| You asked if anyone had stayed longer. I stayed long enough to testify
after Mike Yacino and a competitive shooter from Worcester that uses some
of the weapons that would be banned for competition.
I wish I had a list of each of the members that were actually there, because
I'd like to call/write and thank a few of them. When I began testifying I was
a little nervous because I was new to it, but once I got going I got emotional
(you'll see why from my included testimony at the end of this post) and I
started looking Rep. Slattery right in the eyes. I was definitely making him
squirm and before I had gotten very far he just sat back and looked down into
his lap. He didn't even have the nerve to look me in the eye when I was done!
I wanted to say to him, "You ought to look down, you ought to feel totally
ashamed of youreslf!", but I didn't I was just too torn up remembering what
had happened recently. At anyrate, here's my testimony:
(Oh, yeah, unlike Jacques and that crowd, I have complete cites for all of my
statistics!)
Bart
---------------
Thank you for letting me speak with you today.
First a little back ground information.
Courts have consistently ruled that the police _do_not_ have an obligation to
protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v.
District of Columbia, the D.C. Appellate court stated "courts have without
exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity
undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at
large and not to individual members of the community." i
Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police
responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County
authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying
guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect
themselves."ii
The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of
violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.iii
Those are interesting facts and statistics, but they are more than that to me
and my wife. On the evening of March 20th of this year, my wife, my
everything,
almost _became_ one of those statistics. Let me tell you what happened:
We have property in the city of Worcester and on that particular evening, we
went to Worcester to take care of some things at the apartments. Since I
didn't
want to block any of the tenants by parking in the driveway, I parked in the
lot
across the street. We know the owner of that lot so that was OK. I went into
our
building and my wife waited in the truck because I was only going to be gone a
few minutes. Well, for a number of reasons, I took longer than expected. In
the
meantime, let me tell you what my wife, Amy was being subjected to.
Some, Low-life, excuse me, "societally-challenged" individual came up to the
truck, demanded that she open the door (which she didn't do of course), and
demanded $500! At first she ignored him and continued studying for school. He
started yelling and cursing at her, demanding access and $500 while leaning
and
pushing on her door and other parts of the truck! Fortunately the doors were
locked, my fault, force of habit, I had gotten out, taken the keys and locked
the driver's side door.
As if this isn't bad enough, what happened next is what has outraged me and
why
I'm here today.
She told the guy that she had a cellular phone and was calling the cops. Now,
Like I said, she had a cellular phone and knowing that emergency calls on a
cellular phone are routed through the State Police, she called information and
got a direct connection to the Worcester Police department. When the officer
answered, she told him where she was and the situation and explained that it
was
rapidly deteriorating. His reply, "Is this an emergency? It sounds like an
emergency, you have to call 911." Amy said, "OK." And Click! HE HUNG UP!
So, Amy dialed 911, which on a cellular is like dialing *SP and you get the MA
State Police. She gave the information again and said that he is now
threatening
her. At this point he was saying things like "I bet you wish I was dead.
You're
gonna wish I was dead when I get to you." The response from the emergency
number, "I'll patch you through to Worcester." WHAT?!? After what I'm certain
seemed like an eternity, Worcester 911 finally came on and when Amy tried to
tell them the information, she was interrupted with, "Can you hold? Can you
hold?" CLICK! SHE WAS PUT ON HOLD WITH A LOW-LIFE PUSHING ON HER DOOR,
THREATENING HER AND DEMANDING $500!!!
When we had left the house to go to Worcester, I had tucked my 40 caliber
pistol
into my belt, but Amy didn't take hers. When we talked about this later, she
told me that thoughts of 'paranoid' would have been her response if I had
mentioned it, but never again! At any rate, she didn't have any means of
self-defense, she was alone, in a parking lot, being threatened and the police
emergency line had just put her on hold. Fortunately, I came out of the
building. All I could think and yell was "Get away from my wife!" and that
low-life "beat feet" out of there.
Since we were unharmed and the police seemed to have other things to do, we
didn't file a report.
Now, If this had been a politically correct movie of the week with an agenda,
the police would have arrived in the nick of time and the guy would have been
caught. But it wasn't. It was the real world, where there are about 150,000
police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than
250
million Americans -- or around 1,700 citizens per officer.iv Where the police
aren't responsible for protecting private citizens and dialing 911 will get
you
put on hold for a potentially life-threatening situation!
Who knows what would have happened if I had taken longer inside?
I don't know. I don't want to know. But I do know one thing. We will exersize
our rights to carry for self-defense from now on, especially in the city.
Like 98% of the uses of a firearm in self-defense, the gun was never drawn and
no shots were fired.
Was my wife in danger?
I think so, even if the police didn't have time for her.
Could she have made the low-life leave sooner if she had been carrying her
legally owned and licensed, polimer-framed, hi-capacity, semi-automatic .40
caliber pistol loaded with awful, dreaded Black Talon ammunition?
Probably. In fact, more than likely.
Did he leave when I became a factor?
DAMN RIGHT HE DID!
If I hadn't been there and the low-life decided to go the next violent step,
could the police have saved my wife?
Absolutely NOT! (I actually got emotional enough that I pounded my fist on the
podium as I gave this answer... oh well...)
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many
as
2.5 million times every year.v Of those self-defense cases, more than 200,000
are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.vi Also, Handguns are
the
weapon of choice for self-defense. Many of these self-defense handguns could
be
labeled as "Saturday Night Specials" or "Junk Guns" that in reality are
low-cost
safe and affordable protection for many people with proper training,
especially
minorities and women, who don't have the financial capability to purchase more
expensive firearms, rely on.
Nationwide, a comprehensive study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell
after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the
study showed that States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their
murder
rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;vii and
additionally, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such
laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated
assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.viii
60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with
a
victim he knows is armed with a gun." And that "criminals are more worried
about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."ix
Let's not create a safer working environment for the criminals by telling them
their victims, the law-abiding citizens have been disarmed.
The Great Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states in part:
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and
unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the _right_ of enjoying and
_defending_their_lives_ and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and
_protecting_ property; that of seeking and _obtaining_ their safety and
happiness.
People have a _right_to_keep_and_to_bear_arms_ for the common defense. Laws
made
to punish actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not
been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and
inconsistent
with the fundamental principles of a free government.
I wish I could take credit for those words, but I can't.
Important words with an important message.
Having first hand experience, we urge and implore you to give unfavorable
reports to House 457, House 458, House 2267, House 2632, House 3613, Senate
148
and Senate 190. These misinformed and misguided bills do nothing to stop crime
or gun violence and as such they are best titled the "Victim Disarmament Acts
of
1997."
Alternatively, Please give a favorable report to Senate 1135, which would
create
fair licensing for those who wish to exersize their right to own and carry a
firearm. And Senate 195, which would increase penalties for _criminals_ who
misuse
a firearm.
Please don't make us criminals by essentially outlawing our chosen means of
self-defense.
Thank you.
------------
sources and cites:
i Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981)
ii Statement of Representative Ron Johnson in U.S. Senate, "Handgun Violence
Prevention Act of 1987," Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of
the Committee on the Judiciary (16 June 1987):33.
iii Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics --
1990, (1991):257.
iv Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 132.
v Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and
Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at
Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and
published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank:
Guns
and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control
debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society
of
Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the
book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding
contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with
his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have
Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have
provided
an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of
something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in
defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration
for
the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be
true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used
as
a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to
challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang,
"A
Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology,
at 188.
Readers of Dr. Kleck's materials may be interested to know that he is a member
of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has
never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of
the gun control debate.
vi Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
vii One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the
study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The
Wall
Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also supra note viii.
viii John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and
Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago, (13 July 1996).
ix U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed
Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report, (July
1985): 27.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|