RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right"
Hence the (OT) tag. -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae@sjrb.ca> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" Hi All : How is this an operational related discussion ? Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum. thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick@flhsi.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:15 AM To: Andrew Kirch; nanog@nanog.org Subject: re: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" I've got a 4 inch Springfield XD service model in .45ACP, I actually prefer the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just because of its velocity:energy ratio. The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane@trelane.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right" nothing like 40 short and wimpy! Might I interest you in a 45? :) On 6/6/2011 11:37 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has a
loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet. I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better to
have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it." By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal channels
in the first place.
-Nick Olsen
---------------------------------------- From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav@humancapitaldev.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right"
On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to
rid
yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens
to have
firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to
be
removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to
be
military - there are other types of force that work well too... I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at
least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has
access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than
their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them
from being successful.
At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may change.
Hi : Fair enough, missed that, Thanks Mike From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick@flhsi.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:22 AM To: Mike Rae; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" Hence the (OT) tag. -Nick Olsen ________________________________ From: "Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae@sjrb.ca> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" Hi All : How is this an operational related discussion ? Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum. thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick@flhsi.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:15 AM To: Andrew Kirch; nanog@nanog.org Subject: re: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" I've got a 4 inch Springfield XD service model in .45ACP, I actually prefer the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just because of its velocity:energy ratio. The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D -Nick Olsen ---------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane@trelane.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right" nothing like 40 short and wimpy! Might I interest you in a 45? :) On 6/6/2011 11:37 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has a
loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet. I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better to
have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it." By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal channels
in the first place.
-Nick Olsen
---------------------------------------- From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav@humancapitaldev.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human right"
On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to
rid
yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens
to have
firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to
be
removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to
be
military - there are other types of force that work well too... I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at
least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has
access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than
their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them
from being successful.
At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may change.
participants (2)
-
Mike Rae -
Nick Olsen