P95Carry
May 26, 2003, 08:08 PM
Just some musings from an ol fart .... as ever perpetually irritated and distressed, by the seeming inexhorable onslaught on the 2nd.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the greater good
Everyone see the meaning of this? I'd very much wish that the anti gun crowd would take it on board ..... the way I am meaning it ... and not ''their way''. And how exactly DO I mean it?
Remember cases in warfare, where relatively small ''friendly'' losses had to be planned for .... the better to minimize later losses of substantially higher numbers? Well that is the principle I eschew, when it comes to firearms and their possession and carrying thereof. Let's be quite clear tho ...... I am applying this to sensible, law abiding folk ...... the crooks will always make up and have their own rules ..... besides which there are way more laws than needed to be sufficient to deal with them, if applied...... we don't need more.
Let us play with figures. Take 1 million legitimate gun owners, who also have CCW. Let us then theorize and say that this figure effectively reduces armed crime and assault on the person by ... what? Let's pick 50% as an easy figure (this is purely for illustrative purposes). Now let's take things a stage further and suggest that out of this 1 mil figure, ten legit' owners/carriers nation wide commit some crime ... up to and including homicide. Bad news? yeah, sure, very bad but ........
That leaves 999,990 perfectly safe and reliable owners and carriers .. still, by their armed ''presence'' helping keep crime depressed and society safer. In percentage terms, those 10 represent ...... 0.001% of the total. Maybe in recent times we might say one of these was the ''DC Sniper'' ..... or a school shooter .... whatever. Is it tho now justifiable, thru those few transgressions, to label the other 99.999% of safe owners as unsafe, criminals, and madmen? I think not.
This is why I make a big deal about ''the greater good'' ........ even tho there is no way I can see, whereby you could possibly guarantee that no one with a firearm will ever do anything stupid ....... surely the overall benefit far outweighs the relatively small (if tragic) losses. That is why I draw the warfare parallel. Thus ...... ''for the greater good''.
If the 99.999% of owners and carriers are penalized - for the wrongdoings of a miniscule minority then firstly, where is the justice in that and second ......... how would that equate to the predictable rocketing of crime figures that would follow a banning of civilian possession.
I am playing with extremes here, but purely to make a point ..... in part, maybe, thinking out load! But - is it then, in all honesty ...... either fair, wise, or even justified for ''security'' reasons ....... to try and disarm people ...... unless of course there is a greater and more hidden agenda?
That fellow shooters is another ball game entirely! Maybe someone elses ''for the greater good''????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the greater good
Everyone see the meaning of this? I'd very much wish that the anti gun crowd would take it on board ..... the way I am meaning it ... and not ''their way''. And how exactly DO I mean it?
Remember cases in warfare, where relatively small ''friendly'' losses had to be planned for .... the better to minimize later losses of substantially higher numbers? Well that is the principle I eschew, when it comes to firearms and their possession and carrying thereof. Let's be quite clear tho ...... I am applying this to sensible, law abiding folk ...... the crooks will always make up and have their own rules ..... besides which there are way more laws than needed to be sufficient to deal with them, if applied...... we don't need more.
Let us play with figures. Take 1 million legitimate gun owners, who also have CCW. Let us then theorize and say that this figure effectively reduces armed crime and assault on the person by ... what? Let's pick 50% as an easy figure (this is purely for illustrative purposes). Now let's take things a stage further and suggest that out of this 1 mil figure, ten legit' owners/carriers nation wide commit some crime ... up to and including homicide. Bad news? yeah, sure, very bad but ........
That leaves 999,990 perfectly safe and reliable owners and carriers .. still, by their armed ''presence'' helping keep crime depressed and society safer. In percentage terms, those 10 represent ...... 0.001% of the total. Maybe in recent times we might say one of these was the ''DC Sniper'' ..... or a school shooter .... whatever. Is it tho now justifiable, thru those few transgressions, to label the other 99.999% of safe owners as unsafe, criminals, and madmen? I think not.
This is why I make a big deal about ''the greater good'' ........ even tho there is no way I can see, whereby you could possibly guarantee that no one with a firearm will ever do anything stupid ....... surely the overall benefit far outweighs the relatively small (if tragic) losses. That is why I draw the warfare parallel. Thus ...... ''for the greater good''.
If the 99.999% of owners and carriers are penalized - for the wrongdoings of a miniscule minority then firstly, where is the justice in that and second ......... how would that equate to the predictable rocketing of crime figures that would follow a banning of civilian possession.
I am playing with extremes here, but purely to make a point ..... in part, maybe, thinking out load! But - is it then, in all honesty ...... either fair, wise, or even justified for ''security'' reasons ....... to try and disarm people ...... unless of course there is a greater and more hidden agenda?
That fellow shooters is another ball game entirely! Maybe someone elses ''for the greater good''????????