracked
after the one punk.
THEN, I turfed this punk's ass (the one that supposedly had the gun). He just
went down and slid on his face into the street. I mean he SAILED. At that
point, I disarmed him (he was carrying a utility knife with a razor blade in
it). Unfortunately, he bolted again before I could (1) "subdue him properly"
and (2) hold him for the police. However, I know I did a number on him, he
hurt REAL bad, and it felt good (to me) to see him hurt.
I recovered the weapon, his jacket (he droped it in the swan dive), and the
can of beer he was sucking down when I rather rudely interrupted him (handling
it all carefully because of fingerprints), and turned it all over to the
police as evidence). I rode with the police to find them, but I didn't see
them. I will be looking for them and when I see them, this time they WILL
be held for the police.
I learned that it is always better to do something than to do nothing if
you are threatened by these punks. It is inconvienient to replace my I.D.'s
and such, but I am satisfied that I ruined one criminal's evening, and he'll
think twice before mugging someone else (though he may still do it). If
someone attempts to mug me again, I WILL fight back, using whatever means are
at hand if they claim they are armed (and I have reason to suspect that they
are not armed and I feel that I am going to be killed or seriously injured).
I plan to buy my handgun this week.
Any comments?
--
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer,
Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question-
U. of Pittsburgh
...{decvax, ihnp4, duke}!mcnc!idis!trio
---All of these views are mine and no one else's. So What?---mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/25/85)
>/* dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) / 2:31 am Apr 23, 1985 */ >In article <1043@utcsri.UUCP> west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: >> How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from >>criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would >>be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess >>is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. >WISHFUL THINKING! It has been illegal to import, sell, or own marijuana >for a lot longer than 5 years, yet there's always plenty around. There >is no way to completely seal off the borders of a country that isn't >prohibitively expensive, like, say, an electric fence, which would have >to be several miles high to stop airplanes. > >-- > David Canzi What's more, if made illegal, the only suppliers of handguns would be criminals. Thus the number of suppliers of guns would be much smaller than otherwise and probably limited. The suppliers could then charge prices closer to monopoly prices. This would create an incentive for more suppliers to enter the business. In fact, the greater the crackdown, the greater would be the efforts of suppliers to bring guns to market. Michael Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/27/85)
>/* shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) / 1:04 pm Apr 25, 1985 */ >Gun control is NOT unconstitutional. It never has been. >FIVE SEPARATE times the U. S. Supreme >Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies only to civilian >militias. This interpretation is backed both by English common law, >and the concerns of the founding fathers. That the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional is not evidence that it is in fact constitutional. Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-sponsored public religious display (in, I believe Rhode Island) was not unconstitutional, yet any idiot can see that it violates the establishment clause. If the Supreme Court decides tomorrow that 1 = 2, are you ready to believe it?! Michael Sykora
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/30/85)
From Michael Sykora, the distinguished expert in constitutional law: >That the Supreme Court ruled [gun control] constitutional is not >evidence that it is in fact constitutional. How come we never seem to get any arguments, but only assertions, from those who believe that gun control is unconstitutional? If you believe that gun control violates the Second Amendment, kindly provide us with your reasoning. Make sure you provide rebuttals to the arguments advanced by the USSC, other courts, and the numerous experts in constitutional law who dispute your interpretation of the Second Amendment. >Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-sponsored public >religious display (in, I believe Rhode Island) was not >unconstitutional, yet any idiot can see that it violates the >establishment clause. Ah, yes, here is a powerful argument that had escaped me: "Any idiot can see it." This principle that any idiot can understand constitutional law will greatly simplify the interpretation and application of the Constitution in the future. (It will also simplify other subjects, such as physics; e.g., any idiot can see that quantum electrodynamics violates common sense.) Richard Carnes
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/03/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 2:31 pm Apr 30, 1985 */ >From Michael Sykora, the distinguished expert in constitutional law: >>That the Supreme Court ruled [gun control] constitutional is not >>evidence that it is in fact constitutional. >How come we never seem to get any arguments, but only assertions, >from those who believe that gun control is unconstitutional? If you >believe that gun control violates the Second Amendment, kindly >provide us with your reasoning. Make sure you provide rebuttals to >the arguments advanced by the USSC, other courts, and the numerous >experts in constitutional law who dispute your interpretation of the >Second Amendment. As is apparent from the statement of mine which you quoted [see above], I did not make any statement regarding my beliefs on the consitutionality of gun control laws. Moreover, my lack of distinguished status in law does not constitute a refutation of this statement. >>Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-sponsored public >>religious display (in, I believe Rhode Island) was not >>unconstitutional, yet any idiot can see that it violates the >>establishment clause. >Ah, yes, here is a powerful argument that had escaped me: "Any idiot >can see it." This principle that any idiot can understand >constitutional law will greatly simplify the interpretation and >application of the Constitution in the future. (It will also >simplify other subjects, such as physics; e.g., any idiot can see >that quantum electrodynamics violates common sense.) > >Richard Carnes The point is that you needn't be an "expert" in law, but rather just moderately competent in logic. Law and legal decision-making does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. Michael Sykora