I shoot High Power Rifle in competition (M1A), its a great sport. My second
love is pistol competition (Kimber .45 cal 1911) ... third being paintball
and of course somewhere mixed in there is my Dakota and racing.... none of
which will ever be taken from me. I live in GA, military, and I do carry
depending on where I am going. I pity the poor sap that decides to
unwelcomely enter my house late at night... he will be dealt with EXTREME
prejudice.
TJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <ABeerCan@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>; <dmlofftopic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: DML: Gun Control - (very very long)
> In a message dated 9/7/01 12:31:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bsm11@cornell.edu writes:
>
> << I feel bad for the people that truly respect guns, and the law;
However,
> the gun problem has to be stopped. You know, it's pretty sad when
criminals
> are armed with bigger, more powerful guns, than our officers of the law.
> >>
>
> Brian,
> This is due to the fact that many police departments are restricted by
> just what you said you want! If a police officer were to go out into the
> field and shoot a perp with his 44 Magnum, the police precinct will be
sued
> in a civil suit saying that "if the cop had not had such a powerful
handgun,
> the perp could have been stopped and not killed. Therefore the police
> precinct is at fault, not because the perp decided to break the law, but
> because the officer decided that his life was in peril and returned fire
with
> a ""way to powerful weapon"" for a police officer to need." And don't say
> this isn't so. I have sat through one court hearing about this here in my
> hometown. A man was in the process of a burglary, we will call him John
Doe.
> When Officer Larry (name changed) responded to the call, he found the
John
> Doe to be in the process of coming out the front door. As soon as John
Doe
> saw the police car, he dropped everything and started shooting at the car
> with a 9 mm automatic handgun. At this point, Officer Larry came to a
> screeching halt, rolled out his driver's side door and returned fire.
John
> Doe was hit twice in the chest with 230 grain loads of 45 ACP. John Doe
was
> pronounced dead on the scene by the coroner. The family of John Doe then
> reciprocated by suing both the police precinct and Officer Larry. They
> claimed that "If Officer Larry had not used such a powerful handgun, then
> their family member John Doe might still be alive." The family case was
> thrown out of court thank goodness. The bad part though is that all this
> cost the people money by wasting their tax dollars. Not only on Lawyers,
but
> in wasted court time, wasted defense time, etc. Now because of this
lawsuit,
> my home town police officers are limited to a 40 S&W in caliber. They are
> also limited in the rounds they are allowed to load in this firearm. No
> longer can they use ammo that can be labeled as "self defense," but they
have
> to use standard velocity ammo. So much for being able to match the
criminals
> in firepower. Also, no longer can just any officer carry a shotgun. And
out
> of approx. 100 officers, only 4 are allowed to carry rifles for any type
of
> use. And these must be carried in the trunk. So once again, it is not
the
> criminal that is the reason the cops are outgunned, it is all the legal
stuff
> that is holding the police back in their armament. Remember that bank
heist
> in Cali a while back? I don't suppose that you also remember that the
cops
> in that instance had to go to a local pawnshop and get more powerful
> firepower? The cops were not issued the firepower they need. They only
had
> a semi-auto handgun and maybe a back up revolver. And if you like the
idea
> of no guns what so ever. Look at Britain. Their crime rate is much
higher
> than ours. Granted, we have more crimes committed each year, but we also
> have many times more people than they do. What you have to look at is the
> crime percentage, in other words, how many crimes are committed for how
many
> people are in that countries population. Now on to a more real world
> comparison. Let's suppose that you are criminal. You are looking for
> someone to mug so you can make some quick cash to buy whatever it is that
you
> want.
> 1) Ok, let's first walk through a situation that you would prefer.
Firearms
> are illegal to own for anyone except police or gov't authorities. You are
> standing on a street corner and have roughly 10 people to choose from.
They
> range from a very large frame man who looks to be about three times your
size
> down to a middle aged woman who is about 5' tall, is obviously not very
> strong and appears to be slightly disabled by her slight limp. Who would
you
> choose?
> 2) Ok, now to today's modern society. Firearms are legal for those with
> permits, police and gov't authorities. People with permits do not have to
> let it be publicly known, for they are concealed carry permits. You have
the
> same ten people to choose from. Except this time you have to wonder who
has
> the firearm. The middle-aged lady has a purse that is large enough to
hide a
> handgun in. Does she have one? If she does, it will mean your life,
either
> literally or in jail with the scars to remind you of why you are there.
Who
> would you choose? And how confident would you feel about choosing them??
> 3) Firearms are required to be owned by any and all civilians, police and
> gov't authorities. They can be carried concealed, open holstered, cocked
> loaded and ready to go legally. The same ten people are walking around
you.
> You still want some money. They all have firearms and you know it. Do
you
> dare take a chance on your life knowing that a firearm will be involved?
How
> confident would you feel about taking that chance?
> These are just different scenarios to show my point. The usual responses
to
> the questions are as follows:
> 1) I would rob the middle aged lady. Why? Because she is the weaker and
the
> one least likely to put up any resistance. Even if she did resist, she
isn't
> strong enough to fend me off.
> 2) IF I did rob anyone, it would be the middle aged lady. Confidence? I
> don't think my life is worth the few bucks she would have in her purse.
And
> that purse size still bothers me. I don't think I would rob anyone in
this
> case.
> 3) I would NOT rob anyone. Granted I may have a firearm, but everyone
else
> does as well. It is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded
> firearm.
> This is not truly scientific evidence, but I have done this survey before
in
> my college psychology class. The three answers above were the paraphrased
> answers from the whole group of 150 people that I polled on this issue. I
> personally would agree with these answers myself. Also, if the right for
a
> civilian to posses and use firearms did not exist, then the Colonies would
> have never been able to break from the grasp of Great Britain Ok, I have
used
> up enough bandwidth as is. For those of you who may complain, I am sorry.
I
> did however try to move this topic to the off topic list, however no one
> seemed to follow it. I am making another attempt to do that with this
post.
> Ok, I am stepping down off my shoe box now.
>
> The other Will
> Cain Killed Abel with a Rock
> Rocks are killing people!!
> Let's Ban Rocks!!!!
> RCI - Rock Control International
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:46 EDT