I'm going to summarize most of the points/questions you made in your last email: on whether my medical status effects my ability to use martial arts effectively: My medical does indeed affect how well I can defend myself with my hands and feet. I am extremely restricted in movement; my back is handicapped with a rod running it's full length. If I sleep in the wrong position, it can hurt like hell. After going through all the options, I have found a firearm to be the best, but not the only option, for me. I am also certified in the use of the ASP collapsible baton. In some situations, the baton is better, like when a backstop isn't best for bullets (innocent bystandards). ----------- "Gun owner who would rather shoot than evaluate (the situation)" I know of some who are like that, and do not associate with them. I know many, many more who are not like that - who are decent, law-abiding folks I'd stand beside any day. Because some folks are irresponisble does not mean the rest are and should bear the punishment for the misdeeds of others. ------------ "If you are familiar with the statistics on rape, you would know that virtually EVERY rapist is not looking for sex. Its a form of power trip." It doesn't matter his reason why. Rape is rape, whether he does it out of anger, fear, or power. It should not affect a woman's right to stop her attacker. Is murder any less a murder because it's a stranger killing a stranger or a family member killing another family member? -------------------- "Give them what they want, and they'll go away." (Not your quote, but you said: "I think the risks of tossing $20 on the ground and running is far cheaper in the grander sense than gun training, a gun and ammo.") Yes, I'd hand over my purse if I knew that's all he wanted. The law states very clearly that I am obligated to retreat and de-escalate the situation; the firearm is the last resort. But it is my decision, and my decision alone to determine whether I feel the mugger is a threat to my health. Is he going to leave after I hand over my purse, or is he going to shoot me so I don't ID him later? If I feel I am in "imminent danger of being harmed", I'm going to defend myself. In England recently, a young girl was shot and killed after she complied with the mugger's demand to turn over her cell phone (cell phone theft/muggings are popular there). She did as he asked, and was still killed. And that's coming from a country that has some of the strictest gun laws. ------------ on the topic of "Fear vs. anger vs. thrill as the motive for crime" In the end, it doesn't matter...to me anyway. Someone trying to mug me is trying to mug me, and someone trying to kill is someone trying to kill me. It doesn't matter if trying to murder me because he doesn't like my driving, or because I got the job he's been after, or because I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -------------- " Yes, but you are far more likely to get into a car accident than to be murdered." I'll quote from the book Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control", essay: "Who's Life it it, Anyway?" by Jeff Snyder: "Rather than making your right to life depend on prior reasonably good proof that the collective outcome of the actions of the majority will produce a favorable statistical result, consider an alternative moral ground for action. "Consider that the right to defend your life does not depend on, and has nothing to do with, how high or low the violent crime rate is. Consider that your right has nothing whatsoever to do with whether carrying guns does or does not reduce the violent crime rate or how many people do or do not defend themselves with guns or how well or poorly they have done so. "Why should the majority tell you that your life must be forfeit if the crime rates are so low as to not be worth thinking about? Why should that majority be able to tell you that your life must be forfeit if your carrying of arms won't produce any measurable benefit *for them*? Why should the majority tell you that your life must be forfeit if you might not perform as well as the police? Who's life is it anyway?" And I'll answer. My life is my life. If I choose to carry a gun, that is my decision. If you choose to go unarmed, that's your decision. ----------------- You say, "I am just frustrated by folks hiding behind a sliver of an amendment, a rabid denial that some controls could provide benefit overall and a real, definable sense of paranoia about what other want." A "sliver" of an amendment? I remember one comment you made to Oleg, something about there were only blackpowder muskets in the time when our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, so it should only apply to blackpowder muskets. You've been through Oleg's website, you know the poster. Continuing with your rationale, the First Amendment only covers quill pens and paper. ---------------- on the topic of America's Most Wanted..... "I wonder if that 700 number is true. But I don't deny its contributing to good work. But as for criminals "on" the show? I was cast to do such a thing as were friends of mine (did a bit of acting in my time). They DO use actors to portray events that occured. You do know that, yes? And the policemen in the cut scenes (where the host is talking) are certainly actors." Are you jesting with me? It's common knowledge the show uses actors to portray the incidents of the people they're trying to catch. I've also seen real cops interviewed to talk about the criminals. When I mean "ciminals on the show", I mean they're trying to catch *real criminals*, it's not a fake show designed for pure entertainment, as you were hyped about she show being "for entertainment". It's silly to think the producers went and found the real criminal and said, "Here, re-enact the murder you did, and we'll let go so the viewers and cops can catch you later." ------------------- "Now COPS is a different story... thats the real deal." I love COPS, and "World's Wildest Police Chases". Those shows show the gritty reality of the world, don't they? ------------------- "Not to take away guns from folks like you, but to ensure that it IS folks like you that get them..." Great! Now stop thinking I'm paranoid for wanting to carry my guns for protection. -------------------- "...instead of folks like Benjamin Smith (who bought a gun from a classified ad, all above the board and legal, then went on a two state shooting spree out of revenge)..." As stated earlier, no amount of laws and regulations can stop the anger and hatred in a human heart. I wish I could say, "Murder is illegal" and it would magically become true. -------------------- "What state are you in? TN? (Since you mentioned Nashville) That's where I grew up and I know the laws are different down there. Unfortunately, so is the lifestyle. And folks in TN aren't like folks in the cities..." Isn't Nashville, TN, a city? -------------------- I had asked: Do you consider it more honorable to die than to have to use violence to save your life? And you replied: "Well, having been a member of the military, I was placed in the situation of dying for YOU and yours instead of you being there......So how do you think I might answer that question?" Am I less of a citizen or less worthy a citizen if I haven't been in the military? Are there not non-military ways to serve my country? Don't try to imply that I owe you something because "you were placed in the situation where you would die for me instead of me dying for me." Unless you were drafted, you placed *yourself* in "that situation", and you knew what you were getting into when you signed your life over to Uncle Sam. -------------------- "And I was with you right up until the "carried by six" comment...Betty, we are supposed to live in an enlightened, advanced society with great wealth and living standard. Don't you think that comment is a bit barbarous? Don't you think part of that barbarity is what we fight worldwide? So how is it that we are better by acting as such...?" What was wrong with my comment? I said I'd defend myself if I felt I was "in imminent danger of being harmed" (I have to keep quoting that so you don't think I'm trigger happy) and let the jury find me innocent or not (judged by twelve), instead of not defend myself and possibly end up dead (carried by six). I'm starting to think that your idea of an "enlightened, advanced society with great wealth and living standard" is to let what could happen to you just happen to you. Sorry, but I'll decide how I want to go. If I want to defend myself, I'll do so. -------------------- "I am not intimidated... All I am saying is, for me to do my job, I was expected to go to boot camp, to train endlessly AND to be ACCOUNTABLE for my actions. No elitism at all... But where is your accountability?" Regular citizens have more direct *accountablity* for their actions than police or military. If I shoot someone, I have to directly answer to the law. When a police officer shoots someone, the department bears the burden. The victim's relatives sue the city and the department. If I shoot someone, I get sued. We are all *accountable* for our actions, and I am 100% *accountable* for where my bullet goes. -------------------- "Question: did you or Oleg ever serve? And if you were physically unable, did you volunteer your time in some other way to further the causes of your country and patriotism?" You bet. I serve my country by helping protect the Bill of Rights through grassroots action and creating awareness via Oleg's website. If some congressman is trying to pass a bill that would step on our Rights, the word will be out. Awareness, protest, action. If the Bill of Rights is destroyed, and that includes the Second Amendment, our very government is nothing. ------------- "Again, I am not being flippant or baiting you... its just that you assume I have some problem with trained, armed civilians. Thats the SECOND part of the second ammendment that seems to always be overlooked..." This can be a very, very long topic. I ask you read "Send in the Waco Killers" by Vin Suprynowicz. --------------- I wrote: Tamara used an alternative means of self-defense because she didn't want to have to kill the guy - that was obvious in the link I provided. But - she had the means and the ability, and if it really hit the fan, she would have used her gun. And she came that close. And you asked again: "Yes, but why not just show the gun up front and eliminate all the drama?" That was clearly answered at least twice. I'll copy/paste my reply again: As a CCW carrier, the firearm is the last resort. The first obligation is to de-escalate and retreat, and ONLY IF those cannot be done, than a firearm may be used when the person feels he/she is in imminent danger of being harmed. That is the law, and that is what Tamara did. You don't think we're bloodthirsty folks who yank our guns out at the drop of a hat, do you? --------- "It was snide... I lost my temper.Sorry. I felt very stupid for having let it slide by when I sent the mail." We're words on a screen. Sometimes it is difficult to determine someone's intentions without facial expressions, and sometimes words don't convey our meanings well. ---------- on the topic of what laws control the user of a firearm: "Most of them, actually. Thats what laws do..." Laws state what's legal and what's not, but *control* is only good as who'd willing to abide by it. Murder is illegal, but that hasn't stopped those who really want to....If everybody followed all the laws...... ----------- "And to that point, why then do "civilians" need the stopping power of a military weapon? That is really the issue at hand with most of the gun regulation sites I visited. Isn't the real issue to get high powered, multi-round weapons out of circulation from the GENERAL population?" Why should someone determine what someone else *needs*? "You don't need a car that drives over 70, so why have a speedometer that goes up to 180?" Do all people who have vehicles who go over 100mph drive recklessly and blaze down the highway? Don't tell mom "yes". She doesn't go one mile over speed limit in her old Jaguar. Maybe I like having my innerds jiggle after the blast of a 7.62 x 54R? Maybe I enjoy shooting full-capacity magazines without stopping to reload? Maybe I like watching overripe vegetables explode after shooting it with a .223? Maybe I *need* a sufficent caliber to take down a deer? Guns aren't just for self-defense. They're for hunting or sport, too. Why get these guns out the hands of the "general population"? Because we don't "need" it? Because they're "scary" guns? I haven't popped a 30 round magazine in my AR15 and strolled down the street gunning people down, and I won't, either. It's not "evil" guns we have to worry about, it's evil people. ------------- "What are the statistics for "drive by" shootings in Nashville? Just curious..." What are the laws against drive-by shootings? Do the street thugs follow them? ------------- "But again, you support a very strong argument for REGULATION. Its important to minimize the risks of such attacks, is it not? Hasn't the thrust of your defense been to assert self-defense? Don't you think that some of the school shooting perpetrators felt their own lives were in danger? Where is the line drawn between their right to defend and yours?" If we wanted to minimize bloody attacks on people, we might as well put everyone in little padded rooms - that way nobody can hurt anyone. I'm not being snide. Some poor guy was murdered in Japan by being speared with an umbrella! It's quite odd that anyone would think Klebold and Harris were defending themselves. They got picked on by classmates and didn't feel like they were part of the collective hive? That's a reason for self-defense? There is a very clear line between self-defense and murder, for me anyways. -------------------- "OK. Betty, I am not denying that you feel you need a gun. But why do you think someone that wants to regulate how guns are purchased and maintained wants to strip you of it?" Gun control advocates aren't just about "how guns are purchased and maintained"; they're about *what* guns I can and can't have. That's stripping me of guns I might like to have. Some states even have a "one gun a month" law. That's silly. There are literally hundreds of silly regulations, many based on appearance of the gun! Flash suppressors, bipods, telescoping stocks, barrel length, I can go on and on. The array of regulations is dizzying. I went through the ATF website recently. It's a nightmare. How about folks out there who have barrels 1/2" too short and don't know it's illegal? Suddenly, they're felons? -------------------- "Would you support a serialization of ammunition?" How about if some crook files down the serial number? Some file off serial numbers on guns now. Or if he uses a revolver and doesn't leave empty cartridges at the scene of the crime? -------------------- "Ted trophy hunts, which I have ALWAYS been opposed to, even when I hunted. I NEVER shot something I didn't eat." It is kinda odd seeing a giant stuffed head over the mantle. And those staring glass eyes. -------------------- "Yes, well... there are a number of world tyrants who share/shared your "killing to reduce overpopulation" model." Don't dare take my words out of context to compare it to genocidal dictators. I said quote: there's killing ***wildlife*** for sport or overpopulation. -------------------- I said: I, too, came to an epiphany and maturation. I went from being a small child relying on my parents, to an adult who can take care of herself - a person who doesn't have rose-colored glasses on. You said: "I quote: (from my earlier statement) 'I am obligating you with a respectful debate. I won't waste my time on snide jabs.' ditto" Come now, sir. You had an "epiphany and maturation" (tell me you weren't patronizing me). But I apologize, I was wrong for stooping to that level. -------------------- "Who exactly are these criminals you are talking about?" Names and addresses? We can continue on and on, and I can say, "Who exactly are these criminals *you* are talking about?" -------------------- "I think if our country would provide social services in the form of public health care and provide a decent job base, perhaps some of this activity would decrease. But of course, through rose-colored glasses I imagine my fellow man and fellow American in a much more respectable place." Please ask Oleg how well Socialism has worked in Russia. And there's a decent job base here, it's just that some folks don't want to work. Ask my welfare aunt who pops out babies to make a living. -------------------- I had a wonderful time at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot. There were many folks from all walks of life there: veterans, teens, doctors, lawyers, blue collar workers, men, women, kids, black and white. We all came together because of our love and respect for things that "go bang" (repeatedly), under the American flag. It was the most peaceful gathering; people smiled and said "excuse me", and men parted so shorter folks could get a better view. We shared firewood at the campsite. As they say, "An armed society is a polite society." This has been an interesting debate. I like seeing "the other side" to get a better idea of what we (gun owners) are dealing with. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my mind. I would like, however, to part on decent terms. We're both two people living in the same world, though we both see it differently and react to it differently. I'm going to continue to carry by gun on me, and you will decide not too. That's your decision, and I respect it. I only ask that you respect my decision and not trample on it. I wish you well, Bart.