Re: FBI: More Guns == Less Crime

[Imri Goldberg <lorgandon () gmail com>]

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:42 PM, steve pirk [egrep] <steve () pirk com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:50, Steven Allison <Steven.Allison () cox net>wrote:
> > As for the all of the countries mentioned in this thread, we all know
> > freedom is something you cannot take lightly. You can either be an unarmed
> > "subject," or an armed "citizen" and take control of your own self
> > protection.
> >
> > Steve Allison
>
> 'nuff said ;-]

I like being free from the need to carry a gun. The cost of upkeep (not
necessarily monetary) is high. The responsibility required is also high, and
the cost of mishandling, mistakes and accidents is very high. Even if you do
use a gun in self defense, at the very least you're looking at a lengthy
trial - of course, this is better than being dead, but that might be a false
dichotomy.

In any case, this issue recalled to my mind a point by a guy whose writing I
read:
"A First World nation provides its citizens with what the Swedes call *
trygghet*: security, the sense that you inhabit a space where you can't come
to harm. That it's not sink or swim. In a Third World nation like the US,
it's very much sink or swim. In the case of New Orleans, that turned out to
be literal." ( http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/11548.html )

I like having enough security to not think that I really *need* a gun
day-to-day.

Cheers,
Imri

-- 
Imri Goldberg
--------------------------------------
http://plnnr.com/ - automatic trip planning
http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/
--------------------------------------
-- insert signature here ----

_______________________________________________
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.