Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:51:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Mark Ovens) Cc: adam@whizkidtech.net (G. Adam Stanislav), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <200003290251.TAA27384@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000326121505.D234@parish> from "Mark Ovens" at Mar 26, 2000 12:15:05 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> IOW it would be a deterrent? Somehow I don't think so. Yes; Bob tries to rape Margret, Margret shoots Bob, Bob fails to rape Margret. There is much rejoicing. > How effective a deterrent has the death penalty been in states > that has restored it, i.e. has capital crime fallen significantly > in those states since restoration? Actually, yes. The problem with the death penalty is that people keep trying to see the penal system as a tool for reforming people. That was never the intent of the penal system; it was always intended as an object lesson to the rest of the citizenry. > > I used to be a volunteer deputy sheriff for six years. Before > > that, I never owned a firearm. > > Did you ever feel that should have had one? Presumably not otherwise > you would have gone out and bought one. I don't own a gun, but I am rabidly in favor of others owning them. If I felt the percentage of the population which owned guns was too low, I guess I would feel obligated to go out and get one of my own, in order to raise the percentage. > > When I became a deputy I quickly found out that most > > police officers I talked to wished every citizen were armed. > > Hmm, do you not think that view is primarily because the risk to > police officers would be reduced? If the whole populace is armed they > can sort it out amongst themselves and by the time the police arrive > on the scene there's just a pile of bodies to clear up, no-one left to > shoot at the officers. Actually, it's because it's much less likely to escalate. The criminals involved in gun incidents far exceed by many times the "crime of passion" involvement in gun incidents. A criminal will be more likely, given that the vast majority of crimes are ones which have been premeditated, to think twice about committing the crime. In Foster City, California, the "SubWay" sandwich shop was commonly robbed by a gunman. This is an event which has been very frequent for this particular shop. The owner made it known that he had obtained a concealed carry license. The shop has not been robbed since, even though it's statistically "well overdue" now. > > At about that > > time a gunman walked into a California McDonald's and massacred people > > there. My firearms instructor was quick to point out that if at least one > > other person inside had a gun and knew how to use it, it would have been > > the gunman who'd end up massacred. > > That pre-supposes of course that the gunman isn't well trained in the > use firearms, which would be very likely if everyone was armed, as you > propose below. The gunman, of course, would still have the advantage > in the element of surprise. The only case I am aware of of people competent in the use of firearms due to training actually going on a killing spree is the University of Texas sniper incident, where the sniper was later found to have a brain tumor. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003290251.TAA27384>