Right on,
----- 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