Conference quark::mennotes

    To the noter who replied that it wasn't a cheap shot to say I was
    misinformed about small arms.  I wasn't referring to that.
    I was referring to the comment about how lucky I was not to have been
    shot.
    
    I was interested to see before the other string got shut down that
    at least one other person recogized the danger of having the government
    disarm the population.
    
    If its not an issue (no danger from the Gov.) I think it was
    interesting note that Hitler thought it was necessary to disarm his
    people before starting WW II.
    
    "But its different times, a different country, the U.S. no less)"
    
    I believe that if we (as a whole) think that way we are doomed to
    repeat history.  People are people.  The details may be different but
    don't forget that power tends to corrupt leaders.  I am not saying that
    disarming the U.S. population WILL cause the Gov. to take over... just
    that a disarmed U.S. population will increase that risk astronomically.
    Hell, the U.S. Gov. is taking over even WITH us armed.
    
    Jeff

    re .1, yes, but my question is, which should I be the most afraid of:
    the US gov't, or the idea of every nut on the street, who wants one,
    carrying a gun????   I really don't like that idea much either.  In
    these times of economic hardships, when people are under so much
    stress, and pressue, worrying about losing their jobs, their houses,
    etc., tempers seem to flare very easily.  If every American carried a
    gun, I'm afraid it would be a blood bath, that people would be killing
    each other over minor traffic accidents.  The thought of that is really
    more terrifying to me than the possible threat of the American
    government going nuts, and turning into Nazis.
    
    Lorna
    

I really don't think this is an appropriate topic for this notes conference.

				Steve

    RE: 3
    
    If the decision is made that this topic is not appropriate for
    this Notesfile, then please ignore this reply . . .
    
    RE: .2

    I'm a really  nice person. Ask anyone who knows me. I've been told 
    things like "your bad moods are like other people's good moods",  or
    "when you're fussy, it's like when most people are being their  normal
    selves".

    I am also under as much stress, pressure, worry about losing my job, 
    etc., as the next person. 

    If I carried a gun, I would not suddenly become a ravening,
    blood-thirsty,  crazed maniac killing someone over traffic accidents. I
    would still be me.  Nice, easy-going, laid-back me. 

    The thought of every American carrying a gun does not scare me much. 
    The thought scares me even less if we make it "law-abiding American".

    However, the possible threat of "the American government going nuts, and
    turning into Nazis" scares me a one heck of lot. And don't tell me that
    it can't happen.  Sure it can. It can happen anywhere.

    I'm Jewish. We've been disarmed, as a people, before. And I don't ever
    want to see it happen again.
    
    Marleen (who is new to this Notesfile, and reading as much as possible)

Firearms Issues (Gun Control)   MOUSE::FIREARMS_ISSUES                      2597
    
    	Alfred

    re .4, you as an individual might not ever harm anyone, but it's been
    my impression that not everyone is as nice as you may be.  Besides,
    it's really the men I'm most worried about.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .6
    
>Besides,
>    it's really the men I'm most worried about.
    
    Lorna,
    
    If I said this about any other group in this notes file, not only
    would the note be deleted, but my continued employment in DEC
    would be very shaky.
    
    fred();

.3>I really don't think this is an appropriate topic for this notes conference.
    
    If it means anything, I disagree.
    
    re:.7
    Right said, Fred()!

    If its not appropriate and people keep saying it maybe a moderator can
    move this string as an entity into the appropriate firearms topic?
    Often when there is an interruption in a topic it gets lost because
    people won't follow it.
    
    I think we have an interesting and relevent discussion going here I
    don't want to see it dropped because it doesn't quite fit mennotes.
    But thats my opinion.
    
    I know what your saying Lorna, which is worse, the threat from armed
    fellow citizens or the gov.?  I don't know, its six of one and a half
    dozen of the other.
    
    I do believe that the majority of Americans are responsible gun owners.
    "How can I say that".  I have read that in New Hampshire FIFTY PERCENT
    of the homes have guns in them!  If there really are that many out
    there and I believe there are and MOST people weren't responsible we
    literally couldn't walk down the street without getting shot.
    
    Its the criminals who are giving gunowners such a tough reputation.
    The criminals won't follow the laws by definition.  Gun laws aren't
    the answer, criminals break them anyway.  The law abiding citizen isn't
    causing a problem with his gun(s).  I own a gun and have never had the
    slightest inclination to shoot anyone.  One of my horrors is getting
    'backed into a corner' at home during a nighttime break in and having
    to decide whether to shoot the invader or not.  Which is worse...
    having my families throats slit (potentially) or shooting an intruder
    assuming I had exhausted other options and had the CHANCE to try
    other options.
    
    I think I might take the chance I wouldn't have to defend my own home
    and leave it to the Police (getting rid of my gun) IF I didn't ALSO
    fear the government getting out of control more than it already is. 
    And I have already elaborated on my reasons for that concern.
    
    Lorna's concern about men rather than women with guns is of course
    based on the observation that more often than not men shoot people 
    than women do.  That is a fact as far as I can tell.
    
    Jeff

    The police here in LA say that most guns the street gangs have are
    obtained through burglaries of the homes and businesses of nice
    law-abiding gun owners. Plus, four thousand guns were stolen from
    gun shops during last year's riot.
    
    Something to think about in terms of the supply-chain.
    
    

    i think guns are stupid, we all should learn to love each others.

    \nasser

    Guns cannot be stupid, they are inanimate objects, and as such can be
    neither intellegent or stupid.  The person wielding the gun can be
    intellegently trained, or totally ignorant of gun safety, or too stupid
    or psycho to care.  
    
    I agree that treating other people with respect is the best way to
    avoid confrontations of many sorts, but I will fight to retain my right
    to defend myself against those who refuse to be reasonable, and loving,
    and enter my space with intent to injure me or mine.
    
    Meg

    I was watching "Full Metal Jacket" on cable last night, and the Drill
    Instructor had a great line which went, approximately:
    
    	"Your rifle is only a tool; it's a hard heart that kills."
    
    jt

.10> Something to think about in terms of the supply-chain.
    
    Your solution is to keep guns out of hands of law-abiding citizens.
    
    I'd rather see hard time for violent crime committed with a firearm
    and theft of a lethal weapon.

    I saw a story in the news about a sporting goods store which had a
    number of guns stolen recently.  The thieves drove away in a stolen
    van.
    
    So I suppose we should keep motor vehicles out of the public's hands 
    so they can't be stolen and used in crimes, either.
    
    uh, maybe not.

    	I knew an enthusiastic marksman in the U.K..  His gun licence (as a
    rough summary - I have more details) allowed him to have one gun on his
    person and as many as he liked in a police approved safe at his house.
    
    	I helped him move house. It took six of us to get that safe into a
    van. No amateur burglar would have stolen a gun from him.

    ......keep autos out of peoples' hands since they can  kill. 
    
    
    Last Summer some idiot(s) loaded their Super Soaker Squirt guns with
    Chlorox and were squirting people with it.  What to do?
    
    Ban Super Soakers.
    
    Thats the mentality which makes all of us suffer for the acts of a few.
    
    Why not make shooting people with Chlorox illegal, which it already is
    I am sure, then arrest the people who do it.
    
    On banning autos because they are dangerous:  Some would argue that
    autos are necessary whereas guns aren't.
    
    Even electric drills have been used to kill people.  Perhaps they
    should be banned?
    
    "We should all learn to love one another".  Sounds GREAT Nassar, but it
    ain't the real world is it?
    
    Massachusetts had the idioticy to make defending your own home with a
    firearm after the person had broken in at night no less, illegal.  No
    wonder the criminals are running all over us.  Hell, break in, take
    what you want, kill whom you want, and if you have the misfortune to
    get shot in the attempt by an irate homeowner sue him and retire.  That
    is if you live of course. 
    
    I do wonder how much of a deterrent it is for criminals to know that 
    roughly 50 % of the homes in N.H. have firearms in them?  I wonder if
    they view the armed population as a threat, thus don't commit as many
    break ins, or whether they view each home as a potential source for a
    free gun?
    
    I do think the criminal has the advantage in an armed confrontation in
    a home.  Why?  The criminal has already mentally prepared for a
    possible confrontation and pretty well knows what he will do if
    confronted.  The armed homeowner totters sleepily downstairs, "Who's
    there?!, whos' there?!  POW the criminal knows where he is now and
    lets him have it before the homeowner even knows who is down there.
    
    Of course there are some homeowners who know what they would do and
    would not set themselves up like that, but I bet most would.
    
    Jeff
    

In the interests of granting everybody the right to defend themselves you 
support a system which is open to abuse, is abused, and is the cause of
over 20,000 deaths every year and God knows how many injuries.

If that number of deaths were as a consequence of auto accidents or were alcohol
related you'd change the law. But if it's as a consequence of poor gun controls
you don't. The GM trucks with the side mounted gas tanks will possibly be
recalled by GM - at an unimaginable cost - because of the dangers to the 
public. There was a recent case where some $100 million was awarded in damages
to a couple who's son had been killed in an accident involving such a truck.
Yet people supply automatic, semi-automatics, shotguns, and God knows what else
but nobody in the supply chain is taken to court when an accident or death 
occurs.

I don't think anybody objects to guns for sporting purposes or even the right
to have a gun, at home, as a means of self-protection. That's a system still
open to abuse but which can be controlled and the level of abuse limited. 
What you have in America is a gun bazaar which people uphold under the 
pretentions of civil or basic rights.

Three recent events are good examples of what's wrong about having a
civilian population armed; the killing of a German tourist in Florida, the 
killing of Mr. Nessler, and drive by shootings in Washington.

The shooting of Mrs Jensens (in front of her two children) was perpetrated
by two men.They were not threatened by Mr or Mrs Jensens, they wanted
to forcefully take what was not theirs. The system had either failed these
two men (education, housing, jobs etc) or it had failed society because these 
two men should have been behind bars in the first place.

The shooting of Mr Nessler on the other hand was perpetrated by his wife. 
Ellie Nesler was pushed to and beyond the limit and people will either 
rationalise and agree or disagree with her actions. The system had failed her 
so it was kill or be killed. Better to be dead than suffer more pain, torment 
or horrors. But the system failed Mr Nesler too. Whatever crimes he might have
committed he died an innocent man.

Then there's the case of the April fools killer in Washington. This guy's into
drive by shooting. Doesn't even know the victim, probably doesn't care. A
city is now terrified and stays home after dark.

Now let me list all of the advantages that I see in your system...




























If you get this far - please excuse the sarcasm. If you're not part of
the solution you're a part of the problem. The US Government shouldn't disarm
the population YOU should. You should demand that the legal system and the 
police work for you - that's also your right.

- Paul. 

    Imagine seeing your family hound, in the family car, with the family
    gun. Stolen! On TV!:) Mans best friend......:)

    RE: .20
    
    The german tourist was killed by running over her head with a car.
    
    Marc H.

    re .22, the guys who did that should be publicly hung.  Maybe that
    would make others of their type stop and think before they do something
    like that.  Instead, these jerks will probably be out on the street
    again in 5 yrs. or so.  That's the main problem in this country, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .20

>If that number of deaths were as a consequence of auto accidents or were alcohol
>related you'd change the law. 
    Alcohol is involved in accidents that take over 40,000 lives per year.
    Nearly as many Americans as died in the the entire Vietnam war. Over
    20,000 of those are children.  Yet the penalties and enforcement of DUI
    laws remain lax.  Many of the same crowd that argue vehemently for gun
    control also argue just as vehemently that drugs should be legalized
    which will turn yet another wave of impaired drivers loose on our
    streets.  Then there are the cases of the spotted owl, snail darters,
    the little fishes near Austin, Tx. and GM pickups.   
    
    fred()

    The moral of this story is to teach the bird and the snail to
    drive GM pick up trucks and to carry guns!;)

>If that number of deaths were as a consequence of auto accidents or were alcohol
>related you'd change the law. But if it's as a consequence of poor gun controls

    Are you suggesting that we *reduce* the penalty for killing someone
    with a gun to match those of killing someone with a car? I doubt it.
    At least in the US the laws around drinking and driving need very much
    to be tightened up. The penalties for misusing a gun are much higher.

    Hey, I'd be at no inconvenience if alcohol were illegal or if you had
    to pick between a drivers license and a drinking license. It would be
    no big deal and I'd be a lot safer. Tell you what. Show me a case where
    that works and then we'll try something that has an impact on things
    I'm interested in. Thanks.

>The GM trucks with the side mounted gas tanks will possibly be
>recalled by GM - at an unimaginable cost - because of the dangers to the 
>public. There was a recent case where some $100 million was awarded in damages
>to a couple who's son had been killed in an accident involving such a truck.
>Yet people supply automatic, semi-automatics, shotguns, and God knows what else
>but nobody in the supply chain is taken to court when an accident or death 
>occurs.

    You are mixing apples and oranges here. In the case of cars and truck
    you are talking about design flaws that make the car or truck unsafe to
    use. That's not the same as being misused. To be talking the same thing
    with regards to guns you'd be asking for liability of gun makers and 
    dealers if the gun had a design or manufacturing flaw. The law covers
    that already and if a gun explodes in your hand you best believe the
    maker or someone will pay big time.

>I don't think anybody objects to guns for sporting purposes or even the right
>to have a gun, at home, as a means of self-protection. 

    I wish you were right. And that may be the case in Germany but in the
    good old USA people *are* trying to take away hunting guns. And in some
    places keeping a gun at home as a means of self-protection is already
    illegal.

>The shooting of Mr Nessler on the other hand was perpetrated by his wife. 

    I think you've got this wrong. If you are talking about the case where
    a woman killed the man who molested her son, the man she killed was not
    her husband.

    			Alfred

    
    Re: Alcohol
    
    We (U.S.) tried making alcohol illegal once.  It didn't work.
    
    IMHO, It won't work for guns either, or most other "controversial
    issues"  Making something illegal just won't make it go away.

    Some congresspeople have suggested not only making drugs legal, but 
    taxing them to death.  I read somewhere that if the illegal drug 
    industry paid taxes there would be no national debt.  (I'm not a 
    really big fan of making illegal drugs legal, though.)
    
    I think that generally, many U.S. citizens don't realize don't know
    how good they've got it.  It's easy for us to take personal freedoms for 
    granted.  If we abuse our rights, they'll be taken away.  The scary
    part about it is that we'll be taking them away from ourselves, and
    then we'll blame the government (that _we_ control, supposedly) for 
    it.
    
    /Mitch.
    

    re. last .27   If we abuse our rights they will be taken away...
    
    By WHO, by the people or by the government?  That is a KEY question
    I think.  If they are taken away by the people thats one thing...
    if they are taken away by the government, WATCH OUT!  The government
    is supposedly 'by the people and for the people', that is, the people
    control the government, not the other way around... which is the way
    it is now... the government controls the people.
    
    Yes, we ARE lucky to have our freedoms, and if the people don't
    rigorously guard those freedoms they will continue to be taken away
    by the government.  
    
    I still think that the majority see the people as having guns for
    only two reasons.... sports, and self defense against criminals.
    
    Don't forget the threat the government poses.
    
    I agree, the death and injury of many thousands of people a year by
    guns is an on-going tragedy.  I wish the solutions were simple.
    
    "Just take away the guns, thats your solution"
    
    That would leave the criminals and the government armed with the rest
    of us essentially defenseless.  Thats a solution?
    
    Jeff

    
    We _are_ the government.  We elected them.  _We_ sent the 
    congresscritters to office that voted all the legislation in.
    
    If everyone believes that the government controls the people, then 
    it does.  If every citizen believed they could change the government, 
    then they can.  It's a mindset problem.
    
    /Mitch.
    

RE: <<< Note 54.0 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>
        
   > Do you think that it is appropriate for civilizians to be armed?
   > Why or why not?

  Yes. Because it ensures a deterrent to tyranny.

   > What are historical examples of that?

 The history books are full of examples where the unarmed populace has fallen 
prey to whoever does have weapons. It began with Cane and Abel. The only thing 
that has changed over time is the efficiency of the weapons. Rocks and sticks 
were superceeded by spears and swords and the bow and arrow which in turn were 
rendered obsolete by gun powder powered weapons. I imagine sooner or later 
conventional gun powdered weaponry will be supplanted by something quite more 
sophisticated and still later (if we're still here) something else will also 
be invented to render them obsolete. 

 Probably the worst single example in history of what can happen to a disarmed 
populace is what happened to the Jewish people in Europe during World War II.

 Strength is not necessarily wielded by whoever has the strongest offense but 
if those who have to stand against the possible misuse of that strength are 
defenseless to stop it, it sure does make "doing it my way" a lot easier for 
the oppressor. Again I cite the WW II Jewish example.


   > Should the U.S. population be disarmed by the U.S. Gov?

 No. Because all that stands between "us and them" is civilian ownership of 
the means to resist oppression.


 An aside, I am amazed that lately the "gun issue" has been receiving lots 
more attention than in past years? Both by the Media, the Politicians and here 
in notes.

 I wonder why people are so edgy all of a sudden? Could it be they are 
beginning to realize that Big Brother just might be on the verge of running 
amok? Could it be that the "system" is in the beginning of its death throes 
as we watch the horror on the nightly news?? 


 The other thing that amazes me is how easily people are willing to toss away 
what liberties they have.?.?.? Typically I'll ask a question on some current 
legislation in the news asking "what do you think about the Govt. going ahead 
and doing XXX"?? Invariably I hear, "Hey, I could care less, it won't effect 
me!"

 Well, sooner or later *something* will effect them but by then it will 
probably be too late. 

 It's kinda stupid to worry about locking the barn door after the horse has 
run away.

 What's all this got to do with firearms ownership? 

 Everything,, if you take some time to seriously think about it because 
absolutely positively *nothing* else will do, *nothing* else we have right 
now will even come close to ensuring your continued indifference once firearms 
ownership is tossed on the "obsolete liberties" scrap heap.

  I wonder just how much worse things will get before people wake up and 
realize they are their own worst enemies and that more Government and/or 
laws are not the solution to the problem? 

 In the meantime I'll continue to speak out against what I think is wrong and 
try to do what I think is right even if the noise from the squeaking wheel 
I'm pushing is aggravating for some to read.

   

    re .30, I think the main reason that there has been more talk
    everywhere lately about the pro's and con's of gun ownership is all the
    violence that has been in the news the past couple of years.  Everyone
    hears all the stories of people being pulled from their cars and
    murdered, or whatnot, and after awhile even the most peaceful of people
    begin to wonder if they should consider arming themselves against all
    the random nuts out there.
    
    Lorna
    

RE: <<< Note 54.31 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "but faith is another matter" >>>
    
 >               -< violence in the news is the reason >-


 Lorna, it couldn't be because the Media is engineering the news could it?

 By selective ommissions do they lie?	The answer is yes.

    
    if servants of the public are really at the voters' beck and call 
    why can't the mass legislature get rid of Billy?

Re. Marc H.

    	"The german tourist was killed by running over her head with a car."

Mrs Jensens was shot - which was the cause of her lying on the ground - 
whether she died as a result of the bullet or the car is rather mute.
    
Re.26  

    	"Are you suggesting that we *reduce* the penalty for killing someone
    	with a gun to match those of killing someone with a car? I doubt it."

You're right - I wasn't suggesting that.

   	"Hey, I'd be at no inconvenience if alcohol were illegal or if you had
    	to pick between a drivers license and a drinking license. It would be
    	no big deal and I'd be a lot safer. Tell you what. Show me a case where
    	that works and then we'll try something that has an impact on things
   	I'm interested in. Thanks."

Try Europe. Alcohol isn't illegal but it is when it's mixed with driving. You 
say bye bye to your drivers licence if you get caught. So it's really a choice
drink or drive - but don't do both.

	"You are mixing apples and oranges here. In the case of cars and truck
    	you are talking about design flaws..."

No I'm not. You are required to take a driving test in America. You also get
to inspect the vehicle before purchase. So if you buy a vehicle which has
gas tanks tighed with string to the bumper that's you're problem. If you then 
drive like a nut and as a result are involved in an accident that's also your 
problem. The case against GM however is that they were negligent - they 
produced and sold a vehicle with basic design flaws and as a result somebody
died.

If a gun supplier supplys you with a gun and doesn't check that you know how 
to use it within certain controlled safety regulations, that you are a 
respectable law abiding citizen (that is have no poilce record), and intend 
the gun for sporting or self-protection purposes then he's also negligent. 
Why ? because he's put the safety of every other citizen in jeopardy. That's
no different than putting a poorly designed vehicle on the roads. But in 
America this point is further exaggerated. You can buy automatics, semi-
automatics, 9mm and God knows what else - and all by mail order. America is a 
gun bazaar. Now if that's not negligence then I'll go to the top of my garden !

	">The shooting of Mr Nessler on the other hand was perpetrated by 
	his wife. 

	I think you've got this wrong."

You maybe right but whether he was husband, lover or common law hubby is a 
mute point. Ellie took the law into her own hands and acted as judge, jury 
and executioner. She used a gun to carry out that execution. If Ellie isn't 
convicted and doesn't serve time that sends a clear signal to Americans -
the law doesn't work and it's ok to act out your own judgement. That leads
to a lawless nation. A lawless ARMED nation.

Why are some Americans so paranoid about their democratically elected 
Government going ape ? Ok power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts
but your Government doesn't have absolute power - it's controlled by
supporting bodies. If you look back through history the American people have 
been mislead before by their Government but then haven't we all been mislead 
at sometime by our own Governments. What did we do ? same thing you did - 
come election time you have the right to vote. So why do you need a gun for
protection against the Government when you have such a wonderful electoral 
system ?

- Paul.

>No I'm not. You are required to take a driving test in America. 

    No, you are not. One can own a car without ever taking a drivers test.
    You can't use government owned roads without taking a test but I know
    children who have been driving cars, trucks and even heavy vehicles
    starting at ages as low as 10. I'd be willing to take a test before
    using a gun at a government range - which would be the same thing. Gun
    laws are a lot stricter then car ownership/driving laws. I could agree
    to reducing gun laws to make them more in line with car laws.

>You also get
>to inspect the vehicle before purchase. So if you buy a vehicle which has
>gas tanks tighed with string to the bumper that's you're problem. 

    Not in the US. In the US it's clearly the sellers fault.

    >If you then 
>drive like a nut and as a result are involved in an accident that's also your 
>problem. The case against GM however is that they were negligent - they 
>produced and sold a vehicle with basic design flaws and as a result somebody
>died.

    OK, we're on the right track. If the driver screws up it's their fault.
    If the manufacturer screws up it's the manufacturers fault.

>If a gun supplier supplys you with a gun and doesn't check that you know how 
>to use it within certain controlled safety regulations, that you are a 
>respectable law abiding citizen (that is have no poilce record), and intend 
>the gun for sporting or self-protection purposes then he's also negligent. 

    We don't ask the people selling cars to do this and cars kill far more
    people then guns. Are you suggesting that car dealers do police checks?
    Or are you suggesting harder rules on sellers of items safer then cars?

>Why ? because he's put the safety of every other citizen in jeopardy. That's
>no different than putting a poorly designed vehicle on the roads. But in 

    It's clearly different then putting a poorly designed vehicle on the
    roads. It's a difference between the object and the owner. Apples and 
    apples would be holding a car dealer responsible if a car they sold
    was used in a hit and run or as a getaway car. Oranges and oranges
    would be holding both a car and gun maker responsible if there work
    malfunctioned.

>America this point is further exaggerated. You can buy automatics, semi-
>automatics, 9mm and God knows what else - and all by mail order. 

    Wrong! Mail order gun sales have been illegal in the US for more then
    a few years. And the process for buying an automatic is very involved.
    It involves a federal investigation, the paying of a several hundred
    dollar tax, and a letter of approval from your local Chief of Police.
    The process takes months.

    			Alfred

    
    This is off subject, but I've gotta say this.
    
>     if servants of the public are really at the voters' beck and call 
>     why can't the mass legislature get rid of Billy?
    
    Because the voters put him there, that's why.
    
    _I_ didn't vote for Billy.  Millions of other people did, though.  He 
    got elected because he the voters selected him in the primaries, and 
    then selected him again in the final election.  We (the people) put 
    him there, and by a landslide too.  Bill can't do anything without 
    congress, and we (the people) also elected the congresspeople.
    
    Back to the conversation at hand:  We can't _blame_ the government 
    entirely for [name_of_popular_issue, e.g. gun control].  The people 
    we elected created the laws.  If the majority of people in the 
    country want gun control, that's what they get.  The challenge is to 
    convince the majority of the people that they do _not_ want gun control.
    Whining about how the government wants to "control our minds" won't
    accomplish anything, IMHO.
    

Re.35

 	"We don't ask the people selling cars to do this and cars kill far 
	more people then guns. Are you suggesting that car dealers do police 
	checks? Or are you suggesting harder rules on sellers of items safer 
	then cars?"

It's the negligence of the driver that kills but you wouldn't let a drunk, a 
psycho, a law abiding citizen who hasn't passed a driving test or an under 18 
year old drive a car on a public highway would you ? Or are the laws that 
different in America ?  

A gun, unlike a car, was designed as a weapon - designed with the sole 
intention of killing. The intent of the user is to shoot something; a target, 
an animal, a frog, a person. So you'd think that society would be more 
interested in ensuring that guns don't fall into the hands of, let's say 
undesirable persons and demonstrating that interest through the enforcement
of some kind of legislation and controls. Are you saying that that is the 
case in America ?  

- Paul.

P.S.

Side track here for interest but doesn't add to the discussion.

    	"No, you are not. One can own a car without ever taking a drivers 
	test. You can't use government owned roads ...."

What you're saying is that on private land you can do as you please but in 
public places it's regulated - vis.a.vis driving - right ? So what happens
if the 10 year old is involved in an accident and somebody gets hurt or dies ?

>It's the negligence of the driver that kills but you wouldn't let a drunk, a 
>psycho, a law abiding citizen who hasn't passed a driving test or an under 18 
>year old drive a car on a public highway would you ? Or are the laws that 
>different in America ?  

    One can get a drivers license at 16 in New Hampshire. Lots of people
    who are known drunks or who have been treated for mental problems DO
    drive legally in the US. Driving while under the influence is against
    the law and you can lose your license temporarily if found driving in
    that condition. But you can get your license back after a time.

>So you'd think that society would be more 
>interested in ensuring that guns don't fall into the hands of, let's say 
>undesirable persons and demonstrating that interest through the enforcement
>of some kind of legislation and controls. Are you saying that that is the 
>case in America ?  

    It's against the law to buy a gun if you are a convicted felon in the
    US. Or if you are mentally incompetent or a drug user. What more do you
    want/need? There are over 20,000 gun laws in America. So what I am
    saying is that guns are more controlled then cars or alcohol are. 

>What you're saying is that on private land you can do as you please but in 
>public places it's regulated - vis.a.vis driving - right ? So what happens
>if the 10 year old is involved in an accident and somebody gets hurt or dies ?

    The same thing that happens in the case of a legal driver on a public 
    road. Don't farm kids in Europe drive long before the usual driving
    age?
    
    				Alfred

    			Alfred

Re.38
	"There are over 20,000 gun laws in America. So what I am
    	saying is that guns are more controlled then cars or alcohol are. "

In which case I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the sale, use
and carrying of guns was not so tightly legislated. Are these Federal laws or 
is there a fair degree of variance State to State ? 

    	"The same thing that happens in the case of a legal driver on a public 
    	road. Don't farm kids in Europe drive long before the usual driving
    	age?"

Sure do - but nobody will insure the vehicle for the use of a minor and if
an accident resulted in which a third party was injured or died you as the
responsible adult would find yourself in some very deep s..t. 

- Paul.

>In which case I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the sale, use
>and carrying of guns was not so tightly legislated. Are these Federal laws or 
>is there a fair degree of variance State to State ? 

    Federal, state, and in some cases local laws apply. There is some
    variance state to state. In some states carrying a concealed weapon is
    illegal and no license is allowed. In some states (Massachusetts for
    one) permits to carry concealed are permitted but the Chief of Police
    can turn you down if he doesn't like you, your race, of if he thinks
    "girls don't need guns." You can go to court to get this overturned
    but it's neither cheap or easy.

    In New Hampshire a concealed weapon carry permit involves a Police
    check. Also if you buy a hand gun in New Hampshire your local Police
    chief WILL receive a letter from the dealer letting him/her know that
    you have a new gun. And things are looser in New Hampshire then most
    other places. This may seem wide open to you but it doesn't to me.

    Note that in New Hampshire one can carry a gun openly without a permit.
    However if someone sees it and goes off the deep end the Police can
    arrest you for creating a disturbance. If you actually scare someone
    by taking the gun out of a holster the Police can arrest you for
    assault. Will you be convicted? It's a crap shoot. One reason a lot of
    people go to the trouble of getting a permit is just to avoid scaring
    hoplophobes. (hoplophobes - people afraid of guns)

    			Alfred

>	">The shooting of Mr Nessler on the other hand was perpetrated by 
>	his wife. 
>
>	I think you've got this wrong."
>
> You maybe right but whether he was husband, lover or common law hubby is a 
> mute point. Ellie took the law into her own hands and acted as judge, jury 
> and executioner. She used a gun to carry out that execution. 

Hold it.  You have obviously got no handle at all on the facts.  Dan Driver
was a previously convicted child molestor who had no contact with Ellie
Nesler at all.  No husband.  No lover.  No common law hubby.  Just a scum
of the earth stranger who molested her 5-year-old child at a children's
camp; after the judge who presided over his previous conviction had let him
go with no jail time, only probation.  Ellen Nessler killed this scum.
Whether or not it was justified will be determined in court.

DougO

    
    
    Did I blunder into the SOAPBOX note???...since I'm here..
    
    <flame_on>
     I belive that it is my RIGHT to own , carry, and use a firearm. 
    
     And I belive (and this will fire some of you up) that if more "LAW
    ABIDING" people carried and used guns to defend themselves against the
    ever increasing tide of scum, that the scum would become intimidated,
    not knowing who is armed and who is not. That they would think twice
    before attempting to violate anyone.
    
     It is time we took back the streets, using what ever force is
    necessary to push back the scum, that is invading, into whatever dark
    hole they are crawling out of...
    
     Ellie was in the right...and I'll serve notice here...If ANYONE messes
    with either of my kids like the sick moron mentioned, He/She will NOT
    be able to do it to anyone else's...this is not a threat but a promise!
    
     I'm sure some people here will say the sicko needs help, I say lets
    give them the help that works, permanently!!!
    
     
    <flame_off>
     
    
     There I feel better now...
    
      pm
    

Re.42

The problem with that is that YOU are the one who's deciding what's scum and 
what isn't and that decision is based on your values, your judgement call, and 
your perspective on the situation at any one particular point in time.

I mean check it out at DEC. Who is it that decides who gets TFS0'd ? Probably 
in 90% of the cases some guy who doesn't know his arse from his elbow and who 
acts to protect his own position and who doesn't give a damn about yours. It's 
somebody else's judgement call from somebody else's perspective with a very 
short focus on the future. 

So now you're on the street and some guy comes along and blows you away because
he didn't like the way you picked your nose in public or for some other puerile 
reason.

Is that the kind of society you really want to live in ?

- Paul.

    RE: .43
    
    Have too agree with you. Although the justice system is a joke
    here in the good old USA, we *MUST* make it work.
    
    Marc H.

    Right on Paul (re .43) regarding individual judgement calls.  Once the
    system goes over to individuals taking 'justice' into their own hands
    we are well on the way to anarchy.
    
    Jeff

    re last 2
    
     Then from what your saying, "WE MUST MAKE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WORK", that
    I will be seeing YOUR names in the news and politics working to ensure
    that the the "Justice" system gets repaired, protecting the rights of
    the inocent rather than coddling (sp?) the criminals!
    
     I agree with the folks in Calf. arming themselves to protect THEIR
    lives and property. I am NOT saying they should go seeking out trouble,
    but if trouble seeks them out they'll be able to meet it on troubles
    terms...
    
     pm  

    RE: .46
    
    Arming yourself and trying to make the justice system work are two
    different, but related actions. You want the justice system to work
    because it has to for society to work. Arming yourself is the reality
    of life today.
    
    I really don't think that we are in disagreement.
    
    Marc H.

    I hate to be a party pooper, but there are probably ten other notes
    conferences out there that have notes discussing gun control. There is
    even an entire notes CONFERENCE devoted to gun issues. Wouldn't people
    rather talk about it there?

    Also, what does this have to do with MEN?

    - Jim

    re .48  Havn't we been over this BEFORE in this string?:  i.e. 
    
    1. The appropriatness of this topic in mennotes.
    
    2. The existance of similiar discussions elsewhere.
    
    The moderator(s) have not chosen to move the string or shut it down.
    
    Moving it probably WILL shut it down because people 'hang out' on
    various notes and strings.  For that reason I am against moving it.
    It is interesting, (and relevent in the World today) so I want to see
    the discussion continued.  So please don't poop this discussion.
    
    There is a big difference between self defense and REVENGE.
    
    An earlier note struck me as being motivated solely by revenge. 
    However understandable the emotion of revenge may be by itself, it is a
    road to general lawlessness and anarchy.  i.e.  'The Hatfields and
    McCoys" ad infinitum.  "You hit me so I hit you, well, you hit ME so I
    hit you BACK................"  Somebody has to STOP, hitting back for
    hitting backs sake and seek justice with the help of society.  There
    is a BIG difference.  Civilizations seek justice, hateful people seek
    revenge.
    
    Yes, I am right in there writing my Congressmen and Senators and
    speaking out for justice.  Once place I am doing it is right here in
    this string.
    
    Jeff

After spending some time nosing around the firearms notesfile - boy did I learn
a lot - I was taken aback by the number of noters that also contribute here. I'm
no longer surprised by the volatility of the topic (46.0 Men and Guns) but I 
wanted to share my last words on this subject. That's if anybodys listening or 
interested.

As an observation - and this isn't intended as an inflammatory remark - I think
that anybody who is pro-gun is so convinced of their opinion that any objectivity 
necessary for a balanced discussion or review of the facts is lost. What I also 
observed is an attitude that quickly stereotypes and labels people based on their
stance. So for many of you out there I guess I'm already labelled. For those of
you Americans who hold a less than politically acceptable opinion about guns - 
my sincere condolences.

My feeling now is that 'if I'd known then what I know now' I wouldn't have 
entered into the discussion in the first place. 

Happy shooting.

- Paul.

P.S. I'll keep tabs on the firearms notesfile and one day I might find the
courage to enter into another discussion - the thought of being flayed alive 
isn't a pleasant one.

    re .50, it's amazing isn't it?
    
    Lorna
    

.51> -< Americans & their guns >-
.51> re .50, it's amazing isn't it?
    
    Yup, almost as amazing as Americans and their irrational gun paranoia.

 re: .52

 It's not just americans, Mike. Lots of europeans harbor distinct gun paranoia.

>As an observation - and this isn't intended as an inflammatory remark - I think
>that anybody who is pro-gun is so convinced of their opinion that any objectivity 
>necessary for a balanced discussion or review of the facts is lost.

 It helps to have the facts on your side.

        >As an observation - and this isn't intended as an inflammatory remark - I think
>that anybody who is pro-gun is so convinced of their opinion that any objectivity 
>necessary for a balanced discussion or review of the facts is lost. What I also 

    Most of us have heard all the arguments over and over and over again.
    I can make the anti-gun case better than a lot of anti-gun people I
    know. But an objective view the facts always winds up rejecting the 
    anti-gun arguments. I seldom hear of a serious pro-gunner changing
    their mind but anti-gunners often do.

>P.S. I'll keep tabs on the firearms notesfile and one day I might find the
>courage to enter into another discussion - the thought of being flayed alive 
>isn't a pleasant one.

    Which firearms notesfile? Both are friendly but anti gun topics are as
    welcome in the technical conference as anti Gay topics are in BGLAD. On
    the other hand if you are going to visit the states sometime we could 
    probably arrange for you to try shooting.

    		Alfred

    PS: My experience is that the FIREARMS conference has both the loudest
    and the friendliest Notes party of any conference on the net. And I've
    been to some very friendly Notes parties.

    
    
    lord knows how we've tried to twist tails in there...;^

    >>Do you think that it is appropriate for civilizians to be armed?<<
    
    NO!  Most of them are really lousy shots.

>    NO!  Most of them are really lousy shots.

 So we'll improve their aim by taking their guns away...

    Learning to shoot properly can be accomplished in a very few lessons
    with a good instructor.  
    
    Meg

    And Shooting the instructor can be more fun!!:)

    Shooting a moon is safer.

    
    safer than shooting the pickup truck too i should think..

It's not "shooting a moon", it's "shooting the moon".  It's in hearts when
you capture all the hearts plus the queen of spades.  Yes, it's safer to play
cards than play with guns.

    Ok... time to stop the banter and get down to business.....
    
    Anybody out there alarmed at the 'armed camp' we live in. Not 
    the responsible people with guns, but the irresponsible ones.  Its easy
    to tell which ones the irresponsible ones are... they are often on the
    6 PM news.
    
    Jeff

        
    >Anybody out there alarmed at the 'armed camp' we live in. Not 

    Well, I'm alarmed at the crime problem but I don't see the gun rate
    in total as a problem. I'm every bit as afraid of a big guy and a
    tire iron in places I can't legally carry a gun as I am some nut
    with a gun.

    			Alfred

    re .66
    
    The BATF is an armed cult of fanatics.  Yes, it concerns me.
    
    - M

    I am not alarmed. For there use to be this neet program on Channel 2
    the local PBS. And some guy in a pith helmit would make these wild
    statements about our social structure. Like for instance he said that
    the great American dreams were in some what order:
    
    1. guns
    2. women with big breast
    3. money
    4. house
    5. college education
    
    And so if you cannot fullfil any of these items. The gun would be the
    least expensive one.:) And I think that you must remember that there
    is war and killings going on every day every min on some place called
    plannet Earth. And you should remember that this is a depression of
    world wide magnatude and when there is this sort of discontent of
    course folks will turn to guns and etc. Rob corner stores, shoot the
    boss or people in power cause they are setting down rules that the
    populas doesnt want to etc. 
    
    There was a man who shot to death two women in the town selectmans
    office over property tax's. There are roberies and shootings due to
    drugs. But when someone mentions drugs, so long as it doesnt hurt their
    personal supplyer....;) 
    
    I dont think that tv is the cause to violence as the crimes that are
    commited even were there is no cammera to pan on it.
    
    "I got this job on the evening news....
    
    

    I still think that shooting moons is best done when you least expect
    one! Like a pressed ham from a glass elevator climbing in a swank
    hotel.:)
    
    

                 I don't know what concerns me more.
    
    There is always threat in life, there is always danger and risk. 
    Take the notion of a safty belt for instance. It really is not a SAFTY 
    BELT, there are documented cases of death caused by wareing a SAFTY BELT 
    so the term is very missleading and creates an ellusion of safty. There is
    no safe anything. Relative risk is more accurate in measuring conditions 
    in life.
    
    I'm not creating an argument for or against SAFTY BELTS, just trying to
    demonstrate a point. Please don't go down any rat holes about SAFTY
    BELTS.
    
    When I say " I don't know what concerns me more " it relates to our lack of
    understanding that there is no birth right to be free of risk. We are
    born to the world of natural law that we with our intellect feel empowered
    to alter or change so that natural laws are less likely to take their
    toll apon us. This is good, but not lasting. When at times the order
    we create fails, the tabos establish egnored, the values put forth
    rejected we find our selfes back in the natural law of life condition
    which will not respond to intellect, discussion, reasone.
    
    The natural law condition only responds to those theroms that time has
    ingraved in our reptillean responses. Those theroms work and will 
    promot survival and continuation of our gene pool. Some of us anyway.
    
    They are simple theroms like, " You cannot hold or keep what you are
    unable or unwilling to defend ". That could be your life, your food,
    your home, your family, whatever. We do it all the time with insurance,
    fire and police forces but when the contrived order breaks down we find 
    that the payment of money to otheres to fight for us, to come to our
    aid, to die for us or to stand awake at night by our door in case of
    threat is no longer effective.
    
    To demonstrait this point let me ask a retorical question. Who here is
    willing to die for me ? or me wife ? or my children ? Who here is
    willing to take the knife pointed at my chest, I'll pay you well, money
    is no object just take the thrust of the knife for me so that I will
    not have to defend what I whish to keep. How about it ? any takers.
    
    Reality is that no well adjusted persone is willing to do that and 
    bring to an end their own gene pool. You have to do it for you.
    
    What really concerns me is that we are so full of fear, deers in the
    head lights of life we are. Forzen with fear at times. I do think we
    a very willing to trade anything, freedom especially for the notion
    of safty and a poor trade it is because we will get neither freedom
    or safty in the end.
    
    To demonstrate that point I would like to ask retoricly if anyone here
    would feel safe if suddenly hundreds of people signed up to die for
    you, to place them selfes in front of all risk and threat aimed at
    you. You would have to pay them money, they would need a lot of it also
    you would have to pay them your freedom, after all they Know what is
    best for your safty, your own good and you will have to do what they
    say. Sounds warm, cozy, risk free ? 
    
    Well maybe not because with thier new found power over you, minipulation 
    of your fears, the very fears that caused us to beg them into existance 
    and their exsclusive position of dominance ( The first natural law that 
    insures thier success) as well as our open admission that we are unable 
    or unwilling to take our active part in the laws of life as well as thier
    blantent incentives of control which we plead them to inact so that we are
    free from our responsibilitys to inact control apon our selefes. Well
    what are we spelling out ? 
    
    Ask your selfe these questions, do you really trust a persone who is ready
    to die for you for money ? do you think money is a strong enough
    incentive to cause someone to end thier life ? If it is do you trust
    a persone that is so motivated by money they would die for you ? 
    What else would they do for money, for power, for the continuation of
    their new found dominant position, for thier own success, WHAT WOULD 
    THEY NOT DO. If the would die for you then WHAT WOULD THEY DO FOR
    THEMSELFES ?....
    
    Some how I really think we lost our courage, our willingness to face
    life as it is and spit it right back, to hack out what we can and to
    take our loss's on the chin and keep moving, hunker down, eyes
    ever watchfull and leary of anyone, any media, government or social
    order that would provide you with anything more than what your own
    two hands can produce.
    
    What I'm most concerned about is that there is so few of us who are
    willing to take up the very arms that will defend and protect our
    own and are so willing to throw their freedom to the wind for an
    illusion that pampers their fears. COURAGE, a generation worth please.
    
    ( Sorry for all the spelling errors, also this is not aimed at anyone
      or any group, just my feelings gathered for about 45 years) 
    
    
    Gerry Marini

"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The
Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National
Affairs, Inc.  It is uploaded with permission of the publisher for
private use by CompuServe subscribers.  Permission must be obtained
from the publisher for all other uses.  If you upload this file to
another CompuServe forum or to another electronic network or bulletin
board, this header must be retained.
 
The article came to our attention because it first came to the
attention of George Will, who devoted a Newsweek editorial to it in the
November 15, '93 issue.  Will, who has advocated the repeal of the
Second Amendment, found Snyder's argument strong and compelling.  So
have many others.
 
Single copies of The Public Interest are available for $6.  Annual
subscription rate is $21 ($24 US, for Canadian and foreign
subscriptions).  Single copies of this or other issues, and
subscriptions, can be obtained from:
 
     The Public Interest 
     1112 16th St., NW, Suite 530 
     Washington, DC  20036
 
(C) 1993 by _The Public Interest_.
 
************************************************************************
 
 
 
 
A Nation of Cowards
 
by Jeffrey R. Snyder
 
 
   OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect
for individuality rare or unmatched in history.  Our entire popular
culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams
the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity,
nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination.  This
enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone
entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person
properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and,
in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
 
  And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality
and incalculable self- worth, the media and the law enforcement
establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the
threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the
attacker what he wants.  If the crime under consideration is rape,
there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion
quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the
risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may
acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which
really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular
phone.
 
   Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly
calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who
believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination
passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination?
How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the
goods?
 
   The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency.  The
advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods
is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and
that no amount of property is worth it.  Put aside, for a moment, the
outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal
violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social
contract "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For
years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about
sex, but about domination, degradation, and control.  Evidently,
someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media
that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about
property.
 
   Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but
also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty.  If the
individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging
in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime
always violates the victim's dignity.  It is, in fact, an act of
enslavement.  Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth
your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it
can hardly be said to exist.
 
 
The Gift of Life
 
   Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely
believed that life was a gift from God, that not to defend that life
when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a
coward and to breach one's duty to one's community.  A sermon given in
Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend
oneself with suicide:
 
     He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no
     authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense,
     incurs the Guilt of Self Murder since God hath enjoined him to
     seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every
     creature to defend itself.
 
   "Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public
discourse.  In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the
bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity.  "Self-respect" implies
that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree
to which one lives up to them.  "Self-esteem" simply means that one
feels good about oneself.  "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery
and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of
life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others.  Now, judging
by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a
discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully,
evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our
degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others.  These are
signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the
hollowness of our souls.
 
   It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without
talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim.  Crime
is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it,
permit it, submit to it.  We permit and encourage it because we do not
fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens.  Crime is
not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and
prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd
technicalities.  The defect is there, in our character.  We are a
nation of cowards and shirkers.
 
 
Do you Feel Lucky?
 
   In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the
FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that
a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in
an auto accident.  Despite this, most people readily believe that the
existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take
full measures to protect themselves.  The police, however, are not
personal bodyguards.  Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime,
both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact.
As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect
anyone in particular.  You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you
from being the victim of a crime.
 
   Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very
good.  Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of
them.  Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet
your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you
actually need them.
 
   Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape,
you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in
progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone.
Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to
show up.  Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all
crimes of violence, only 2 percent of calls are responded to within
five minutes.  The idea that protection is a service people can call to
have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often
mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "call for a
cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza.  See who shows up
first.  "
 
   Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves
that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones.
Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover
that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these
imaginary boundaries.  If, however, you understand that crime can occur
anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or
mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you
are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in
the hands of others.
 
 
 Power and Responsibility
 
   Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to
protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you
wrong since the courts universally rule that they have no legal
obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries.
How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to
protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because
that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of
incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay
him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to
use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon
another to do so for you?
 
   Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because
the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what
they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is
equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano
and only professional athletes may play sports.  What exactly are these
special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of
us mere mortals?
 
   One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to
his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of
fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or
grievous injury to himself or a loved one.  He will never be content to
rely solely on others for his safety or to think he has done all that
is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of
avoidance.  Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in
the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal
violence.
 
   Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that
can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun.  Small and
light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or
sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great
equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of
ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by
the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one
against the many.
 
   The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger
a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a
teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent
on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway
station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with
razors and knives.
 
   But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the
carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American
Gun War.  Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our
current culture wars.  Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with
which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite"
-- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun
control proponents.  It is not a topic often written about or written
about with any great fervor, by William F.  Buckley or Patrick
Buchanan.  As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban
assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal
of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban
on the possession of semiautomatic ''assault weapons." The battle for
gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man.  The beliefs
of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the
criminal rampage through our society.
 
 
Selling Crime Prevention
 
   By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are
hokum.  The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John
Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley
purchased his weapon five months before that attack, and his medical
records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun,
since medical records are not public documents filed with the police.
Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not
stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he
used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the
felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the
sales did not exist, because Mr.  Purdy's previous weapons violations
were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors.
 
   In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign
targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft.  The purpose
of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their
cars.  The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad.  The implication
was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car
owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just
weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those
days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for
whose behavior.  The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the
populace, and was soon dropped.
 
   Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control,
Inc.  (HCI) and its ilk employ the same philosophy.  They are founded
on the belief that America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of
the problem.  With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating
a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and
helping bad boys be badder.  This laying of moral blame for violent
crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of
violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun
owners.
 
   The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with
proposals to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms
to law-abiding citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and
punishing violent criminals.  It is ludicrous to expect that the
proposals of HCI, or any gun control laws, will significantly curb
crime.  According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent
crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns
obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful
purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control
legislation.  Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in
comparison to the number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF
at about 200 million, approximately one-third of which are handguns.
With so abundant a supply, there will always be enough guns available
for those who wish to use them for nefarious ends, no matter how
complete the legal prohibitions against them, or how draconian the
punishment for their acquisition or use.  No, the gun control proposals
of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime
control.  Something else is at work here.
 
 
The Tyranny of the Elite
 
   Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric
citizenry.  This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun
control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on
restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending
and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control
proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA.
Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks
fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person
who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social
"re-education" is the object of liberal social policies.  Typical of
such bigotry is New York Gov.  Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of
gun- owners as hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their
wives about where they were all weekend.  Similar vituperation is
rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen.  Edward Kennedy as the
"pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for
the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general,
portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow
people away at will.
 
   The stereotype is, of course, false.  As criminologist and
constitutional lawyer Don B.  Kates, Jr.  and former HCI contributor
Dr.  Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show
that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more
prestigious jobs than non-owners....  Later studies show that gun
owners are *less* likely than non-owners to approve of police
brutality, violence against dissenters.  etc."
 
   Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have
for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism.
This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The
Republic.  There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one
in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business
in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of
philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians
unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and
fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths
that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.
 
 
The Unarmed Life
 
   When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to
defend his home, when Maryland Gov.  William Donald Schaefer seeks
legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"
whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the
same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm
semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy.  It is the workings
of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken
upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who
understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.     The
liberal elite know that they are philosopher- kings.  They know that
the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just
and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society
will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal
elite know how to fix things.  They are going to help us live the good
and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it.
And they detest those who stand in their way.
 
   The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal.
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts
from the state.  It is to reserve final judgment about whether the
state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend
that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the
state's totalitarian reach.
 
 
The Florida Experience
 
    The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control
movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new
concealed-carry law in Florida.  Prior to 1987, the Florida law
permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at
the county level.  The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to
conflicting interpretation and political manipulation.  Permits were
issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with
political connections.  Permits were valid only within the county of
issuance.
 
   In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law
which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who
satisfies certain objective criteria.  The law requires that a permit
he issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years
of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no
history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having
satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or
other competent instructor.  The applicant must provide a set of
fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check.  The
permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout
the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides
authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder
still qualifies.
 
   Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the
media.  The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other
over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and
other slights to their dignity.  Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine
State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and
those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act
as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society.
 
   No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs
underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership.  Given the
qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only
believe that common law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of
homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity,
eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless.  Only lack of
immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from
flowing in the streets.  They are so mentally and morally deficient
that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a
state-sanctioned license to kill at will.
 
   Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and
Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate
fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon
following enactment of similar legislation there.  There are, in
addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully
using their weapons to defend themselves.  Information from the Florida
Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in
1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530,
or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for
failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting
those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law abiding.  Only 16
permits, less than l/lOOth of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the
post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm.
 
   The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation
adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi.  There are, in
addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia and, with the exception of cities with a
population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that
concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who
satisfy various objective criteria.  Finally, no permit is required at
all in Vermont.  Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which
law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do
so.  While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of
these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those
seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who
carry firearms.
 
   Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very
responsible in using guns to defend themselves.  Florida State
University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has
determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with
firearms against criminals approximately I million times a year.  In 98
percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or
fires a warning shot.  Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens
actually shoot their assailants.  In defending themselves with their
firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three
times the number killed by the police.  A nationwide study by Kates,
the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent
of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified
as a criminal.  The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11
percent, over five times as high.
 
   It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the
experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun
owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot
someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the
lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is
proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives.  Nor upon
reflection should these results seem surprising.  Rape, robbery, and
attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or
subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great
book-learning to discern.  When a man pulls a knife on a woman and
says, "You re coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being
committed is not likely to be in error.  There is little chance that
she is going to shoot the wrong person.  It is the police, because they
are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more
likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence
are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is
higher.
 
 
Arms and Liberty
 
   Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical
relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a
people ready and willing to use them.  Political theorists as
dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington,
Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the
view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and
that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved
by it.  The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant
that government governs only with the consent of the governed.  As
Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this
political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the
Revolutionary War.  Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this
aspect of republican theory.  Although our conservative pundits
recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their
battle for gun rights is desultory.  The problem here is not a statist
utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the
confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's
problems.  Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits
shared by our conservative and liberal elites.
 
   One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word.  The
failure of our conservative elite to defend the second Amendment stems
in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set
forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action.
Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the
assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve
our liberty.  The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as
men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that
can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be
disclosed for the culprits to be shamed.  The people will act, and the
truth shall set us, and keep us, free.
 
   History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the
view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only
people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their
liberties.  While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the
existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the
balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has
certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in
the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging.  The
camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for
good or ill.  Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to
very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the
propaganda opportunities afforded by film.  And then, of course, there
were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among
intellectuals.
 
 
Polite Society
 
   In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our
conservative elite shares with liberals the notion that an armed
society is just not civilized or progressive, that massive gun
ownership is a blot on our civilization.  This association of personal
disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined
beliefs of our time.
 
   Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through
nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact
that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed
himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a
highwayman or other such predator.  This does not appear to have
shocked the ladies accompanying him.  True, for the most part there
were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion
that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility
to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the
police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.
 
   It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to
fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to
continue unobstructed in their evil ways.  While it may be that a
society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a
weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of
weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more
than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim
this distinction.  Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with
lethal force is not civilized arises from the view that violence is
always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic
worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances.  The
necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is
not worth defending.  Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that
counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the
spread of barbarism.  Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that
those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule
over those who do.
 
   In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his
responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself
mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to
behave responsibly.  In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding
citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized
but barbarous becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs
and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the
disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat
than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and
act accordingly.
 
   While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder,
gentler society incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do
not live in an armed society.  We live in a society in which violent
criminals and agents of the state habitually carry weapons, and in
which many law-abiding citizens own firearms but do not go about
armed.  Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87 percent of
all violent crimes occur outside the home.  Essentially, although tens
of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society.
 
 
Take Back the Night
 
   Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant
brake on criminal activity.  While liberals call for more poverty,
education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more
direct tack.  George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of
police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the
NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require
violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and
would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars.
 
   Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official
action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly
salvation.  Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent
crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought
regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an
overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral
moorings.  As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal
responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs
will fail to contain it.
 
   Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun
magazines, the growing number of products advertised for such purpose,
and the increase in the number of concealed- carry applications in
states with mandatory-issuance laws, more and more people, including
growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms for self-defense.
Since there are still many states in which the issuance of permits is
discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny
applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between
protecting their lives or respecting the law.  Some of these people
have learned the hard way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing
a friend or loved one raped, robbed, or murdered, that violent crime
can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime, and that crime is not about
sex or property but life, liberty, and dignity.
 
   The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest,
law-abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law.  As the
Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its
honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense
is not itself worthy of trust.  Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim
that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.  A
federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all
contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying
of firearms by law- abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of
citizenship -- is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and
local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.
 
   What we certainly do not need is more gun control.  Those who call
for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin
controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of
Rights.  The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such
that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers
otherwise proscribed.  The Bill of Rights is the list of the
fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that
define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights
which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the
consent of the people.
 
   At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court.  In
United States v.  Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court
had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that
the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by
the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence."  The repeal of the Second Amendment
would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the
repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize
the government to imprison and kill people at will.  A government that
abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian
approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses
the moral right to govern.
 
   This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning
that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian
night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."
While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde,
violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold
equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word
processors, and television cameras.  The Republic depends upon fervent
devotion to all our fundamental rights.
 
--end--
--
 
Jeff Chan
Internet: chan@shell.portal.com
UUCP:     {apple,claris,pyramid,uunet}!shell.portal.com!chan

    ref .70
    
    Like the ENTIRE H.S. football team returning 
    from a Saturday away game!

        re. 72

    Very interesting.  Particularly the part about, "Any society that
    allows itself to be disarmed by its government is enslaved by its
    government".  Also the part about "Call for the police, an ambulance
    and a pizza and see which one gets there first", and "The police
    have no legal obligation to protect you.

    fred();

Yes, reply .72 is interesting.  It interested me when George Will summarized it.

I have no problem with people owning guns for self-defence, and I have only
a few practical problems with concealed-carry.  If the NRA had planted their
flag on this ground, I would support them, and I think most Americans would
as well.

Unfortunately for the NRA, they chose to defend a much different position, 
making an issue of armor-piercing bullets, automatic weapons and the Brady Bill.
So they are now fighting rear-guard with little credibility and little public 
support.


I don't think much of the idea expressed by Will and Snyder that handguns are 
the safeguard of democracy.  I have three reasons for this.

First, the government controls far more firepower than its citizens.  David 
Koresh had lots of rifles, and a 50 cal machine gun, but the BATF had the 
tanks.  If we are looking for an equalizer at this point, we would need 
citizens with tanks and copters, not handguns.

Second, unarmed citizens have done pretty well against governments in Poland, 
East Germany and the Soviet Union.  This is partly because a government which
wants to defend itself against a large part of its citizens needs a lot of 
nerve and a lot of firepower.  Mostly, it is because...

Third, when a significant number of citizens oppose the government, a 
aignificant part of the military will support them, and the government itself
will be weak and confused.  This means that the arms of the citizens will be 
supplemented by the military, and the arms of the government will be 
neutralized by internal dissent.  This doesn't always happen, see China 1989,
but it happens often enough to weaken the connection between handguns and 
democracy.


Nor do I think much of their moralizing about my obligation to defend my self.
When and how I choose to defend myself is my business, and I will make my 
decision on practical and moral considerations.  If they choose, they can listen
to my reasoning and try to persuade me otherwise, but so far I have not found
their ideas acceptable on practical or moral grounds.

    
    reply

>Second, unarmed citizens have done pretty well against governments in Poland, 
>East Germany and the Soviet Union.  This is partly because a government which
>wants to defend itself against a large part of its citizens needs a lot of 
>nerve and a lot of firepower.  Mostly, it is because...

    Tell that to the 8 million odd Jews that were gassed by Hitler 
    (although a group in Wasrsaw did put up a pretty good fight before
    being snuffed), and the 10 million odd Ukrainians starved to death
    by Stalin (and we wonder why the Ukrainians seem reluctant to give
    up their nukes, particularly in light of recent development), or
    the million+ Cambodians snuffed by the Kemer Rouge (sp) and the
    Bosnians (what happens when the criminals have all the guns)
    (and the world swore a solem oath that they'd never let the
    Holocaust happen again--so much for solem oaths protecting you).

    If you think it can't happen in America, about 100 miles from
    where I sit is Ludlow, Colorado, where, during a mine strike about
    1900, somewhere near a hundred men, women, and children were machine-
    gunned and burned to death by "National Guard" troops under the
    influence of John Rockefeller (sp).  

    Maybe not in todays society, but what about 100 or 200 years from 
    now?  That huge sucking sound Ross Perot thought he heard was not 
    jobs, but the national debt.  We can't keep that up forever.

>Nor do I think much of their moralizing about my obligation to defend my self.
>When and how I choose to defend myself is my business, and I will make my 
>decision on practical and moral considerations.  If they choose, they can listen
>to my reasoning and try to persuade me otherwise, but so far I have not found
>their ideas acceptable on practical or moral grounds.

    That is your choice.  So be it.  No one says you _have_ to buy a gun
    and defend yourself.  The problem I have is those who want to take 
    away _my_ choice and ability to defend _my_ family (right now I
    don't own a gun, btw).

    fred();

54.75> Unfortunately for the NRA, they chose to defend a 
54.75> much different position, making an issue of armor-piercing 
54.75> bullets, automatic weapons and the Brady Bill.

1. The armor-piercing-bullets legislation was worded so badly that it
   would have outlawed most hunting ammunition.  The NRA helped to
   reword the legislation to more-fully and more-accurately describe
   ammunition that could defeat police body armor.  I thought this
   was common knowledge by now, but I see some folks still are
   ignorant of this fact.

2. Any serious study of the B.O.R. admits that the 2nd Amendment is
   in place ward off government tyranny - it's why the puddle was
   crossed in the first place a few hundred years ago.  As such, it
   applies first and foremost to battle weapons, of which fully-
   automatic firearms are an important subset.  Semiautomatic fire-
   arms (unlike fully-automatic ones) are an important tool for
   civilians defending themselves against crime and in fact are
   available at a lower price point than revolvers; therefore in
   many cases they are the only firearms affordable to low-income
   persons who choose to defend themselves and their families. 
   One can make a very strong case for the banning of semiautomatic
   firearms being de facto racism, as the majority of residents of
   high-crime areas are persons of color.  Semiautomatic firearms
   also have the advantage of being discreetly carried, and usable
   by persons with disabilities due to easier trigger pulls.
   
3. The Brady Bill is so full of crap I don't know where to begin.
   First of all, its sponsors themselves admit it's only a first 
   step to purging the country of all firearms.  Second, it affects
   only those persons who purchase firearms from dealers and FFLs,
   not the creeps on the street who buy them from other creeps.
   Third, it will deny immediate access to firearms to a person who
   really needs it (e.g. to protect oneself from an abusive spouse
   previously arrested and out on bail, who won't necessarily obey
   a restraining order).  Fourth, it operates on the concept of
   preassumed guilt and is therefore unconstitutional.  I could go
   on, but I don't want to suck up any more bandwidth on this topic.
   It's been discussed to death in other forums, anyway.
   
N.B.: A person who evaluates the cost/benefit of firearms-related legislation
based on the piddle in Time/Newsweek/U.S.N & W.R./&c is uninformed, whether
or not he/she chooses to face it, believe it, admit it, or do something about
it.  This comment applies to no one person in particular, participant in this
bulletin board or otherwise.  I make the observation only to inform readers
that there is a ton of *legitimate research* out there refuting everything
the Brady Bill claims to accomplish.  Like other examples of the truth,
however, you may have to dig a little for it.

- craig
                                    

    
    no 50 caliber MG was ever announced as having been found at 
    the Waco compound. Do you have some evidence not previously
    dislosed?

    re: .74 and .72
"The police have no legal obligation to protect you."
    
    	This is just a matter of adjusting the law. Under French law
    *everyone* has a legal obligation to protect you, and there are numbers
    of prosecutions per year for "non-assistance to a person in danger".
    
    	Normally the prosecutions are more for things like not trying to
    rescue someone drowning when it is known that you are a competent
    swimmer, or not calling for an ambulance for someone injured, but it is
    quite clear that the police are armed solely to deal with armed crooks,
    otherwise let them use truncheons like the British police, so in France
    it could well lead to a police officer being imprisoned if he didn't
    make a reasonable effort to assist you against an armed crook.

                      <<< Note 54.57 by NETWKS::GASKELL >>>

>    >>Do you think that it is appropriate for civilizians to be armed?<<
    
>    NO!  Most of them are really lousy shots.



	Not to confuse the issue with facts or anything, but according to
	the DoJ, cops involved in shootings injure or kill an innocent
	person 11% of the time. The same figure for armed citizens involved
	in shootings is 3%.

Jim

        <<< Note 54.75 by ICARUS::NEILSEN "Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt" >>>

>Unfortunately for the NRA, they chose to defend a much different position, 
>making an issue of armor-piercing bullets, automatic weapons and the Brady Bill.
>So they are now fighting rear-guard with little credibility and little public 
>support.

	The NRA worked with the Congress to draft legislation that would
	ban civilian sales of REAL armor-piercing ammo. One should note
	that no manufacturer or distributor of such ammo had ever offered
	it to civilians, so the need for the law was somewhat questionable.

	The NRA has been working diligently against bans on SEMIautomatic
	firearms. THey have NOT addressed the issue of AUTOMATIC firearms
	for a number of years. One should note that there is no proposed
	legislation concerning further regulation of AUTOMATIC firearms
	and there has not been any such legislation proposed since 1986.

	The NRA opposed the Brady Bill. It did support the creation of
	an "instant-check" system. One should note that the Brady Bill
	does not require a background check of the potetial buyer. It merely
	mandates a 5 day waiting period during which local authorities can
	perform a check if they choose. The instant check system WOULD 
	actually require that a buyer's record be checked prior to 
	completing the process. One might ask those who opposed this system
	in favor of Brady why they were opposed to actually requiring
	a records check of potential handgun buyers.	

	As for lost support for the NRA, one should note that the NRA
	membership is growing at a rate unprecendented in the Association's
	history. The biggest complaint against the NRA these days is the
	amount of time it takes to process an application. With nearly
	1000 applications a day, it is not suprising that the membership 
	department is simply overwhelmed.

	As for you implied support of the Brady Bill, does this extend
	to the Brady's (and Handgun Control Inc.) as well? If you are
	troubled by the positions that the NRA has taken, how comfortable
	are you in supporting an organization that actually went to court to
	PREVENT firearms safety information from being distributed to grade
	school children. HCI did this in Florida. One might ask why, with
	all their puported concern for the safety of children, HCI would
	seek to prohibit a proven system for preventing child/gun accidents
	from being taught in the Florida schools. One should also note that
	the NRA DONATES (as in FREE) this material to any school district 
	that asks for it.

>First, the government controls far more firepower than its citizens.  David 
>Koresh had lots of rifles, and a 50 cal machine gun, but the BATF had the 
>tanks.  

	Nits. There was no 50 cal machine gun. There was a 50 cal rifle.
	The ATF did not have tanks, the FBI did. This was in violation
	of Federal law (Posse Commitatis) which prohibits the use of
	the military or military hardware in civilian law enforcement
	(there is an exception for drug cases, but there were no drugs
	at the Davidian ranch).

>Second, unarmed citizens have done pretty well against governments in Poland, 
>East Germany and the Soviet Union. 

	Not all of the citizens were unarmed. You should read the accounts
	of the revolt in Romania where members of the Olympic rifle team
	used their competition rifles to battle the Army forces. Similar
	events occurred in many of the Eastern Bloc countries. One could 
	argue that the failure of the Chinese revolt was due in large part
	to the fact that the citizens WERE unarmed.


Jim

    
    i remember seeinng the pictures of east germans stonning T-34s
    during some unpleasantness or other in 1952. 
    
    given that they were "liberated" only in 1989 it would seem the
    rocks were less than effective.

    re: .80
>	Not to confuse the issue with facts or anything, but according to
>	the DoJ, cops involved in shootings injure or kill an innocent
>	person 11% of the time. The same figure for armed citizens involved
>	in shootings is 3%.
    
    	Just curious, but to what do you attribute this remarkable
    discrepancy? Are your cops much less well trained than the average
    armed citizen? Are their weapons of worse quality? Are the cops
    themselves by nature more clumsy oafs than the average armed citizen?
    
    	The first two problems can be solved simply by applying more money
    to the police force for either training or guns. If it is the third
    problem, then the most obvious solution is to fire all the
    on-the-street police officers and replace them by conscripts chosen at
    random from the membership list of the NRA. It should be possible to
    get the police average down to the national average, and depending on
    exactly what is the problem, at least the third suggestion would work
    if you permitted the conscripted police force to carry their personal
    weapons instead of standard issue ones.
    
    	A fourth solution is to do as in Britain, and make it illegal under
    most circumstances for a police officer to carry a gun. In Britain the
    incidence of a police officer injuring an innocent person with a gun is
    so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant.

       <<< Note 54.83 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	Just curious, but to what do you attribute this remarkable
>    discrepancy? Are your cops much less well trained than the average
>    armed citizen? Are their weapons of worse quality? Are the cops
>    themselves by nature more clumsy oafs than the average armed citizen?
 

	There are likely two primary reasons.

	First, most shootings by armed citizens occur right at the crime
	scene and the citizen was the intended victim. This reduces the
	misidentification of an innocent person as a criminal. Cops
	typically are called to the scence of a crime and then they have
	to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

	Secondly, most cops treat their sidearms as just one more tool
	that they carry. They do not practice as much as do citizens
	who take their firearms much more seriously. A sidenote, a very
	good buy at any gun show is a "cop trade-in" (when departments
	change the standard issue they sell off the old guns). My most
	recent purchase was a trade-in S&W revolver, there is some holster
	wear (the bluing will need to be touched up), but the bore and
	rifling look factory new.

>      	The first two problems can be solved simply by applying more money
>    to the police force for either training or guns. 

	I think that more stringent and more realistic training requirements
	should be put in place for police. New York City has recently 
	increased the qualification (each officer must fire a minimum
	score) schedule to 3 times per year. Each qualification consumes
	200 rounds for a total of 600 per year. This will be above average
	for most departments. By contrast I fire about 300 rounds per week
	during the competition season (Feb. to Sept.) and as much as 500 rounds
	the week before a major match. We also need to look at the qualification
	requirements themselves. Although things have improved in recent
	times, 20 years ago I had to qualify annually and the qualification
	score was 70%. This meant that I had to have 70% HITS on a B29 (a 
	mansized sillouette) target at 20 yards. That meant that three misses 
	were allowed. This was in full daylight and I had 60 seconds to get 
	the shots off. Many departments have switched to more realistic
	scenarios and require minimum SCORES, not just hits. But even those
	that have good training programs have to increase the qualification
	schedules. Our local department has a good program that includes
	low-light and rapid fire courses, but in the last officer involved 
	shooting (it was over a year ago) in the Springs, the cop went one
	for three (he had two misses) at a range of 15 FEET. Luckily his
	misses did not injure any bystanders.

>    	A fourth solution is to do as in Britain, and make it illegal under
>    most circumstances for a police officer to carry a gun. In Britain the
>    incidence of a police officer injuring an innocent person with a gun is
>    so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant.

	Not a likely scenario in the US. Note that solutions that may work
	in the UK do not and will not work in the US. In order to make an
	adequate comparison we could examnine the number of armed officers
	in each country and then look at the number of innocent persons
	shot by those officers. I would guess that the UK stat is pretty
	close to the US when adjusted for the number of cops that are
	armed.

Jim

    I sit in the UK and don't follow the ups-and-downs of US gun control
    although I am vaguely aware of the Brady bill by virtue of listening to
    Alistair Cooke on the radio.
    
    Amongst the things he reports are:
    
    His view that the right to bear arms is not enshrined in the
    constitution.
    
    That neither guns nor people kill people - bullets do.
    
    That over half the deaths from shooting incidents involve family
    members killing other family members - i.e. domestic killing.
    
                                  --oOo--
    
    Perhaps the self defense that the 'gunsters' talk about is not
    defending oneself from villany but from family?
    
    My own view is that it's a sad society that firstly has so many guns
    about, secondly has so many gun-related deaths (455 in Washington this
    year so far) and thirdly has such a powerful gun lobby. 
    
    Here in the UK among my small circle of friends and family, I don't
    know anybody who owns a gun. The only place I see them is on the
    military and the odd armed policeman at London airport.
    
    I'd rather you didn't all shoot each other dead in the USA - but if you
    want to, and you're carrying a gun then I'm not going to stand in your
    way.
    
    Bucko...
    
    
    

                      <<< Note 54.85 by CHEFS::BUXTONR >>>

    
>    His view that the right to bear arms is not enshrined in the
>    constitution.
 
	He is wrong. It's right there as number two in the Bill of 
	Rights.

>    That neither guns nor people kill people - bullets do.
 
	Clever. we could go on to say that it's not the bulletts
	but the shock and loss of blood.

>    That over half the deaths from shooting incidents involve family
>    members killing other family members - i.e. domestic killing.
 
	Right out of the HCI handbook. About 70% of all murders are
	committed by "someone known to the victim". This can mean
	famly members (including estranged or divorced spouses), this 
	can also mean neighbors ( and in SOME neighborhoods it is mre
	common than others), this can also mean a dealer and an addict.

   
>    Perhaps the self defense that the 'gunsters' talk about is not
>    defending oneself from villany but from family?
 
	It can. there are a number of cases where wives have sought
	protection from their husbands (and husbands from thier wives).
	In many of these cases the spouse became a victim because they
	trusted the police to protect them.

>    My own view is that it's a sad society that firstly has so many guns
>    about, secondly has so many gun-related deaths (455 in Washington this
>    year so far) and thirdly has such a powerful gun lobby. 
 

	The number of guns does not make it a sad society. The less than
	1% of those guns that are used criminally  does. You note the
	gun deaths in DC. Of course you already know that private ownership
	of guns in DC is virtually banned. The criminals have free reign
	and a safe work environment due to DC's "enlightened" gun laws.
	As for the "powerful gun lobby". The NRA spends less than 1/6th
	of the money that HCI spends on lobbying efforts. Their primary
	focus is promoting the shooting sports and firearms safety training.

Jim

>	shot by those officers. I would guess that the UK stat is pretty
>	close to the US when adjusted for the number of cops that are
>	armed.
    
    	This is probably correct. The only police normally armed in England
    are those on guard duty at embassies, or those sent in pursuit of a
    criminal known to be armed and dangerous. This means that at any
    particular time probably only about 100 police are armed. *All* of
    those that are attend weekly training. I don't remember more than one
    innocent bystander being hit by a police bullet in England in the last
    40 years. I am quite prepared to accept that the U.S. police equal only
    one person shot per 4000 armed-policeman-years. I am not convinced that
    a single event can be considered statistically significant. Assuming
    you are correct about U.S. statistics then a second innocent person shot 
    by a policeman in England would make the statistics for England much
    worse than the U.S. on the "per armed policeman" basis.
    
    	I think what you are saying is that the average U.S. policeman is
    less well trained than the average *armed* U.S. citizen. Increasing the
    number of U.S. citizens that are armed is more likely to worsen this
    situation than improve it. Equally, insisting that police officers do
    the same training per week that NRA members do voluntarily should
    enable the police to equal the NRA's "missing the innocent bystander"
    score.

    
    >His view that the right to bear arms is not enshrined in the
    >constitution.

    The Second Amendment of the US Constitution:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed."

    Seems to be a right to bear arms in there to me.

    >My own view is that it's a sad society that firstly has so many guns
    >about, secondly has so many gun-related deaths (455 in Washington this
    >year so far) and thirdly has such a powerful gun lobby. 

    >That over half the deaths from shooting incidents involve family
    >members killing other family members - i.e. domestic killing.

    I do not believe this to be correct though it is commonly put forth.
    Generally the category named is "Family and Acquaintances". You and I
    would be included in that category by virtue of this exchange of 
    notes. The stats are highly misleading. Intentionally so I believe.

    I share your sadness about the gun related deaths. I enjoy shooting
    my guns. It's one of my few hobbies and would be very sad if my 
    recreation were taken away. So I am indeed grateful for the gun lobby
    of which I feel a part. 

    			Alfred

    RE .86
    
    Jim, thanks for the correction - I'll let him know...
    
    By-the-by: what does it actually say? Alistair Cooke didn't go into
    this at length...rambled on about the intentions of the writers being
    to permit the carrying of arms by a militia of civillians to prevent
    the possible missuse of a standing army by the executive and included
    the clause, wisely at the time according to Alistair; the writers not
    having the foresight to consider street and drug related crime some 200
    years hence.
    
    Bucko...
    

    RE .89
    
    Thanks Alfred - it seems the ammendment is for a well regulated militia
    to bear arms - for the security of the state?
    
    Bucko...

    	The IRA are supposed to have killed 3000 people over the last 25
    years. As a social problem they can obviously be completely ignored
    compared with the Washington DC criminals at 455 per year. I am not
    sure of the population of Washington DC, but the population of Northern
    Ireland is about 6 million. Some of the deaths caused by the IRA have
    occurred outside Northern Ireland.
    
    	I don't have a solution to either problem, but from the statistics 
    I would rather live in Belfast where the IRA have difficulty in obtaining 
    guns than in Washington where the criminals do not.

        
    >Thanks Alfred - it seems the ammendment is for a well regulated militia
    >to bear arms - for the security of the state?

    The legal definition of "militia" is all adult males. What the
    amendments says, as I understand it, is that a) a militia (ie armed
    population) is required b) for this reason the right of the people to
    keep and bear arms must not be abridged. The prohibition on abridging 
    the rights are stronger then the suggestion to have a regulated
    militia. The word "regulated" meant practiced BTW. I practice with
    my guns so I'm a "well regulated militiaman." :-)

    Note also that it does not say "the right of the militia to keep and
    bear arms..." It says "people" and as far as I can tell I'm one of
    those. :-)
    
    			Alfred

                      <<< Note 54.90 by CHEFS::BUXTONR >>>

    
>    Thanks Alfred - it seems the ammendment is for a well regulated militia
>    to bear arms - for the security of the state?
 
	The word "people" is used 41 times in the Constitution. One of 
	those occurences is in the 2nd Amendment. In all the other 40
	cases there is no question that the word "people" is used to
	describe individual citizens. Only in one case do the anti-gun
	crowd want us to believe that the Framers did not mean what
	they said.

	The evolution of the 2nd is most interesting. One of the earlier
	drafts specifically limited the right to keep and bear arms to
	instances of "the common defense", a clear reference to the use
	of civilian militia to defend the nation. This version was rejected
	and the language that was adopted is fairly specific in recognizing
	the right of the people (all citizens) to keep and bear arms.

Jim

       <<< Note 54.91 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>
    
>    	I don't have a solution to either problem, but from the statistics 
>    I would rather live in Belfast where the IRA have difficulty in obtaining 
>    guns than in Washington where the criminals do not.

	Statistically you ARE safer in Belfast. But you do point out and major
	point. With all of it's regulations controlling, even prohibiting,
	guns, DC's criminals are getting them anyway. Meanwhile the victims
	of crime are powerless to defend themselves.


Jim

    	The statistics do make the point that in Britain gun control *does*
    work. The intention of the IRA is to kill people to make a political
    point. If anything the U.S. criminals would probably prefer in general
    to avoid killing people if possible, since a dead victim draws more
    public attention than someone who has been swindled or had their wallet
    snatched. You can be assured that the IRA are killing as many people as
    they think they can safely manage, while the U.S. criminals are killing
    as few people as they think they can safely manage. The difference in
    success rate, given the different intentions, is quite startling.
    
    	Oh, and yes, the IRA do kill a fair number of themselves. There was
    a period before they got training (probably in Libya) when they were
    killing more of themselves with their home made bombs than they were
    killing Protestants.

       <<< Note 54.96 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	The statistics do make the point that in Britain gun control *does*
>    work. 

	Can you then tell us why the incidence of illegal use of
	firearms DOUBLED in the UK last year (as reported by the
	London Times)?

	It would seem that you an I have a different definition of
	"working". Must be like that hood/bonnet, trunk/boot thing.

>If anything the U.S. criminals would probably prefer in general
>    to avoid killing people if possible, since a dead victim draws more
>    public attention 
	
	An assertion that is not backed up by fact. The data collected
	by analyzing police reports of muggings/armed robberies shows 
	that you are more likely to be injured if you do not resist (24% 
	of the time) than if you resist with a firearm (17%). BTW, not
	resisting means EXACTLY that, no yelling for help, no running
	away, NOTHING except handing over your wallet.

Jim

    

    Another point of the second amendments reference to a "well regulated 
    militia".  In those days, weapons for the "militia" were provided by 
    the individual.  Therefore it was necessary for the individual to have 
    his own weapons so that they could be provided for the militia.
    I believe that this still appllies.  History has proven time and again 
    as Grorge Washington warned, "The best defense against tyrannical 
    government is a well armed populace".

    fred();

    Yes, but a "well armed populace" is one which will never run out of
    drinking water. 

    
>You can be assured that the IRA are killing as many people as
>    they think they can safely manage, while the U.S. criminals are killing
>    as few people as they think they can safely manage. 

    The arrest and convection rate in the US is very low. It is my
    understanding that murder is a lot easier to get away with here
    then there. So perhaps it is the likelihood of getting caught and
    jailed for murder that is a larger deterent in Ireland then the
    limitations on access to firearms?

    		Alfred

    
    re Northern Ireland, England & Guns

    What about the British troops patrolling the streets.  Would you
    also recommend the U.S. Military patrol the streets to keep down
    crime?  It is also my understanding that the U.S.
    protections against invasion of privacy, search-and- seizure,
    self incrimination, and interrogation by authorities
    are much more stringent than those in in England and Japan.

    In Japan and to a large part in England, criminals EXPECT to get
    caught.  In the U.S. they expect to walk even if they do get caught. How
    many more constitutional protections are we willing to give up in order
    to be "safe"?  IMNHSHO, comparison to the U.S. and "guns" alone to
    these countries is an out and out fraud!  It's not just the guns.  

    fred();

    re .101, I agree that in the US criminals expect to walk even if they
    get caught.  I think that's the biggest contribution to how much
    violence we have in the US.  Criminals think they can get away with
    anything, and often they can.
    
    Lorna
    

    	I have never seen a single troop patrolling a street in England,
    and I was a university student before I saw a policeman with a gun
    (outside the U.S. embassy). I have never been to Northern Ireland, but
    I am told by people that have that it is very much the same in most
    parts there. We already have the statistics to show it is safer than
    Washington, and I suspect you only get shown the spectacular bits.
    Everyone in Europe knows that all American presidents get shot (at
    least the only ones we have heard of), and that you have regular
    shoot-outs at ranches in Texas.
    
    	As far as I can understand there is a few square miles where a
    military patrol is desirable to keep the warring factions apart, and a
    check on the border to prevent import of guns and explosives. The U.S.
    also seems to have a check on its borders, and I have never tried to
    quote your "protections against invasion of privacy, search-and- seizure,
    self incrimination, and interrogation by authorities" on entry, but I
    wouldn't expect a sympathetic reception. You probably have a few square
    miles of the U.S where a military patrol in the streets might do some
    good, if they could actually stay alive. In fact, didn't you have your
    civil guard out in the streets somewhere over in the West of your
    country a while ago? I expect they were limited to a couple of square
    miles too, but it catches press attention.
    

    
    
    re .103
    
    If all you know abut the U.S. and the problems here is what you
    see on the "news" reports, then you _really_ have warped picture
    of the situation.
    
    Unfortunately, that is also the only information that all too many
    Americans have.
    
    fred();

    	I was trying to give a picture of the U.S. as it is seen by most
    Europeans - news reports (the U.S. rarely warrants more than 30 seconds
    of a half hour broadcast), "Dallas" dubbed into French or other local
    language, and the occasional Disney cartoon (also dubbed) sandwiched
    between Japanese and Czech cartoons.
    
    	Personally, I have all of the above information except "Dallas"
    because I can't stand that, but I have also had sufficient business
    trips to total maybe 6 months in the last 25 years, and apart from
    knowing Maynard really well I have also walked through Central Park in
    New York at dusk and some of the slum areas of Washington DC. I know
    from personal experience that it is possible to do this without being
    mugged, shot or insulted by the police.
    
    	I also know that statistically it is a higher risk than almost any
    European city, including Belfast (IRA), Bastia (Corsican nationalists)
    and anywhere else outside Yugoslavia.
    
    	The average European probably has a warped picture of the
    situation, but you should bear that in mind in gun control discussions.
    The U.S. is the only relatively civilised country where handguns (as
    opposed to hunting guns) are relatively easy to obtain, and Hollywood
    and statistics and news broadcasts all tell us what it is like to 
    live there. You can hardly be surprised that the average European is
    enthusiastically in favour of gun control, and will remain to be until
    Hollywood, statistics and news broadcasts change.

    If the PEOPLE, not the Government were making moves to ban handguns I
    would be allot more comfortable than I am with the Government making
    moves to do it.  History tends to repeat itself, and those that forget
    that fact 'are doomed to repeat history'.  (Read, make the same
    mistakes again and again). For example, I am not confident that the 
    government has the peoples 'best interests' at heart, and that is an
    understatement.  Someone else brought up the Government of Nazi
    Germany.... why CAN'T that happen here if the conditions are condusive
    to it?  An armed population is allot tougher to subdue than a disarmed
    one.  (I note the argument about the gov. having nukes and tanks but
    fighting can occur happen on a one on one personal level).  And, I
    bet the members of goverment are thinking of their own respective butts
    not the government as a whole.
    
    I am a peace loving guy. I hate people killing people however noble
    their cause.  But I just don't trust the U.S. Government because of
    their track record. We Amercians tend to think, "Oh WERE AMERICANS that
    can't happen HERE!" (That, being a government take over) which, has 
    virtually happened anyway WITHOUT the use of firearms.  I am not sure
    sure that a government take over can't happen here TOO ... violently.
    
    If the U.S. population knew their rights, and the Bill of Rights and
    the Constitution and required the U.S. Gov. to FOLLOW them rather than
    'amending' them to suit government purposes, we would find that this
    country was not falling apart the way it is.
    
    We, (average U.S. citizen) are caught between a rock and a hard place.
    I don't know which is more of an ultimate threat to us.. the government
    or the criminals.... actually, I suppose that is one and the same
    anyway.
    (I am referring to the criminals in government, and not all of them are
    criminals).
    
    I havn't made up my mind about handguns yet. I think the carnage on the
    streets is simply unacceptable, but the government moving to take guns
    away scares me as much as the street crime.
    
    Jeff

    There is this mistique about Eroupe. We view them as swab, mature,
    worldly. Yet, their views about women are throw backs to the stone age.
    They openly discriminate, and there is this trade barrier that favors
    them and not us. Yet someone has the gaul to say that we have a problem
    with guns as we send our troups to solve their problems in the global
    comunity. 
    
    Kinda remined me of a bad date I had.

    ....cont and there is someone in a car driving around with enough
    explosives to blow a channel from the baltic to the med. Ready to meet
    their maker for their cause..... Suddenly, I don't think this is a
    local problem. More a global. If you ban guns from Americans, best is
    to do the same for the rest of the world.
    
    Peace, Love, and Semi-automatics
    

       <<< Note 54.105 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	I also know that statistically it is a higher risk than almost any
>    European city, including Belfast (IRA), Bastia (Corsican nationalists)
>    and anywhere else outside Yugoslavia.

	If you take a look at ALL the stats you'll find that even if you
	eliminate ALL firearms related murders you would STILL be safer
	in Belfast.

>    	The average European probably has a warped picture of the
>    situation, but you should bear that in mind in gun control discussions.


	This seems to admit that European positions on US gun control
	are formed from a faulty base. Is this what you were trying
	to relate?

>    The U.S. is the only relatively civilised country where handguns (as
>    opposed to hunting guns) are relatively easy to obtain, 

	Nit. There are quite a number of hunters that use only handguns.
	Nit2. THere are a number of reportedly civilized countries that
	actually ISSUE handguns to their citizens (Switzerland and Israel
	come immediately ro mind).

>and Hollywood

	Hollywood rarely, if ever, gets it right.

>    and statistics 

	The statistics do not support gun control no matter how you 
	look at them.

>and news broadcasts 

	Our major networks are decidedly anti-gun and their news broadcasts
	are slanted that way as well. An example. The mass killing in the
	resturant in Texas was widely covered on all the networks. All the
	victims were unarmed because Texas does not have a provision for
	civilian concealed carry. Two months after the Texas shooting, a
	couple of armed robbers walked into a resturant in Arkansas. When
	they started herding the staff and patrons into a back room (there
	was some fear that they were going to eliminate the witnesses) a patron
	who was armed (Arkansas does provide for civilan carry permits) drew
	and shot both of the robbers. There was NO news coverage of this event
	at the national level. You will never see "good" uses of firearms on
	network news show, even though there are 2 MILLION crimes prevented
	every year by armed citizens.

>all tell us what it is like to 
>    live there. 

	Not really. News covers only the unusual events and Hollywood
	merely wants to draw an audience. Neither gives an accurate
	picture of what it is like to live here.

Jim

    	Since we are into nits, I am pretty sure that Switzerland issues
    rifles. If you think that type of thing is overly restricted here you
    are mistaken. Every Sunday morning echoes with the sound of hunters
    shooting pigs at this time of the year. My kids have been warned to
    stay out of the woods a hundred yards from our house certain days of
    the week in case they are mistaken for pigs. Those French who chose to
    join the resistance were not particularly short of guns - what they
    needed was explosives for mining bridges and the like.
    
    	Also, Switzerland does not issue *every* citizen with a gun. To
    qualify for one you have to go on the initial one year training, and
    then report back for an additional 2 weeks compulsory training every
    year until you are about 40. Then they take the government's gun back.
    
    	I have no idea what Israel issues.

    
    RE: France - I hear that one can buy silencers in the local hardware
    store there. In the US they are highly regulated as the government
    doesn't trust people with them. That's one area where France is less
    restrictive then the US.

    RE: Switzerland - Solders do keep their machine guns after retirement
    according to some Swiss citizens I've noted with. And military service
    is not optional. The government sells practice ammo at cost so that
    people can practice regularly with their machine guns. Also the government
    sells surplus equipment, including tanks, to civilians. That's more
    fire power then the US government will let people have.

    RE: Israel According to Israelis I've talked to and articles I've read,
    the government will issue either Uzis or handguns depending on where
    you live and what the "threat level" is.

    			Alfred

       <<< Note 54.110 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	Since we are into nits, I am pretty sure that Switzerland issues
>    rifles. 

	I've traded mail with some folks in Switzerland. Officers are
	issued sidearms. Of course the "rifles" they issue are "select-
	fire" capable of full-automatic fire (AKA Machineguns).

>    	Also, Switzerland does not issue *every* citizen with a gun. To
>    qualify for one you have to go on the initial one year training, and
>    then report back for an additional 2 weeks compulsory training every
>    year until you are about 40. Then they take the government's gun back.
 
	My understanding is that ALL males are required to spend time in
	the "militia".

>    	I have no idea what Israel issues.

	All sorts of interesting stuff, including UZI submachineguns.

Jim

    	The Swiss army will refuse you for various reasons. A friend of
    mine was called for his year in the army. After two weeks he managed to
    persuade them that he didn't speak French, German, Italian or Romance
    (the four Swiss national languages) so they sent him home. A year later
    they tried again, and again he didn't speak any of those languages....
    
    	Admittedly he was rather a special case. I believe physical
    disabilities are also grounds for excuse.

    > he didn't speak French, German, Italian or Romance
    > (the four Swiss national languages)
    
    I thought that Romance was only spoken fluently in France, Italy, and
    Spain of the EC, and that the fourth Swiss language was Administrivial.
    
    Um, seriously, I don't recognize 'Romance'; I usually hear that used as
    an adjective to describe languages derived from Latin.
    
    DougO

    I've also read the fourth language written "Romany" and "Romansch".
    
    			Alfred

    Romany I've heard of.  Thank you Alfred.
    
    DougO

Romany and Romansch are different languages.  Romany is spoken by Gypsies.
Romansch is the fourth language of Switzerland.

    Learn something new every day; I'd never heard of it before.
    How would one characterize it?  Is it part of the 'romance'
    languages, or from other roots?
    
    DougO

    swab, george, swab.
    
    DougO

    Just send them to fight those battles that we are roped into fighting
    for the UN. Reguardless if they can or cannot speak their own native
    toung.
    
    

Swab?

    re: .111
>    RE: France - I hear that one can buy silencers in the local hardware
>    store there. In the US they are highly regulated as the government
>    doesn't trust people with them. That's one area where France is less
>    restrictive then the US.
    
    	I am not sure quite what you mean by "local hardware store" in this
    context. In the 12 years I have lived in France I have only ever seen
    anything for sale related to guns in the windows of gun shops. If they
    are for long-barreled hunting guns then I suppose they might be
    available there. I don't have a "local" gun shop in the same sense that
    I have local supermarkets, banks, jewelry stores, flower shops, though
    I could find one within a 20 mile radius. For short barreled
    handguns would silencers have some advantage in competition marksmanship?
    Otherwise I doubt if any gun shop in France would find a large enough
    market to bother to keep silencers in stock. I have already mentioned
    the noise on Sunday mornings around our house, so I am fairly sure most
    of the local hunters are not using silencers.
    
    re: .97
>>If anything the U.S. criminals would probably prefer in general        
>>    to avoid killing people if possible, since a dead victim draws more
>>    public attention                                                   
>                                                                        
>        An assertion that is not backed up by fact. The data collected  
>        by analyzing police reports of muggings/armed robberies shows   
>        that you are more likely to be injured if you do not resist (24%
>        of the time) than if you resist with a firearm (17%). BTW, not  
>        resisting means EXACTLY that, no yelling for help, no running   
>        away, NOTHING except handing over your wallet.                  
    
    	We seem to be talking at cross purposes again. I only mention
    "killing" and "dead", and you only mention "injured". The police here
    tend to take a more serious attitude towards a dead body than to a
    black eye, so the criminals try to avoid dead bodies.
    
    
    re: .109
>This seems to admit that European positions on US gun control
>are formed from a faulty base. Is this what you were trying  
>to relate?
    
    	This is one of the things I am trying to relate. It is quite
    obvious that I am not going to persuade you that there should be gun
    controls in the U.S., and this notes file is probably only read by
    about 0.001% of the population there. The discussion *is* providing me
    with information about the U.S. that I would not get from Hollywood, so
    I am trying to return a little information. It is likely that the
    average European does have faulty impression of the place guns have in
    U.S. culture, but the NRA is in a better position to influence
    Hollywood and U.S. newsbroadcasters than any European who only has the
    facts that *they* supply him with.
    
    re: .123 and "swab".
    	I believe this was originally a spelling error for "suave". 
    There is no point in correcting spelling errors in a note of 
    this sort, though when the spelling becomes that exotic it is 
    sometimes difficult to determine the meaning. The spelling errors in
    the following are acceptably intelligible. "Swab" is a term often used
    for washing down the decks of a ship, but there are also "surgical
    swabs" which are used for cleaning open wounds.
    
    re: .121 and correcting European impressions
    >Just send them to fight those battles that we are roped into fighting
    >for the UN. Reguardless if they can or cannot speak their own native 
    >toung.
    	Many Europeans believe that since the U.N. is on your soil and
    substantially funded by the U.S., and you have a veto, that those
    resolutions passed by the U.N. at least have U.S. approval, even if you
    do not directly instigate them. With the Hollywood image we have of you
    as Zorros and Lone Rangers and Wyatt Earps we assume this is the way
    you want to be and be seen in the world - riding into battle on your
    white horse to right wrongs all over the world.

    RE: .124 "local hardware store" was the term used by a French resident
    in an other notes conference when he relayed the story of French
    police sending people off to buy silencers for rifles after neighbors
    complained about the noise. As for their usefulness in competition
    there really isn't any. Except that it's a lot easier on your ears.
    Indoor shooting, even with hearing protection, is loud and a bit 
    rough on the ears. Many long time shooters suffer hearing loss which
    would be minimized by using silencers.

    			Alfred

    	It is certainly noisy. I am glad we have double glazing on our
    house, which cuts it a bit, because they start at the first glimpse of
    dawn. In fact, a few of them start earlier, though that is illegal
    because of the risk of shooting other hunters.
    
    	I think "local hardware store" must be a paraphrase for "shop where
    you buy your gun". It certainly doesn't include the shop where I buy
    nails, or where I go to get my chain saw sharpened.
    
    	Incidentally, there is a shooting range only a few hundred yards
    from the DEC office here, and that is also very noisy outside in the
    DEC car park at times. It may be possible to buy silencers in France, 
    but I get the impression that the French don't.

.76>    Tell that to the 8 million odd Jews that were gassed by Hitler 

If I had ever claimed that unarmed citizens are always safe from government, 
then these counter-examples would be relevant.  What I claimed was that citizens
with handguns would probably be no safer from the government than citizens 
without.  The counter-example which would be relevant would be citizens in a
developed country using handguns to protect themselves successfully from
their own government.  I can't think of one.

.76>    If you think it can't happen in America, about 100 miles from

My point is not that it can't happen here.  You could have cited more recent 
examples, as I did.  The attack on MOVE in Philadelphia is another example.
To learn what I am claiming, see the paragraph above.

.77>   was common knowledge by now, but I see some folks still are
>   ignorant of this fact.

My impression at the time was that the NRA first advocated defeat of this 
legislation as a violation of the second amendment, then advocated defeat 
on the grounds that it would outlaw hunting ammunition.  Only after it became
clear that the legislation would pass did the NRA help rewrite it.  I think
the NRA lost a lot of public support by not recognizing at the outset that 
there is a public interest in controlling some types of ammunition.

.77>   applies first and foremost to battle weapons, of which fully-
>   automatic firearms are an important subset.  

This is my point.  Based on the current military hardware and the original 
intent of the second amendment, it applies to tanks and attack helicopters.

.78>    no 50 caliber MG was ever announced as having been found at 

I was mistaken.  A later reply said it was a 50 cal rifle.

.81>	firearms. THey have NOT addressed the issue of AUTOMATIC firearms
>	for a number of years. One should note that there is no proposed

My memory of the NRA goes back 30 years.  If they want people like me to ignore 
a past position of theirs, they need to publicly state their new position.

.81>	As for lost support for the NRA, one should note that the NRA
>	membership is growing at a rate unprecendented in the Association's

So NRA's membership is growing, and HCI's membership is growing.  Most voters
belong to neither.  What you should be looking at is support for NRA positions
among the voting public.

.81>	As for you implied support of the Brady Bill, does this extend
>	to the Brady's (and Handgun Control Inc.) as well? If you are

I don't really support the Brady bill, still less all the positions of HCI.
What I would like to see is legislation which controlled the guns and 
ammunition in the hands of criminals, while not preventing "law-abiding
citizens" from owning guns for collecting, hunting, competition or defence
against criminals.  I don't have the technical knowledge to design such 
legislation.

.81>	events occurred in many of the Eastern Bloc countries. One could 
>	argue that the failure of the Chinese revolt was due in large part
>	to the fact that the citizens WERE unarmed.

Yes, one could.  One could also argue that the moon is made of green cheese,
but it seems hardly worthwhile, even in notes.  If you want to produce
serious evidence and reasoning to show that if the Chinese Olympic Rifle Team
had been on site, the tanks would have turned back, go ahead.

    
    To the Europen noter:
    
    At least from my perspective I SEE little evidence that I am surrounded
    by guns, although the media assures me that '50 % of U.S. homes have
    one or more guns in them'.  I have no idea of the accuracy of that
    figure but it wouldn't suprise me.
    
    I live in a suburb about 30 miles from Boston.  I have never SEEN a gun
    out in the open 'on the street' except in a cops holster, or in the
    woods in a hunters hands.
    
    So if I am surrounded by guns I see little evidence of it.  I have
    never been shot at or had a gun pointed at me.  (lets hope it stays
    that way)
    
    My point is that at least from the perspective of this 'average'
    American the '50 %' (at least armed in their homes) neighbors have
    never bothered me or shot at me with their guns.  So MOST of my fellow
    Americans seem to be contolling their 'urge to kill' effectively.
    
    If it wasn't for the media I PERSONALLY would have seen no change in the
    crime rate in recent years.
    
    I don't know if I have 'ever' seen a news report reporting the use of a
    gun (except by cops) to stop a crime.
    
    Jeff
    
    
    

    
>.77>   applies first and foremost to battle weapons, of which fully-
>>   automatic firearms are an important subset.  
>
>This is my point.  Based on the current military hardware and the original 
>intent of the second amendment, it applies to tanks and attack helicopters.

    Quite right. And at least one Federal court has defined the militia
    arm as including tanks and artillery.

    			Alfred

    re .123,
    
    .123>Swab?
    
    .107>There is this mistique about Eroupe. We view them as swab, mature,
    worldly. Yet, their views about women are throw backs to the stone age.
    
    George wrote that, so when I responded to his .119 with .120 I knew
    he'd know what I meant.
    
    .124> I believe this was originally a spelling error for "suave". 
    
    Exactly!
    
    DougO

    There were calls to arms from European nations, the British, the
    French, etc. when the Nazi forces walked in. There are still this
    calling as we speak by Germany. Whats the calling? They have their own
    forces. Their own planes, tanks, and generals. There was a time that we
    were not wanted there and then we are wanted. Sounds like a real bad
    date to me.;)

    ...and thanks for the correction in the swab issues.:) Sounds like!_)

        re .127

>.76>    Tell that to the 8 million odd Jews that were gassed by Hitler 
>
>If I had ever claimed that unarmed citizens are always safe from government, 
>then these counter-examples would be relevant.  

    What you seemed to be stating was that handguns were unnecessary and
    pointing to peaceful overthrow of governments as a result, and that
    therefore guns were unnecessary to defend yourself with.

>What I claimed was that citizens
>with handguns would probably be no safer from the government than citizens 
>without. 

    Prove a negative?  Prove that no government has been discouraged 
    from moving on it's citizenry because the citizens were armed?
    You get more outrageous every day.

    > The counter-example which would be relevant would be citizens in a
>developed country using handguns to protect themselves successfully from
>their own government.  I can't think of one.

    Why limit it to developed countries?  However I think I can name 
    several countries where the government did move on an unarmed
    citizenry.  Can you name a country where a government was such
    and enlightened bunch that it _didn't_ move against their citizens 
    because they were unarmed?  Can you name one criminal that was such
    a nice guy that he didn't mug someone because they were unarmed?
    Ridiculous?  As Rush says, just demonstrating absurdity by being 
    absurd.

    fred();

        <<< Note 54.127 by ICARUS::NEILSEN "Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt" >>>


>My impression at the time was that the NRA first advocated defeat of this 
>legislation as a violation of the second amendment, then advocated defeat 
>on the grounds that it would outlaw hunting ammunition.  Only after it became
>clear that the legislation would pass did the NRA help rewrite it. 

	I believe that your impression is incorrect. The NRA's position
	from the start was that the bill was very poorly written. As origianlly
	proposed it would have banned any ammuntion that could be used in a 
	handgun that would penetrate soft body armor. Since a majority of
	rifle calibers are also available in specialized hunting pistols
	this would have banned about 70% of the available rifle hunting
	rounds.

	THe NRA's proposal from the begining was that no such law was
	required, since actual armor piercing ammo was not then available
	to the civilian market. All the law that the NRA supported did
	was to codify the already voluntary ban that the distributors
	and manufacturers had imposed on their own.

> I think
>the NRA lost a lot of public support by not recognizing at the outset that 
>there is a public interest in controlling some types of ammunition.

	I think the NRA lost a lot of support because the media misrepresented
	the Associations's position. Much the same as they do today.

>My memory of the NRA goes back 30 years.  If they want people like me to ignore 
>a past position of theirs, they need to publicly state their new position.

	THe only new regulation of Class III arms in the last 30 years
	happened in 1986. At the close of the session Tom Foley called
	for a voice vote on a proposal to ban future manufacture of
	machineguns. Most of the House had left the chamber, so there is
	some serious question concerning the vote, but Foley, as chair, 
	decided that the Aye's prevailed and the ban became law. One could
	wonder why such a ban could not stand the light of a full House
	debate. Or one could wonder why further regulation of machineguns was
	even required since at the time not one instance of a legally possessed
	Class III firearm had EVER benn used illegally, but that all became
	moot. The NRA did decry the tacicts used by Mr Foley, a clear abuse of
	power and did point out the lack of need for regulation of a 
	non-problem  class of forearms, but I don't really think anyone
	who understands the issue can fault them for that.

>So NRA's membership is growing, and HCI's membership is growing.  Most voters
>belong to neither.  What you should be looking at is support for NRA positions
>among the voting public.

	Actually I've seen no data on HCI membership increase. Some 
	comparisons.

	The NRA now has about 3.4 million members anad an annual budget
	of about $100 million per year. Please note that of this total
	less than $2 million is spent on lobbying efforts.

	HCI has a membership of less than 500,000 and an annual budget of
	about $6.5 million a year all of which is spent in support of 
	their lobbying efforts.

>I don't have the technical knowledge to design such 
>legislation.

	No one does. What you wnat to regulate is criminal use of firearms.
	THere are already a number of laws available for this purpose. There
	is really no need for more legislation excepting perhaps a national
	instant-check system which the NRA has been supporting for a number 
	of years.



>If you want to produce
>serious evidence and reasoning to show that if the Chinese Olympic Rifle Team
>had been on site, the tanks would have turned back, go ahead.


	China does not field a rifle team. But I will give you a recent example.
	The Mujahadeen of Afghanistan were able to obtain arms from the Soviets
	using only low technology rifles. THe weapons they obtained included
	anti-tank weapons, mortars, explosives and higher technology firearms.
	This activity kept the Freedom Fighters alive until more sophisticated
	weaponry was available from the US. But ground fighting was still 
	the province of arms that they obtained becasue they were already armed.

Jim

                      <<< Note 54.128 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

    
    
>    At least from my perspective I SEE little evidence that I am surrounded
>    by guns, although the media assures me that '50 % of U.S. homes have
>    one or more guns in them'.  I have no idea of the accuracy of that
>    figure but it wouldn't suprise me.
 
	According to the ATF an estimate of the number of firearms in 
	the US runs to about 200 million. THe 50% figure is probaly 
	accurate, at least until last month when quite a few NEW gun 
	owners were born as a result of the passage of the Brady Bill.

>    So if I am surrounded by guns I see little evidence of it.  I have
>    never been shot at or had a gun pointed at me.  (lets hope it stays
>    that way)
 
	99.2% of firearms (98.7% of handguns) in the US are NEVER used 
	illegally. It's not suprising that you've not seen the evidence
	of the carnage in the streets that the news media would have you 
	believe occurs every day.

>    I don't know if I have 'ever' seen a news report reporting the use of a
>    gun (except by cops) to stop a crime.
 
	And yet reliable studies, published in peer review magazines, by 
	Prof Gary Kleck of Florida State University tell us that this occurs
	2 MILLION times per year.

Jim

    We certainly seem to be suffering from biased reporting.  I do believe
    that SOMEWHERE (mainly in inner cities) there are gun crimes every day
    in the U.S., and that people ARE shot daily.  BUT given the number of
    guns out there it sounds as if (as you say) some 99.99 % of them WERE
    NOT involved in crimes. The media doesn't tell us about that.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I think even one death is too many, but in most
    places in the U.S. the streets are not running with blood.
    
    What about the reporting (Time Magazine) lately that calls gun injuries
    so extensive and severe that guns have become 'a public health crisis'?
    
    Jeff

    
    >What about the reporting (Time Magazine) lately that calls gun injuries
    >so extensive and severe that guns have become 'a public health crisis'?

    Do you see more reports of gun injuries or car injuries in your local
    news? I see a whole lot more car injuries. And a lot of them are
    deaths. If guns are 'a public health crisis' what do you call cars?
    And I don't buy the line that cars have other purposes guns don't.
    What percentage of cars are used for criminal activity? Include using
    a car to get to/from a crime or to transport illegal merchandise. I
    believe that a far higher percentage of cars are used for illegal
    activity then guns are.

    Remember also that cigarettes are blamed for something like 6-7 times
    as many deaths as guns are. Why are cigarettes so unrestricted? Anyone
    serious about saving lives would be working to legislate against the
    big killers like cigarettes and booze before getting to guns. And of
    course the argument that prohibition didn't work is as much an
    argument against gun control as anything else.

    		Alfred

                      <<< Note 54.136 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

>    What about the reporting (Time Magazine) lately that calls gun injuries
>    so extensive and severe that guns have become 'a public health crisis'?

	Several years ago Time gave up any pretense of balanced reporting
	on the issue of firearms and gun control. Letters to the editor
	disputing some of their more outrageous claims were returned to 
	the senders with a note stating that Time Magazine had adopted
	a gun control policy and that they would no longer publish letters
	from anti control readers.

	Claiming that guns are a "public health crisis" is just one more
	buzzword (phrase) given the focus on the Clinton health care
	package. Far more people die from "medical misadventures" (AKA
	malpractice) than die do to gunshot wounds every year.


Jim
    

54.127>What I would like to see is legislation which controlled the guns and 
54.127>ammunition in the hands of criminals, while not preventing "law-abiding
54.127>citizens" from owning guns for collecting, hunting, competition or 
54.127>defence against criminals.  I don't have the technical knowledge to 
54.127>design such legislation.
    
    I believe the technical design of the legislation pales in comparison
    to enforcement.  After all, we have fairly clear laws against
    premeditated murder, for example, and yet premeditated murders still
    do occur.  Apart from that, government control of access to firearms
    and ammunition clearly is in violation of this country's Bill of
    Rights.

54.135>And yet reliable studies, published in peer review magazines, by 
54.135>Prof Gary Kleck of Florida State University tell us that this occurs
54.135>2 MILLION times per year.
    
    And this is *scholarly research*, not opinion.  Kleck is a
    criminologist at FSU, a liberal Democrat, and neither an NRA member
    nor a firearms enthusiast.  What he has uncovered through his
    research is about the furthest thing from the pig vomit published and
    televised by the general media (i.e. television and the newsstand
    rags).

54.136>Don't get me wrong, I think even one death is too many, but in most
54.136>places in the U.S. the streets are not running with blood.

    Me, too.  And this brings up an important point that the gun grabbers
    hope the more-objective of us never will use as an argument against
    their agenda: the concept of "net benefit."  Compare how many lives
    are lost due to improper use of firearms and how many lives are
    *saved* because an intended victim was able to defend him/herself.
    Factor in the additional deaths of innocents that would occur in a
    society where victims had no firearms (cf. data from any large
    metropolitan area where honest folks are disarmed by so-called
    "gun-control" laws, vs the "Kennesaw effect").  600K non-completed
    asaults/rapes/murders of handgun-armed intended victims (Kleck) vs a
    comparitively-miniscule number of gun-related murders and suicides?
    Sounds like a no-brainer to me - government restraint of firearm
    availability to and use by its citizens results in carnage.  (Duh.)
    
    - craig
    

    
    RE cars

    If I remember my statistics right, and I believe I'm fairly close
    for round numbers, 40,000 people _per year_ are killed in auto accidents 
    in which  alcohol was involved (thats only the ones in which alcohol
    is involved).  Some 20,000 of those are children. To put this in
    perspective, some 50,000 Americans died in the _entire_  Vietnam war. 
    I recall reading something back during the Vietnam war that said that
    it was safer to be in Vietnam than to be on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. 
    And instead of an outcry over banning  cars or alcohol, our Atty.
    General wants to add legalized drugs to this slaughter.

fred();

     <<< Note 54.140 by CSC32::HADDOCK "Don't Tell My Achy-Breaky Back" >>>

    
>    If I remember my statistics right, and I believe I'm fairly close
>    for round numbers, 40,000 people _per year_ are killed in auto accidents 
>    in which  alcohol was involved (thats only the ones in which alcohol
>    is involved).  Some 20,000 of those are children. 

Fred,	I think your memory is incorrect. TOTAL deaths from auto accidents
	may have hit 40k with alchol involved in about 60%.

Jim

    Following some of the arguments from the relative safety of fortress
    Europe it appears to me that the solution (to the argument) is to
    decide on one of two options:
    
    a)	That all weapons are withdrawn by law (for the safety of citizens)
    
    b)	That all citizens must carry a weapon  by law (for their own safety)
    
                                 --oOo--
    
    I recall a British roving-reporter doing a series for our TV many years
    ago. I think he was on patrol with the Los Angles Police who stopped a
    motorist. Finding a hand gun in the glove compartment of the vehicle
    they asked how many guns the fellow owned: Three: a car-gun, a gun in
    my study and a shower-gun.
    
    A shower gun? they asked incredulously...
    
    Yes! - Didn't you see Psycho?
    
    Bucko...
    

.133>     What you seemed to be stating was ...

If you want to know what I claim, reread the sentence below, which you quoted.
Trying to argue with me about things I have not said just wastes bandwidth.

>What I claimed was that citizens
>with handguns would probably be no safer from the government than citizens 
>without. 

.133>    Prove a negative?  Prove that no government has been discouraged 

I know better than to expect or ask for proof in a notes discussion.  I would
like to see some evidence or plausible line of reasoning.  

Until this reply, the position seemed to be that handguns were an essential 
tool for defending ourselves from the government.  Now the claim is that they
somehow "discourage" the government.  Waco and Philadelphia suggest otherwise
to me, but I would be interested to learn of some counter-examples.

.133>    Why limit it to developed countries?

Because that's where I live and vote.

.133> Can you name a country where a government was such
>    and enlightened bunch that it _didn't_ move against their citizens 
>    because they were unarmed?

US, Great Britain, France, Germany... among many others.  All these countries 
have laws and social conventions that accept non-violent protests against the
government.  Such protests have frequently taken place, and almost always the
government "didn't move against their citizens."  The cases where the 
government does attack unarmed citizens, like Kent State, are remembered for
a long time.

I will admit that I cannot name a government that I am sure has never moved
against unarmed citizens, but that's not what you asked for.

.133>  Can you name one criminal that was such
.133>    a nice guy that he didn't mug someone because they were unarmed?

I am not talking about defence against criminals.  

    
    re. 143

    >Trying to argue with me about things I have not said just wastes bandwidth.

    So is trying to argue with you about things that you have said.  I
    will not get sucked into "if you can't prove your argument to my
    satisfaction then you lose".

>I know better than to expect or ask for proof in a notes discussion.  

    Or to provide one?  Being on the PC side of the argument should
    be proof enough, right?

    >I would
>like to see some evidence or plausible line of reasoning.  

    Try this one on for size.  Is a government more likely to move against
    a population that is unarmed or a population that it is fairly sure
    is going to put up armed resistance?  George Washington himself said,
    "The best guarantee against tyrany is an armed populace".

    If the government does come after me, then, I hope you'll excuse me
    if I go down fighting.  So far, all you have done is reinforce my
    belief that I have more to fear in regard to my personal freedom
    from the "anti-gun" crowd and their logic than I have from guns 
    themselves.  The few people who get killed in an armed populace
    is a drop in the bucket compared to the rivers of blood that tend
    to flow when a government moves against its citizens.

    fred();

                      <<< Note 54.142 by CHEFS::BUXTONR >>>

>    a)	That all weapons are withdrawn by law (for the safety of citizens)
    
	If this alternative worked, the Washington DC would be the
	safest city in the country. As it stands, it is the most
	dangerous (statistically) city in the world with a murder
	rate of something like 79 per 100,000 inhabitants.

>    b)	That all citizens must carry a weapon  by law (for their own safety)
 
	In order to have a positive impact on crime one need not go to
	this extreme either. If only a small percentage of the citizens 
	are actually armed the result is still pretty dramatic in reducing 
	crime. 

>       they asked how many guns the fellow owned: Three: 

	I own more than 3, but currently only three are loaded at all times.
	My wife's compact .45 auto, my .45 revolver and my daughter's
	.22 revolver. No big deal really, they are just machines that
	sit there there, they have no will of their own.

Jim

54.142>a)  That all weapons are withdrawn by law (for the safety of citizens)
    
54.142>b)  That all citizens must carry a weapon  by law (for their own safety)

    Option A suggests that removing firearms from our society would
    promote safety.  I have already stated that this is categorically not
    true.  My statement is supported by strict, controlled research as I
    and others have stated before.  Therefore your Option A is without
    merit.
    
    Option B (a variation of the Kennesaw law) is an infringement on
    personal liberty.  Furthermore, it profiles the firearm as a
    talisman.  Ridiculous.  My last S.O. always wanted me to help her buy
    "a little gun" so she could feel safer while alone.  I told her she'd
    be more dangerous to herself and others around her if I did so.  I
    don't think she *ever* got the point (that mindset and training are
    prerequisites for a successful self-defense strategy and that the
    firearm is the tactical implement).
    
54.142>I recall a British roving-reporter doing a series for our TV many years
54.142>ago. I think he was on patrol with the Los Angles Police who stopped a
54.142>motorist. Finding a hand gun in the glove compartment of the vehicle
54.142>they asked how many guns the fellow owned: Three: a car-gun, a gun in
54.142>my study and a shower-gun.

    Hmmm... obviously no one's ever, ever been attacked whilst bathing or
    peeing.  (Not.)  Perhaps our reporter could clue us in regarding what
    rooms of the home are considered "not sporting to attack" by our
    criminal brethren...
    
    - craig

    	The communist government of the USSR was not brought down by
    handguns in the hands of its citizens. It was brought down by
    photocopiers, imported newspapers, television and radio broadcasts, ...
    
    	From other comments in here it seems that even the NRA recognises
    that winning is difficult when the opposition controls the media (if
    they do in the U.S.).
    
    	The right to bear photocopiers and have access to Internet is much
    more important today then it was in the days of George Washington, but
    even in those days, "the shot that...." would have been a damp squib if
    only those present had heard of it.
    
    	The NRA are concentrating on the wrong weapons if they expect to
    combat their own government. They are concentrating on the wrong
    weapons if they expect to combat a foreign government - the Iraki
    soldiers had guns and were more numerous than the U.S. soldiers.
    Against criminals it is a band aid - the NRA is technologically obselete
    when there are already cases of criminals using nerve gas.
    
    	Freedom of speech (including ensuring that Time magazine editors
    cannot on their own stifle debate) is the best defence against your own
    government. The best defence against a foreign government is whatever
    is currently appropriate, but I can't imagine a foreign government
    invading the U.S. without a reasonable deployment of spy satellites and
    nuclear weapons. Defence against criminals should be provided by the
    law; you vote for it, you vote for the people who maintain it (unlike
    Britain where judges are appointed for life by the Queen), and saying
    it doesn't work and you need guns is not only admitting defeat, it is
    undermining all law, including your own constitution.
    
    	Owning guns for sport is quite another matter, and whether it is
    hunting or target shooting, the normal European requirements that you
    don't have a criminal record of violence, you keep your guns and
    ammunition locked away when not in use, and that you belong to a
    recognised club, are not particularly onerous. The British requirement
    that you keep your handguns in a safe if you have more than a certain
    number adds to the cost of the sport, but then the French requirement
    that you have adequate insurance to pay for you being flown out by
    helicopter after a skiing accident adds to the cost of that sport.

    An armed society did certainly make more sense 200 years ago
    (in Washington's time) then today. Me I prefer something more
    effective like organization.
    
    I remember a case in World War 2 were a neiborhood of Jews, actualy
    fought the German army coming to take them to the Dead-Camps.   And
    that was satisfying, even if they all died anyway.
    
    But what made them fight wasn't the fact that they had more guns 
    then anyone else, but that they organized and decided to do it.
    
    Now if all the jews in Germany/Europe had been actively organized,
    they would not have been such easy targets for Hitler's "master
    race" publicity stunts... On the other hand, without organization,
    even if each of them had his own private machine gun, it would not 
    have made much difference to the end result.
    
    As for crime, here too organized citizens can make more impact then 
    merely armed citizens. If you are armed but not trainned and not 
    willing to help others, then your effectiveness as a crime stopper 
    is darn low.
    
    Gil

       <<< Note 54.147 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	The NRA are concentrating on the wrong weapons if they expect to
>    combat their own government. They are concentrating on the wrong
>    weapons if they expect to combat a foreign government  

	The NRA has already discovered the "net" and now support a computer
	BB called "Gun Talk". SOmeone once said that the 2nd Amendment protects
	the rest. There is  a fair amount of truth to this. We do not have
	a law the equates to the British "Official Secrets Act" and for this 
	I'm glad. Our government can not use the force of law to stifle
	exposure of those things that they find troubling.

   
>    	Freedom of speech (including ensuring that Time magazine editors
>    cannot on their own stifle debate) is the best defence against your own
>    government. 

	To get some perspective of my personal philosophy, I will tell you that
	I would be the first one to defnd Time magazine's right to utilize
	their pages as they see fit. THe 1st Amendment is as sacred to me as the
	2nd. THere is NO way that I would support ANY effort to force Time
	to be "fair".


>Defence against criminals should be provided by the
>    law; you vote for it, you vote for the people who maintain it (unlike
>    Britain where judges are appointed for life by the Queen), and saying
>    it doesn't work and you need guns is not only admitting defeat, it is
>    undermining all law, including your own constitution.
 
	Here you are wrong. We have "laws". But we also recognize that
	the "law" cannot be everywhere. Disarming victims, as they have done
	in DC and NYC is certainly not the answer. Our laws recognize the
	right of self defense. Curously this principle comes to us from 
	English common law. The "English" have forgotten their own legal
	traditions.

>    	Owning guns for sport is quite another matter, and whether it is
>    hunting or target shooting, the normal European requirements that you
>    don't have a criminal record of violence, you keep your guns and
>    ammunition locked away when not in use, and that you belong to a
>    recognised club, are not particularly onerous. 

	They are if you can not afford the membership at "the club". This
	makes gun ownership the province of the elite. I suppose that given
	the UK's fondness for "the nobility" this is not an issue, but in
	the US's much more egalitarian society is is (properly) scorned.

	And many that live in the highest crime areas can not afford this type
	of requirement. Again it ignores the principle of self defense and
	is therefore unacceptable to those that must depend on themselves 
	for personal protection. 

	Again, solutions in the UK do not apply to the US. WE have different
	problems, different cultures and therefore different solutions.

	I have noticed that you have ignored my question concerning the rapidly
	increasing gun crime rate in the UK. Perhaps if you were to look at 
	the realities, even in the UK for all their vaunted gun laws, we
	could have a more productive discussion.


Jim

          <<< Note 54.148 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

>    An armed society did certainly make more sense 200 years ago
>    (in Washington's time) then today. Me I prefer something more
>    effective like organization.
 
	Organization is a good thing. In this vein the NRA is actively
	recruiting new members (to the tune of 20,000 per month).

>    I remember a case in World War 2 were a neiborhood of Jews, actualy
>    fought the German army coming to take them to the Dead-Camps.   And
>   that was satisfying, even if they all died anyway.


	You are refering to the Warsaw ghetto. Find a history of this fight
	and become educated conccerning the use of small arms aginst superior
	forces.
    
>    But what made them fight wasn't the fact that they had more guns 
>    then anyone else, but that they organized and decided to do it.
 
	You seem to forget that they had the MEANS to do it. Without the
	few guns that they had stockpiled they would not have been able to
	resist. What choice did they have? Go placidly to their deaths,
	or go down fighting. THere is much to be admired in their choice.

>    As for crime, here too organized citizens can make more impact then 
>    merely armed citizens. If you are armed but not trainned and not 
>    willing to help others, then your effectiveness as a crime stopper 
>    is darn low.
 
	5 years ago the State of FLorida passsed a law allowing private citizens
	to carry handguns concealed. In the first year the murder rate in 
	Florida dropped (that's right DROPPED) 18%. The next year it dropped 
	another 12% (from the already lower number of the year before). These
	citizens were not organized, but the criminals had decided NOT to take
	the added risk. Note that this also helps explain the rash of incidents
	involving foreign tourists, the criminals KNOW thet they are unarmed.

	Note that of the 180,000 licenses issued 17 have been revoked due to
	the illegal use of a firearm. THe good guys are NOT the problem.


Jim

    I am not sure you 'can' compare auto deaths with gun deaths. 
    Automobiles are a tool which most Americans must have in order to be
    able to 'partisipate' in the American-Way-Of-Life.  (The U.S. economy is
    designed with the assumption that people can get around easily.)
    Of course there are people without autos but they must live a
    restricted life style compared to most other Americans, agreed?
    Therefore, for all practical purposes automobiles are a necessity
    in the U.S. (And, I mean a reasonable definition of the word necesity.)
    Unfortunately so many of us are driving irresponsibily that many of us
    are killed.
    
    Not owning a gun would (for the majority of us) have far less
    impact on ones' life style. Yes, there would be some who would be
    killed by criminals because they would be unable to defend themselves.
    But, as I said, for MOST of us, not owning a gun would have far less
    impact on life style than not owning a car, agreed?
    
    Therefore, I think one must be careful when comparing the need for guns 
    with the need for autos with the implication that the 'acceptable'
    death rate for each is similiar.
    
    Jeff

Jeff, I'm not sure I agree with you on that.  It has already been 
shown by Kleck that Americans use handguns 600K times per year to
thwart violent crime, which is an issue of life and death (or severe
bodily injury), not lifestyle.  I do not believe the relative worths 
of automobile availability and firearms availability can be compared, 
therefore.  The sets of benefits and drawbacks are entirely different.

From a purely logical viewpoint (saving lives based on crime 
statistics and auto-accident statistics), isn't it odd that a country
would restrict firearm availability (the net benefits of which are
irrefutable, in terms of lives saved) but not restrict automobile
availability (the net benefits of which are relevant only to
convenience and lifestyle)? 

Unless, that is, you accept the idea that the intent of so-called "gun
control" and its advocates is something other than saving lives, which 
*I* have for quite a few years and which I find very, very 
disconcerting both because of lives that *will* be lost (and rapes that 
*will* be committed and violent beatings that will *not* be prevented)
and because of the obvious larger issue of increasing government 
intrusion into Americans' private affairs.

- craig

    You have some points allright Craig. Although I would hardly call the
    auto SIMPLY a matter of convenience and life style.  I believe that if
    autos (and trucks) were suddently removed you would see widespread
    starvation and MEGA deaths from the rapid CHANGE in lifestyle.
    
    I agree that we are comparing apples to oranges when comparing firearms
    to vehicles.  They are tough to compare, they are so different.
    
    Apparently the benefits of guns in the hands of the population is being
    severely suppressed?  So that, the people get a very slanted view of 
    risk vs. benefit?
    
    WHY would that information be suppressed? Is it simply that bad news
    sells more papers, or is more going on here like the government not
    WANTING an armed population because of the risk of overthrow?
    
    Jeff

    Life style ? well errr ya thats it ! I guess that this note string
    might be more about lifestyle than the term armed population.
    
    I was brought up to be independent, selfe sustaining, anti-government,
    selfe reliant, slow to anger, non-judgemental, patriotic and to help those
    who are weak or UNABLE to help them selfes.
    
    Now I'm afraid that I probably don't do any of those things well but
    I still try and measure up to what I was taught and what I have learned
    on my own about LIFE and STYLES.
    
    So if my LIFE means adopting someone elses STYLE, like un-armed ergo
    DEPENDENT on the system as opposed to INDEPENDENT, SELFE reliant etc
    then this string is really about your style and mine.
    
    And since I'm independent ( that means I can and will protect those who
    are mine ) and you may be DEPENDENT on the system of which will
    eventually collapse it becomes clear to me that the issue may not
    be an Armed population but rather how YOU have to deal with
    the notion of being DEPENDENT and the fear that may result when you 
    understand that folks like me will survive and possibly prosper while
    folks that willingly disable their survival responsibility by
    intentionaly not doing for them selfes may not pass through the LIFE
    changes that we are beginning to see occur.
    
    In other words the LIFE STYLE is a changing and not doing for your
    selfe in all aspects will not bring home the bacon or make for a
    peacefull sleep....oh well...Wasn't so long ago peacefull sleep meant
    a loaded colt under the pillow and a loaded shotgun in the corner
    by the dog...yup...Two generations in my case, or about 50 years ago.  
    
    Comments not aimed at any noter just another look at the same thing.
    
    Gerry :^)

    
    RE comparison of cars and guns.

    However, I can certainly make a comparison of Drunken Driving and
    guns.  But instead of getting the drunks off the streets, our
    illustrious Surgeon General wants to legalize drugs and add to the
    slaughter.

    re. News Reports

    It's not surprising to me that the liberal media is slanting the news
    and only reporting what will support their political view point.
    There are many ways to slant the news,  one way is in what you
    just _don't_ report.  I no longer trust the news media to tell the
    whole truth.  Sad considering the sacrifice and work that went 
    into building the reputation that todays media are now wholesale
    tossing into the garbage can.

    fred();

.152> From a purely logical viewpoint (saving lives based on crime 
>statistics and auto-accident statistics), isn't it odd that a country
>would restrict firearm availability (the net benefits of which are
>irrefutable, in terms of lives saved) but not restrict automobile
>availability (the net benefits of which are relevant only to
>convenience and lifestyle)? 

From a purely logical viewpoint, this is an interesting paragraph.

I drive a car, and own one in NH, USA.  In order to drive legally, I must have 
taken written and operational tests to get a license, I must present it on 
request and I must get it renewed regularly.  My license can be suspended or
revoked for violation of laws.  In order to drive my car legally, I must keep
it registered, display my registration plates, present my registration papers
on request, pay taxes on my car, and have it inspected once a year.  My license,
driving record and registration are all recorded in statewide and (within 
technical limits) nationwide databases.  There are lots of restrictions on
availability of automobiles.

By contrast, I can buy, carry and use a rifle, shotgun or handgun in NH with
no license or registration.  There are some restrictions on where I can shoot 
and what I can shoot at, but no restriction on availability.

Yet the paragraph above says that my country would restrict firearm availability
but not restrict automobile availability.  The logic escapes me.

    re .156
    	If automobiles had existed at the time the constitution was
    written, I believe that the right to travel freely and without paying
    obiesance to the gummint would have been listed in the Bill of Rights.
    						John
    

.155>    illustrious Surgeon General wants to legalize drugs and add to the
>    slaughter.

I let pass the first comment along this line, but when false information is 
unchallenged and repeated, there is danger that people will assume it is true.

Not being a mind reader, I can't be positive what the Surgeon General wants.

What she said was that studying legalization might be a good idea.  In 
principle, I would agree that studying any possible solution to a difficult
problem is a good idea.  In practice, there are too many people ready to
jump to conclusions.

    
    re .158

    I wonder if the Surgeon General's opinion is influenced by the
    fact that her son was just indited for drug dealing. Naaaa,
    surly not.  Illegal drugs kill more people in the U.S. than guns
    do.  Then you throw in "crack babies" and people whose minds are 
    blown out.  Yet these people want to legalize drugs and ban guns???
    Go figure.

    fred();

        <<< Note 54.156 by ICARUS::NEILSEN "Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt" >>>

>In order to drive legally, I must have 
>taken written and operational tests to get a license, I must present it on 
>request and I must get it renewed regularly.  My license can be suspended or
>revoked for violation of laws. 

	This would equate to a concealed carry permit, pretty much the same
	as the system that has been established by Florida and several other
	states.

> In order to drive my car legally, I must keep
>it registered, display my registration plates, present my registration papers
>on request, pay taxes on my car, and have it inspected once a year.  My license,
>driving record and registration are all recorded in statewide and (within 
>technical limits) nationwide databases.  There are lots of restrictions on
>availability of automobiles.

	Actually there is no restriction on the availibility of automobiles.
	You can buy what you can afford. If you wnat to have it delivered to
	your private property and do not wish to use the public roads, you
	do not have to register it, you do not need to pay taxes (other than
	the original sales tax), you do not have to have it inspected. Only
	when you wnat to go out in "public" do you need to follow all those
	rules. Again, this would equate to a firearm and the difference between
	having a gun at home, and carrying in public.

	I would settle for a system that regulated firearms EXACTLY like 
	they regulate cars.

Jim

    Mr. Haddock.
    
    Illegal drugs kill about 6000 people a year.  Would that traffic
    fatalities were lower.
    
    Meg

    Ms. Evans
    
    Even given that your numbers were true, I still find it uttely
    hypocritical.
    
    fred();

re. 54.156:

Wally, to begin with, your paragraph relating to the red tape that
must be gone through to operate a motor vehicle illustrates only the
mound of cow pucky that must be waded through for someone to obtain
permission to operate that vehicle.  I believe you are confusing the
concept of "complex process" with availability.  I can walk into a car
dealership with twenty grand and walk out with a car, no questions
asked.  I can go get plates for that car, no questions asked apart
from whether I've paid my town taxes.  I can get a MV operator's
license for that car, few meaningful questions asked (I do have to
take a driving test, but the test is a sham, relating more to
identification and operation of controls (and revenue generation for 
the state) than to expertise, courtesy, and responsibility; I know...
another topic, another conference...). 

Second, my comments relate to the US as a whole, not to NH only - you 
may have misread the text of that paragraph.  In some parts of this
country, you cannot own a handgun, period.  In those and other parts
of the country, you may use firearms only for specific activities
(self-defense being the activity least-respected).  The situation is
getting worse as more and more states and towns enact unconstitutional
ordinances against "keeping and bearing."  I detect no similar efforts
on the part of federal/state/local governments against private MV
ownership. 

Finally, a piece of notorious legislation was passed recently, known
as the Brady Bill, and there's more effluent of its type on its way
through the halls of Congress as you read this.  Perhaps this escaped
your notice.  Sounds like restriction to me.  Other examples are 
restrictions on ownership and/or use of certain classes of firearms, 
or outright bans on possession.

I stand by my original assertion that in this country, MV availability 
is essentially free and unrestricted compared to firearms
availability.  

- craig

    RE: Cars v. Guns

    In which state can the Chief of Police in the town a person lives
    refuse, without reason, to let someone buy a car? If you can't
    name one then cars are *less* restricted then guns. 

    In which state/city/town do you require Police permission to drive a car
    on private property? In many town and cities in the US one can not
    fire a gun without special police permission.

    The only time you are limited in car use (ie registration, license,
    etc) is if you want to drive on public roads. The equivalent for
    guns would be to require a license or registration to shoot on
    government property. There is no jurisdiction in the US where cars
    are less restricted then guns. Well, perhaps Vermont.

    		Alfred

To several previous:  I have not said that guns are unregulated.  And I agree 
if you operate a car on your own property, you are essentially unregulated.  
Since almost nobody buys a car for that purpose, I thought it too trivial 
to mention.  If you agree with me that the normal uses of cars are regulated, 
we have nothing to argue about.

.144>    Or to provide one?  

On the rare occasions that I can see a proof of a statement relevant to notes, 
I do provide it.  On the much more frequent occasions that I can see some 
relevant evidence or reasoning, I provide it.

.144> Being on the PC side of the argument should be proof enough, right?

Where do you get these amazing ideas?  Certainly not from anything I have 
written.

For the record, I consider our positions symmetrical.  We are both free to 
state evidence and reasoning, or question statements made by other noters.  
One of us may convince the other (it has happened in notes conferences) or
other readers may be influenced by what we say.

.144>    Try this one on for size.  Is a government more likely to move against
>    a population that is unarmed or a population that it is fairly sure
>    is going to put up armed resistance?  

It all depends.  Certainly a government is going to be reluctant to start
something that will lead to a lot of bloodshed.  On the other hand, 
governments have frequently moved against armed groups just because they
are a standing challenge to authority.  David Koresh, for example, would
have attracted less attention from the BATF if he had been unarmed.  There
are a lot of groups with wackier ideas who are still around.

.144> George Washington himself said,
>    "The best guarantee against tyrany is an armed populace".

I think this was more true in Washington's time than in ours, for the reasons
I have already given.

    	I have seen these arguments several times, and they always seem to
    be confused by continual switching between four streams. I am sure it
    is too late here, but the next time someone starts a topic of this
    sort, could I suggest four separate note streams:
    
    1) Why guns should be in private hands as an essential defence against
    your own elected government.
    
    2) Why guns in private hands are the most effective method of
    controlling criminal elements in society.
    
    3) Guns in private hands has provided effective defence for the Swiss,
    the Viet-Cong, against what they see as foreign oppression, but are not
    used much by the IRA or Basque or Corsican nationalists who seem to
    prefer other techniques.
    
    4) Guns as regulated for sport or as collectors items.

    "The only time you are limited in car use (ie registration, license,
    etc) is if you want to drive on public roads."
    
    That is not true.  There are many instances in which you may not
    operate a vehicle in your driveway.  Intoxication is the one which
    comes to mind but I'm sure there are others.
    
    ed

>There are many instances in which you may not
>    operate a vehicle in your driveway.  Intoxication is the one which
>    comes to mind but I'm sure there are others.

 Really? So a farmer could be arrested for DWI even if he was only driving on 
his property? I have a hard time believing this to be true.

re .166:

If there can be many and varied advantages (and disadvantages) 
associated with a particular activity, why can't they all be discussed 
in one place?  I don't believe the topic is so broad as to challenge 
the average reader.  Too, fragmentation of the string would fragment 
the pro/con arguments and reduce their impact IMO.

Perhaps the proper use of keywords can address the desire of someone 
to pay attention only to arguments he/she wishes to.  Here are some 
suggestions off the top of my head:

Keyword: FIREARMS-OPPRESSION
Topic: firearms ownership as a defense against a repressive 
       elected government

Keyword: FIREARMS-CRIME
Topic: firearms ownership related to defense of self, loved ones,
       and valued property

Keyword: FIREARMS-INVASION
Topic: firearms ownership related to defense of country against
       invasion and/or foreign oppression

Keyword: FIREARMS-HOBBY
Topic: firearms ownership related to competition and to collecting

In short, I think the VAX Notes utility provides the tools to 
accomplish what you want to, without limiting the breadth of the 
discussion.  Of course, the moderator(s) would have to add the 
keywords to the conference, but that's a trivial task, at least in a
technical sense. 

What do you think?

- craig

> Really? So a farmer could be arrested for DWI even if he was only driving on 
> his property? I have a hard time believing this to be true.
    
    I believe "driveways" are different from other parts of personal
    property.  Of course, such laws vary by state and are always different
    in Louisiana.
    
    ed

        <<< Note 54.165 by ICARUS::NEILSEN "Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt" >>>

>Since almost nobody buys a car for that purpose, I thought it too trivial 
>to mention.  

	It's not too trivial if you try to use the argument that cars are
	regulated, therefore guns should be regulated. As you note, most people
	buy cars to travel on the public roads, hence the regulation/taxation.
	This is not the case with firearms. Many people buy them strictly for
	home protection (like keeping a car on private property) or go to
	shooting ranges either for practice or for competition (like driving
	a car at a private race track). The majority of the rest use them for
	hunting and this does require a license and a hunter's safety course.

	So as you can see the analogy is far from perfect. As I said before,
	I would settle for a law that would regulate firearms EXACTLY the
	way caars are regulated.

Jim

    
>	I would settle for a law that would regulate firearms EXACTLY the
>	way caars are regulated.
    
    Me too. Though I'd prefer they were regulated the way printers are. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    Geez, what good are more firearms laws going to do? Isn't the problem
    the ILLEGAL use of firearms? Which means that the laws are already in
    place... but being broken?  Whether one shoots someone with an UZI or
    a piece of pipe with a 22 round hit with a nail, the act is still the
    same. Its illegal in both cases. Of course the amount of damage 
    one can inflict with a one shot per load gun is allot less than with
    an automatic weapon.  Maybe we should concentrate more on ENFORCING
    the laws that are already in place more than making MORE unenforcable
    laws?
    
    By definition, only criminals break laws, and criminal acts are the problem,
    right?
    
    Jeff

    	Not quite. I think everyone would agree that it is unwise to freely
    permit known violent criminals to *buy* a handgun. In much of Europe it
    is also rather difficult for them to *steal* one, because most people
    don't have one (unlikely to be found by a casual burglar) and those
    that do are required to keep their collection in rather heavy safes.
    
    	In planning to remove guns from the hands of criminals you have to
    address the issue that they can be stolen as well as bought, and I get
    the impression that it is much easier to steal a gun in the U.S. than
    in Europe.

    Movie on the other night, "Armed and Innocent", which was about a boy
    who shot a couple of burglars during a break in when the boy was alone
    in his home without his parents.  I think he was about 14.  I havn't
    seen all the movie yet (I have it on tape), but the issues are clear
    right at the beginning. Any thoughts on this movie from anyone who
    has seen it?
    
    Re prior: Gun MISuse by anyone, criminal or not, is the issue too of
    course. There are people who through lack of training or ignorance
    violate basic safety rules and are a real threat.
    
    I have a handgun at home which I keep for 'protection'.  But since I 
    also have a six year old son I keep the gun locked up securely, so for
    all practical purposes its not available for 'protection', IF I could
    bring myself to even use it in a crisis.
    
    I have been tempted to sell it (I could use the money anyway), BUT I
    have the thought in the back of my head what if it becomes illegal to
    buy handguns in the future?  Will I wish I hadn't sold it and burned
    my legal bridges? So I hang onto it.
    
    Jeff

    re: the last

    The boy was 11 years old.  The underlying issue was not that he
    had a gun but that he had to deal with the emotions of using that
    gun on people.  It was compared to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
    of the Viet Nam era brought out by the character that played a 
    decorated war hero in town.  It dealt with being macho as a male
    and not being able to cope with conflicting emotions.  

    I would say it is a very good way of opening up avenues of discussion
    within families.

    justme....jacqui

    My father is a Police Department chaplain. As such he has had special
    training for dealing with Police officers who have had to shoot
    someone. Unlike on TV, in the real world, people who use a gun in
    self defense, even Police officers following the letter of the law,
    generally have a whole lot of stress and even guilt to deal with.

    My father, a WW II combat veteran and 20+ years as a military chaplain
    says that it is totally different from war related shooting. Even
    war veterans who have shot at people in war will little ill effects
    suffer differently from a shooting as a Police officer. It is no
    surprise to me that an 11 year old boy would go though quite a bit
    after a shooting.

    This is something that anyone concidering using a gun for self defense
    has to concider. I know I thought about it before buying a "carry" gun.
    
    			Alfred

                      <<< Note 54.175 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

>Any thoughts on this movie from anyone who
>    has seen it?
 
	I have not seen the movie, but I rememeber the press reports of the
	incident. The shooting was ruled as justifiable. The bad guys lost,
	no good guys were injured. I can't think of how the results could
	be improved. The boy did not have an escape route other than to run 
	past the intruders. This gave him very little choice in the matter.

   
>    I have a handgun at home which I keep for 'protection'.  But since I 
>    also have a six year old son I keep the gun locked up securely, so for
>    all practical purposes its not available for 'protection', IF I could
>    bring myself to even use it in a crisis.
 
	I started "gun-proofing" my daughter when she was 6. Think of
	gun-proofing in the same vein as drown-proofing. Education equals
	safety. If you take the mystery out of the gun, your son is far less
	likely to want to "play" with it. It just becomes one more machine
	in the house (he doesn't fool around with the coffee pot, does he?).

	Gun-proofing procedure that I used was to take Christina to the range
	and allow her to shoot. Take some plastic milk jugs filled with water.
	Use a good hollowpoint load and watch the milk jug explode. Explain
	that this same effect the bullet will have on HIS body (a bit of a 
	white lie) to impress on him the damage that can be done. Then have
	him help clean the gun after the session (you turn the gun into a 
	"chore" object). After a few of these sessions the unbridled curiousity
	is gone and he won't think that the gun is anything "special".

	I bought Christina "her" first gun at age 7 (.22 rifle) which was
	kept (unloaded) in her closet. Now at 14 she has a loaded revolver,
	primarily because, given the configuration of our house, I can not
	reliably deal with an intruder downstairs (her bedroom is on the
	downstairs level, our bedroom is upstairs).

	One last thought. If you keep a gun for protection you need to do
	two things. Practice regularly, no less than once per month. And
	have a PLAN. Who will do what, how will you get to your son's room,
	who will dial 911, what will that person say (remember to tell
	them that one of the GOOD guys is armed), where will your wife be
	(no accidental shootings), etc. Think it out before hand, that way
	you will not have to make it up as you go along should the need arise.
	Review and revise the plan if you move into a new home (we just did
	and had to change the plan).

	In all likelihood you will never have to use the gun in your home.	
	But if you do you wnat to make sure that you do it correctly with
	no other member of the family in danger because you failed to plan
	properly.

Jim

    
    I watched another 45 minutes of the movie over lunch and got well past
    the shooting scene. I thought the boy acted amazingly well... he
    brought tears to MY eyes.  And yes.. the issues were relevant to this
    string I think.

    1. It presented IMO a realistic portrayal of how it can really be
    dealing with intruders, and, 2. the after effects of the victims emotions.

    I got a strong sense that although the boy was physically OK that he
    was HURT REALLY BADLY emotionally.  He may have done the right thing
    (and I think he did do the right thing) but it sure COST him. The
    father caught the major point of the boy doing the right thing but
    so far in the movie doesn't realize the damage that was done to his son.

    And THAT (along with the inherent risk of having a loaded gun in the
    house) is exactly why I have no problem keeping it locked up.  Before
    my son was born and safety wasn't such an issue, my principal concern
    was balancing the risk to my wife and myself from dangerous intruders
    vs. the emotional after effects having killed someone defending my
    home.

    The kid went 'nuts' shooting at them in a frenzy of fear. I am not
    sure which it would be worse to deal with (afterwards) if I was in
    his position, i.e. having shot people in a panic, or having COOLLY 
    defended my home with well placed shots.

    The criminals should think twice. They may NOT run into a cool well
    trained, armed homeowner, they may well run into someone in a panic
    with a gun, which, I suppose is far more likely.

    I must say that those burglars got what was coming to them and I felt
    not the slightest pity toward them in the shooting scene.... just
    concern for how it would affect the boy.

    So we don't have to deal with the emotional after effects we should
    all lay down our guns...... I am not so sure about that. Isn't it 
    irresponsible NOT to defend oneself when you have the means?  And
    that is the choice... do you WANT to give yourself deadly means?

    Each of us must answer that question for oneself... but if you DO
    choose to have the means (a gun) to defend your home with deadly means
    its each of our responsibilities to become trained in its use so as
    to minimize the risk of accidents.

    Jeff

                      <<< Note 54.179 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

    
>    And THAT (along with the inherent risk of having a loaded gun in the
>    house) is exactly why I have no problem keeping it locked up.  Before
>    my son was born and safety wasn't such an issue, my principal concern
>    was balancing the risk to my wife and myself from dangerous intruders
>    vs. the emotional after effects having killed someone defending my
>    home.

	You also need to balance this with the emotional damage, let alone
	physical damage, that can happen to you or your loved ones if you
	do NOT defend angainst intruders.

	I have come to grips with this issue based on an assumption. I assume
	that burglars that invade an OCCUPIED home are either prepared for or
	looking for more than just my property. I will not hesitate to shoot
	them. The law in Colorado provides that I can use deadly force against
	univited intruders if I believe they intend to commit a crime.

	I would STRONGLY prefer that I never need to do this. I have no desire
	to take a life. But should the situation arise I will use the gun to
	stop the intruder.

>    So we don't have to deal with the emotional after effects we should
>    all lay down our guns...... I am not so sure about that. Isn't it 
>    irresponsible NOT to defend oneself when you have the means?  And
>    that is the choice... do you WANT to give yourself deadly means?

	Some would consider it irresponsible. I do for example. But this is 
	a personal choice and I do not have the inclination, nor the right,
	to tell someone else how to live their lives. But personally I can
	not comprehend how someone would allow themselves or their families 
	to be victimized by a criminal.

>    Each of us must answer that question for oneself... but if you DO
>    choose to have the means (a gun) to defend your home with deadly means
>    its each of our responsibilities to become trained in its use so as
>    to minimize the risk of accidents.

	Good advice.

Jim

    There is one condition which you didn't mention. i.e. intruders
    invading your house THINKING no one is at home... but there IS sombody
    home as in the before mentioned movie. But, one doesn't have the luxury
    to ask: :"Did you think anybody was at home? No? Well ok then I won't 
    defend myself".  Smile
    
    Jeff

    RE: .178
    
    
    Hi Jim!
    
    
    Steve

                      <<< Note 54.181 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

>    There is one condition which you didn't mention. i.e. intruders
>    invading your house THINKING no one is at home... but there IS sombody
>    home as in the before mentioned movie. But, one doesn't have the luxury
>    to ask: :"Did you think anybody was at home? No? Well ok then I won't 
>    defend myself".  Smile
 
	As I said it WAS an assumption on my part. I didn't say that it would
	apply to every possible case. It's just what I assume to be the case.
	And under that assumption, the first warning they get is the muzzle 
	flash.

Jim

    Mr. Haddock:
    
    this information is from 1987, so it is dated, but lists drug-related
    deaths due to overdoses and side effects, or illnesses caused by the
    drug.  This is information from the CDC and the Surgeon general's office.
    
    Meg
    
    Tobacco....................................................340,000-395,000
    
    Alcohol (Not including 50% of highway deaths and 65%.......125,000+
             of all murders)
    
    Aspirin (including deliberate overdose)....................180-1000+
    
    Caffeine (from stress, ulcers and triggers for irregular...1000-10000
              heartbeats, etc.)
    
    'Legal' Drug Overdose ((deliberate or accidental) from....14K to 27K
               legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or 
    	       mixing with alcohol)
    
    Illicit drug overdose(deliberat or accidental) from all
                         illegal drugs.)

        re .184

    Thanks for looking this up for me.
    The following is the stat that I was most interested in:


>    Alcohol (Not including 50% of highway deaths and 65%.......125,000+
>             of all murders)

    Particularly the part about 50% of highway deaths and 65% of murders.

    The reasons for legalizing drugs that I keep hearing are basically
    those that I heard for legalizing alcohol.  That is  1) we can 
    collect a bunch of taxes, 2) Does away with illegal trade, 3) criminal
    violence connected with illegal trade, etc.   What we got was 
    the negative impact on society and burden on taxes of those maimed
    and killed by direct or indirect consequence of alcohol far outweigh 
    the taxes collected.  Then the criminals just found some other reason
    (illegal  drugs) to kill each other.  We traded a bunch of thugs
    running around killing each other for 20,000 of our children (for
    starters) killed on the highways each year in  alcohol related
    accidents, and the thugs are _still_ killing each  other. 

    In light of this, IMNSHO, legalizing drugs is INSANE.

    fred();