[Leica] RE: shooting, silver or lead?

["Aubin, Norman C" <Norman.Aubin@Europe.Boeing.com>]

Arturo, 

Recently you wrote 
*********
Norm:
When I carry my Leica, it represents a $3,000 to $5,000 investment
(dpending
on lens attached).  If a theif ripped it out of my hands ran off with it
(and
if I had a gun and shot the thief), I would spend far more than $3,000
to
$5,000 defending myself in court against the thief or the thief's heirs
(whether I killed him or not).  Living in a major US city, you can't
always
assume justice will prevail.

If my life was threatened, that is another story entirely.  But if is
just a
"snatch & grab," perhaps a good insurance policy and staying out of the
high
crime areas with your Leica is best.

Just my opinion.
Arturo
***********

I'll keep it short, and offer to take this off line from here on out,
but one closing 
point from me here on the list first . . .

If we were talking mere property, ie a snatch and go, I'd agree.
Without the threat
of death or grievous bodily harm, there is no justification for lethal
force.

If we are talking a direct confrontation with strong arm tactics or
menacing with 
threat of bodily harm, then its quite different.  

As soon as we start trading the replacement cost of a camera for the
ethics and 
morals of maintaining a civilized culture, then we've lost.  Fear of
lawyer fees, 
and comfort in having insurance on a camera should not be sufficient
reasons to 
allow people to turn society into a jungle.  If we sell our morals and
ethics for 
convenience or economics, then we are no better than the predators we
allow 
to run rampant. We encourage and reward them.

Nuff said . . .I'd prefer to go off line from here.

Norm Aubin