Conference quark::mennotes

    Hello.
    
    The latest is that the father had nothing to do with the murder.  I
    don't believe he knew either.  The news just reported that he has
    locked himself in a room and won't speak to anyone.  He is most likely
    devasted that he married a woman that was so DERANGED.
    
    As for her.... well, I'm GLAD to report that S. Carolina's does have
    the death penalty.  I PRAY she receives it and maybe, torcher her a
    little while first.  
    
    The poor babies.....  What's going to be interesting is... if they find
    out that she left those boys in the car seat and then pushed the car
    over.  Or, did she kill the kids first.
    
    WHATEVER AND HOWEVER SHE DID IT, THE WOMAN IS DEFINTLY TWISTED.
    
    my 2 cents.
    

    re: where was the father

    The father was under restraining order not to come near the family.
    The mohter had filed for divorce and obtained a restraining order a 
    couple months earlier.

    Any bets on how long it will take this woman to claim victimhood?

    fred();

When I first read about this story, I had a sinking feeling that it would
end up just as it did.  The story didn't seem plausible and there have been
too many other cases of parents claiming abduction to cover up for their
own crimes.

It was very difficult to explain to my son this morning what had happened.
I told him that I didn't understand how any parent could harm their own
child, but that I also knew that some children were born to parents who
didn't want them and these parents sometimes view the children as a liability
rather than a responsibility.  He replied that he was glad that he was
wanted (and he very much was and is.)

Unfortunately, just about anyone can have a child and too many do so even
though they are uncapable and/or unwilling to act as loving and
responsible parents.  Too many children are used as weapons by one parent
against another.  Too many children are treated as punching bags or as
disposable posessions by parents who think only of themselves.

As a father, I could never in a lifetime imagine myself harming my child.

					Steve

Re: .2

Probably not long at all - I heard on the radio a quote from a relative
that "Nobody knows what she's been going through."  I don't care what she's
been going through, her children's innocent blood is on her hands.

					Steve

    She'll bat her eye lashs, cry a crock tear, and walk scott free with a
    slap on the hand and told never drive your kids to the lake again. 
    
    A sad day for every one. How do you tell someone that you love them
    that much that you want to kill them? I agree with the reply insofar as
    giving her death, and that is that there is a couple of low voltage
    surges before the final grand zap. One low voltage for each month that
    that each child drew a breath of air.
    
    

    It has also been reported that "Mitch" told her to dump the kids.
    Seems he didn't like kids.  Sheeesh, at least she could have let
    her present husband have custody, his parents, or her parents.
    The horrendous end these kids went through while strapped into
    a sinking car slowly filling with water!

    Dump her on an Alaskan island to provide a method of sheer panic
    while she realizes what her actions did to her children.

    
    I can not understand how a mother could kill two innocent children.
    I agree with the previous noter in that she should have given her
    husband custody if she wanted to be with this boyfriend.
    
    I hope that they do put her in the electric chair but I hope she gets
    the hell beat out of her while she is in jail.
    
    				Carol

    The electric chair is too good a treatment for what she did to her own
    fresh and blood... she's not a human being but a sex crazed monster!I
    am glad we have some justice and I'll be paying attention to what
    justice does to her. Let's only hope that JUSTICE is done to THOSE
    kids, who were the victims! the mother? she can burn in **ll after some
    good slow electrical charges... is the "least" that she deserves... to
    have the guts ot lying to everybody, to plead to people, to have
    thousands of people mobilized looking for her children.... while all
    the time she's laughing at those who helped her, but of course, "shed"
    some tears in public to make-believe she's a suffering mother?...
    
    I tell you, she deserves to be burned to death with candles instead of
    electricity! (and to think that your taxdollar and mine is paying for
    her food and board!) that really hurts...
    
    Ana

    > It has also been reported that "Mitch" told her to dump the kids.
    > Seems he didn't like kids. 
    
    The boyfriend has issued a long and detailed statement, which CNN
    carried last week.  He broke up with the woman in a letter of a few
    weeks ago, and his statement explains his side of it; that among other
    things he was not ready to be a father, or to join a ready-made family,
    so he broke up with her.
    
    Seems like a reasonable point for a young guy to be in with his life.
    Not his fault that she went off the deep end and killed her kids a few
    weeks later!
    
    DougO

I find it fascinating that the papers are full of items by writers aghast at
the notion that a MOTHER could do this to her children, despite a statistic
which shows that 55% of the children killed by a parent are done in by the
mother.  I don't see this same sort of reaction, complete with proposed
excuses such as "fugue state", put forth when a father harms his child.  I
don't see stories about "good fathers" put forth as a counterpoint.  No, it
seems a large part of society has become convinced that bearing a child
instantly grants a woman sainthood, omniscience and ultimate wisdom.  On the
other hand, a man fathering a child instantly grants him the status of
walking wallet.

If it weren't that two children were cold-bloodedly murdered, the hypocrisy
might be somewhat amusing.

					Steve

    
    She sure makes a compelling argument for the "eye for an eye" approach
    to crime deterrance.
    
    Damn my Catholic hide, the thought of putting a junker through a
    flotation test with her strapped in the back seat is strangely
    satisfying.
    

    I think it was Brudnoy (WBZ Boston) who said "Load up the syringe,
    South Carolina, and send me the bill."
    
    couldn't agree more.
    
    ed

    	I don't want to sidetrack the note, but from the expressions made
    here, unless there really is a hell she would be much more
    uncomfortable if released than if executed. If there really is a hell
    and she is capable of genuine repentance (and who knows that) then she
    should be given sufficient time to repent before being executed to
    ensure she goes to heaven. 
    
    	And it is still possible she is innocent. There was one brutal
    murder in England that so inspired the public immagination that several
    hundred people turned themselves in to the police as guilty. Most of
    them could be ruled out quite quickly since the police could show that
    it was impossible for them to have been in the area at the time.
    
    	And the IRA prisoners who have killed women, children and police,
    should they be executed before release or after? The UDF who have
    relatives killed might take care of the "after". And the same on the
    other side - the men who shot a pregnant woman because her husband
    might have been a member of the IRA, should they be released to tempt
    the IRA to take revenge?
    
    	Killing someone is *always* a mistake.
    
    	Since most of the replies here have been talking about the death
    penalty for someone who is not yet judged guilty I feel that entering
    it here is justified, but I  have no objection to the moderators moving
    this reply to a general topic on capital punishment.
    
    	The repetition of "and" as a start to a sentence is bad English,
    but is deliberate to emphasise that killings lead to killings, and lead
    to a whole attitude in society that accepts killings as normal.
    
    	Dave, horrified at the bloodthirsty attitude.

    Dave,
    
    We can build a prision for these lovely people in your county, and or
    city. And your tax dollar can warehouse these folks. Perhaps you should
    look at the cost of ownership of Charlie Manson? 

    
    I'm not surprised that it turns out that she did it.  Nor am I
    surprised about the shock displayed that she did it.  Society
    has this attitude that mother's can do no wrong.  Every time a
    mother loses custody it seems it's National news and there is
    an uproar by the women's groups, but literally _thousands_ of
    children are separated from their fathers _daily_ and it's just
    business as usual.

    If she didn't want the children that bad, why didn't she just 
    give them to the father?  That doesn't really surprise me either.
    I've seen dozens of cases where a mother will drag their children
    through &^%$, aided and abetted by the courts, rather than give 
    them to the father that wants them and would be able to take much
    better care of them.

    fred();

Re: .15

Why didn't she give them to the father?  That would brand her as a "bad mother",
mothers don't DO that!  (Insert appropriate symbol of sarcasm here.)
(And it's ok for fathers?)  If she did this deliberately, she probably viewed 
it as a way to "have it all" - her rich boyfriend and her "reputation".

I'm now reading in the paper that her likely defense will be that, due to
insanity, she didn't realize the kids were in the car.  She is saying that
she wanted to kill herself, but got out once the car was on the boat ramp.
I imagine her lawyer has been coaching her well.

					Steve

    	re: .14
    	I don't pay taxes in dollars, but no place where I have ever paid
    taxes has executed a criminal. Keep your own criminals and change your
    society so that you have fewer and they cost less. I was under the
    impression that the cost of Manson was more in legal costs of repeated
    appeals against punishment than feeding him in a cell, but I don't keep
    up too well with U.S. news.

    .17.. I am certain if captiol punishment comes back. There will be
    fewer Charlies in jail....

    Doesn't California (where CHarles Manson is warehoused) *have* the
    death penalty?
    
    djc

    the death penalty became outlawed *Just* before Charlie and the Angles
    went to trail. So, they became the first in the nation. This is when
    the world was looking for, at the time, a better way to handle it. And
    around here, in New England, the local Boston tee-vee stations run
    'Helter Skelter' about the time Charlie, Tex, or the Angles come up for
    their parole hearings. And of course, we are then remember their ugly,
    heinous, crimes they commited not only on Tate, but the couple in thier
    beds. 
    
    Perhaps, as ugly as Mrs. Smith standing on the shore watching her
    children struggle out of their car seats, is just as heinous as
    mulating and murdering of the Manson Family. 

i'll second .13, this is definitely a culture gap!

even educated americans, as it appears (judging from this file), seem to 
favour the death penalty! what's more, the pro-death-penalty sentiment does 
not stop at party lines. even a moderate liberal, such as clinton, favours it.

and this from the nation which brings us modern day civilisation! but try 
speaking up against the death penalty and it is like talking to a brick wall! 

gheeez!

andreas.

     re .21

>and this from the nation which brings us modern day civilization! but try 
>speaking up against the death penalty and it is like talking to a brick wall! 

    Maybe this deserves another note of it's own, but...

    I think one of the reasons that you see a rise in sentiment for the
    death penalty is the high crime rate in the U.S.  We now have a 
    million people in prisons (the sad part is that we need to have
    even more than).  There is increasing feeling that "The Great
    Society", after 4 Trillion dollars, is a bust, and a corresponding
    drop in the sentiment that all the bad people in the world can
    somehow be "reformed".

    fred();

    Not only the money, but the lost loved ones because of folks like Mrs.
    Smith, Mr. Manson, Mr. Dhamer.... Shall we go on? Look at the pain
    these people have caused? There is no remorse for the dead from many of
    these people. There is more chances for the folks inside our prisions
    to get a college education, to get big and strong with the gym than
    there is for those outside working our rear ends off to support them.
    Why? What ever in your justifiable mind will these people ever
    contribute to our society that supports their worthlessness? Interveiws
    with Barbra Walters? Or other such limo driving folks in the media lime
    light? We can watch them spout off to us what a bunch of smucks we are.
    And how their changed folks. Beats me why we support them. 

    As it seems that this discussion is taking a turn towards whether the death
penalty is right or wrong, here is a defense in favor of capital punishment.

    The Susan Smith murders of her two young sons is only the most recent and
publicized case of another heinous crime.  The atrocity of what she has done
is neither greater or lesser than that of the murders that take place all over
our country every day.  The loss and pain felt is not greater for the friends
and family of the two sons than it was for the mother of her 9 year old son
gunned down in Boston outside his home on Halloween by some young kid thinking
he was a man by pulling a trigger.  But there is a difference; the news media
was concentrated on Mrs. Smith's story, and the entire country was watching.
And what was at first empathy for her loss changed to doubt, and then to dis-
beleif and finally to outrage at her coldness and audacity at lying to the
public.  And there may still be a few who empathize with her, or feel sorry for
her; they feel that she must have been under tremendous pressure and stress, 
and that she knew not how to deal with it, and because of this she snapped.  
These people also feel that she should be somehow helped; helped to overcome
and understand her problems, and why what she did was not right.  I don't 
understand these people.
    Susan Smith is an adult.  She was married and had two children.  She has
had enough time in this world to know the difference between right and wrong.
If, as some would claim, that she is simply emotionally imbalanced and at that
time could not understand her actions, but that with counseling she will be 
able to overcome these problems and once again become a productive member of
society, what is to say that the same situation would not occur again?
    Why is it that someone who commits such a crime against another person,
against society, should be given counseling to understand what they have done
in order to not do it again?  Our society has a duty to educate people and
attempt to show what is right, and it also has a duty to impose punishments
on those who break the laws of the society.  Susan Smith has broken the law.
She has taken something away from two people that can never be given back.
The hopes, dreams and oppurtunities of her two sons will now never be known
and realized.  When, and if, she is found guilty in a court of law, the death
penalty should be considered; she will no longer have a place in our society.  

    .24 Well said. 

    where I'd quibble with Andreas is in that bit about us bringing modern
    civilization to the world.  gimme a break!  we export pop culture but
    thats hardly civilization.  very few countries actually follow our
    lead in their political institutions; most democracies are
    parliamentry.  and social institutions never import without bloodshed
    ala missionaries, inquisitions and conquistadores.  The US is just
    another of the semi-civilized nations playing at the leading edge of
    the world economy.  Civilized?  I think not.
    
    DougO

    	The killing lust expressed here is distasteful in addition because
    it is premature. She is innocent (by your laws) since she has not been
    found guilty. I mentioned the case in the U.K. in my earlier note where
    hundreds of people confessed to one particular murder. Should *all* of
    them have been executed in case one of them might have been telling the
    truth? All of them were proven to be mentally  disturbed but harmless
    crackpots, and some of them were prosecuted for wasting the time of the
    police. It may be that she will eventually be prosecuted for wasting
    the time of the police.

.22> I think one of the reasons that you see a rise in sentiment for the
.22> death penalty is the high crime rate in the U.S.  We now have a 
.22> million people in prisons (the sad part is that we need to have
.22> even more than).  

the rise in crime and overcrowded prisons applies for other countries too.
in my town for instance, zurich, the biggest contributor to crime is hard 
drugs - one response to the rise in crime and the overcrowded prisons by the 
authorities here, is to make hard drugs and substitute drugs available to 
registered addicts via medical programs. this takes the consumers out of the 
illegal drugs market AND reduces drugs related crime in the process AND makes 
place for dealers in prison, as consumers are no longer prosecuted.

considering that drugs are a major contributor to crime in both the US and
europe, you realise that putting people in prison or capital punishment are 
not the only possible responses to fighting this crime, when looking at how 
countries in europe are responding successfully to drug related crime via 
medication programs or outright legalisation.


.24> When, and if, she is found guilty in a court of law, the death penalty 
.24> should be considered; she will no longer have a place in our society.  

a comment like this can only provoke a cynical remark: wouldn't another
planet to colonise be useful, where we can send people, which no longer have 
a place in our society...!!! it would save the cost of imprisonment and
avoid having to apply capital punishment!

imo, when we as humans start excluding others from our society we stop being
civilised!


andreas.

    .27 Meeee-yha!!! Susan ADMITTED to killing the boys! She is in jail
    because she did it. She isn't there because she likes prision food!
    Susan, product of her killer enviorment or not, took two lives. And bet
    yha the GAL suggested that the kids go with mom....;(
    
    The 'killing lust' as you might refer to it is a back lash against
    letting scum walk or live. Anytime you want to have Charlie come for a
    visit or Jeff Dhamer come for dinner. Let us know.:)
    
    This other horse pucky about the violent society of the Americans, how
    about the civil war in Viet Nam that had been going on for 400 years
    before we got involved? Or how about Hatie (sp)? Talk about bloody?
    Ever see how the russians deal with dopers? Wish we had a few of them
    here! And lets not forget the cane-ing in Korea... Or is that just a
    pat on the back for good art work? Me thinks, that you need to catch up
    on world affairs.... as I catch up on me spelling.:)
    
    Geo
    

Re: .29

Mr. Monahan is correct - Susan Smith is presumed innocent.  Her confession will
certainly weigh against her in her trial, but there are all sorts of claims
she can make which might lead to an innocent verdict.

Personally, I believe she did it and did so deliberately.  I am not among
those agitating for the death penalty, though.

					Steve

    	As I mentioned, more than 200 people ADMITTED to a particularly
    brutal murder in the U.K.. About 6 of them were convicted of wasting
    the time of the police. Most of the rest were just told to go away
    after a couple of questions showed that they couldn't possibly have
    been in the area at the time.
    
    	The fact that she ADMITS to the murder still leaves a lot of
    possibilities open. Only an extremely honest person would admit to a
    murder if they were completely sane, so she is obviously at the moment
    mentally disturbed. One possible scenario is that her appeals for
    finding her kids were perfectly genuine, when she discovered they were
    dead she didn't want to live anymore, but didn't have the guts to kill
    herself, so she is hoping that the state will do it for her.
    
    	The case has never been mentioned in the newspaper we take, so
    most of what I know about it is from this note, and there
    may be all sorts of other evidence that has been broadcast to the U.S.
    public to ensure a fair trial.

    
>>    	The fact that she ADMITS to the murder still leaves a lot of
>>    possibilities open. Only an extremely honest person would admit to a

   Just one little quip:  her  confession helped lead police to the location
of the car.  The police had been searching the pond for aprrox. 1 week before
the confession and had not found the car.  Her confession led them to it's
location.  This at least implies that she knew of the murder, don't you think?
And you are correct, she is not guilty yet even though she admits to the
crime; it will be up to a court of law to decide her guilt.  However, if and
when she is found guilty, why should our society still grant her all rights
that every other citizen has as she has shown blatant disregard fort the rights
of others? 

    One other comment.  The use of capital punishment has been considered by
some to be immoral or uncivilized.  I advocate capital punishment, but I regret
that it is needed.  It would be nice if our society did not have to deal with
people who have no regard for the rest of society.  It would be nice if there
were no murderers, rapists, molesters, drug pushers, etc...... but these do
exist in our society, and we must deal with them.  While I do not like the 
thought of knowingly and willingly taking someone's life, I do not see an
alternative.  The greater good of society must be taken into account when
dealing with such issues.
    I would like to hear opinions by those who are against capital punishment
as to what would be an alternative solution to help curb incidents such as this
murder.

        re .31

    She also knew where the car was.  Oh! Maybe that brutal black man
    that carjacked her made her watch him push the car in the lake 
    and so frightened her that she just now recovered her repressed
    memories--And maybe you'd be interested in this really nice 
    bridge I'd like to sell.

    fred();

    .33 I think we should send him Charlie and the Angles for
    Thanksgiving...;)

The Death Penalty is ALWAYS an emotional reaction to some particularly 
gruesome crime.  Even us liberals think that a certain evil person should be
blasted away sometimes be it Saddam or Mrs. Smith.

However, some arguments against the Dealth Penalty in the U.S.

Aprox number of murders in US per annum: approaching 30,000

Aprox number of death sentences carried out per annum: 30

Approx cost of the appeals in each individual case: approaching 2 million dollars
(and that just for a schmuck who confessed). Calculate for every murder!

Average time on death row: 7 years (a fair number have been over 20 years!)

While these statistics may not be strictly accurate they give a pretty good 
picture of how futile using the Death Penalty is.  

As for it being a deterent to murder it seems to be failing somewhat!


However, the greatest argument against the Death Penalty is what is the person
is INNOCENT.  No justice system is the world is perfect.  You can bring someone
back to life and say 'Sorry we made a mistake'.  

Plus, a further comment is that some of the sentiments expressed are just a step
away from the Nazi's and there gas chambers to eliminate the "Undesirables" from
society.

        re .35

>However, the greatest argument against the Death Penalty is what is the person
>is INNOCENT.  No justice system is the world is perfect.  You can bring someone
>back to life and say 'Sorry we made a mistake'.  

    I used to worry about that, but when I consider the number of innocent
    people that are killed by thugs who are once again turned loose on
    society, then the balance tips in favor of the death penalty.

    fred();

.30> she can make which might lead to an innocent verdict.

While we are being legalistic, American law, like British law, has no such
verdict as innocent.  She could be found not guilty, perhaps by reason of
insanity.

More generally, yes, she must be legally presumed innocent, until she is 
found guilty by a court.  I will give the writers here the benefit of the
doubt, and assume that they would have added "assuming she is guilty and is
found guilty by a court, then we should ..." if they had been trying to
write with precision.

Re the US as a civilizing influence, I can't believe any European would say 
that.  I am an American but I don't see our influence as uniformly civilizing.

Re educated Americans and the death penalty.  Lots of Americans oppose the 
death penalty.  Personally, I favor it, but I am usually in a small minority
among my family and friends.

    The other night I was driving home and the radio scanned around and
    stopped on the NH NPR station. They were talking about this, so I
    stopped it from scanning. They found some spokesperson (from mars) for
    some group who said that if there were better support services for her
    that this might have never have happened.
    
    
    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!  Where does NPR find these people!
    
    She could have: put them up for adoption
    She could have: given them to her ex husband
    She could have: given them to the grandparents
    She could have: left them at a local hospital.
    
    BUT IT IS NOT MY FAULT!!!	Jerks!
    
    Steve
    			

    .38 They are going to give Susan support, going to give her the chance to
    wrap herself in the flag of whats best for the children. And NPR and
    others will allow her to justify her actions.  

re .35,.36

with approx. 30,000 murders per annum against 30 death sentences carried out 
per year at a cost of US$ 2 mio each and an average of seven years on death row,
it will not surprise, when supporters of the death penalty demand speedier 
and more efficient execution of the death sentence. this is where the chances 
of putting innocent people on death row increase.

already, as i gather from some CNN coverage, there are politicians in the US 
asking for the death penalty to be extended to drug crimes, whilst, as other 
countries show, there are other ways to deal effectively with drug crimes. 
especially in this area of crime, ie. drugs, no sentencing, however harsh, has 
ever proven to be an effective deterrant.

and how does one judge mrs. smith? if the woman has really killed her two boys,
she must most likely be protected from herself. a sane person could not have 
done this, nor could a person remain sane when facing up to such a deed. 
in short, if she really did it knowingly and in cold blood, giving her the 
death penalty would only be doing her a favour - so don't do it. personally,
i doubt that really cruel people exist, so its more likely a case of mental
instability.

as for america bringing modern day civilisation (re .37). of course it is, 
if only you look at what an influence automation and modern day communication 
is having on other languages and our way of life! heck, networking and noting 
is part of it, and that's straight from across the pond! :-)


andreas.

>> she must most likely be protected from herself. a sane person could not have 
>> done this, nor could a person remain sane when facing up to such a deed. 
>> in short, if she really did it knowingly and in cold blood, giving her the 
>> death penalty would only be doing her a favour - so don't do it. personally,
>> i doubt that really cruel people exist, so its more likely a case of mental
>> instability.

    I have to question the opponents of capital punishment who use the rationale
that a murderer must not be sane.  Since I group all crimes of murder into
one catgeory and don't make judgement as to one murder being worse than any
other murder (this excludes killing in self-defense, as this is proven not to
be murder in a court of law), then the murders supposedly committed by Mrs.
Smith are no worse than a murder committed by a gang-member in a drive-by, or
the murders committed by Paul Hill, etc...  Now, if you espouse the idea that
Mrs. Smith MUST have been insane to commit the crime, do you also feel that
the hundreds of people who murder someone EVERY DAY, are also insane?  Also,
are we to assume that young kids sent off to war are mentally imbalanced 
becuase they kill people who they don't even know, simply because some other
person told them to?
    The claiming of mental or emotional imbalance and distress has simply
become the latest method for people to avoid responsibility for their actions.
However, I will agree that their are a rare few people who may indeed be
mentally or emotionally imbalanced; but, why is it that some people feel that
this condition absolves them of all responsibility for their actions?  If a
wolf comes out of the woods and kills a child, the wolf is caught and killed.
It is not taken into consideration that it may have needed to eat to survive 
and that it was simply acting on impulse.  Even though the wolf did not know
what it was doing, it still did something that we as a society do not tolerate.
Now arguably, there is a difference between a person and an animal; but as a
society, we can no longer tolerate behavior by anyone that directly jeopardizes
and infringes on the safety of others.
    And as to the doubt about whether really cruel people do exist - go ask
the families and friends of victims of brutal murders, rapes, and molestations.
Ask them if they feel that some people aren't inherently cruel.

Rob

    	To pursue the rathole, yes, I believe the IRA and UDF killers in
    Northern Ireland are insane. The position of soldiers ordered to kill
    is possibly different. If I was picked up and dumped in a war zone I
    *might* kill in self-defence, but my most immediate threat would
    probably be my officer to avoid being shot for mutiny.

.41> if you espouse the idea that Mrs. Smith MUST have been insane to commit 
.41> the crime, 

to reiterate, in my opinion, with little knowledge of the background of this 
case, i am inclined to assume, that a mother killing her children cannot be in 
a mentally stable condition. since you agree that there are (albeit a "rare 
few") mentally imbalanced people, you probably also agree that it must be first
established in a proper manner during the trial whether mrs. smith belongs to 
these mentally imbalanced people, and it is not for us to condemn prematurely.


.41> do you also feel that the hundreds of people who murder someone EVERY DAY, 
.41> are also insane?  

no, most of the everyday murderers are probably not insane. but then i don't 
think the killing discussed in this topic is your average killing either. 

imo, part of the resonsibility for the high murder rate in the US, which you 
seem to refer to, lies with the high availability of arms due to a permissive
legislation. from my point of view, having permissive legislation on guns,
then lamenting the high murder rates and then wanting to reintroduce the death
penalty as a remedy, is totally irrational. 

instituting restrictive arms controls would seem to be the most rational remedy
to the everyday murders, not bringing back the death penalty.

is there really a major difference between life being taken by a gangster, or 
by a soldier or by an executioner of the death sentence or even in self defence?
the goal, surely, must be, in all cases, to reduce the incidences of death by 
violence.


andreas.

    .43 Mrs. Smith didn't kill the kids with a gun. She did it with a car.
    So we should now ban cars, and lakes from the public at large too.....

    RE .43
    
    Lets ban: 	guns
    		cars
    		knives
    		baseball bats
    		high rise buildings (5 yr old dropped to his death)
    
    Right: banning guns will sure fix it! Try banning banning people who
           kill from life and society FIRST!
    
    Steve

    .45 Dont forget:
    
    shallow pools of water
    electricity
    dull crayons
    cleaning solvents
    drugs of all kinds of the over the counter types
    dogs
    any animal with teeth
    sun
    tee-vee
    Clint Eastwood flicks
    cartoons
    John Wayne movies, the actually shot horses in many of these movies.
    welfare moms who stick little hands into boiling water. 
    ban hot water too. 
    certainly ban GAL's!! a low order of the food chain and certainly from
       the shallow end of the gean pool....
    
    

re .44ff, are you saying that in the "hundreds of murders committed every day",
	  guns play an insignificant part?


andreas.

    
    Still further into the rathole, I caught something on McNeil-Leher(sp)
    last night that I'll bet you won't hear on the "news" many times.
    The pollster who works for the company that does exit polls for the
    election was on.  He kind of hunkered down and shifted his eyes like
    he was real uncomfortable before he reported the breakdown of voters.
    One thing he glossed over real quick was that 35% of the voters said
    that they supported the NRA, and they _all_ voted Republican. 
    fred()

    .47 Question? Were these kids shot with a gun? I have seen on tee-vee
    they were taken out when mom took them to the lake to swim. 
    
    Guns play an insignigicant part. If you want to kill someone. You don't
    always have to reach over and grab the gun to do so.

        And more.  A year ago Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado (how that turkey
    got re-elected I'll never know) called a special session of the
    legislature to pass an anti-gun bill to solve juvenile crime.  They
    "courageously" passed a bill making it illegal for teen-agers to carry
    guns. Last Saturday a boy from my daughter's class was gunned down
    about 3 blocks from our house by another teen-ager.  The killer had
    once before been in jail for murder and was back on the street.
    fred();

    .47 I have this crazed idea that you think all of us Americans walk
    around sporting a side arm, wearing ten gallon hats, riding horses....

re .51, no. i think that you in particular are twisting the conversation. 
	having read all of this topic i am perfectly aware how the smith 
	boys died. as i wrote, this case doesn't seem like the 'average' 
	killing. 

	do guns contribute significantly to the average murder or not? 
	do you have any figures?

re .50, passing a state law to prohibit "teen-agers to carry guns" makes 
	not a lot of sense if their parents can still own guns.


andreas.

    
    re .52

    >	do guns contribute significantly to the average murder or not? 

    Guns contribute _nothing_ to murder.  They are simply one of a number
    of tools used by murders.

>re .50, passing a state law to prohibit "teen-agers to carry guns" makes 
>	not a lot of sense if their parents can still own guns.

    Nor does banning guns stop murder.  Banning guns do not stop criminals
    from carrying guns.  It only stops honest citizens from carrying guns
    to defend themselves.

    fred();

>>    Nor does banning guns stop murder.  Banning guns do not stop criminals
>>    from carrying guns.  It only stops honest citizens from carrying guns
>>    to defend themselves.

    Well said.  The majority of guns used in the commission of CRIMES are not
purchased and legally registered.  This is a fact that is avoided by opponents
of guns.  The opponents instead point to a fact that a person is more likely
to be injured by a gun if they own one.  What this means, and what the do not
say, is that many people who own guns legally are sometimes careless and end
up injuring themselves with their own gun.  This does not mean that guns should
be banned.  It really means that their should be a better policy in place for
educating people in the use of firearms.

    Now, to get back to another point.  Murder is murder, IMO.  Whether the
murderer was mentally or emotionally imbalanced at the time of the crime should
not be taken into consideration, unless it can be shown that the imbalance was
due to a direct threat to the individuals life by the person that they killed.
I say this because I do side with the people (in most cases women) who have
killed a lover, friend, acquaintance, etc... due to extreme emotional distress
caused by emotional/physical abuse.  In Mrs. Smith's case, this did not 
happen, and she also killed two people who did not pose any threat to her
welfare.  My stance may be different if she had instead killed her husband or
boyfriend and it was shown that he (whichever one) had been abusing or threaten-
ing her.

    To reiterate an earlier question:  What should be done to people who do
commit violent crimes in place of capital punishment?    The best solution
is to prevent these crimes from ever occurring - but what do you do once a
crime has occurred?

Rob

    
    Blaming guns for crime in the U.S. is like blaming guns for Hitler.

    Btw, A little history (as in, those who forget history are doomed to
    repeat it):  One of the first acts of the Nazis was to require all
    guns to be registered--then they went around and gathered them all
    up.  Then they....

    fred();

Well, as long as we're talking guns, how about that dad who blew away his
14-year-old daughter with his .357 Magnum, loaded with hollow-point bullets,
the other day?  Seems she thought it would be funny to make her parents
believe that the house had been broken into.  She was hiding in a closet,
and when she came out, the father gunned her down.  Her dying words were
"I love you, Daddy."

				Steve

    
    Re .56.

    Yes there is a danger in owing guns, but also, one of the things
    that I've had the hardest time teaching my kids is the dangers
    of just "horsing" around.  My son and daughter were "horsing" around
    with one of the neighbor kids and "only" broke his arm so badly that
    he was in a cast for almost six months.  If the neighbors hadn't been
    such good friends or had been a little greedier, it may have been
    cheaper to have killed him.  (No I don't recommend killing someone.
    That's just how out of whack things have gotten).

    fred();

    This note may sound a little strange, but once when taking Bible as
    LIterature Class, we discussed the Mosaic Law (the law that God gave
    Israel as its governing code) we asked why God had instituted capital
    punishment for crimes.  The answer was that the death penalty was the
    consequence/judement for certain crimes AND that man's justice was
    inadequate to fairly judge and give out recompense to the killer.Thus
    executing the killer was the method for sending the soul to God's
    courts of justice.
    
    On another idea:  How about brining back penal colonies for killers and
    other convicted felons?
    
    Paul 

 >     Guns contribute _nothing_ to murder.  They are simply one of a number
 >     of tools used by murders.
    
    And cars contribute nothing to transportation, either. If you didn't
    have a car, you could just walk.
    
    I've seen this kind of argument (trying to convince the reader that
    if there were fewer guns there would be just as many murders) many
    times. It doesn't wash. It's far, far easier to kill someone with a
    gun than it is with other means; it takes a lot less skill, and a
    lot less stomach.
    
    I'm not rabidly anti-gun, but I would be able to take the pro-gun
    side of the argument a lot more seriously if it appealed more to the
    rational side of my brain than it generally does. Statements like
    the one I quoted above serve primarily to make me think the speaker
    is willing to say anything at all to avoid any kind of negative
    association with guns, whether what is said makes sense or not.

The relating of isolated tragic incidents contributes nothing towards an 
intelligent discussion of the benefits/drawbacks of the availability of
firearms in a society.  Stick with the scientific studies that have been
done by legitimate researchers, and get yourselves away from the newspapers
and Sarah Bradys. 

A good place to start is with Florida State University's Professor of
Criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck, and his recent works.  Kleck is a political
liberal who wanted to back up the pro-criminal set when they really began
pushing for infringements on Second-Amendment rights.  Instead he found the
numbers were all "wrong," that armed societies experience far less violent
crime than disarmed ones, and he found himself converted.  His latest 
figures show that AT LEAST 600,000 attempted violent crimes are thwarted 
each year in America by folks armed with handguns -- if rifles and shotguns 
are included, the figure jumps to well over a million.

Are you going to sacrifice 600,000 people because of a few accidents every 
year?  You get a few accidents and >600K lives saved, or you get no 
accidents and >600K lives lost, rapes committed, and so on.  THERE IS NO 
THIRD CHOICE, and utopia is not an option.

A cursory perusal of the Firearms notes conference for topics on crime 
wouldn't do anybody any harm.  Come on, guys.  Get off it and start
thinking.  We were all hired by this company because we have some brains. 
Let's use 'em for some intelligent research consumption, and let's distance 
ourselves from the inflammatory human-interest stories which contribute 
nothing towards serious study.

        re.  .59

>    And cars contribute nothing to transportation, either. If you didn't
>    have a car, you could just walk.

    Apples and oranges.  That's like saying guns deliver nothing to self-
    defense or hunting to feed ones family.  A closer comparison would be
    to say that cars contribute nothing to to hit-and-run accidents or
    drunk driving.  Some 15,000+ _children_ _every year_ are killed
    by drunk drivers (55000 were killed in 7 1/2 years of Vietnam).
    Should we ban automobiles?  I've yet to hear of anyone getting 
    killed by getting run over by some drunk staggering down the street.
    
    fred();

The insanity defence, aka the M'Naughton rule, is actually a very old part
of American and British law.  For this century at least it has been extended
to cover things like "irresistable impulse" in some states of the US, and
less formally and more recently to cover victimhood of all sorts.

Personally, I am very uncomfortable with the insanity defence.  It seems to
be based on an old idea that there is a wide gulf between crazy people and
the rest of us, and that some expert can tell the difference.  

I think I would prefer a system in which the verdict was either guilty or
not guilty.  Then the extenuating circumstances or state of mind of the 
guilty party could be considered in sentencing and/or treatment.

But that is not the system that Mrs Smith and I live under.

In our system, she will certainly have an opportunity to present an insanity 
defence.  One of the things that bothers me about our current system is that 
she would have a much better chance if she could spend a few million on
lawyers.

<    times. It doesn't wash. It's far, far easier to kill someone with a
<    gun than it is with other means; it takes a lot less skill, and a
<    lot less stomach.
<    

   I've thought alot about what would happen if firearms really were banned
and not available to criminals in the US (a situation which is pure fantasy,
even the bad guys in the UK have guns.) What would the criminal use to kill his
prey? A knife is most effective, but it takes a long time for the victim to
bleed to death. It's readily available. Anyone can use it. It's silent. It's
very concealable. All you need do is slash an artery. 

   In situations that make the biggest headlines, a small bomb would likely be
the weapon of choice. On the Long Island RR Colin Fergison selectively shot
at specific targets on that railroad car. He did not target blacks. He had to
select each victim, aim at each one and pull the trigger. If you practice a lot
it takes about 1.5 seconds to switch targets and get 1 accurate round off. He
carried 15 rounds in each magazine of his Ruger P85. It took him at least 15
seconds to do his damage. A bomb would have been very indescriminate and would
have killed or wounded everyone and the damage would have commenced and ended
in a split second. No chance for any potential victim to react. Same scenario
with Jean Luigi Ferry in the law offices at 101 California Street in San
Francisco. For his crazed mind to get its revenge, he could have just as easily
set off a bomb or 2 and killed or wounded everyone in an instant. It took him
time to locate and target each of his victims. It took the police 5 minutes to
get the first officer on the scene and 20 minutes before they located the
shooter.

   A firearm is a very efficient weapon, but each target must be selected 
(collateral damage aside) individually. Each victim is a conscious act of the 
shooter.

   In both example high-profile crimes I listed above, I have to ask the
question, "How many lives would have been SAVED if only 1 of the people in the
vicinity was legally armed and took the opportunity to STOP the carnage, to 
STOP the shooter?"  I legally carry a firearm almost everywhere I go (I work
from my home.) I do not know when I might be the selected victim. If it happens
to me at least I have some chance to defend myself against the preditor. If
you're the victim, your only hope is that I (or someone like me) choose to get
involved. I may not. That will be a decision I must make at that point in time.

   To say it takes "lots less stomach" to pull the trigger on a human being
than other methods of killing is not necessarily accurate. You may have less
problem shooting someone than you would bashing their head in with a baseball
bat, but I'm not so sure about myself. I shoot alot and the safety training
that's drilled and drilled and drilled constantly makes the idea of actually
pointing a gun at someone, let alone pull the trigger a very difficult one to
picture. I'll never know unless someone sticks a gun in my face. Hopefully
I'll never find out.

    
     Reference the last few pertaining to the comparison of firearms and
    motor vehicles.
    
    
     When a Police officer makes a traffic stop,for whatever,lets say DUI.
    Who gets the citation ,the motor vehicle,the distillery,nope the
    driver. Lets face it,people are at the root of all of societies
    problems. If you don't deal with the people,your not dealing with the
    problem. 
     A Criminal is by definition a lawless individual,how is passing
    another law,going to effect a lawless individual. Lawful people respect
    the law,criminals detest the fact,of laws,because it inhibits there
    chosen profession. Naturally I was addressing a career criminal,one who
    has had multiple contiguous and continuous,violations.
    

well, going by a good dozen of todays replies, i am certainly led to think
that the gun is to americans, what the queen is to the brits ;-)

.54>    To reiterate an earlier question:  What should be done to people who do
.54> commit violent crimes in place of capital punishment?    

penal colonies may be back in favour (.58), when travel to outer space becomes 
cheaper and the need for building a new habitat (on the moon say) due to 
overpopulation on earth, becomes more pressing! 

in the meantime, as i suggested in .28, it may be worthwhile to have a look 
at who is filling our prisons now, and to make place for those who really 
deserve to be there. 

in my neck of the woods for instance (zurich, switzerland), where drugs are 
the major contributor to crime, the realisation is gradually coming through 
that it makes no sense to put drug addicts into prison. and to get rid of the 
dealers currently filling the prisons, the most sensible measure is to sweep 
away the illegal market by either legalising drugs or by making drugs available 
to addicts via medical programs.

these measures really do make place in prison for the really dangerous people
who deserve to be there for life, or for the greater part of it at least.


andreas.

    Welllllpppp..... Its going to be a number of years before space travel
    becomes cheap.... So what do you do with all these folks till then? Let
    them out on good behaivior? Set them up with your tax dollar to live
    out their un-natural lives in prision? Ball is in your court...

and so that george can follow aswell, in a nutshell:

  "decriminalise drugs to make place in prison for the real criminals!"


andreas.

    
    re .67

>  "decriminalise drugs to make place in prison for the real criminals!"

    When the U.S. repealed prohibition, the criminals just found something
    else illegal to sell and kill each other over.  We now have (as I 
    said before) 15000+ per year _children_ killed each year by 
    drunk drivers.  Do we really want another wave of drug crazed loonies
    loose on the road.  May be safer to give them guns than cars.

    fred()

    .67 Welll Ghollllleee! Sargent Carter! I don't think it is me who is
    having the troubles as much as it might be you ol paint.... But...
    Looks ta me that in a nut shell. Your now saying that Mrs. Smith was on
    drugs? I mean this base string is about Mrs. Smith taking the kids to
    the lake for a swim. How the hell we now are in a rodent hole about
    decriminalising drugs to make more room for folks to go to death row
    doesnt make a tinkers dam if your trying to derail this conversation.
    
    Let us not forget that most of us americans tote guns, ride horses, and
    drink wisky like the old west.......

    > When the U.S. repealed prohibition, the criminals just found
    > something else illegal to sell and kill each other over.
    
    actually, marijuana didn't used to be illegal.  It was the huge
    enforcement apparatus that had been built up to fight rum-runners
    during prohibition (the name Anslinger sticks in my mind) that started
    the anti-drug hysteria...so they'd have something to do.  And of
    course, just as during prohibition, they created a black market and
    made it profitable for middlemen to take the chances suddenly built
    into the supply chain.  Far better for all of us if we hadn't
    established the economic conditions that gave us organized crime while
    trying to prohibit people from behavior that harms only themselves.
    
    DougO

    
    re .70

>    > When the U.S. repealed prohibition, the criminals just found
>    > something else illegal to sell and kill each other over.
>    
>    actually, marijuana didn't used to be illegal.  It was the huge
>    enforcement apparatus that had been built up to fight rum-runners
>    during prohibition (the name Anslinger sticks in my mind) that started
>    the anti-drug hysteria...so they'd have something to do.  And of

    Laudnum (opium) used to be legal also, and Coca Cola used to actually
    have Coke in it.  But those have changed too.  I remember a movie that
    was supposedly a true story a while back called "The Vilachi (sp)
    Papers" starring Charles Bronson.  The movie told about a huge 
    internal organized crime war when prohibition ended.  Some of the
    gang wanted to take their money and go legit, others wanted to go
    into HEROIN and start pushing that in a big way.  The drug pushers
    won out. Then there's Angel Dust, LSD, Crack, and some other nasty 
    stuff that pushers try to dump on _school children_.  There's always
    something illegal and someone to buy it.  

    Why not let people fry their brains if they want?  Well, then I have
    to pick up the tab for taking care of their medical expanses and
    supporting them because they're "disabled" now and "entitled" to
    Social Security.  I have to pick up the tab for the Crack babies.   
    Not to mention the damage done to the children themselves, and I 
    doubt if legalization will stop any of that.

    fred();

    
    did you think that "The Valachi Papers" was a novel?
    
    what a hoot!
    
    anyway, i thing that whilst society could probably suffer
    the presence of pot smokers, a surfeit of crack cocaine 
    adicts would be a bit much. 
    
    

Back to the subject of banning guns, cars, etc.

A point to note it the primary purpose of implements which have been suggested
(in some cases frivously) as useful to ban:

Car  -  Used to get from A to B
Over the counter drugs - to treat Headaches, ilness, etc
Guns - TO KILL SOMETHING

No, to ban guns will not stop violent crime, but it will make harder for some
people to to randomly kill people, pull out a gun in a bar-room argument, etc.

In the UK, when some-one shots another with a gun, eg a burgler, then
self-defence cannot be used due to the fact that carring a loaded gun implies
you want to shot someone.

<Car  -  Used to get from A to B
<Over the counter drugs - to treat Headaches, ilness, etc
<Guns - TO KILL SOMETHING
<
<No, to ban guns will not stop violent crime, but it will make harder for some
<people to to randomly kill people, pull out a gun in a bar-room argument, etc.

    Here in Florida one of the places I am not allowed to carry my firearm is
into barrooms. As a law-abiding citizen, I don't (mostly I avoid the bars.) The
idea that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix is just as true as alcohol and
gasoline don't mix. Both are deadly combinations. For what it's worth, I am not
allowed to bring my firearm to sporting events either, as the emotions run high
and the likelyhood of an innocent bystander being hurt is very high. 

<In the UK, when some-one shots another with a gun, eg a burgler, then
<self-defence cannot be used due to the fact that carring a loaded gun implies
<you want to shot someone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   This could not be further from the truth. If a person is ever in a situation
where they feel justified in discharging their firearm and actually do shoot
someone, their life will change dramatically for a very long time whether they
were actually justified or not. Some wonder if the trauma one would face at the
hands of the assailant would not be easier to deal with than the trauma one
would face at the hands of our criminal (and civil) justice system while they
sorted out the pieces.  Either way you're a victim. Either way you lose all
semblance of life the way it was before that decision of the gravest extreme
was made. If you shoot, you lose mentally and economically. If you do not, you
lose physically, mentally, economically and you may lose your life, leaving
family and friends to suffer the most. 

    I do not WANT to shoot anything but paper, steel and clay targets. 
Unfortunately I may find myself in a situation where my only alternative is to
suffer gravely at the hands of a violent crack-head who is in no mind to listen
to all the reasons why he shouldn't be assaulting me. I am not justified in
using my firearm to stop someone from stealing my car, or my television. I am
only legally justified in using my firearm to stop a violent confrontation, to
stop an attack, which I did not instigate. If the assailant breaks off the
attack and flees, I am not justified to use my firearm to stop him. The threat
is over and with it my justification to shoot. 

    You have nothing to fear from me or my revolver if you mind your own
business and do not physically accost me or my family. If you do not confront
me with a life or death situation, you'll never know I have it. 

        re .73

>Car  -  Used to get from A to B
>Over the counter drugs - to treat Headaches, ilness, etc
>Guns - TO KILL SOMETHING

    And all of these things can be, and have been , used to either 
    intentionally or accidentally kill someone.

    The idea that the _only_ use for a gun is to kill is also a farce.  
    Most of the ammo expended in the U.S. is against targets paper and
    clay targets.   Just the _presence_ of a gun has _prevented_ more 
    murder than has been caused.
    
    fred()

re .54

>    Now, to get back to another point.  Murder is murder, IMO.  Whether the
>murderer was mentally or emotionally imbalanced at the time of the crime should
>not be taken into consideration [,unless ... direct threat]

if you do not want to make allowances for a mentally insane, then by the same
token, you do not want to make a difference between a driver accidentally
killing a child because his car had a mechanical failure (say the brakes broke)
or because the driver was driving carelessly.


andreas.

I can't see your reasoning, .73.  I've told you already that in the U.S.
alone there are over 600K violent assaults prevented by the presence of
guns in society.  You are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY missing the concept of net
benefit.  If you take all the guns away, at least 600K lives will be lost
or will at the very least be severely compromised.  Will you prevent a few
bar shootings by forcing 600K others to relinquish their lives?  Are you
listening at all?  Helloooooo... 

What if I gave you this argument against investing...

You:    You should invest your money.
Me:     Why?
You:    You'll get it back and more on top of it.
Me:     But I have to spend money.
You:    But you'll get it back and more!
Me:     But I have to write a check and draw off funds from my bank.  Why would
        I want to draw off even a dollar for this?
You:    I *told* you.  If you spend ten, you might get back fifteen or twenty
        in several years.  Don't you see?  Fifteen minus the ten you spent is
        five profit!
Me:     No; all I can see is that I'll have to spend my money, and I think
        you've gone 'round the bend by even suggesting it.

Wouldn't you think I'd be missing the point, just a little?

    .76!! Your making no sence! A driver who is killing children by driving
    them into a lake differs big time from someone who has faulty brakes.

re .78, i am glad you agree, george! the point i am making is that the same
crime comitted by a person who is mentally insane (as in broken down completely,
as in having lost all touch with reality, being manic or psycho etc.) differs
big time from the same crime being committed by a person in full command of
his/her faculties.


andreas.

.77> I've told you already that in the U.S. alone there are over 600K violent
.77> assaults prevented by the presence of guns in society.

and in all of the 600'000 violent assaults, the agressors where gunless?

wouldn't the 600K net effect hold only if this were the case?


andreas.

    
    re .80

    >and in all of the 600'000 violent assaults, the aggressors where gunless?

    If you think that gun-control would have disarmed those aggressors, then
    I have some prime land in Florida I'd like to sell.  And Germany 
    as much as anybody should know what happens when the aggressor is the
    government, and the unarmed are the citizens.  

    fred();

>>and in all of the 600'000 violent assaults, the aggressors where gunless?
>
> If you think that gun-control would have disarmed those aggressors, then
> I have some prime land in Florida I'd like to sell.  

be fair. if you want to use the 'net benefit' argument you've got to say 
that the gunless agressors were stopped by the gun. makes sense.


> And Germany as much as anybody should know what happens when the aggressor 
> is the government, and the unarmed are the citizens.  

since i don't live in germany and since i am not german, you probably know 
better than i do ;-)


have a nice weekend!

andreas.

<and in all of the 600'000 violent assaults, the agressors where gunless?
<
<wouldn't the 600K net effect hold only if this were the case?

   I don't understand the connection between what weapon the agressor was
using and the 600K statistic?

   If an able-bodied man, 6'2" 250 pounds, was using his fists and boots to
attack Twiggy, she would be justified in using a firearm to defend herself. She
has no reasonable chance of keeping this thug, this predator, from harming her.
The presence of the firearm balances the scales of power. The reverse would not
be true. If she were pummeling him, generally speaking, he would not be
justified in defending himself with a firearm as she could only do superficial
harm to him. 

   I have no defensive training with a knife. The punk on the street who is
flashing his blade around in an attempt to coerce my wallet from me may be very
good with it.  One: I don't carry a knife. Two: if I did, he would most likely
win the fight. Three: the presence of a firearm would, most likely, persuade
the agressor to break off the fight, to pick an easier victim, perhaps you. 

   A cliche that gets bandied about firearm circles is

		"God made man, Sam Colt made them equal"

   The robber and the rapist want an unfair advantage. They're not looking for
a challenge. They want absolute control, not difficult in an unarmed society;
just pick on people who are small, old or weak (young women, handicapped, or
elderly.) OR run in packs/gangs where you significantly outnumber your victim(s)

True story:

   As a friend of mine exited a convenience store very early one morning not so
long ago, he was approached by 3 or 4 punks who were telling him what they were 
going to do to "da fat white boy." Initially he passed it off as so much BS.
When they got closer and didn't show any signs of letting it go, he showed them
the muzzle end of his rather large handgun. They immediately scattered. The
confrontation was over, nobody was hurt, no property damage, just lots of
adrenalin to absorb. Were these punks armed? It doesn't matter because the 3 to
1 advantage made this a situation where the firearm became the equalizer. If he
hadn't been armed, he would have, most likely, been severly beaten and robbed.
He was armed and no one was hurt. Everyone went home. No one went to the
emergency room. How much did his firearm reduce the cost of healthcare that
night? The next morning he was asked to go to the Sheriff's office to explain
what happened, no charges were filed.

    This is an example of the 600,000 situations Dr. Kleck was documenting. I
believe the question on his survey was worded in such a way that either the
actual presence of a firearm or the threat of a firearm (i.e. I told the thug I
was armed when in fact I was not) was counted in the 600,000. 

Al 

    As a chauffur for on limo company. A couple of hoo-la-gens walked up
    behind a client of mine who was tapping the local ATM system. I saw
    these two walk up behind this man ready to whack him when he turned
    around. I am an able body, 250 6'2" and mustered up the courage to
    walk up behind the two.... They walked away. I was thinking afterwards
    what a fool hearty thing to do. What if they had a gun? A knife? I was
    dam lucky for both my client and myself that they did not. And for the
    most part people like this would have..... I quit driving because of
    crap like that. And people like Andreau who wants to disarm the populas
    because everyone in his town does robbery's with an index finger in the
    jacket. Good grief, I wish it was like this in real life.

    .73, John...
    
>Car  -  Used to get from A to B
    
    Yes, but accidents kill more people than guns...
    
>Over the counter drugs - to treat Headaches, ilness, etc
    
    True...
    
>Guns - TO KILL SOMETHING

    Nope.  I've shot thousands of rounds in the last fifteen years without
    killing anything.  No gun that I own has killed anything while I've
    owned it.
    
    Certain guns are used for self defense, or not (god-willing).  
    
    Others are really fun to shoot.
    
>No, to ban guns will not stop violent crime, but it will make harder for some
>people to to randomly kill people, pull out a gun in a bar-room argument etc.

    I don't see any equation between making it illegal for me to purchase a
    gun and making it harder for somebody else to "randomly kill people".
    
    The type of people who do that, and the type of people who even CARRY
    guns into a bar are not the kind of individuals who would be in the
    least affected by any kind of gun legislation.
    
    Being without experience with firearms, you have bought into the
    emotional arguments against guns.  Gun control is not about lessening
    violence, it is about increasing your dependence on the government.
    
    I have a very close and personal story, that is not for public airing. 
    However, no amount of police protection, no amount of preparation,
    absolutely NOTHING would have saved this loved one from an unimaginable
    ordeal (which incidentally was done with a butcher knife).
    
    Except a pistol.  That would have made every difference in the world. 
    And no person close to me will ever be deprived of the right to self
    defense.
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

    Still. Guns, cars, etc. Susan Smith.....
    
    Anyone see some of the articles in Newsweek? What makes a parent kill
    thier children? Chilling. All along I though it was lawyers who eat or
    kill their young....;)

 >     Yes, but accidents kill more people than guns...
    
    Good point; I don't ever remember hearing about a gun being killed
    by an accident.

    	The question I ask myself is what is your president going to do to
    make Chicago a place where you are as safe from violent killing as
    Northern Ireland has been for the last 25 years.
    
    	Some people blame the difference on the volatile Chicago
    temperament, compared with the placid, easy-going Irish. Others think
    the IRA and UDF are wimps.
    
    	I don't think anyone would claim that Europe, where there are in
    general gun controls, is perfect, but statistically it is safer, and it
    *feels* safer. I was 20 years old before I even saw a hand gun
    (security guard at U.S. embassy). Valbonne does have its gun incidents,
    but I can only remember one casualty from the 13 years that I have been 
    here. In this case one candidate for mayor shot another one dead with a
    perfectly legal boar hunting rifle while the second was having
    breakfast in a bar in the centre.  No problem in finding the murderer -
    all they had to do was go round posters changing "vote for" to "wanted"
    ;-)
    
    	The only reason I think that there is any connection with the base
    topic is that I believe that there is a tendency for a symbiotic
    relationship between the attitude of society to killing and the
    availability of means to do so. If means of taking life are cheap and
    easily available then I believe it encourages an attitude that life
    itself is cheap, and the details of exactly which means becomes
    unimportant.
    
    	If the accusations are true, then it was the attitude that "my
    convenience is worth more than your life" that killed those kids, not
    water. They were going to die anyway.

<    	The only reason I think that there is any connection with the base
<    topic is that I believe that there is a tendency for a symbiotic
<    relationship between the attitude of society to killing and the
<    availability of means to do so. If means of taking life are cheap and
<    easily available then I believe it encourages an attitude that life
<    itself is cheap, and the details of exactly which means becomes
<    unimportant.
    
   An interesting hypothosis.

   Access to firearms in the US has never been more difficult than it is today.
Until 1936 anyone could buy anything they wanted including machineguns. Today
we have many restrictions. The tighter the restrictions the higher the murder
rate. Vermont has virtually no State imposed restrictions (only Federal), yet
their crime rate is one of the lowest in the nation. New York on the other hand
has some of the tightest controls and also has one of the highest crime rates.

    Switzerland has few firearm regulations AND every able-bodied man is 
required to have his militia rifle ready for action, yet they enjoy a very low
crime rate. They have universal access to firearms, at no cost to the citizen,
without a burgeoning crime problem.

   A nice idea, but it doesn't appear the facts support it.

    .88 If you come for a visit. Stop in to the local FBI office. And that
    is what our prez and our tax dollar is doing. As we are giving time and
    money to help the Northern Ireland and the British come to the peace
    table. And it is costing US tax payer money. What are you doing for
    the cause?

    	In Switzerland it is very much a society attitude. During the
    compulsory military service it is so effectively drilled into them that
    they only use the government issue gun for defence of the country that
    it is known for Swiss to go out and buy another gun to commit suicide
    with. If that sort of training was applied in New York it is possible
    that the crime rate would drop.

    re: .90
    	I am prepared to contribute a modest amount of money towards peace
    in Chicago, though I believe Moscow is more in need of that sort of
    assistance at the moment than anywhere else mentioned so far.

re .91, moreover, the two rounds of ammo you get with your swiss army machine
        gun, are sealed, and when the seal is found to be broken at yearly
	inspection, you get into trouble, big time.


the point made in .88 is excellent, it does unfortunately seem to boil down 
to society attitudes, though i admit, the "my convenience is worth more than 
your life" bottom line sent a chill down my spine. fortunately, this apparent
self-centerdness is not yet common-place in europe.


andreas.

    .92 Welp..:) We are contributing to *all* causes with heavy pockets.

regarding .91

    BINGO!!!  

> Until 1936 anyone could buy anything they wanted including machineguns. Today
> we have many restrictions. The tighter the restrictions the higher the murder
> rate.
    
    This suggests a direct correlation between tight restrictions and
    higher murder rates, which the author may not have intended, and
    which illustrates the "tyranny of statistics". (Everybody who
    breathes oxygen will someday die, therefore oxygen is toxic.)
    
    It's as easy (easier) to believe that the motivation between
    stricter access regulation on firearms is the increasing crime rate,
    rather than the opposite. That the restrictions don't eliminate
    murders suggests that the reasons behind the murder rate are not
    directly related to current regulations; they also illustrate that
    the system as a whole has substantial hysteresis (there are enough
    guns already in the system that changing the regulations relating to
    adding new guns into the system has a small effect on the
    availability of guns within the system as a whole).
    
    If Vermont has fewer regulations and less crime, does this mean the
    regulations cause the crime? Seems to me the rural nature and low
    population of Vermont is likely to have an infinitely greater effect
    compared to, say, Chicago or New York. Vermont may have fewer
    regulations simply because these other factors keep the crime rates
    low enough that there's far less incentive to "do something about
    it".
    

    
    One big item often left out of the "but xxx country has a much lower
    crime rate"  argument is the fact that the U.S. has by far the
    strictest controls on bill-of-rights type "protections" of criminal
    rights.  Japan, for instance has very lenient rule about search-and-
    seizure and self-incrimination.  In Germany, freedom-of-speach and
    freedom-of-association is severely curtailed for some groups
    (neo-nazis).  The likelihood of going to jail for the commission of
    a crime is a _much_ bigger measure of the crime rate than the 
    availability of guns.

    As for Northern Ireland vs Chicago, I'm sure Chicago would be much
    "safer" if there were Federal troops patrolling the streets.  Also
    Chicago had Rosty.  Maybe getting rid of him will help.

    fred()

    welp..... I wounder how this all has a cotton picking thing to do with
    one child killing mother, and two dead boys. Besides the obvious.... 
    De-rail-ment.. Perhaps. There is a root cause to all this derailment?
    Perhaps parties don't want to discuss the fact that many GAL's
    blaitenly give custody to the mother from the get-go despite the fact
    that there might be a number of screws loose someplace in that vast
    cavern called her head....
    
    Hey. But what the hell do I know....?? 
    
    

ones for sure, the story is big enough that it even gets a mention on 
CNN international...


andreas.

    
    Right, George.  Maybe the one positive thing that can come out of
    this tragedy is that it will put one more chink in the armor of
    "mommy can do no wrong".  Maybe some day we will be seeing the
    courts doing something really radical--following the laws set
    down in most states and giving the children to the parent who is 
    _truely_ better able to care for them and provide for them.

    fred();

since there's no mention of this in this string, exactly how old were the
two boys at the time of their death? was the mother a working mum when she
separated her husband? i ask this, since age of the children and occupation
of the parents usually plays a role when custody is awarded.


andreas.

<    This suggests a direct correlation between tight restrictions and
<    higher murder rates, which the author may not have intended, and
<    which illustrates the "tyranny of statistics". (Everybody who
<    breathes oxygen will someday die, therefore oxygen is toxic.)
    
    This is EXACTLY what the author intended.  When you tighten the controls
on the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves from thugs (i.e. make
it more difficult, or less acceptable for the average person to obtain a 
defensive weapon), you unwittingly empower/encourage those thugs to commit more 
crime by offering them a helpless society upon which to prey. The average
criminal is much more afraid of a citizen with a firearm, than they are of the
police. The policeman is much less likely to shoot AND if captured, the criminal
will be back on the street before the cop finishes his paperwork. A citizen 
with a firearm is less predictable. The criminal is looking for an easy target,
he doesn't want to be challenged. 

regarding your comment about Vermont:

     I absolutely agree, Vermont's low crime rate is much more a matter of its
traditional values and overall moral fiber than it is their laws regarding
firearms. My point is that if free access to firearms was a significant factor 
in crime rates, then Vermont should lead the nation, which it does not. Since
reasonable concealed carry laws were enacted in Florida over 200,000 permits
have been issued (that means there are 200,000 of us that are carrying guns
to and from the store, to and from church plus all the others who legally have
a gun in their car without any permit.) Our crime rate has dropped, while crime
in the US as a whole has increased.  Has Florida suddenly become morally
stronger, or is it that the thugs are thinking a little harder about who they
pick on. 

    In 1989 the city of Orlando offered a free firearms training course for
concealed carry to its women. It was very widely advertised. In the months that
followed the course the number of rapes was cut to 1/4 its previous rate. The
only thing that changed was that EVERYONE knew there were lots of women out
on the streets carrying firearms. The rapists' problem was they didn't know
which ones.

Al

<since there's no mention of this in this string, exactly how old were the
<two boys at the time of their death? was the mother a working mum when she

   The boys were 3 years and 15 months I believe. I do not know if Susan was
employed at the time of their seperation.

Yes, she was employed at the factory owned by her boyfriend's family.

I find it interesting that she filed for divorce on the basis of her husband's
supposed infidelity, but I've seen nothing reported to support that it was
true.  On the other hand, we've been treated to lots of reports of her
extramarital relationship.

				Steve

    .103 Correction. 3 years and 14 months. And they were babies. Just
    little babies. Someone whose eyes get big when you play with them or
    mention Santa Claus. Or tickle them. Man a live! I would give both left
    and right nuts to have had custody of those two boys. And being a
    single custodial dad. It is still impossible for me to adopt a child.
    Even from some other country who needs to give their children a chance
    in the world. 
    
    I wish like hell we would stop with this derailment and get back to the
    subject at hand. There is allot we all can learn from this tragidy. And
    not the international level of who spends what where on what dam crime.
    
    Children are not only the future wealth of a nation state. But of this
    planet. If there is to be a planet Earth beyond 2000 we better start
    thinking of what is at hand now. And help people like the Mr. Smiths
    and the children who are truely in need of a STABLE, and loving home.
    Not another rubber stamping of paperwork to give to the courts with 
    mommy getting custody. 
    
    Peace
    

re .86, thanks for the pointer to 'newsweek', whilst last weeks copies are sold
out, last weeks 'time', covering the same subject, was still available.

some interesting aspects from the report in time magazine. in the peaceful 
little town of union the smiths were "well-known and well-liked: 'good people 
from good stock'"... "susan was an honor student, member of the math club, 
voted the 'friendliest female' for the class of '89 at union high."

according to the report, mrs. smith has a history of suicide attempts, 
"including one at high school that kept her out of class for a month".

"when she finally confessed, smith reportedly explained to police how she
had been overwhelmed by worries about 'money, her failed marriage and a series
of other romantic relationships in disarray.'"

interesting also to note, that during the time of the crisis, whilst everyone
is still looking for the children, she is surrounded by her husband's family.
david smith's father moves in with some other relatives. wasn't susan smith's
side of the family around?

sounds to me, with the suicide history, that the woman was severly depressed
and totally isolated, once her marriage had disintegrated. as one of her former
union high school teachers puts it, this is not the woman he knew at school,
someone close to her should have noticed [the change], and it bothers him that
noone did. 
looks like there was noone around close enough to notice.

mrs. smith is now in the women's correctional center near columbia, where she 
is under suicide watch. she is allowed only her "glasses, bible, blanket and 
pillow. a camera watches her 24 hours a day, and guards regularly pass her 
2-m by 5.5-m cell."


andreas.

    	No doubt lots more details will come out during the trial, though
    we probably won't hear about them in Europe - how many people in the
    U.S. have heard about the child murder in France where over a period of
    years the mother, the father, the uncle and "persons unknown" were
    suspected of the murder. Given that she is a likely culprit the only
    thing I would object to in her treatment is the lengths taken to
    prevent suicide. If there is a good chance that she is guilty then
    it is reasonable that she be confined until a court decision is made.
    
    	Some cultures permit or even encourage suicide in the case of
    guilt, and in many it is at least not a crime (in the U.K. at least, it
    was a criminal offence for some years to attempt to commit suicide).
    Those who are arguing about the cost of keeping Charles Manson
    (whoever he is) in prison should also consider the cost of preventing
    this woman from committing suicide.
    
    	She should be strongly discouraged, and anyone who actively helps
    her should be accused of murder, but active prevention is a waste of
    everyone's time. Remember that if she really wants to die it seems that
    under the local law all she has to do is to plead guilty. The only
    reason I can think of for taking serious precautions to prevent suicide
    is a ghoulish desire to see the trial through to the end, and then a
    final execution in front of television cameras. As I said before, it
    is a matter of culture.
    
    	Dave

.107> The only reason I can think of for taking serious precautions to prevent 
.107> suicide is a ghoulish desire to see the trial through to the end, 

the motivation behind her surveillance, is very likely, a lot more humane than 
that. if she is in a mentally instable condition and is, for the time being, 
no longer accountable for her actions, it is the (noble?) duty of the wardens 
to protect mrs. smith from herself.

as regards suicide, here in switzerland for instance, a failed suicide attempt 
has as an immediate consequence psychiatric treatment in a closed psychiatric 
ward. a suicide attempt is a mental breakdown. the point with a mental 
breakdown is that it is not obvious from the outside whether the person 
suffering from the breakdown knows what s/he is doing. when depressives
go manic for instance, they are completely disconnected from their environment
which is why, such people who have broken down mentally, are usually 'put away' 
for their own good before they can do any harm to themselves or to others.

it may well be that this sort of mental breakdown applies in susan smith's case.
the impression that i am left with after reading the article in the 'time', 
is that her boys seem to have been raised properly, at least whilst the family 
was intact and there is no mention of child abuse/battering. 
if this is a case of complete breakdown, as it sounds, the worrying thing then 
is, did anyone spot the signals before it was too late and how can anyone tell
anyway?


andreas.

    .107
    
    There is a book named 'Helter Skelter'. You should read it, It will
    enlighten you about Charles Manson. In fact there was a movie about him
    and the angles. One of them, Squiggie From (sp) pulled a starter gun on
    Gerald Ford, former president during the re-elections.
    
    

I think that was "Squeakie Fromme" or something closer to that.

				Steve

    Regarding the tragic murder of the Smith boys, while I do not promote
    exploiting this tragedy, I do think this is the time for those groups
    (mens/fathers rights organizations) to bring a bright light to bear on
    this issue.  
    
    IF (and I do mean IF!) the statistics show that the positive biases 
    offered to mothers, within the legal system, are unwarranted 
    (I'm not addressing the obvious unfairness of this,- yet!)  then those
    who goal is to change that, should seize this unfortunate moment to
    highlight this issue.
    
    This seems to be the method that many other social and political
    changes get momentum.  Domestic abuse, drunk driving, are just a couple
    of issues that quickly come to mind, where real social change SEEMS to be 
    taking hold.
    
    SandieD
    
    

    Imagine if someone in Tate's party had had a pistol and had trained
    him/herself how to use it.

                 <<< Note 144.96 by ANGST::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>

>    It's as easy (easier) to believe that the motivation between
>    stricter access regulation on firearms is the increasing crime rate,
>    rather than the opposite. That the restrictions don't eliminate
>    murders suggests that the reasons behind the murder rate are not
>    directly related to current regulations; they also illustrate that
>    the system as a whole has substantial hysteresis (there are enough
>    guns already in the system that changing the regulations relating to
>    adding new guns into the system has a small effect on the
>    availability of guns within the system as a whole).
 
	Correlation in any social situation is fairly easy to show, causality
	is very difficult to show.

	Up to about 6 years ago, the argument that gun laws did not
	reduce gun crime fell on mostly deaf ears. The pro-control
	forces simply stated that "it would have gone up more" in
	order to refute the claim.

	However, 6 years ago the State of Florida passed a gun law that
	made it EASIER for the law-abiding to purchase AND CARRY CONCEALED.
	The murder rate in Florida DROPPED 18% the first year this law
	was in effect. It dropped ANOTHER 12% the following year (from
	the already lower numbers). Meanwhile the murder rate in the
	rest of the US went UP 10% in the same period.

	Adding new guns to the system, in the hands of the law-abiding,
	has certainly had an effect on the violent crime rate.

	We should note that of the nearly 200,000 concealed carry licenses
	issued to date, 17 have been revoked due to the illegal use of
	a firearm. This should give us a pretty good understanding that
	the law-abiding are NOT the problem.


>    If Vermont has fewer regulations and less crime, does this mean the
>    regulations cause the crime? Seems to me the rural nature and low
>    population of Vermont is likely to have an infinitely greater effect
>    compared to, say, Chicago or New York. Vermont may have fewer
>    regulations simply because these other factors keep the crime rates
>    low enough that there's far less incentive to "do something about
>    it".
 
	You may well be right. But all this tells us is that the "gun"
	is NOT the problem.

Jim