alt.politics.usa.republican

On Feb 15, 2:27 pm, me wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:16 pm, Geo wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:11 pm, me wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The point being, again, that when tempted to "fight fire with
> > > fire", one should remember that the fire department usually uses
> > > water. If ones goal is to reduce or eliminate violence, threatening
> > > violence is generally a lousy way to accomplish it.
>
> > The problem is that, like the example I gave about the police, the
> > fire department usually show up after the fact that a fire has
> > started. At that point, it's clean up the mess. To reduce violence
> > you need to get rid of criminals. That will never happen. So, at
> > least give people a fighting chance when they are confronted. Banning
> > guns is an even lousier way to solve the problem
>
> Well continuing our analogy, the fire "industry" has been very
> successful
> at reducing the threat of fire by getting building standards and fire
> suppression
> system as part of building codes. They aren't systems that "start a
> fire
> to prevent a fire" or to bring the building down fast before it can
> spread.
> They are in essence "passive" systems (although I'd suggest there
> isn't
> much passive about a sprinkler system).
>
> If your goal is to reduce violence and threats of violence
> encouraging
> people to carry guns isn't a successful model.

The long term goal is no violence. The shorter term goal is self
defense. It's a lot harder to defend oneself if you are not armed.
Yeah, it would be nice to reduce violence to zero. And maybe some day
that panacea will be reached. Until then I want the ability to
protect myself from criminals because, as I've mentioned, the cops
will not be around to protect my family when in the middle of the
night someone is breaking into my house or I'm leaving a restaurant
walking to my car when John B Criminal decides he wants my wallet. As
I have said, they usually get there after the fact. That doesn't
really do a whole lot of good.

> That's merely about
> altering outcomes of violence (. the "bad" people get shot, not the
> "good" people). If your goal is to reduce a level of violence, you'll
> do
> what the fire department does and make it hard to commit acts of
> violence,
> and to make those acts less productive towards their ends. Banks
> went to bullet proof glass, die packs, and survellance cameras. They
> didn't arm all the tellers. They don't give the president a gun, they
> give
> him a vest. The president is surrounded by alot of people with guns.
> Kennedy still got shot, so did Reagan. Guns don't prevent violence,
> they change the outcomes of the violence.
>In the process they tend
> to increase the overall level of violence.