lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/18/85)
In article <360@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes: >In those circumstances (4 armed assailants and me armed with a >revolver), I would have killed all 4 (or been killed myself). If this were indeed the choice, then I would admire your decision. But do you believe that someone *has* to die? What would you have to lose by just revealing your weapon and warning your muggers that you can kill them? Surely the point of a weapon is to deter someone from doing something that you don't want. But if you place any value at all on human life, (and I assume you do, reading your postings in net.abortion), then you should seek to deter without seeking to kill. When you point a gun at my head, I will do what you tell me to do. If I were in this situation, I would fork over my money. Five, ten, twenty, one hundred dollars just don't mean *that* much to me. Incidentally, I spent a summer commuting on the Dyre Avenue subway, all the way into the Bronx, at 2 am. I was frightened sometimes, but I never had a problem. Just lucky, I guess. Chris Lydgate
gmm@bunker.UUCP (Gregory M. Mandas) (01/22/85)
> In article <360@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes: > > >>> In those circumstances (4 armed assailants and me armed with a >>> revolver), I would have killed all 4 (or been killed myself). > > > If this were indeed the choice, then I would admire your > decision. But do you believe that someone *has* to die? > What would you have to lose by just revealing your weapon > and warning your muggers that you can kill them? > Surely ] > the point of a weapon is to deter someone from doing ] NOTE > something that you don't want. ] > But if you place any value > at all on human life, then you should seek to deter > without seeking to kill. When you point a gun at my head, > I will do what you tell me to do. > This is one of the biggest fallacies people hold when buying a gun for protection. The biggest arguement against fire arms for protection is that statistically the owner gets shot by his own weapon far to often. Why? Because he thinks if he waves it around people will automatically turn servile. WRONG! What you have done is escalated the situation to the point of kill or be killed. A mini-arms race so to speak. Raised the aunty. Called his mugging and raised it to a killing. Surely the point of a weapon is to let someone know you will kill him if you feel it necessary. And you must be prepared to stand behind your word. If the stakes are too high for the mugger and he flees, you got off easy. If not, you must be prepared to pull the trigger if any, even the slightest, agressive behavior continues, because YOU have introducted the fact that someone may loose his life and your bluff has been called. Greg Mandas Bunker!gmm
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/23/85)
In article <360@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (me) writes: >>In those circumstances (4 armed assailants and me armed with a >>revolver), I would have killed all 4 (or been killed myself). In article <818@reed.UUCP> lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) responds: >If this were indeed the choice, then I would admire your >decision. But do you believe that someone *has* to die? >What would you have to lose by just revealing your weapon >and warning your muggers that you can kill them? ... Control of the tactical situation. >Surely >the point of a weapon is to deter someone from doing >something that you don't want. But if you place any value >at all on human life, (and I assume you do, reading your >postings in net.abortion), then you should seek to deter >without seeking to kill. ... I seek to deter without using weapons at all. I talk. I run away. I ask others around us to get involved. If an assailant is willing to be deterred, he (she?) will never know I have a weapon. For me, violence is a last resort, I use it only when I feel I have no alternative available. But when I do use it, I don't pussyfoot around. My belief is, while a person is engaged in felonious behavior, he has no right to freedom from violence from his fellow citizens. He has voluntarily foregone this right. His fellow citizens do have a right to prevent his felonious behavior by any legal means. This does not mean that a person ACCUSED of a crime has no civil rights. But, I believe a person injured while in the commission of a felony should be allowed no recourse against the person(s) who injured him. (I know that this is not current judiciary ruling. It is what I think ought to be accepted behavior in the US.) P.S. The only weapon I carry is a pocketknife which I use to open letters and clean my fingernails. I own handguns and rifles which are used for hunting and enough target practice to make me dangerous to my intended target rather than myself or bystanders. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {ihnp4}trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250