[geeks] FW: [rescue] UPS Recommendation

[nick at snowman.net]

Oddly most of the "anti gun" folks I've managed to get out on a range come
out of it much more neutral.  Guns are tools.  You cannot eliminate guns
in the US.  get over it.  (not directed at anyone on this list I know of,
but the "ohh guns are ebillle!" really gets on my nerves, and the idea
that you can eliminate all guns in the US is.. erm.. naieve at the very
best.
	Nick

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mike Meredith wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:00:15 -0500
> Brian Dunbar <Brian.Dunbar at plexus.com> wrote:
> > Phil Stracchino [mailto:alaric at caerllewys.net] on Tuesday, July 15,
> > 2003 5:19 PM said
> > ><offtopic>
> > >Never *rely* on 911 services, period.  The Supreme Court ruled some
> > >time ago that police departments, that nice "To Protect And Serve"
> > >motto notwithstanding, have no "duty to protect" and cannot be held
> > >reponsible for failing to protect you, even when answering an
> > >emergency call, even if the reason they failed to protect you is
> > >because they took 45 minutes to respond to the call.
> > ></offtopic>
> 
> A legal "duty to protect" is a pretty drastic thing requiring an
> infinite amount of resources to implement. A duty to make best-endevour
> efforts to protect is something more reasonable.
> 
> If your police have no inclination to protect you, then it's time to a)
> call them something else, b) organise a proper police force. And that's
> whether or not you have guns at home to 'protect' yourself.
> 
> > A good argument _against_ gun control, I would think.
> 
> "Hitler". No that's not an accusation; just an attempt at Godwin's law.
> 
> (You won't convince the gun control nuts, and the gun control nuts won't
> convince you)
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks