Re: Never forget...

["Åke Nordin" <polymorpevz () gmail com>]

I can't resist any longer.

On 9/12/07, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:
> Let's be honest:
> 1. Guns are dangerous.
> 2. They won't likely help me defend myself in most cases I may encounter.
> 3. If I defend myself before I am dead, I may as well be as I will be in
> jail for the rest of my life.
> 4. If I forget my gun somewhere, GOTO 3.
> 5. If kids find it, GOTO 3.
> 6. If an accident happens, GOTO 3.
>
> I like sport shooting and I mildly like guns, as some like cars. But when
> it comes down to it, they are weapons, and weapons kill. And the
> responsibility is a killer.

Succinct and to the point.

There is one more problem with being armed that I don't think
has been mentioned, but that I think chimes in with the above.

If I happen upon someone who is a threat (either in a general sense
or towards me specifically), there is no certainity at all that I (or the
society) would be better off if I was armed. If the punk in question
really was after me personally, with some determination, I might
(at least in theory) be better off with some means of defence, but it
would inevitably escalate violence and the most probable outcome
for me would be severe wounds or ultimate death. If the punk in
question just was after some "action" or means to get the next fix,
I'd certainly be far worse off being armed.

Why? I would escalate the violence far beyond the point where I'd
have any hope of control of the situation. Since 1) being able to
really use arms in a pressed situation requires familiarity with
the arms and the situation, and 2) I'd be far too cocky and
offensive just because of the psychological influence of being
armed.

As a harmless, unarmed man I would have to submit to
some (large or small) extent, but I firmly believe that I still
would be far better off not escalating any violence.

This is the reasoning behind arms-control legislation and
the institution of a monopoly on violence (cops, mil). That
in turn is the key property of the kind of society most people
in the old western world wants to live in, and probably the
most sought-after quality of life the refugees from not-so-benign
societies wants when they come here.

That this may be suboptimal when it comes to control
over crime is actually not of central relevance, as long
as crime is sufficiently under control. I personally believe
that it is a sign of capitulation of society to the criminals
when no such monopoly of violence (i. e. general ban of
being armed) is upheld.

In my book that would be neither fun nor very secure...

-- 
Åke Nordin Unix/net geek, Netia.se consultant, Stacken member.
Damian Conway: "The programmer is fighting against the two most
destructive forces in the universe: entropy and human stupidity."

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.