CompuServe Messages

Bob, early 20th century, and the individual in question, a madman, was stopped by a gun wielding individual, one of the 1% who were still armed. THINK!!! If one individual had been armed on the Long Island Train, how many people would have died? Not anywhere near the body count that actually occurred, or at least, the same number if that individual was untrained. We shouldn't be restricting the ownership of guns, we should be expanding it, several-fold. In every case where gun ownership has increased, criminal activity has declined. In case you haven't noticed, what individuals do the criminals target in Florida? It isn't the residents. Many of them own guns and carry them in their vehicles of choice. Instead, the criminals target tourists. They don't have any defensive mechanisms. Perhaps we should issue tourists temporary gun liscences. Think about this as a rational economic activity. If there was a 1% chance that any armed robbery would involve your death, would you engage in such behavior? If you're rational, of course not. 35 Armed robberies would almost ensure a .50 chance you would die in the committal of such an act. Navy Pilots face that every day, but they are selected for such a mission. You'd have to posit that either the criminals are too stupid, in which case they are better off dead IMHO, or ignorant. I'd take care of the latter by an introduction to probability. It isn't the intent of weapon, but the intent of the individual. Weapons exist in plenty in our society. It is the intent that counts, but are you willing to arrest an individual prior to commissionn of the crime? If so, let me know, I'll be on the next plane out.