Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    At our club in Western Mass. such a course runs four weeks,
    one night a week (three hours a night) and costs $ 50. 
    Cost includes instructional materials.
    
    The best courses are the NRA-sponsored  ones titled "Voluntary
    Practical Firearms" or "Basic Pistol Marksmanship"
    
    One of your local clubs probably sponsors such a course.
    Best place to ask is in ALIEN::FIREARMS

    Ask away.....
    Some of us "right wingers" read this file as we do others...

    I took a gun safety course at the gun club in Malden about 2 years
    ago.  There's not that much involved.  I think it was a few hours
    a week for about 6 or 8 weeks.  They started the course by having
    2 films on gun safety, where one covered safety issues and the other
    covered the gun itself and how it's used, what the parts are etc.
    I never did get around to getting my permit, though I keep saying
    that I should.  I don't do much shooting anymore because I have
    a hearing loss, and the doctor has recommended that I avoid loud
    noises like shooting and power tools (and that's even with hearing
    protection).

    re.4 Learning the fundamentals is not time consuming. Learning
    effectiveness *is*. A gun entails enormous responsibility, not
    the least of which is sufficient accuracy to hit *only* what
    you mean to. A cardinal rule of gun safety is "Thou shalt not
    shoot innocent bystanders."
    
    

    Have you consider other means of self protection, martial arts -Judo,
    Karate, Akido(sp?), etc.  Guns to me are very frightening, it's very
    "finally", if you will.  Yes I know, you can also kill someone with
    martial arts too.  

    However, by knowing martial arts, you will not have to be dependent on
    having the gun with you at all times.  If someone broke into your
    apartment, attacks you in the living room, and the gun is in the
    bedroom, what good is it ??  
    
    There are many stories in the news regarding accidental deaths, with
    children,teenager and adults, as well as domestic violence.  The news
    story that comes to mind is the little black girl name Tiffiny (sp?) in
    Roxbury, Mass.  A senseless death.
    
    Yes, this is a sensitive area for me.  No, I have not been a victim
    of hand gun volience, but I have seen what damage it can cause.

    I like to urge you to look into martial arts as a means of self
    protection instead of handguns.

    The pro-gun advocates are probably lighting their "blow" torches, so I
    will put on my flame proof suit, sit and watch the flames. 

    - Lory

    RE: .6-
    
    The more distance you have between yourself and your attacker, the
    better off you are, something martial arts may not let you do.  Also,
    the mere sight of a firearm is often enough to disuade most attackers. 
    However, if you have a weapon, you must be able to use it, if it
    becomes necessary (that's one reason why a gun around the house is not 
    for everyone). If you do choose to get a gun, please learn how to
    safely handle it and properly use it!
    
    Eric

    And how to store it -- locked away where kids can't get at it.
    
    When I was in high school, a friend's preschool sister was killed
    when she and a companion got hold of her father's gun and started
    playing water pistol with it.
    
    --bonnie

    I applied for a Massachusetts Firearms ID card, so I could buy some
    mace.  There have been attempted breakins in my neighborhoor.
    
    The form had an interesting prejudice.  It asked for my wife's 
    maiden name.  I guess very few women purchase firearms in
    Massachusetts.
    							jill

    I am hoping that hand guns will become illegal one of these days.
     One of the problems with having guns around is that the only people
    who tend to wind up getting shot are friends and family, either
    by accident or during a heated argument.

    Perhaps you could consider an alarm system, a large dog (haven't
    you always wanted a pitbull?), mace, or, as someone else mentioned,
    learning one of the martial arts (is that what they're called?).
    
    If a crazed, demented, violent, criminal really wants to break into
    your home and kill you, do you really think you will be able to
    gun him/or her (!) down before he/she gets you??  Could you have finished
    off the Mansons before they got you?
    
    I refuse to play the violence game.  I hate guns.  They were invented
    only to kill things, and I'm not interested in killing things.
    
    The minute you pick up a gun, you become one of the aggressors.
     You become somebody that I have to watch out for.
    
    I like to imagine that one day human beings will live in a world
    where guns do not exist because people have found non-violent ways
    to solve their differences.  As long as people keep joining the
    bandwagon, and buying guns because they're afraid somebody is going
    to "get" them, our violent society will be perpetuated.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .9
    
    I've yet to find a single government form that asked me for my
    "maiden name".  ("Maiden name" is also a biased term, for that
    matter.)
    
    I used to be "William W. Kane, Jr.", now I'm "William W. Licea-Kane".
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .10
    
    Beautifully put, Lorna.
    
    --bonnie

re .10

>     One of the problems with having guns around is that the only people
>    who tend to wind up getting shot are friends and family, either
>    by accident or during a heated argument.

	Not true.

>    If a crazed, demented, violent, criminal really wants to break into
>    your home and kill you, do you really think you will be able to
>    gun him/or her (!) down before he/she gets you??  Could you have finished
>    off the Mansons before they got you?

	You may be able to deter them. Who wants to be the first to die?
	Granted, it is not a guaranteed win, simply another option. If you
	want a guarantee, buy a refrigerator.
    
>    I refuse to play the violence game.  I hate guns.  They were invented
>    only to kill things, and I'm not interested in killing things.

	What, pray tell, do target shooters kill?
    
>    The minute you pick up a gun, you become one of the aggressors.
>     You become somebody that I have to watch out for.
    
	That certainly doesn't sound open minded.

	Firearms are certainly not for everyone. With the right to own a 
	firearm, goes a responsibility to learn to use it properly, and
	unfortunately, far too many firearm owners do not accept that
	responsibility, but that is a poor reason to deny responsible 
	persons their rights.

	 Lastly, remember there are more good folks than bad folks. If
	the good folks are armed, the bad ones don't have a chance.


							Tom_K

    Re .13, if there are more "good folks" than "bad folks", then why
    are you concerned about your "right" to own a gun?  Since there
    are so many "good folks" around the chances of your ever needing
    to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation should be very
    slim.  
    
    I don't know the statistics around the number of people killed by
    guns in the U.S. in the past year.  However, from reports that I
    remember reading in the past, I seem to recall that a large percentage
    of people shot by handguns in the U.S. were shot by accident, or
    during fights with friends and family members.
    
    As far as target practice goes, I don't understand why anybody needs
    to have "real" guns with "real" bullets for target practice since
    you don't have to actually "kill" the targets.  Therefore, I tend
    to doubt that anyone who wants a gun and demands the "right" to
    own one really wants it for target practice.
    
    At any rate, .0 was not talking about target practice.  .0 is afraid
    for her safety after her boyfriend goes home at night.  She wants
    a gun so that she can shoot intruders.
    
    Lorna
    

    Note that the author of .0 asked for information about people who
    have taken gun safety courses, about where they are held, how much
    they cost, and what is required to get a permit. 
    
    I wonder whether she is enjoying the debate on the place of firearms
    in society. 
    
    	-Neil

    re .10, .14:
    
    Lorna,
    
    	The following article contains some relevant statistics.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    
    
    From _The_Wall_Street_Journal_, June 24, 1988, p 14
    
                     Rowan Case and the Need to Bear Arms
                               by David P Kopel
    
    Syndicated columnist Carl Rowan, who last week wounded an intruder who
    had taken a dip in his swimming pool, said he was forced to shoot the
    young man in self-defense before the police arrived. The U.S.
    Attorney's Office said yesterday that Mr Rowan will not be charged with
    assault. Instead, prosecutors reinstated charges of unlawful entry
    against two of the intruders. The U.S. Attorney's office said it would
    let the District of Columbia authorities decide whether Mr Rowan should
    be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. 
    
    Many people charged Mr Rowan with hypocrisy because he has been a
    longtime advocate of strict gun control. In a 1981 column he advocated
    "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a
    legitimate officer of the law goes to jail -- period." In 1985 he
    called for "a complete and universal federal ban on the sale,
    manufacture, importation and possession of a handgun (except for
    authorized police and military personnel)." 
    
    But Mr Rowan's middle-of-the-night experience appears to have taught
    him what many Americans already know: You can't always count on the
    police to be there to protect you. Many ordinary citizens have had the
    experience of calling "the authorities" for help -- and having that
    help arrive too late or not at all. 
    
    ...
    
    As courts in Washington, D.C., and New York City have ruled, a
    government cannot be held liable for having failed to protect people
    from crime, even when it is found to have been negligent. It should
    hardly be surprising that so many people arm for self-defense. 
    
    Peter D Hart Research Associates found in 1981 that in 4% of American
    households, someone had used a handgun to protect himself from another
    person within the previous five years. Prof. Gary Kleck at Florida
    State University School of criminology estimates that if each of those
    people used a gun for that purpose only once during the five-year
    period, handguns were used in self-defense 645,000 times a year. That's
    once every 48 seconds. 
    
    Handguns are particularly well-suited for self-defense because they are
    smaller and hence more maneuverable than long guns. They are also
    harder for an attacker to take away, and their lesser recoil makes them
    easier for women and the elderly to handle. 
    
    According to a 1979-85 study by the National Crime Survey, when a
    robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88% of
    [the] time, and the victim is injured 25% of the time. When a victim
    resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30%, and the
    victim injury rate falls to 17%. No other response to a robbery -- from
    drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low
    rates of victim injury and robbery success. 
    
    Further, guns prevent many crimes from even being attempted. A 1982-83
    study of prison inmates by National Institute of Justice showed that
    two-fifths of them had decided not to attack a victim when they found
    out that he or she was armed. In the 1960s the Orlando police responded
    to a rape epidemic by training 2,500 women to use guns. The next year
    rape fell 88% and burglary by 25%. 
    
    ...
    
    But when people are armed for self-defense, aren't they likely to
    accidentally shoot innocent bystanders? Aren't people shooting a gun so
    panicky and impulsive that they're dangerous? Apparently not; the most
    common defensive use of a gun is merely to brandish it. 
    
    ...
    
    But don't gun owners kill themselves and loved ones in moments of
    frenzy made tragic by the presence of a gun? Actually, only one gun
    owner in 3,000 commits homicide. That lone killer is generally a person
    with a record of violence and conflict with the law -- not an ordinary
    citizen. 
    
    Gun accidents? Bicycles kill far more children than handguns. Out of
    the 92,000 accidental deaths in a typical year, handguns account for
    fewer than 300. 
    
    Gun suicide? Japan bans handguns, and its suicide rate is twice as high
    as that of the U.S. rate. After Canada restricted the possession of
    handguns in 1977, gun suicides dropped but the overall suicide rate
    remained the same. People simply substituted other methods of killing
    themselves. 
    
    Anti-gun columnists live in a bizarre world where guns are objects of
    terror and where American citizens are too mentally unstable or clumsy
    to be entrusted with them. Perhaps the incident at Mr Rowan's swimming
    pool will remind such columnists -- and their readers -- that in the
    real world, one cannot always count on the police to come to one's aid.
    For that reason, many American households choose to own guns, and
    virtually all of them do so responsibly. 
    
    					Mr Kopel, an assistant district
    					attorney in Manhattan from 1986
    					until last month [May], recently
    					completed a study of gun control
    					for the Cato Institute.
    

    
    
    I still think a dog is an excellent alternative to a gun
    (or suppliment, perhaps), for protection.  I have two large
    dogs, both of which are excellent watchdogs, one of which
    might be a credible guard dog.
    
    Ironically, I now carry HALT for the protection of my dogs,
    as well as MACE for the protection of myself...
    
    Deb
    
    

    Yes, let's make trespassing a capital crime.
    
    A mere 300 children a year killed by stray handguns.  A drop in
    the bucket.  They were probably mostly inner city kids, too -- who
    cares about them? 
    
    --bonnie [who does know how to use a gun and who has been hunting
    more than once]

re:< Note 210.17 by CSC32::WOLBACH >

>    I still think a dog is an excellent alternative to a gun

I agree, but those of us living in apartments may not be able to have a
dog. If I could have one, I would. Meanwhile, I intend to take a firearm
safety course. If I have to kill to protect myself I will.

Jenna

    
    Oh, Jenna I didn't mean to imply that dogs were an acceptable
    alternative for everyone...(how about an attack cat? ;-)
    
    HALT is the canine equivalent of MACE.  Many letter carriers
    have a can on their belt, to stop attacking dogs.  I bought it
    at a local gun shop.  I carry it whenever I have my dogs outside,
    and when I ride my bike, should I encounter an aggressive dog.
    
    Deb
    
    

    	You can also buy HALT at most bike shops.
    
    	Scott

    re .18:
    
    > A mere 300 children a year killed by stray handguns.  A drop in
    > the bucket.  They were probably mostly inner city kids, too -- who
    > cares about them? 
    
    I think you are reading far too much into this statistic:

    >> Gun accidents? Bicycles kill far more children than handguns. Out of
    >> the 92,000 accidental deaths in a typical year, handguns account for
    >> fewer than 300. 
      
    If it is so terrible that 300 children were killed by handguns,
    and therefore guns should be banned, doesn't it follow that bicycles
    should also be banned, as well as anything else that causes more
    than 300 accidental deaths per year?

    	 /
    	(  ___
    	 ) ///
    	/

    I don't think handguns ought to be banned; I didn't say that and I
    don't think you can read that into my note.  I do think they out
    to have some reasonable safety regulations to protect those who
    can't help themselves -- at least an education requirement. I do
    think the article that was quoted showed an appalling callousness
    toward the victims of handguns.
    
    I'm already an advocate of more care on bicycles, and neither of
    my kids goes out without a helmet -- according to the bike club we
    belong to, the number of deaths due to bike accidents could be cut
    by two-thirds if everybody wore a helmet that meets safety
    standards.  
    
    --bonnie

    Re .25, what do bicycles and guns have to do with each other?

    The fact that X number of people per year get hurt or killed on
    bicycles doesn't convince me that handguns should not be banned.
    
    There is a difference between killing *yourself* accidentally which
    most people who get killed on bicycles do (or else a car does it
    to them), and killing somebody else accidentally, which people do
    with guns.
    
    Besides, I still think that the fewer people who have guns the fewer
    people will be killed by them.  There are many times when people
    get mad enough to kill somebody - for a brief period of time - and
    if there happened to be a gun around they would use it.  If there
    isn't a gun around they can't use it, and they'll get over being
    angry without killing somebody and regretting it later.
    
    Lorna
     

    Some answers for the original questions:
    	
    In order to get a firearms ID, I had to fill out a short form at
    	the local police station, and give them $2.00.  I showed them
    	my Massachusetts license.  They in turn gave me a temporary
    	ID, which allowed me to purchase mace (and small arms, too).
    	Ten days later, the permanent ID is available at the police
    	station--you go pick it up.  It is not sent.
    
    Your Firearms ID number is used by the store where you purchase
    	your firearm or mace.  They transcribe the number, your name,
    	and the items purchased into a log which by law they must keep.
    
    Mace costs:	$10. in an 8 inch canister, 2 inches around.
    		$19. for a wristwatch mace, which also contains a
    			permanent protein dye which will mark your
    			agressor semi-permanently for a week.

    <--(.28)  
    
    Does it require fingerprinting and checking with the FBI/Interpol/?

    re .10 > I refuse to play the violence game.
    
    It isn't a game. People get killed. Your problem is that you
    don't distinguish between criminals, who initiate violence,
    and victims, who defend themselves. 
    
    >all handguns were illegal
    
    Since there are some 30 *million* handguns in the US, consider
    the size of the police force needed to confiscate them. Do you
    want to give Reagan (or even Dukakis) that kind of power ?
    
    The solution is to make the *unlawful use* of guns a severe,
    no-parole crime.
    
    re. kids and accidents, any parent who fails to secure their
    weapon from their children is guilty of negligent homicide,
    and should be prosecuted for such. If they don't die of grief
    and shame.
    
    Dana 
    
    

    RE:  .0
    
    Hi Angela,
    
    I've owned handguns for about two years and empathize with your
    desire for safety in your own home.  I sleep easier at night knowing
    that I have a better chance for survival in the event that I am
    victimized by violent criminals entering my home.  
    
    I live in New Hampshire and received a permit after applying at
    the town hall.  The chief of police performed a background check
    and I recieved my permit a week later.  In Vermont one does not
    need a permit to carry a gun.  In fact the state does not issue
    permits.  I hear that folks in Massachussetts have a much harder
    time getting permits.  The decision is based on the chief of police
    attitude towards guns and varies from town to town.
    
    I've read two books that were extremely helpful in sorting out the self
    defense issue. 
    
    "The Truth About Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob provides
    recommendations for lethal weapons, attact dogs, tear gas, security
    devices, and the martial arts.
    
    "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob is a "must read" for anyone
    who owns a firearm for self defense.  This book is a best seller
    and is acclaimed by cops, lawyers and judges as the ultimate guide
    to the use of a gun's deadly force at the ultimate level of self
    protection.
    
    The Lethal Force Institute in Concord, NH offers training in the
    use of deadly force for self defense.  Quoting from the brochure:
    
    "LFI-I  Judicious Use of Deadly Force in Self Defense  
    Tuition:  $500.
    
    The most famous LFI course, 40 hours of immersion training that,
    lawyers and cops who've take it agree, goes well beyond law school
    and the police academy in this critical decision making area.
    Prevention, intervention, and aftermath management all thoroughly
    considered.  Learn:
    
    *  How to hold criminal suspects at gunpoint
    *  How to avoid mistaken identity shootings when police respond
    *  Patterns of criminal violence  -- where the attack will come
    and the most proven wasys of deflecting it
    *  The truth instead of the myths of armed self defense
    *  Proper interaction with responding officers, investigating officers
    and the courts.
    
    500 rounds handgun; intensive Stressfire combat shooting comprise
    40% of the course, the remainder being lecture, video and student
    interaction.  40 hours, often taught in a four 10-hour Thursday-Sunday
    format for student's scheduling convenience."
    
    There are more courses, books and information described in the
    brochure.  I have a brochure, address and phone number if you're
    interested. 
    
    Nancy

    Re .31, Dana, I know that violence isn't a crime and I realize that
    people get killed.  Otherwise, why would I even care?
    
    Please don't tell me what my "problem" is.  You don't know me well
    enough.  I have some problems but none of them have to do with not
    being able to tell the difference between criminals and victims.
     I can tell the difference.  
    
    I believe that people who have a need to own guns are paranoid.
     I think it is unfortunate that there are violent criminals in this
    world, but I don't think the answer is for the rest of us to buy
    guns, too.  We can install alarm systems, use mace, learn types
    of self-defense, have watch dogs.  We can have roommates, we can
    flood lights in our yards, we can be careful what type of neighborhoods
    we walk in after dark, we can live in relatively "safe" neighborhoods.
     
    Ghandi and Martin Luther King (and even Jesus) didn't become 3 of
    the most admired men who have ever lived by picking up a weapon
    and firing back.
    
    Lorna
    

    obviously I meant to say that violence isn't a *game*! Not that
    it isn't a *crime*!!!!!  
    
    Sorry, but I don't know how to edit something I've already sent
    in!
    
    Lorna
    

    when I saw .0, I sort of gulped and hit next/unseen.  yet I see
    the occasional reply.  I find it scary to see talk about guns for
    any purpose beyond killing game or target shooting in this file,
    but I guess it _is_ of interest.
    
    I am non-violent - sometimes to my satisfaction, sometimes to my
    dismay.  I just wanted to support Lornna: I too find the concept
    repellant and abhorrent.  Someday there _must_ be a better way.
    
    Lee

    <--(.35)
    
    Now *there's* something "repellant and abhorrent" to me, Lee:  killing
    "game". 
           
    						=maggie

    RE: 210.29 and question about fingerprinting
    
    I really can't remember for sure, but I don't THINK I was
    fingerprinted... It was a few months ago.
    
    I assume the 10 days delay for getting a permanent card 
    is cuased by a check on background in some form or fashion.
    

    In the state of New Hampshire, the fingerprinting and the picture
    s are purely optional.  When I got my first one the officer stated
    that was a good idea, but not manditory.  
           
    I am pretty sutre that this is this is still in effect.

    	One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is this:
    
    		Given a gun, could you kill????
    
    I read a reply that told of a brother who was killed. I see replies
    that state they own guns.  Has anyone here ever taken the life of
    another human being, an animal, a bird?
    
    To kill is not easy, even when your own life is in jeprody. I have
    seen men (boys?) freeze and die because they couldn't do it. I saw
    others relish the power of subjecting others to their death. 
    
    I own weapons of different kinds. Firearms, Knives, and my ability
    to do the work with my hands and feet. 
    
    I would attempt attempt to dissaude anyone from hurting or killing
    me, I would kill in a second if my wife or children were threatened.
    
    Guns don't kill, People kill.  If you take the ownership of guns
    from the "good" people, the only ones who will have them are the
    "bad" people. And they will kill in a breath.
    
    Ken

    re: .39
        
    > Given a gun, could you kill???
    
    No.  
    
    I have killed a deer and watched it kick and die, and I know I
    could not kill another human being simply to save my own life. 
    Certainly not to save mere property or money.  Life is a sacred
    and mysterious thing, just as mysterious in the most depraved
    and violent criminal as it is in me.  Taking that life from
    anyone for any reason is a serious, serious matter.
    
    To protect my children -- that would be a different matter. I
    don't know whether that's right, but that's the way mother
    instinct runs.  But if someone was trying to hurt my children,
    I wouldn't need a gun to kill them.  I'd rip their throat out
    with my teeth if I had to.
    
    --bonnie

    
    If you are against guns, then fine, but I see no reaason they should
    be banned. They are helpful. And if they are banned, chances are
    that the only people who will get their hands on them are criminals.
    Then we will all be in worse shape. 
    
    I don't want a gun with the intention to kill, but if my life is
    threatened, I feel I could in a flash shoot someone. What hasn't
    been brought out is that it is possible to shoot someone without
    killing them. If, for example, I shot someone in the knees, they
    couldn't walk. They would fall to the floor and they wouldn't be
    able to hurt me. I could call the police, and that criminal would
    be arrested, not buried!
    
    I am not saying that guns are for everyone. To some people the mere
    thought of a gun in the house is frightening. But living in a
    crime-filled environment, where even country towns are victimized
    by psychopathic killers, wouldn't you want to protect yourself?
    
    One person said something about having a roomate or a dog or martial
    arts or Mace.
    	A roomate will not ALWAYS be there in your apartment. My boyfriend
        lives with me, but he isn't always there. When he is out with
        his friends, I am home alone. That would happen in any roomate
        situation.
    
        Dogs are not allowed in apartments, and I'm sorry, but I don't
        consider a cat protection.
    
        Martial arts are only good if you can get close enough to this
        person to hurt them, and chances are you won't want to do that.
        If this man is fast and pulls a knife on you there isn't much
        you can do.
    
        And it's the same with mace. You have to be so close to him.
    
      But with a gun, you can be far away so he can't have any chance
    of reaching you. Don't you understand that? It's good to have a
    backup, so if you didn't have to use the gun you wouldn't, and I
    don't plan to ever pull a gun on someone unless I have to, but I
    would feel a lot safer knowing it was there and that if necessary
    I could use it.
    
    I didn't realize i was opening up a debate on banning weapons. They
    are PROTECTION. If they are banned, they will be sold on the black
    market, and who eill they be sold to? Normal law-abiding citizens?
    No! They will be sold to criminals, who will have the upper hand
    even more than they presently do!
    
    

    Re .39, in my opinion, "good" people do not own guns now.  I know
    that is going to offend you.  But, it's the way I feel.  Okay?
    
    I should qualify that statement by saying that there are people
    I know of who collect guns, hunt, enjoy target practice, and while
    I'm not thrilled about it, I do know they are "good" people still
    in other ways.  But, your survivalist attitude really frightens
    me.  I wonder what it is exactly that you are afraid of.  We're
    not at war here on U.S. soil at the moment.  Nobody is ever really
    safe.  Even with all your weapons you could get cancer and die next
    year, or killed in a car accident on the way home tonight.  In view
    of those considerations, maybe the best bet would be to just relax
    and enjoy the good there is life while you have a chance.  You are
    not under seige.
    
    Lorna
      

    Re .42, you say that with a gun you can protect yourself from "far
    away".  Well, from "far away" how do you even know that the person
    is trying to kill you.  When I consider how many millions of people
    live in the U.S. today I don't think that the crime rate is so high
    that ordinary people have to have guns to protect themselves.  If
    you are this frightened I really think you need counseling, not
    a gun.  
    
    There is a debate because I, and I can't be the only one in the
    country because it's been brought to a vote before, do not believe
    that you have a right to own a weapon that could kill me.  I don't
    believe you have that "right."  
    
    You say you have no intention of killing, well that is what guns
    were invented for.  Killing.  
    
    You seem to think you are going to be a crack shot who can quickly
    wound your would be attacker without killing him/her?  Well, that
    remains to be seen.
    
    Another thing.  Where are you going to keep your gun?  Is it going
    to be strapped to you at all times?  What if you're attacked in
    the shower?  What if you're in the living room watching TV and the
    gun is in the bedroom when the guy comes to get you?  How are you
    going to assure yourself that that gun is with you at exact moment
    that you are attacked?
    
    Lorna
    

    Is this Note destined to become another 1000 + replies rathole
    between "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" advocates?
    
    SOAPBOX has this topic (again, in its n'th reincarnation).
    
    The same arguments for; the same arguments against.
    
    Kind of like an endless DO loop, with absolutely no internal
    counter to interrupt.
    
    While writing this, I just thought of a perfect definition for
    a perpetual motion device: a gun topic in a Digital Notes
    Conference. :-)
    
      Alan

    
    
    I've always heard the following rules:
    
    1.  Never aim a gun at anyone (or anything) unless you intend
        to shoot them.
    
    2.  Always shoot to kill.
                
    
    Deb
    
    (and the third, unspoken rule:  if you kill a threatening person
     on your property but outside the house, drag them inside before
     you call the authorities)
    
    
    

RE:    < Note 210.42 by PLANET::GRIFFITH >
                          -< Why is there a debate? >-

    
>>  What hasn't
>>  been brought out is that it is possible to shoot someone without
>>  killing them. If, for example, I shot someone in the knees, they
>>  couldn't walk. They would fall to the floor and they wouldn't be
>>  able to hurt me. I could call the police, and that criminal would
>>  be arrested, not buried!
    
    This is an extremely dangerous and ILLEGAL action!  The privilige of
    the innocent to use lethal force for self defense applies only in those
    situations where your life is in grave danger of being ended by
    criminal violence.  If you shoot to wound then the courts will likely
    decide that your life was not in grave danger and the shooting was not
    justified under the laws of self defense.  With your self-defense
    defense denied you will be liable for criminal/civil action. 
    
    If you own a gun then you are responsible for ensuring that you
    understand when and how you are allowed to use it.  If you use the
    gun incorrectly then the courts will surely crucify you.
    
    Nancy

RE:  < Note 210.48 by ANT::ZARLENGA "This is America. We PAY, we STAY!" >

>>    This is just plain wrong.  The courts would have crucified you
>>    maybe 10 years ago, but not anymore.  Too many burglary/homicides 
>>    have swayed them to err in favor of the victim, rather than the
>>    attacker.  A recent example is Providence Police vs. Mr DiBiasio.

    I wouldn't want my court defense to hing on apparent or implied
    leniency.  I would use lethal force only in response to the same.
    Besides, after you survive a grand jury or a court trial you're
    may now liable for damages in a civil suit.
    
    Nancy

    But if you shot to wound rather than kill, it wouldn't be "lethal"
    force, would it? Potentially lethal, maybe, but so is a punch to
    the head.
    
    "You mean you put down your rock, and I put down my sword, and we
    try to kill each other like civilized people?"
    
    						-- THE PRINCESS BRIDE
    
    --- jerry

>    There is a debate because I, and I can't be the only one in the
>    country because it's been brought to a vote before, do not believe
>    that you have a right to own a weapon that could kill me.  I don't
>    believe you have that "right."  

     I don't believe you have the right to tell me what possessions I
     can or cannot own.  You have the right to keep me from using them
     on you, but you don't have the right to say I can't own guns.  What
     gives you such a right ?  It's not the Constitution.

     I agree with laws that would require education, licensing, etc.,
     but I feel that individuals have the right to defend themselves at
     all cost.

     Someone mentioned Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus.  They were
     certainly people to be admired, but they were all murdered as well.
     I don't want to be, and if owning a gun would help to prevent it, I
     am for owning a gun.

     You make the foolish argument that suppose you were attacked in the
     shower, etc., the gun would be of no use to you.  Neither would mace
     be of any use, or an attack dog, etc., if they weren't with you.  It's
     really an irrelevant issue.  IF I have the gun, then I am safer.

     Now, if you really believe that I cannot be trained to use a gun
     responsibly, then you had better not threaten my life.  Otherwise, I
     will use it on you, or anyone else who threatens to kill me.  If you
     are not threatening my life, you have nothing to fear from me.

     Actually, I do not own a gun, and may never own one.  However, I am
     very much against the absolute banning of any type of weapon.

    Is this to be another interminable argument, as someone (Mike?)
    recently predicted?  Should it be closed, either temporarily
    or permanently?
    
    						=maggie

    
    There is a dandy note in the 'Box (#44) on this very topic.
    
    It is currently > 1200 replies.
    
    

    I believe that folks should limit the discussion to the base note
    topic and start the tangent discussions elsewhere.
    
    Nancy

    
    re .54
    
    I agree whole-heartedly. I opened this note to find out what was
    necessary to learn how to properly use a gun and legally own one
    for self-protection. I did NOT open this to open a big debate about
    whether they should be banned or not. 
    
    As I said earlier, and no one has been able to prove this wrong..
    if guns were banned, they would be more valuable on the black market,
    and more criminals would be killing people because people wouldn't
    be able to protect themselves as well.
    
    Think about it. You can hurt some one just as much using martial
    arts. But that hasn't been banned, has it??? If you own a Doberman,
    and that dog attacks your assailant, and kills him, it would be
    the same thing, but guard dogs aren't banned. So why should this
    one other form of self-defense be banned?
    
    It is fine to put limitations on them, licensing, education, etc.
    But to ban something like that would be wrong.
    
    

I would like to ask the contributors of this file a question.
but first some background for context.

The Constitution of the United States is under the fiercest attack that has ever
been attempted, for example;
The First Amendment; Freedom of religion.
o The Government is busily trying to impose a state(federal) religious
belief on the country: The Abortion issue.
o The government is deciding religious teaching in the schools;
  creationism-vs-evolution.

The Fourth Amendment; People shall be secure in their person.
o Supreme court ruling; police need no search warrent to hover over a house
in a helicopter and use binoculars to search for contraband.
o Drug testing, *BEFORE* any crime or accident or breach of security
has been shown to have occured(this also constitutes prior restraint,
wherein people are assumed guilty and must prove their innocence)
if nothing else the error rate of testing is scary 10% means 12,000
people at digital will test positive if they are not users and negative if
they are(current dec population 120k) too large a rate to not cause massive
problems.
o George has empowered and called out the national guard for house to house
searches in Washington D.C. and given authority for the same action
in eleven other states.

The Second Amendment; Right to keep and bear Arms.
o Massive number of guncontrol laws being proposed and enacted.
many of them also infringe on the fifth amendment, concerning depriving
people of their property with no recompense. also 14th amendement, again
guilty until proven innocent.

First Amendment again; freedom of the press.
Laws are being enacted right now to *CENSOR* content of TV shows.
(for the *good* of society we'll reduce violence on TV, what about deciding
other content next? where does it stop?) will it stop with TV or do books 
get burned next? there are already groups burning books in this country on
"religious" grounds, certain books are being banned from school libraries,
*AND* "public" libraries.

Sixth amendment; right to a speedy trial;
o Supreme court has ruled that if the "state" has a compelling reason
(that, the compelling reason, is defined by politicians) they may
keep someone in jail with no trial for up to 6 months.

Many of you have your own beliefs on all these subjects but I am asking that
you consider them in the context of a loss of freedom for all. The 
Constitution was written to guarentee freedom for all individuals and
not to guarentee "safety" for society.


Now my question I promised. I have heard a number of you say, on various
issues, We will not allow it to happen, we will fight.

If the citizens of this country are disarmed (and I hope we all realize
that only the "law-abiding innocent" will turn in their weapons not the 
criminal.)
         *HOW WILL YOU FIGHT?*

Only slaves are denied the right to arms. The founding fathers in many 
speeches and documents spoke about the right to fight a tyrannical
government and even that it was(is) a duty to overthrow such a
government and re-establish one that would allow freedoms.

I would not like this note to re-hash the issues of accidental shootings,
criminals, youth-gangs, target-shooting, hunting, etc. but
please consider the direction we are going in. We have far higher 
taxes, confiscatory really, than the colonists had, there are import
laws/restrictions on far more things than tea(I am not talking drugs
but household items), the government controls every aspect of life.

think about the lost freedoms and then answer, when the marches fail
and the protest letters and phonecalls go unheeded, and politicians say,
as some have recently been quoted, "the hell with the Constitution..",
and the mind-control/bodily-function-control police are at your door,
and our battle-rifles are gone...

          *HOW WILL YOU FIGHT?*

Amos Hamburger

>     <<< Note 210.58 by DECWET::JWHITE "God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God" >>>
>                          -< a different perspective >-

    
>    re:.57
>    i reject the notion that our constitutional freedoms are under the
>    worst attack ever (the alien and sedition acts or the war between the
>    states leap to mind)
 
     Those were instances where a single concept was being questioned.
     the war between the states led to the killing of hundreds of thousands
of Americans by Americans and, so far, was the most gruesome period in our 
history. My concern is that right now our own elected leaders are
making statements such as "the voters have no place in the legislative 
process"(quote from Mass state senator in front of a hearing held by the 
Public Safety commitee March 29 1989). *ALL* repeat *ALL* freedoms are
under attack simultaneously by these so-called leaders.

   
>    furthermore, i believe the primary purpose of the constitution is to
>    allow for the peaceful exchange of power; concerns about 'rights' are
>    secondary
    
Could you please explain? the Constitution mentions nothing about exchange
of power between anyone. as a document it specificaly lists the freedoms
of individuals, *AND* the *LIMITS* on the Government. Limits that are being
ignored and thrown out by our present rulers.

    Steve, WADR, I don't share your faith in the government.
    
    As for the electoral process, this is the system that gave
    us Ronald Reagan - *twice*! And George Bush as the best 
    qualified to follow. 
    
    The Amendment process is virtually impossible to use,
    as the ERA supporters here will tell you. 
    
    Guns are like gold, they only become useful in a worse-case
    scenario. The unending assault on freedom is pushing us
    in that direction. (I *do* hope my pessimism is unfounded,
    but I don't believe it)
    
    Dana

    	
    	When I read questions like "How will you Fight?", "Will you
    fight with us?", "Are you willing to fight?", I ask the question
    that must follow: 
      
                      "Are you willing to die?"
    
    	Too often we're willing to stir things up. Too often we're willing
    to get involved.......to a point. The difference is made when a
    person is willing to sacrafice that which we hold most precious.
    Our own lives. When the cost is attached, even the most radical
    shrink to the background. 
    
    	Many men and women have died to preserve the "rights" we have
    today and many more would be willing to die for them in the future.
    I hardly think that the freedoms we have will be given over easily.
    
    Ken

>             <<< Note 210.63 by RUTLND::KUPTON "Thinner in '89" >>>

    	
>    	When I read questions like "How will you Fight?", "Will you
>    fight with us?", "Are you willing to fight?", I ask the question
>    that must follow: 
      
>                      "Are you willing to die?"
    
>    	Too often we're willing to stir things up. Too often we're willing
>    to get involved.......to a point. The difference is made when a
>    person is willing to sacrafice that which we hold most precious.
>    Our own lives. When the cost is attached, even the most radical
>    shrink to the background. 
    
RE: 60(?)61(?)
   I do not prepare for war. I believe it to be a great evil to impose force
on another human. I also believe I have a right, That goes even beyond
those granted in the Constitution, to defend my life and my liberty.
Anyone who takes away my right to defend myself is taking away that
life.
ALSO: as far as civil disobedience etc. if you will notice my wording;
"after the marches and protests fail..."

RE: The above Are You willing to die?
 I have settled my affairs, and written letters to my sons, letters to be
opened after/if I am dead and on certain of their Birthdays (16 & 21).
In each I have explained my moral values and those things that I held/hold
most important in my life. They may understand or they may merely be enraged
at me for "leaving" them before they are grown, I have no control over that.
I have talked this all through with my wife, while there is sadness in the 
discussion she also holds very strong beliefs regarding these issues
I covered in my original note, she understands.

I have lived a free man until now, I will not live in chains. And I find it
despicable that anyone would.

    In this morning's paper - Soviets are confiscating thousands
    of rifles in Georgia, after mass gatherings resulted in 19 deaths.
    
    Of course, we are free to assemble, and keep and bear arms, and
    it couldn't happen here, right ?

    Yeah, it could happen here.  And I'd be quite willing to bet that it
    could most easily happen under a Republican regime.  Maybe even this
    one? 
    
    						=maggie

>    Yeah, it could happen here.  And I'd be quite willing to bet that it
>    could most easily happen under a Republican regime.  Maybe even this
>    one? 
 
 That's funny, the congressional kingpin of gun confiscation is DEMOCRAT
Howard Metzenbaum. That's funny, the DEMOCRATIC presidential candidtae once
said "I don't believe in private citizen's owning firearms. Only the police and
military."

 =maggie- your agenda is showing. :-)

 The Doctah

    And what will ypou do when your fellow citizens *vote* to eliminate
    your rights ? Turn in your pistol and thank them for letting
    you keep your deer rifle ? Tell your wife that illegal
    abortions are too dangerous, so you'll just have to scrimp
    and save to feed another mouth ? Vote Demopublican and
    wonder why two "opposite" candidates spout the same lies
    and evasions ?
    
    In Russia, when people dissent in masses, the tanks roll. What
    do you suppose kept the tanks from rolling in Washington his
    past weekend ? My guess is that the politicians know that we
    will not take that sort of abuse, that when Americans are 
    pushed far enough, they will push back. AS HARD AS NECESSARY.
    600,000 people proved that this past weekend.
    
    You recently asked if I thought the amendment *process* was
    at fault, specifically in re. the ERA.  My answer would be
    yes, when an amendment guaranteeing equality to the
    *majority* of people can not pass, something is damn wrong.

>   <<< Note 210.68 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" >>>

>>    Yeah, it could happen here.  And I'd be quite willing to bet that it
>>    could most easily happen under a Republican regime.  Maybe even this
>>    one? 
 
> That's funny, the congressional kingpin of gun confiscation is DEMOCRAT
>Howard Metzenbaum. That's funny, the DEMOCRATIC presidential candidtae once
>said "I don't believe in private citizen's owning firearms. Only the police and
>military."

> =maggie- your agenda is showing. :-)

> The Doctah

Whatever your current political name-tag(I have always considered myself
a "republican") I believe that both "parties" as they now stand
are Anti-freedom. they have slightly different methods of imposing
control but ultimately the results are going to be the same.

Another item in the paper. Senator Chaffee (R.I.) is proposing *mandatory*
seat belt and helmet laws at the federal level, these laws would hold
federal highway funds from states not complying. When he was informed that
mass voters had voted out these laws a few years ago on a referendum he
"dismissed that as unimportant" and said "we[the senate] know better and have
a duty to pass this".
*NO* elected leader, no matter what party he calls himself seems to be
listening, and *NONE* of them care about individual freedom.

RE:.64
Your tone seems to suggest that I am driven by fear of something, as if my
thoughts are somehow irrational. In many peoples opinion I may sound
that way. However if you look at the world around you and think about
what freedom is, freedom for individuals to own property, to direct their
own lives, to control their own actions then I think you will find we are
losing our freedoms/have lost many of our freedoms.
I am afraid though, afraid of the hell-fire of civil-war, I would not want
a rebellion that did not have the goal of re-establishing a truely free 
country, where people controlled their own actions and were held responsible
for actions that initiated force against others. That goal I am afraid
is at this moment a very difficult goal as there is no political
leader that we could rally around and say "here is a leader to follow".
So I am afraid of anarchy in place of reason, reckless killing in
place of merely defending oneself against the dictator.
But I will not give in like a sheep to the slaughter-house, killing,
and the idea of killing bothers me greatly. I cannot compromise my
position on freedom.
You can give up a right, or you can defend it, you cannot compromise it.

Quotation from Sam Adams, Orator, Revolutionary War Hero,
Importer of Controlled Substances (tea):

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of
    servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go
    home from us in peace.

    We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and
    lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that
    ye were our countrymen.


All of you; try every peaceful means at your disposal to end the tyranny
sweeping our country, I am working at my part, but when those things fail
then your hard decisions begin.

    Re. -.74
    
    Wow!  Great lyrics, but how does the tune go?
    
    It'll make top of the charts, for sure.
    
    Karen

    re: .74
    
    If by chance you haven't already written the music, I want "firsties" 
    on music copyrights!!
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  I have this dyno tune idea. . .goes like this. . .dum da
    dee, dee dah dah. . .oh yeah, right. . .awright - who's got the
    DEChum/DECsing software?
    

    re: .77
    
    That's a deal, pard!  Move over Elton & Bernie. . .
    
    Steve

    <--(.68)
    
    No, not really.  Just as ol' tough-on-Communism Nixon was the one to
    reopen contact with the PRC (aka "Red China"), so is a Republican,
    always ranting about "government control" and "individual rights" the
    most likely one to successfully bash individual freedoms.  This isn't
    to say that both sides aren't equal in *wanting* to, just that
    Republicans have a sort of ideological smokescreen in place to protect
    themselves from anti-freedom charges.
    
    						=maggie

        re .79
        >Republicans have a sort of ideological smokescreen

        Yep, one they don't really understand. And that's
        why their more dangerous than the Dems.

RE: Cute song

by all means sing your songs, in fact I know 7 people that I think it would
be especially appropriate to sing it to. 6 women and one elderly man.
Why these 7? within the last 3 months all were attacked by one or more
intruders/criminals, 4 women and the man used a firearm of their own
to defend themselves, the 12 year old girl being raped and the blind woman
being attacked had to be "rescued" by some sexually-frustrated man who owned
his phallic-symbol for obviously nefarious reasons.

Sing them your song, explain to them that under the newly proposed gun laws
that, had those laws passed 6 months ago, they wouldn't be able to own those
arms. Explain to them the myth that has been perpetrated that only the
sexually-disoriented(or whatever the current newspeak calls it) own
firearms. explain that the men with the cro-bar would have been prevented from
the assault by the passing of gun laws.
What else would you tell them? how about the popular "lie back and enjoy it"?

You are being lied to when you are told don't resist!

I would tell those people; A firearm makes the elderly, the weak, and
the crippled the equal of the predator. don't roll over and present your belly
like some subservient cur, You are a human being, you have a right to
defend your own body, your own property, your own life. Anyone that says
you do not have that right or takes away the tools needed to excercise that
right is denying you your life.

I have been beaten, stabbed, shot, and run over by an automobile. All those 
things hurt. but I recovered. I can not imagine what rape would be like,
I believe it would be worse than any of the things I went through because
of the mental trauma that would accompany the physical abuse. 
sing your song to the 12 year old who was rescued by a gun owner, or the
woman who awoke to a naked man in her bed.

For years society has been appealing to your "gentle instincts", "women
wouldn't have anything to do with guns",,, "guns are only for *men*
who have hang-ups",,  BULLSHIT!!!

There are people who have made a concious decision to prey on the sheep
they are predators by their own choice, some one needs to teach them
that there are consequences for their acts.

Sing your song, wear your rose-colored glasses, and try not to wake the
neighbors with your screams when it happens to you.

     
    I am neither a democrat nor a republican.  Like .71 I see little
    difference between the two parties these days.  
    
    I also read the article about registered hunting rifles being confiscated 
    in Soviet Georgia and I too believe that it could very easily happen
    here.  Ten years ago, if anyone had told us that we might be required
    by law to submit to urine testing, we would have laughed.  We are
    no longer laughing.  
    
    Drugs are the excuse for subjecting us to urine and blood testing and yet 
    according to statements made in Ollie North's trial, our government was 
    very much involved in the importing of drugs into our country in order to 
    raise unaccountable money for illegal purposes.  It appears sometimes
    that drugs are very convenient for our government in that they justify
    a lot.  If drugs were legal there would be no profit and no violence.
    The self-destructive among us will always find a way to achieve their
    aim.
    
    Now, random acts of violence are being used to limit arms in this
    country.  This is an effort that crosses party lines.  I recognize 
    the danger in restricting gun ownership in this country.  I too 
    remember Kent State and I too am aware that this country, under a
    Republican president, turned an armed force loose on a college campus
    that shot and killed unarmed American kids.  
    
    Today our politicians fight over raising minimum wage a few cents while
    they propose raises of large percentages for themselves and judges.
    Since so many politicians (and judges) are lawyers, we might as well
    just run our country for the benefit of American lawyers.  All of 
    these laws certainly keep them in business.
    
    I believe that every American family would be wise to consider keeping
    an unregistered gun hidden in the attic.  I don't believe our government
    can be trusted.  We may need them some day.
    
    Mary
    
                                               

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I'd be glad if we could reduce the amount of venom coming from both
    sides, it'll improve communication.  No allusions need be made either
    to alleged psychological deficiencies on the part of gun-owners or
    alleged lack of courage or social loyalty on the part of people who
    oppose private handgun ownership. Unless, of course, you can
    demonstrate good science in support of your position.
    
    						=maggie 

    <--(.83)
    
    Right on, Mary!
    
    						=maggie

    re: Mike Valenza's song
    
     Unfortunately, alot of people believe the way you do, and not all of
    them are stupid. 
    
     Of course, that guns are prevalent in society is reality. Cute little
    songs, while they may approximate verse (with varying degrees of
    success) fail to take reality into account. Add to this the degrading
    nature of your song, and it is obvious that your political agenda far
    outweighs your belief in the sanctity of other's beliefs. What you do
    not realize is that while many sheep will flock to you and rally around
    your song, intelligent individuals on both sides of the issues can see
    that your song is little more than an insult.
    
     It is not surprising that your song did not contain a single fact
    relevant to the discussion; songs rarely do. The problem is that the
    less informed among us will look at your song as truthful, when in
    fact, it is not. To you this presents no problem, but think about how
    you'd feel if the song was written in such a way that it both
    disparaged you personally and threatened your personal freedoms of
    choice. I hope you can make that juxtaposition.
    
     It is most troubling that people today are content to allow the
    government to abridge somebody else's rights, all the time solemnly
    believing theirs will not be the next to go. Divide and conquer is
    especially effective when the attackees do not realize it is being used
    against them.
    
     I am dismayed that you choose to disparage our founding fathers who
    fought and died for the freedoms which you now enjoy (or disdain). I
    still believe that you should be allowed to come up with these gems; I
    only hope that there are enough people who care enough to become
    informed about the various issues of our time to outnumber the sheep.
    
     Lastly, it appears that you get all of your information from the
    media. Alas, you have fallen prey to the mistaken assumption that the
    media delivers facts. The media delivers stories; stories designed to
    sell newspapers or commercial time. They are not in the business of
    selling the truth. The sooner people begin to realize this, the better
    off we'll all be.
    
     The Doctah

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Please?  

    						=maggie

    I guess you misunderstood me, Mike. I didn't mean to imply that you
    were stupid. I'm sorry you took it that way. What I meant (by that
    sentence) was that some people will take a (in my opinion) uninformed
    position because they are stupid or don't care to be informed- but in
    the case of this issue, alot of thoughtful people simply have not
    gotten all of the data- and agree that we should just start banning
    weapons. I really and truly did not mean to imply you were stupid.
    Please accept my apologies.
    
    re: Mary
    
     Bravo!
    
    The Doctah

    
    I believe that the purpose of government, indeed of society, is to
    provide for the common welfare, *not* protect our rights. As it happens,
    our society tends to believe that having a broad range of rights works
    to the benefit of society (I believe this also).  
    
    Now, there are many dangerous things in life. Many of them our society
    has decided to regulate or make illegal (cars and drugs, respectively,
    leap to mind). A gun's raison d'etre is to destroy. Maybe just a target,
    maybe a deer, maybe an intruder, but its function is to destroy.
    
    The simplest way, then, to put it is that I (and, in fact, a significant 
    chunk of our society) believe that guns are a threat to the common welfare.
    Nothing anyone has said about the erosion of my rights has impressed me as 
    being anywhere near as grave a threat to the common welfare as guns. 
    
    Two other stray thoughts. The notion that things could get 'so bad' that 
    revolution and/or armed resistance was 'necessary': I submit that that
    scenario is ipso facto societal failure and that if we let it get that
    far we are culpable as members of that society. The notion of'defence': 
    I hope that if I or my loved ones were attacked that I would *not* have 
    a gun. For if I did, I would be tempted to commit a sin.
    

>    The notion of'defence': 
>    I hope that if I or my loved ones were attacked that I would *not* have 
>    a gun. For if I did, I would be tempted to commit a sin.

 That  is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for YOU to make about YOUR family's
welfare. It is unreasonable for you to expect me or anyone besides yourself to
remain unprotected and hope that nothing ever happens. 

 Just for kicks- what would you do if a couple of guys came into your house with
the express idea of raping your wife in front of you? Or just generally beating
the tar out of both of you? Or taking all of your material posessions before
pouring gasoline on you and lighting you afire? I realize that the chances
of these things happening are only about 1 in 10, but I'd hate to be the one.

 The part about "tempted to commit a sin," really bothers me. It seems like
you are forcing your morals and religion upon others. That is not right.

 Sigourney Weaver, actress and avowed communist, declares that "no private
citizen should own firearms." Reason: it allows individuals to defy what the
"state" wants them to do. Is this the way you want it?

 The Doctah

re .92

>    I believe that the purpose of government, indeed of society, is to
>    provide for the common welfare, *not* protect our rights.

	Wow. I'd always taken the exact opposite view, that the
	purpose of government and society was to protect our
	rights, and was not put in place to provide for common
	welfare. Until you stated your view, I hadn't even considered
	that as a point of view. (A statement of fact, not of judgment).

							Tom_K

    Due to the overwhelming enet presence of people fervently willing
    to debate the 2nd amendment issue (thank you all) I rarely enter
    such topics myself.  However, such a statement as this:
    
    >                                   If there is no conditional, i.e.
    > they are going to do these terrible things no matter what, then I
    > believe the morally correct thing for me to do is to accept it.
                                                           
    appears morally repugnant to me; my moral code places much higher
    value upon my life than that of street scum engaged in assault upon
    me, and I would be morally bankrupt to "accept it" (under my code).
    I do not condemn DECWET::JWHITE for that stand, but I could never
    accept it for myself, nor even understand how it is possible to
    convince oneself that it is moral to sacrifice oneself to brutes.
    Somehow, JWhite has done that, but I don't understand it.
        -----
    Amos has sketched a big picture here.  I, too, see similiarities
    in the following recent issues-
         
    	-Does a woman control her own body, or does the state?
    	[Abortion rights]
    
    	-Do we maintain our rights to keep and bear arms, or does the
    	 state take them away?
    	[Gun control]
    
    	-Do we maintain our courts traditional presumption of innocence
    	 until proven guilty, and do we maintain our freedom from
    	 unreasonable search and seizure, and do we receive due process,
    	 and do we maintain our rights against self-incrimination?
    	[drug testing and drug runner confiscation laws]
             
    Yes, Amos, I do see a trend in this society towards appealing to
    a patriarchal, protective government by people who I see as being
    afraid of their liberty.  The politicians, people who *seek* power 
    over others, encourage and manipulate public opinion to lead the 
    sheep in this direction.  The press have too much vested in their 
    powerful empires to risk rocking the boat with real exposures, and 
    permit themselves to be manipulated (exceptions exist, but rarely).
    
    I note in passing that a rally will be held at the San Jose Mercury 
    News building this Saturday from 11-1, protesting that paper's
    incredible distortions of the issues surrounding gun control.  Were
    I to be in town, just as I marched for free choice the last two
    weekends, I'd march for unbiased news coverage this weekend.  The
    issues are definately linked, to me; and I appreciate your raising
    them in this forum.
    
    DougO

    This morning's papers are full of stories of John Kerry's Congressional
    Committee's findings of extensive government involvement in the drug
    trade.  As far as I can fathom, it appears as though factions of our
    government are out of control.  
    
    One would hope (and pray) that the American people would never need to 
    take to the streets in defense of their rights, of their freedom.  
    But one can't help but think that an armed society must be a deterent
    to those who might be tempted to subvert our political system for their 
    own personal benefit.  I will not allow my children to lose the freedom
    that my ancestors have struggled so long and hard to attain... not now,
    not ever.
    
    Mary

Re .95

    The preamble  to  the U.S. Constitution states that the government
    is  to  "provide  for  the common defense". (Among other things, I
    don't  have  the text handy.) That sounds more like common welfare
    than  it  sounds  like protecting our rights. In fact, the Bill of
    Rights  was  added  specifically  to  protect  citizens  from  the
    government,  so  I don't believe that the government from which we
    needed protection was considered to be a protector of rights.

--David

          
    I don't think "provide for the common defense" suggests "rights"
    nor "welfare".  I think it means exactly what it says, i.e.; 
    to protect the country (as a whole) from a foreign invasion/from foreign
    governments.
    
    Mary

    
    Historical comment: in 1776 the American Colonists expelled the
    British. At the end of the war they were left with a political vacuum
    of sorts, and the potential of filling it with the standing army
    and 'electing' George Washington as king.
    
    Almost exactly a hundred years earlier England had undergone a civil
    war. At the end the people's militia executed the king (a fairly
    effective way of getting rid of him). In the power vacuum that followed
    the standing militia army thrust Oliver Cromwell into power as Lord
    Protector. Cromwell became the first military dictator in modern
    history. When he died his son assumed power, establishing a dynastic
    system, whilst continuing to deny effective democracy. The Cromwells
    did this because they controlled the standing army and the people
    by and large were unarmed and ineffective.
    
    It was only the gross incompetance of Oliver's son that led to his
    being expelled and the monarchy restored.
    
    There is no reason to suppose that the Founding Fathers were unaware
    of these facts or ignorant of the lessons. They chose a system that
    prevented the establishment of dynastic rule, destroyed the power
    of the standing army, and left firearms in the hands of the common
    people to prevent the excesses of the government.
    
    Whether there is still a need for the people to be armed I wouldn't
    know, but there is no reason in the world today to suppose that
    democracy is sacrosanct or safe from overthrough. Maybe there will
    never be a need for the people of America to rise up and overthrough
    the government, but equally maybe the large number of arms in civilian
    hands limits the scope for insurrectionary movements, Communist
    or otherwise. Perhaps Sigourney Weaver is a perspicacious soul in
    making her observations, after all.
    
    /. Ian .\

    re: .97
    
    Well put Ian. I for one will not give up my rights nor will I just
    lay back and watch my wife and kids be tortured or whatever by some
    sick soul. 
    
    Paul  "Take_my_guns_one_slug_at_a_time!"  LFR '89
    

                                    Preamble

    WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
    Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
    common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
    of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
    Constitution for the United States of America. 

                            Amendments. Article II

    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.

    JWhite, you spoke of not forcing your morals on others.
    Do you not, by refusing to stop intruders in your home,
    force your moral code on those who should be able to
    rely on you for defense ? There is a religious group
    who do not allow their sick children the benefit of
    modern medicine. They force their beliefs on others,
    sometimes with fatal results. 
    
    And by not resisting criminals, you reinforce their
    beliefs that we are sheep, to be consumed by wolves.
    I am not a sheep, I am a human, and I *will* put the
    wolves in their places as necessary. Even if that
    place is a grave.
    

I'll have to agree with the previous couple of notes. If somebody wants
to sit back and "accept" the fact that some slugs are going to beat, 
maim, kill them then I guess that's okay with me. But to sit back and
let it happen to family members because of moral beliefs really kinda makes
me sick. I can only imagine what would happen if everyone was like that. 
I think the fact that a homeowner might have a gun is enough to scare
quite a few intruders. 

I hope I never find myself in a postion where I might have to shoot
someone, but if I do, then I'm quite prepared to protect myself.

Jenna

    After reading  all  these  notes  about  the need to keep guns for
    protection,  I  wonder  how  anyone  in  England  or  any  of  the
    Scandinavian  countries  (or most of Europe) ever sleeps at night.
    The U.S. is the *only* industiralized country that allows everyone
    to  have  a  gun,  and  has the hightest murder rate. I can't help
    thinking that those facts are related.  

    Last time  I  saw any statistics on the subject, guns kept at home
    for  "protection"  were  far more likely to be used in an argument
    with  the  owner's  family  or to be fired accidentally by a child
    than  they  were  to be used in self-defense. It was much safer to
    live in a house without a gun. (Which parallels the statistics for
    the U.S. murder rate compared with almost anywhere in Europe.)

--David

           
    The pacifists among us important elements of our
    society.  Their views are crucial to balance.  Although
    I am one of those Americans who worries about how a disarmed society
    can maintain freedom, I recognize that the pacifists also speak with 
    reason and wisdom.  Their voices must be heard and their view must
    be considered.  I believe that they "understand the issues" as well as
    any of us do.  They are Americans and are entitled to be heard.  Their 
    only fault (if one can call it a fault) is to be more trusting than the 
    rest of us.  More trusting of God, of fate, of their fellow men, of
    destiny.  One cannot help but envy them.
    
    Mary        
              

>    After reading  all  these  notes  about  the need to keep guns for
>    protection,  I  wonder  how  anyone  in  England  or  any  of  the
>    Scandinavian  countries  (or most of Europe) ever sleeps at night.
>    The U.S. is the *only* industiralized country that allows everyone
>    to  have  a  gun,  and  has the hightest murder rate. I can't help
>    thinking that those facts are related.  

 Ok David, You've forced me to reveal the whys and wherefores.

 Fact: Guns are prevalent in our society. Even if all guns were outlawed today,
there is absolutely no way to retreive all of the guns that are already owned
by private citizens. The "disarming" of America is impossible, because no
criminal will give up his gun. Only law abiding citizens would even consider
turning their guns over to the authorities. Once disarmed, the criminals would
have the easiest pickings imaginable.

 If the problem with the guns that already exist isn't bad enough, one look at
the "war on drugs" shows conclusively that simply outlawing something does
not solve the problem. It creates huge sources of revenue for career criminals
by creating a black market- more firmly entrenching career criminality in
American life. Any criminal can obtain any weapon he wants, if he has the money
and the time/connections.

 In order to look at the effect of gun control legislation, one must examine the
deterrent effect of said legislation. It can be said without question that any
criminal who would use a firearm to assault or kill another person and is not
deterred from that criminal action by the laws governing murder, etc, he would
not be deterred by whatever penalties would accompany illegal weapons possesions
charges. In other words, if life in prison without the possibility of parole is
an ineffective deterrent, what difference will ten years on a weapons charge
make? Answer: none.

 Of course, we could look at the previous record of gun control legislation in
the United States. For example, Washington DC, which has extremely harsh and
strict gun control, has the nation's highest murder rate- bar none. New York
City, another bastion of gun control, has an equally repulsive murder rate.
Contrast this with Miami- drug import capital of the country, and look at how
their murder rate stacks up. Well, their murder rate falls below both NYC and
Washington DC, despite the fact that wide gun availability and lax gun laws
are the norm. Why is that? Because gun ownership by the general public does
not directly correlate with higher crime. In fact, it correlates with lower 
crime.

 A city in Illinois, can't remember which one, got on the "turn in your guns"
bandwagon. People took to putting "There are no GUNS in this house" signs
on their houses. The incidence of violent crime as well as B&Es, etc shot up
so dramatically and so quickly that the police asked people to remove their
signs. Imagine a country where such a sign was mandatory and implicit. What do 
you think would happen to the crime rate then?

 The fact remains that over 99% of all gun owners never commit a single crime
with their guns. Why is it then, that these 99% should be punished? The problem
is clearly not gun control, it's criminal control.

 One of the big reasons why gun control is so in vogue is because of the 
political and moral philosophy that people are unable to control themselves
(and hence must be controlled by the government) and that people are pawns of
their environment and thus unable to exercise free will or accept responsibility
for their own actions. This philosophy has lead to myriads of criminals getting
reduced sentences from bleeding heart judges for very heinous crimes. In fact,
a great many of the crimes committed each day are committed by the same people.
Career criminals who have beaten the revolving door system of "justice" in this
country do more harm than all of the guns combined.

 One of the fundamental principles on which this country is based is that you
are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle has come under
intense pressure by well meaning but politically motivated politicians. Some
are not so well meaning. In any case, bans preclude the application of this
principle, since millions of law abiding citizens become criminals with the
stroke of an executive's pen. Scary, n'est-ce pas?

 In order to justify the existence of legislation, it must be proved that a)
said legislation does not unduly infringe on the rights of a free people, and
b) the legislation has reasonable expectation of performing the job for which
it is designed. I submit to you that gun bans pass neither of these tests.

 The media has whipped up gun control advocates into a frenzy, in the process,
spreading quite a few partial truths, distortions, and outright lies. 
Unfortunately, many people who get their information from the newspaper or the
TV news expect that the information they receieve to be accurate and unbiased.
As many people know, media outlets are in business to make money, not to
furnish the masses with the truth. The key to getting a good understanding of
the various sides of an issue is to listen to both sides, then make a reasoned
and thoughtful judgement. Too many people seem to be reading editorials and 
thinking they are getting news. Sadly, in this information age, we seem to have
many people making uninformed decisions- a poor reflection on both the media
and ourselves.

 I urge all to listern to both sides before deciding which way to go on this 
issue as it encompasses far more than some yahoo with a pickup truck's right to
chase bambi through the woods. It encompasses one of the fundamental freedoms
afforded us by the constitution- a freedom deemed so important by our 
forefathers that they felt it necessary to spell it out. During this time of
freedom infringement on many sides, it is time that we, the American people,
fight back, and demand that the government stop trying to pacify us with
garbage legislation- and DO something about the crime rate. The first step is
to keep those convicted where they belong.

 Well, this has gotten far longer than it should be, and I haven't even said 
everything that needs to be said. If I could leave you with one thought, I'd
like it to be this- do not fall prey to the government's assertions that they
know what's best for you before you examine both sides of the issue. You cannot
make a truly informed decision without hearing each side's most salient points.
Go in with an open mind, listen, think, and it will come to you.

 The Doctah

ps- I used to think that gun control was a good idea. Then I investigated the 
issue.

Sorry to drop in on the fray, but I couldn't help noticing that both
.115 and .116 ignore the point that David makes in .113, namely that 
maybe _our_ society would be better off with stricter gun control, based 
on the results other societies have had. Instead you guys dive into the old
"if you don't like it here, then go over there" and "what if someone held a 
gun up your ***" cliches. Can't you respond directly to the statistical 
information presented and the conclusion drawn: namely, that you are safer
without a gun in the house, and in a country with stricter gun control?

BTW, what exactly is being argued here? Are you NRA-ers saying that
_all_ gun control is bad? Are you saying that you need a machine gun
to protect yourself and your family? Or teflon-coated bullets? Because if
you're not, then are you loyal NRA members?

Roberta

>BTW, what exactly is being argued here? Are you NRA-ers saying that
>_all_ gun control is bad? Are you saying that you need a machine gun
>to protect yourself and your family? Or teflon-coated bullets? Because if
>you're not, then are you loyal NRA members?

 Roberta-

 If gun control's goodness or badness can be measured by its effectiveness, then 
it's not very good. Please compare apples to apples- comparing the US to another
country is statistically incorrect. The US differs from other countries in
many more ways than gun control that could be the difference- (rights, 
rules of evidence, fairness of trials, abiding to sentences, lack of parole, 
etc). Compare US cities to US cities. See what happens to crime rates before and
after gun control. Make inferences as you may.

 The machine gun issue is moot. Machine guns are legally obtainable only with
great expenditure and rigorous background checks. Machine are easier to obtain
through the black market.

 The teflon bullet controversy centers on an extremely poorly written piece
of legislation that would have outlawed all hunting ammunition as well as
the teflon coated bullets. Since the side effects far outweighed the benefits,
the legislation was fought and defeated. Of course, if you get your information
from HCI, these facts are overlooked or ignored. Another reason to get both 
sides of the issue.

 You can look at the two sides of any issue the same way you look at two 
children. If you listen to one side only, you get a completely different picture
than if you listen to both sides. "What happened?" "She hit me." "Did you do
anything to her?" "No." "Why did you hit your brother?" "He had my jump rope
around my neck, and was strangling me." *"Oh"*

 The Doctah

Keep the intensity down folks.

If you're sure you're 100% right, and people arguing against you are bozos,
then I'm talking to you.
	Mez, co-mod

        There was an article in the West* Feb 21, 1988 about murder and
    Dane Archer, a U.C. Santa Cruz professor of Sociology who is looking
    into murder and why the U.S. rate is so much higher than that of
    the rest of the world.  He came up with a theory that it is a
    combination of hardware, access to guns and other lethal devices,
    and software, "the cultural attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of
    a society".
    
        From the article:
    
        "Suppose you had an indicator for the number of fistfights in
    these countries," Archer muses.  "Now for all I know, New Zealand
    has as many fistfights (per capita) as the U.S.  Maybe the difference
    is that in New Zealand, when things get ugly, they reach for a frozen
    leg of lamb and bash each other -- not fatally presumably.  Here
    if it get very bad, they reach for a lethal weapon"
    
        On the other side of the equation, a country like Switzerland,
    where every family has a gun as part of the civil defense program,
    has very little violent crime.  "What makes us a very fatal society
    is that we have both the hardware and the software.  Switzerland
    has the hardware, but not the software."
    
    ASP
    
    *West is a weekly magazine which is part of the Sunday San Jose
     Mercury News.

>            "Suppose you had an indicator for the number of fistfights in
>    these countries," Archer muses.  "Now for all I know, New Zealand
>    has as many fistfights (per capita) as the U.S.  Maybe the difference
>    is that in New Zealand, when things get ugly, they reach for a frozen
>    leg of lamb and bash each other -- not fatally presumably.

    Very unlikely scenario. In New Zealand, the legs of lamb are *fresh*.
 

    re .120>are you saying thatyou need a machine gun to protect
    yourself?
    
    If I so believed, what is the problem ? The point is, who
    is *more* qualified than I to determine my needs ? Big
    Brother ? You ?
    
    Dana Charbonneau
    
    (An aside: a few years ago, through a misunderstanding, I
    was on the shit-list of an 'outlaw' biker gang. A buzz
    gun would have made me feel a lot warmer than my teddy bear!)

    re: .128 Ian,
    
         The article I quoted earlier states that the United States
    has the highest murder rate in the industrialized world.  They don't
    explain what countries are included in the industrialized world.
    
    ASP

    
    I am familiar with the statistic, but my understanding is that it
    is for total murders. With a population of 243,000,000 people the
    US has a very good chance of being top of most statistical polls
    based on gathered data, since the countries with larger populations
    are somewhat less interested in census taking...
    
    The per capita figures I refered to are from a British Home Office
    discussion paper on gun control published some years ago (so admittedly
    a little out of date). Whilst I don't remember the absolute figures
    the US was way off the lead.
    
    I suspect this is a case of the author allowing his or her agenda
    to show by being selective in choosing the statistics to use and
    then careless in not describing the basis of the statistics.
    
    /. Ian .\

Ian's also being a bit selective; since the British laws, I am told, are quite
restrictive regarding "personal protection" weapons.  There are also heavy
restrictions on the way weapons are stored.   Ian has posted a number of
notes here and in other notesfiles discussing his experiences with the
firearms folks.

Guns have four functions:

1. Target shooting.  An honorable sport that nobody's trying to stop.
   At worst, you'd have to store your weapon at the gun club's armory
   and use it there.  (My understanding of Swedish rules.)

2. Hunting for food.  Again, there are no serious plans to restrict this.
   Sweden requires licenses for hunting weapons, and separate licenses to
   purchase ammunition.  You may also be required to store your weapon
   at the club armory when not in use.  In Sweden, you *are* required
   to pass a marksmanship test, and animal carcasses are examined to make
   sure you made a clean kill.  (You may lose your hunting license if you
   cause the animal to suffer.).

3. National defense.  "Well ordered militia."  In Switzerland and Sweden,
   a large number of citizens keep their military weapons at home.  In
   Switzerland (I don't know about Sweden), ammunition is issued in sealed
   containers.  It is a court-martial offense to break the seal or use
   the weapon without orders.  Weapons must also be kept to military standards
   (locked up and unloaded).  In contrast to the myth, not all Swiss
   citizens are issued weapons, only those who need them to fulfill their
   military responsiblities.

4. Imposing your will on others.  This is the crucial issue in America.
   It includes "carrying for personal protection," "gun under the pillow
   in case those evil robbers break in," and criminal use.  This is the
   catagory of use that distinguishes America from the "industrial
   countries with strict gun laws."  (In Sweden, about 1/3 of all households
   have access to weapons, but *very few* have access to "personal protection"
   weaponry.)

As I see the debate here and in the outside world, people want weapons
for the fourth reason, but motivate their desires in part by dragging in the
other three and in part by "the bad guy's have them, so we have to have
them too."

Martin.

    
    Shame Martin, you've given me away :-)
    
    OK: I'll come clean.
    
    In Britain "self defence" isn't considered a valid excuse for owning
    a firearm unless you are considered a high risk for terrorist attack
    (basically if you are a member of the Royal Family or an Irish
    politician). Target shooting requires that you be a member of a
    club in good standing, usually for 6 months prior to applying for
    the licence. Hunting requires that you have somewhere to hunt, and
    that the firearm be suitable (amongst other things we don't allow
    the use of hand guns for hunting). Guns must be securely stored
    (in what is essentially a safe bolted to the structure of your house)
    and ammunition must be equally safely stored in a separate safe.
    
    In addition the police have the right of access without a warrant,
    and without giving notice to inspect the storage of firearms. Every
    individual firearm, and every individual purchase of ammunition
    is written on your licence, and reported to the police. Holders
    of gun licences are listed on the Police National Computer (PNC)
    along with felons and other undesirables [ :-) ]
    
    And as of last month semiautomatic rifles, pump action rifles (except
    .22s in each case) semi-automatic, pump action and revolving action
    shotguns are classified with full automatic weapons and require
    an extremely hard to get Home Office Licence.
    
    However my basic statement that residents have the right to own
    them and the police don't have the right to abrogate that right
    holds, and hence within the strict letter of the quote the suggestion
    that America is the only country to allow all its residents (actually
    all its residents without a criminal record or record of mental
    illness of course) to own guns is quite simply false.
    
    I personally have never had the slightest problem getting licences
    here to do all the shooting I wish to do. I have no personal problem
    with the requirement that the government can moderate my freedom
    to use a firearm, as long as they don't stop me owning it.
    
    I do however draw a very distinct line between the concept of firearms
    control (I would consider regulations such as those in Britain and
    the rest of Europe to be control, in the sense of knowing where
    firearms are, where ammunition is, and for what purpose it is intended
    to be used) and firearms confiscation (measures such as certain
    proposed pogroms on 'assault rifles' and 'saturday night specials'
    in the USA).
    
    /. Ian .\

    Can anyone  supply  statistics on the use of guns in self defense?
    Presumably  if  you  keep  a  gun in the house for self defense it
    can't be in a locked safe, and it probably should be loaded. (Many
    criminals  aren't  patient enough to wait for you to unlock a safe
    and  load  your  gun.) Of guns kept for self defense, how many are
    used  to  deter  criminals  (where the criminal is actually in the
    house,  as opposed to "If he ever shows up) compared to the number
    of  family members shot either as an accident, in an argument with
    a  spouse?  Since  the  guns are available, these events seem more
    likely  in  the States than they would be if the British laws were
    in  force  here. I'm sure all these things happen, and most should
    be  reported, so the statistics might exist. Has anyone seen them?

--David

    re: .130 (Ian)
    
    From my note #129
    
>         The article I quoted earlier states that the United States
>    has the highest murder rate in the industrialized world.  They don't
                            ^^^^
    
          I believe that the statistic is for the per capita rate. 
    
    ASP

    
    	RE: .135
    
    	Sorry Dave, the numbers you quoted were "total murders", which
    	we are the number one in the world. Ian is correct, if memory
    	serves me, that in "per capita" we rank somewhere around 5th.
    
    	G_B

    RE: Back a few regarding self defense
    
    It's hard to figure since many people who use guns to protect
    themselves never report it. That is because usually the display
    of a gun is enough. I know several people who have used their
    hand guns to protect themselves. All with out either firing a
    shot or a police report. I did read one estimate based on a 
    servey that said there were about 600,000 people in the US who had
    used their gun to prevent a crime against themselves. My understanding
    is that some people believe those people should have allowed the
    crime to take place rather then allow people to use guns. I disagree.
    
    
    			Alfred

I'm sure there are many other differences between these 2 sets of cities, and
between the DC of '76 and the DC of '82, other than their gun laws (starting
with size, economy, drug usage, heat waves, whatever) which could also explain
or contribute to this difference.  This just isn't very convinving as it isn't
a controlled experiment.  (Of course, I haven't seen the whole report,
either, so I admit that I haven't seen what sort of statistical analysis they
might have done to factor out these other issues... it just looks like the
top 6 and bottom 7 "hit parade".)

A question:  Are the current US gun registration records public records?
(Can I go down to the town police station or the state archives or call up the
state police while impersonating a gun shop owner/private investigator and see
if someone owns guns?)  Since we don't require guns to be locked up in safes
as in the UK, are there any studies showing whether or not having a gun
_invites_ crime as a method of getting guns?  (When, of course, the owner is
not home and so not able to make use of the guns.)  Of course, this probably
varies from state to state.

Although Washington DC itself has restrictive gun laws, it doesn't
take much imagination or effort to drive (or take the Metro) to
Virginia with its lenient gun laws.

Here are some crime statistics for your reading pleasure:
The source is the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Board, 1980.

			 Japan	U.S.A.	  U.K.	W.Germ	France
______________________________________________________________
	Known Cases	 1,684	23,044	 1,303	 2,733	 2,253
Murder	Crime Rate  (%)    1.4    10.2     2.6     4.4     4.2
	Arrest Rate (%)   97.2	  72.3	  88.1	  95.6	  79.4
______________________________________________________________
	Known Cases	 2,610	82,088	 4,588	 6,904	 1,886
Rape	Crime Rate  (%)	   2.2	  36.2	   9.3	  11.2	   3.5
	Arrest Rate (%)	  89.0	  48.8	  87.0	  72.3	  76.6
______________________________________________________________
	Known Cases	 2,208 548,809	15,006	24,193	32,245
Robbery	Crime Rate  (%)	   1.9	 243.5	  30.5	  39.3	  65.8
	Arrest Rate (%)	  75.5	  23.8	  28.8	  53.0	  26.4
______________________________________________________________
	Known Cases (K)	 1,166	11,987	 2,047	 2,438	 1,577
Theft	Crime Rate  (%)  995.8 5,319.1 4,157.4 3,960.0 2,942.5
	Arrest Rate (%)   55.0	  15.5	  35.4	  28.9	  17.4
______________________________________________________________

The (%) figure appears to be the "known cases" divided by
the country population -- suitably scaled.  I.e., In 1980, you
were four times more likely to be raped in the USA than
in the UK.  Your assailant was about 1/2 as likely to be arrested.

Martin.

    I suppose that if an American woman is four times more likely to be 
    raped, then she is four times more likely to need to carry a hand gun
    to protect herself.  Is that the point of these statistics?
    
     Mary

	The way I read it, is that if enforcement of unacceptable 
	behavior is lax, then there is little deterrent to this behavior.

	About gun ownership records being public, I hope not! The
	thought of criminals being able to use public documents to
	select their victims (selecting only those homes with no gun 
	owners) sends a chill up my spine.

							Tom_K

    Off the gun control isuue for a bit...
    
    Smith & Wesson has recently unveiled a new line of guns
    designed specifically for women. The four guns are called
    Ladysmiths. They feature grips proportioned for smaller
    hands, and triggers with lighter pulls (force required
    to operate)
    
    The four guns are all in caliber 38 Special.
    
    (Historic trivia - S&W used to sell a small frame revolver
    called the Ladysmith. Rumor says the line was discontinued
    because the clientelle was mostly um, err.. ladies of ill
    repute. This may be folklore.)

    re:  .144
    
    I agree that the most important things about carrying a gun, or
    knife, or weapon of choice, is to *know how to use it*.  Be *prepared*
    to use it.  *Learn* to use it properly, and well, otherwise it may
    be turned against you when the need arises....
    
    -Jody
    

re: .142:

    I suppose that if an American woman is four times more likely to be 
    raped, then she is four times more likely to need to carry a hand gun
    to protect herself.  Is that the point of these statistics?

No, there are several points to the statistics:

-- Societies with strict standards for law enforcement have fewer crimes
   (or vice-versa).  America prosecutes fewer crimes than Japan, Germany,
   etc.  I.e, you are less likely to be raped in Tokyo; you are more likely
   to be convicted of rape in Tokyo.  (You are less likely to be a rapist
   in Tokyo.)

-- Societies with strict control over gun ownership (which, as Ian pointed
   out does not directly equate to confiscation) and even stricter controls
   over "personal protection" weapons have fewer crimes (or vice-versa).

Your handgun would only be useful if you had enough warning before the
attack to use it, but this is a separate issue.

Martin.

    re: .146
    
    Amen (times 10 or so).  And from the "If-I-was-running-the-show"
    Dept:  I'd be real partial to some sort of set-up whereby handgun
    owners would receive alternative defense training (like, f'rinstance
    Judo or some other hand-to-hand training; or alternative weapons
    such as a nightstick, an amazingly potent weapon in well-trained
    hands).  
    
    Steve

    re .148 A great many gun owners *do* study unarmed self-defense.
    Or do you favor making it mandatory ?
    
    One of the real values of a gun is that it provides defense for
    those unable to defend themselves without it - the lightly
    muscled, the old, crippled, etc...
    
    As the saying goes "God didn't make all persons equal, Sam
    Colt did."

    Dana

 I understand your sentiments, Eagle. Unfortunately, you can't make women
respond to an issue that they feel is not important to them. I like to hear
women's viewpoints- on this matter especially, but they do not seem to be
especially interested. More important than one's opinion on this matter is
WHY you hold this opinion. I like to see the reasons why people feel the way 
they do.

 I hope that women do not feel intimidated by the large number of male responses
here. My viewpoint is that the ratio of male/female responses to this note
are more indicative of the interest levels of the genders even in this female
dominated conference rather than perceived intimidation by would be responders.
Comments?

 the Doctah

    Lemmesee now...
    
    The "Ladysmith" ads don't even mention the word gun.  And of course
    they don't mention that people are 43 times more likely to have a
    gun in their home used against them than used against an intruder.
    (The May "Ms." pointed these things out.)
    
    Yes, I'm trained to use guns.  I'm a good shot with a rifle.  I've
    never done any target shooting with a pistol.  On the other hand,
    I didn't miss the collection box when I fired my two bullets for
    a ballistics test.
    
    I'm also licensed to own a rifle. (In Massachusetts, that's much
    more likely than a handgun permit.)  When I went to my police station
    to apply, one policeman remarked to another as he handed me the
    form, ~The chief doesn't like to give out permits to people like...~
    and nodded towards me.  Did he mean white people?  No.  Did he mean
    working people?  No.  Did he mean thin people?  No.  He meant women
    people.  (Wow!  I've actually tied this note to something of interest
    to women as women, instead of as people.)  But I got the permit.
    
    I don't have a gun.  If my home were broken into, I'd go out a
    window (even from the second floor and stark naked) and run next door
    to Agnes.  If cornered, I would rely on a sheath knife for self-defense.
    I would not brandish it about; I would keep it hidden until I felt
    in a position to use it.  I got this bit of advice from Robert
    A. Heinlein in _Tunnel_in_the_Sky_, and even after much consideration,
    I dont't see any reason to change my ideas -- given my current
    neighborhood, anyhow.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  None of this explains the broadsword under the bed, of course.

    "Just the facts, ma'am ... "
    
       1.  I don't like guns.
    
       2.  I'm in favour of stronger, but _different_ controls than
	   are currently present.
    
       3.  I don't give a flip what the Constitution says <*gasp!*>,
	   I do not wish to see responsible citizens deprived of the
	   right to possess them.

    A couple of factoids, fwiw:
    
    The main gun note in Soapbox has well over 1000 replies and is still
    active.  As far as I can tell, no one has changed their position.
    I suspect that nothing new has been said for months.  This has been
    the pattern for all versions of Soapbox that I'm aware of.  I'd
    rather not find out whether the pattern holds true for other notes
    files.

    re .153 The woman in question started a topic in FIREARMS - # 2371

    re .155-
    
    > The main gun note in Soapbox has well over 1000 replies and is still
    > active.  As far as I can tell, no one has changed their position.
       
    Chelsea, you mean you missed it!?  Bob Holt very eloquently changed
    his position there not even a month ago.  hmmm...memory fades, but
    it was something like .1255 or .1265 or .1365...
    
    Seriously, given Bob's very firmly held positions, it credits both
    him and his persuasive adversaries that he reversed himself publicly.
    
    DougO

      A woman's view - I am trained to handle a shotgun. I used to shoot
      trap (never was to good at skeet). I don't own a gun because I'm
      not sure I could use it. If you can't use it you will probably be
      killed with your own gun. My dogs will rip your throat out if you
      attack when they are near. They can not be turned against me. I
      think Saturday night specials shold be outlawed and all crimes
      committed with guns should have no parole sentencing. liesl

    re:.159
    
    You're right -- that note *was* tasteless. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    re .159 How long will you continue to regale us with
    sophomoric humor ? This is a serious topic.

>      I think Saturday night specials shold be outlawed and all crimes
>      committed with guns should have no parole sentencing.

 Well, what do you consider a "Saturday Night Special" and why should they be 
outlawed? Is it the price that makes a SNS worth outlawing? Is it the size
that makes SNS worth outlawing? If it's the price, then you are discriminating
against poor people- telling them that they must somehow afford expensive arms
for personal protection. If it's the size, are you willing to also outlaw the
extremely expensive and accurate target pistols used in competition that have
(by currently accepted measurement standards) a 1.5 to 2" barrel?

 How do you account for the fact that the average person convicted of first
degree murder in Massachusetts (which carries a sentence of life without parole)
actually serves between 7 and 8 years? How will "no parole gun sentencing"
practices impact the people who allow murderers back on the street?

 The Doctah
 

< Well, what do you consider a "Saturday Night Special" and why should they be 
<outlawed? Is it the price that makes a SNS worth outlawing? Is it the size

      My impression of "Saturday night special" was a handgun that could
      be bought immediately with no questions asked. I'd like to see
      handgun owners at least have to wait a few days and have the I am
      not a felon info checked out. I remember Saturday night in the ER
      quite well. We refered to it as the "Saturday night knife and gun
      club" cause the incidence of violent injury was much highter than
      on other nights. In physical battles usually we saw both parties
      and the police had them both, in gun injures usually only the
      victim was brought in with the shooter off free while the police
      tried to find him (I know women must shoot people too but in 7
      years of hospital work I only remember one case). I also saw more
      self-inflicted and accidental shootings than criminal ones. 

      
< How do you account for the fact that the average person convicted of first
<degree murder in Massachusetts (which carries a sentence of life without parole)
<actually serves between 7 and 8 years? How will "no parole gun sentencing"
<practices impact the people who allow murderers back on the street?

      To me this indicates a serious flaw in the legal system that
      should be fixed. liesl

    
    re: .159
    
    If you continue to enter notes of this nature, it is going to lead
    to severe embarassment for me as people peer over my cubicle wall
    wondering why I am staring at my computer screen and laughing
    hysterically.
    
    Roberta

    re .164 The immediate availability of handguns varies from 
    state to state. In Mass., one can purchase a handgun 'on the
    spot', but *only* after the extensive wait for a license
    to carry. In California, there is a 15-day wait for each gun.
    In Vermont, you need only be a resident. 
    
    
        (Note, Patrick Purdy acquired a handgun the morning of his
    infamous murders. Legally. Because his background check did
    NOT reveal felonies which were plea-bargained into misdemeanors.)
    

RE: a few back.
Ms. Magazine is not noted for accuracy in reporting.

According to statistics putr out by the national center for Health
1987 figures.
out of a total number of homicides and legal interventions of 20,580
of which 59% involved firearms(where do the numbers of 40k murders with 
guns per year come from? the gov't doesn't seem to know about them)
70% of the "victims" were suicides or criminals.  This would contradict the
idea that you are 43 times more likely to have it "turned" against you.
Practise and proficiency along with willingness makes this next to imposible.

You can send a request to the Health Center for the same figures. They are,
I suspect, as close to an unbiased source of death and dismemberment figures
as you can find.

according to FBI data surveys 7.5 million people have used a firearm to defend
themselves seems there would have been a lot more non-criminal deaths if the
numbers published by Ms. are/were true.

    

    Amos,

    I am thoroughly confused.  You write, "where do the numbers of 40k
    murders with guns per year come from? the gov't doesn't seem to know
    about them" as if this had something to do with what I wrote.  What?
    That number isn't in *any* of the replies in this string after .151,
    and certainly not in the one reply I wrote.  Did you imagine it?
    I presume it is not a strawman of your own devising.
    
    Here is the sentence from Ms.:  "A handgun in your home is 43 times
    more likely to be used against you or someone *in* your home than
    against an intruder."  I notice that this sentence does not insist
    upon a fatality, so your statistics are already incomplete.  I notice
    that your statistics are for one year.  I notice that your statistics 
    do not use any ratios, so that any claim you try to make about the
    ratio I gave is whistling in the dark.  I notice that your statistics 
    do not mention that 40% of women murdered in this country are murdered
    by their husbands.  Would you care to speculate on how many of those
    crimes involved a handgun kept in the conjugal residence?  If you
    pay attention to the news, you could come to an uncomfortably high
    percentage, couldn't you?
    
    Now, Ms. (in the very next sentences) writes, "Crime is real.  The
    fear of falling prey to it is real as well." but the sad reality
    is that a lot of women and children have died *before* any intruder
    ever crossed their threshhold.  Why shouldn't that be kept in mind?
    
    Lastly, you wrote "Practise and proficiency along with willingness..."
    How many people -- across our entire population -- have the opportunity
    for practice, the temperament of willingness, and the skill for
    proficiency?  What about the people with guns yet missing one or
    more of the above qualities?
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  In my opinion, a "Saturday night special" is a *cheap* handgun,
    one which may jam or blow up in your hand.  The name Harris&Richardson
    comes to mind for some reason.

Hey!  You there!  That's right, .169.  This is WMNNTS!  No lghtr allowed!
Particularly in this Gn topic!

					--Q (Dick Wagman), still chcklng

    Actually, Eagle, I too thought .169 was funny...I mightn't always agree
    with Mike's position on a subject, and I might think that he sometimes
    over-embellishes his point, but almost everything he's written has been
    damn fine for an ad-hoc piece of satire.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .169
    
     Without question the best argument for gun control I have ever seen.
    
    The Doctah

    Eagle, haven't you ever read _anything_ I've written about guns? Gimme
    a break f'rheavensake, I'm _PRO_ Second Amendment!   I owned a pistol
    for donkey's years and will buy one again whenever I shape up to go get
    a permit.   
    
    						=maggie

    
    The term "Saturday Night Special" was originally used in an advertising
    campaign by the Harrington & Richardson company around the turn
    of the century. (Much as Smith & Wesson have intermittently used
    the Ladysmith designation). They were advertising a range of .22
    rimfire and .25 centrefire revolvers. The contention was that if
    you didn't need a gun everyday, but only when you went to town on
    a Saturday, then one of these was quite good enough. They were in
    fact well made and accurate, but the cartridges used were so weak
    that using them was not likely to do more than annoy your opponent.
    They (and their many clones) came to be known as "suicide specials".
    
    Re .-1: A gun with no serial number has been feloniously worked
    on, presumably by a criminal, or for use in a criminal venture.
    If simultaneously they have modified the trigger action in such
    a manner as to render the gun dangerous, then more fool them.
    
    The trouble with the Saturday Night Special designation is that,
    apart from the original guns so labeled, everybody *knows* what
    it means, but nobody has yet produced a definition that will hold
    up in court and that automatically applies to any guns made in future.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    re: .176
    
    Maggie,
    
    I think we're _all_ pro-second amendment. The issue is how the
    second amendment is interpreted. So far the courts have interpreted
    it consistently _against_ the NRA's position.
    
    Roberta
    

RE:.179 Would you please specify those "rulings" that are against the NRA 
position.
I enjoy facts not opinions.

FACT: the Dred-Scott decision ca 1850(?) Stated that Blacks(Negros) could not
be considered humans with citizen rights because among other things it would
give them the right to bear Arms *AND* the right to vote and it would be
intolerable to have armed ex-slaves. 
FACT: 1939 Supreme court ruling in US-VS-MILLER the supreme court argued that
the type of weapon(sawed off Shotgun) was *not* of military use therefore
while Miller was legally allowed to bear Arms this particular weapon was
not allowed(NRA never argued in this case BTW, but constitutional
questions were argued)
FACT: 1887(8?) Georgia Supreme court ruled; Second Amendment applied to
*ALL* people not a state or federal standing militia. Supreme court allowed
the ruling to stand with no comment.

These are the only rulings I know of, if you have others that can be verified
I would love to hear them.
HCI = lies, racism, half-truths, hatred.  My facts are verifiable
at any Library, please be sure of your source before quoting.
Thank You.

    
    Um, in case you haven't heard, Dred Scott has been overturned.
           
    I joined HCI _because_ of my beliefs. They have not influenced my
    beliefs. The beliefs were a priori.
                                                 
    I don't appreciate being called a racist, or a member of a racist
    organization.   Do _you_ have facts to back this up?
    
    My knowledge of court decisions goes back to H.S. days so I don't
    remember more specifics. If no one else can fill in the gaps, I'll
    attempt a trip to the library.
    
    Roberta
                                                        

    I'd be very interested in .184's reasons for stating that
    "Your facts are f***ed."  It's one thing to make the statement
    but yet another to be able to back it up.  People are asking for
    facts, not rhetoric.
    
    Jeff

    Re. Saturday Night Specials - if someone were to argue that 
    only Rolls-Royce made a quality car, and that only those who
    could afford a Rolls should be allowed to drive, he would
    be called an elitist.
    
    Since all those who feel that they need a gun for self-defense
    can't afford a S&W or Colt, should they be disallowed from
    buying what they *can* afford ?
    
    For the record, there are several guns in the 'inexpensive'
    range with excellent reliability. And $700 Colt 45's usually
    need a trip to a gunsmith before you bet your life on one.
    
    As I pointed out in the WN_V1 note on guns, *I* don't have a
    problem paying for quality. It's the low- or fixed-income
    people, who generally live in high-crime areas, who get hurt
    by laws against guns based on price.
    
    Dana
    

    re .185
    
    Try reading past the title of my note. I realize that our generation,
    having grown up on TV, has a notoriously short attention span, but
    try anyway.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Roberta

	Seems to be that the Supreme Court did not overturn Dred Scott;
	Congress and a majority of states did. (Amendment to the Constitution)
	Before that the SC was pretty concistant at supporting gun control
	laws that discriminated against blacks. Just for the record do people
	believe that the SC is always right? 

	Most gun control laws in this country discriminate against poor people.
	Especially poor city dwellers, many of whom are black and other
	minority. This is done by requiring high transfer fees ($200 dollars
	to trransfer a gun that costs half that to buy has been proposed in
	Congress). Also outlawing guns that poor people can afford (Maryland)
	under the heading of 'Saturday Night Special' laws would discriminate
	against poor people.

	Also poor city dwellers who are least protected by the Police and
	who therefor would benifit the most from help protecting themselves
	have the hardest time getting permission to own guns. It is hard
	for me to see urban gun control as it stands as anything but racist.
	Not that I think all (or even most) pro-gun control people are
	racist but racist results are what they have for the most part
	produced.

	Did you know that in some parts of the country (MA for example)
	the Police do not have to give a reason for turning down a request
	for a gun permit? I guess that's ok if you believe that no one
	would ever turn someone down just because of race but I'm not that
	nieve.

	Of course, gun control laws do benifit one part of society. Criminals.
	It does make their life easier to know that people lack the ability
	to resist them. I guess that some people feel that's a good goal.

	BTW, some of the Police members of HCI have a history of firing
	and otherwise punishing other Police who speak out against gun control.
	I have trouble with organizations that seek to limit peoples 1st
	amendment rights but others have less trouble as the ends justify
	the means. HCI also has a history of claiming to represent a lot
	of Police who themselves deny (in spite of the risk to their jobs)
	that HCI represents their views.

			Alfred

	

    Re .187
    
     Ah another witty reply.  As my mother use to say, "Empty tin cans
    rattle the most".                     
    
      Now can you refute any of Amos's statements, or will you choose
    to continue with your current babble?
    
    Jeff

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Could we return the heat setting in this string to "polite" please?  We
    were doing so well until recently.  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

    re: Roberta
    
     You have stated that your personal beliefs caused you to join HCI.
    What I would like to know are some answers to the following questions:
    
    1) Do you believe that you are responsible for your own personal
    protection or that the police or some third entity is responsible for
    your personal protection?
    
    2) Do you believe that you have a right to choose how you may protect
    yourself within your own residence?
    
    3) Do you think that banning a certain class of weapons (ie handguns or
    "assault weapons") will significantly lower crime?
    
    4) Can you cite any statistics that prove, indicate or even suggest
    that gun control has ever made a positive difference in crime figures
    for any US city? (I can cite statistics where gun control exacerbated
    crime figures where controls were implemented).
    
    5) Is it your position that the infringement on a constitutional right
    (in this case the 2nd amendment) is necessitated by the "common good?"
    Are other freedoms subject to this same type of abridgement?
    
    6) Do you believe that gun control laws are an effective deterrent to
    criminals who are not deterred by sentences like "life imprisonment w/o
    the possibility of parole" and capital punishment? Why or why not?
    
    7) Do you believe that the mere existance of the means to cause great
    bodily harm or death implies that great bodily harm will occur? Does
    this belief justify the removal of choice of law-abiding citizens to
    have such means at their disposal?
    
    8) How do you respond to charges that gun control is a penalty for the
    99.8% of law abiding gun owners that never use their gun illegally for
    the crimes of the .2% who do?
    
    That's all for now. I'd really like to hear your opinions, since you
    feel that the previously presented "facts are f*****d."
    
    The Doctah
    

Re: .183 (Eagles)

>                -< This_Is_NO_LAUGHING_MATTER_2_Many_Of_Us_! >-

>   And remember in sensitive/serious strings that attempts at humor are
>   often understood as laughing at somebody and/or his/her strongly-held
>   beliefs about rights to choose your destiny.  Right to choice of weapons
>   isn't that much different from right to choice in such areas as abortion
>   or sexual preferences.

Satire is an old and honorable method of argument.  I, for one, was pleased
to see an obviously lighter note entered into this topic for once.  (Mind
you, I'd be annoyed if every other note in the topic became a silly parable,
but one every two hundred or so notes doesn't seem too much.)  Since the
humor was, in fact, germane to the topic at hand, I don't see why satire
should be any less valid a method of expressing disagreement than should
a note full of turgid prose.  I don't think anyone was suggesting that the
topic was a laughing matter to you, but I don't think you can insist that
no one ever chuckle about it.

Re: .188 (Alfred)

>   Just for the record do people believe that the SC is always right?

I don't agree with all the decisions the Supreme Court has ever made, and
I doubt that many people do.  (After all, not all justices of the Court
agree with each decision; why should we?)

What does this have to do with gun control?

						--Q

                        -< Topics of Interest to *Women* >-
================================================================================
Note 210.191                     Gun Protection                       191 of 192
ERLANG::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam; Full speed aster" 42 lines  26-APR-1989 14:20
                           -< questions for Roberta >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: Roberta
	
	* thought i'd take the liberty of responding; hope you don't mind 
	ms. piket?
    
     You have stated that your personal beliefs caused you to join HCI.
    What I would like to know are some answers to the following questions:
    
    1) Do you believe that you are responsible for your own personal
    protection or that the police or some third entity is responsible for
    your personal protection?
    	
	* i believe i am 'responsible' for my own personal protection. 
	i believe the police are responsible for maintaining public order, 
	which may or may not include protecting me individually. i can 
	think of no applicable third party.

    2) Do you believe that you have a right to choose how you may protect
    yourself within your own residence?

	* no. for example, i do not have the right to choose a thermonuclear
	device for my personal protection. 
    
    3) Do you think that banning a certain class of weapons (ie handguns or
    "assault weapons") will significantly lower crime?
	
	* i have no idea. and don't really care; i believe that weapons are 
	a danger to me and to society, regardless of 'crime'.
     

    4) Can you cite any statistics that prove, indicate or even suggest
    that gun control has ever made a positive difference in crime figures
    for any US city? (I can cite statistics where gun control exacerbated
    crime figures where controls were implemented).
    
	* no.
 
    5) Is it your position that the infringement on a constitutional right
    (in this case the 2nd amendment) is necessitated by the "common good?"
    Are other freedoms subject to this same type of abridgement?
    
	* yes and yes. the primary function of government is to provide
	for the common good; all other rights and freedoms are secondary.

    6) Do you believe that gun control laws are an effective deterrent to
    criminals who are not deterred by sentences like "life imprisonment w/o
    the possibility of parole" and capital punishment? Why or why not?

	* no. it is not at all clear what does or does not
	deter any criminal.

    7) Do you believe that the mere existance of the means to cause great
    bodily harm or death implies that great bodily harm will occur? Does
    this belief justify the removal of choice of law-abiding citizens to
    have such means at their disposal?

	* no and no. the existence of dangerous instruments implies that
	great bodily harm *might* occur. this quite justifies the
	*limitation* of the choices of citizens.
     
    8) How do you respond to charges that gun control is a penalty for the
    99.8% of law abiding gun owners that never use their gun illegally for
    the crimes of the .2% who do?

	* gun control is not a penalty to a law abiding citizen.
        

RE: .192 There seems to be a sentiment expressed that SC decisions should
	not be overturned. This is a general principle which often comes
	up with regards to Roe v Wade for example. It appears in some
	discussions on gun control that some people believe that since the
	SC has upheld some gun control laws that either all should be
	upheld or that, at least, the SC is by definition correct in
	upholding the laws that it has.

RE: .193
   
>	* yes and yes. the primary function of government is to provide
>	for the common good; all other rights and freedoms are secondary.

	This is scary. Do you mean that if the government decided that
	the whole 1st amendment should be scrapped for the common good
	you would go along with it?

>	* gun control is not a penalty to a law abiding citizen.

	No more so than restrictions on what church you can go to, what
	books you can read, and what you can say in public.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    Convince me..
    
    Today the paper reported the wounding of a mother who was
    trying to rescue two toddlers who were playing in a park
    that had become a free fire zone between two teenage gangs.
    
    I support the 2nd ammendment as well as the rest of the bill
    of rights.
    
    However, I see the NRA sitting back in the face of a terrible
    escalation of gun usage in our cities and refusing any efforts
    made to try and contr the terrible carnage in our cities
    and making no constructive counter proposals.
    
    Bonnie

Angela Griffith (.0) {are you still out there?}
and all others planning on applying for a license to carry:
    
The following is a description of what I had to go through just
to receive the *application* for a license.  Do NOT make the mistake
I made (read below) and let yourself get sucked into a debate with the
officer in charge of handing out the applications.  They are required
to give you an application.  Tell her or him you will discuss the 
application with the police chief after it is completed.

******************************************************************************

            <<< ALIEN::BLKHOL$DUA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 2371.0            Justifying "permit to carry" in MA             35 replies
SYSENG::BITTLE                                       80 lines  12-APR-1989 23:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will soon be turning in my application to obtain a "License to 
Carry Firearms" in a town near Maynard, MA, and am looking for 
advice on justifying obtaining a license for the purpose of 
"protection of life and property".  In other words, a permit to
carry.

Background info :

While at the local police station getting an FID, I also ask for
an application for a license to carry firearms for the purpose of
protection of life and property.  The officer in charge of FIDs
(not the chief) proceeds to put me through the third degree concerning 
how I could possibly have a good enough reason for getting such a license.  

My reasons : 

1.  (a general one I thought would help)
     I am a single female (age 23) who frequently (2-3 times a week) 
     travels alone at night between the suburbs and the Boston area.

his counter : "so I should issue a license to every lady that commutes
               to Boston?  We would have an armed camp here!"

2.   (more specifically...)
     I am enrolled in and will continue to enroll in job *required* 
     *night* courses at universities in the Boston area (currently enrolled
     in Boston Univ course; planning on taking a night course from
     Northeastern next semester.)  
     
his counter : "How do you know those universities allow guns on their
               campuses?  They all have rules against it.

3.   Once a week I attend a non-profit organizational meeting in 
     Cambridge between 7:30 - 10pm.  The closest parking available is
     near a playground with some basketball courts.  I've observed
     the people in this playground at night.  They are not children
     nor are they what I would describe as day-care provider types.

his counter : "If you think these meetings put you at substantial
               risk, you should not attend them."


I realize I was wasting my time and should just get the application
and talk with the chief of police about the matter later.

The officer asks me :  "Have you ever been attacked?"

This was what I *hadn't* planned on bringing up as a justification for
obtaining the permit...

I said yes.  He asked where.  I said North Carolina (while in college
there).  He asked if I could provide a copy of the police report, and I
said yes.  {although I don't think that report is any of their business;
also, I read in this notesfile that these applications are part of the
public record}

Now for the real kicker : 

He says : "That doesn't count - This is Massachusetts, not North
           Carolina."

I was shocked, disgusted, and speechless.


The final word from the officer : 
-------------------------------

"I know what the police chief is looking for {when he issues the
 permits to carry} and you haven't hit it."


My question to you : 
------------------

Any guesses as to what the police chief is looking for?

Has anyone out there ever gone to court to obtain a license to carry?

						
						nancy b.

Last week a man went into the same police station I did for
an FID and pistol permit application.  No questions were
asked other than standard FID-required questions.  He was in
and out in 5 minutes.

                                   mad and getting madder,

{oops!  I meant to say...}         peace, love, and granola,
                                   nancy b.

    re .195, Bonnie-
    
    Not that I'm the NRA nor can presume to speak for them, but
    even I know that they've been urging an end to revolving-door
    justice, plea-bargaining of felonies down to misdemeanors, and 
    in general, *for* longer prison terms for offenses committed with
    firearms...in short, that they are not "sitting back", that they've
    been well aware of and proposing measures to deal with increased
    armed crime for years.
    
    We as a nation do not lock up criminals, which the NRA contends
    would reduce the crime rates.  Until we try their proposals, I don't
    think its correct to say they're making no constructive counter
    proposals.  You want "constructive"?  Build more prisons.
    
    DougO

    re .195 Bonnie, the NRA has been saying "put criminals behind
    bars. Put criminals who use guns behind bars for a LONG
    time" for *ages*. WADR, you aren't listening. Misrepresenting
    the NRA is so institutionalized that most people don't know
    what we *do*.
    
    Dana

The NRA :

-  Trains police officers and instructors

-  Trains marksmanship instructors, who in turn teach
-  classes in safe gun handling.

-  Conducts local, regional and national target matches.

-  Supports the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle
-  Practice (NBPRP) and conducts matches for same.

-  Works with the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM).

-  Supports the USA Olympic Shooting Team.

-  Promotes responsible gun storage to prevent accidents

-  Makes technical data available to all people

-  Makes safety information/data available to all

-  Involved in conservation and game management.

-  Promotes responsible attitudes toward personal defense

-  They used to work with the Boy Scouts a lot.  Ask Amos about this.

-  Sponsors all sorts of shooting competition

-  Operates the Whittington Center in New Mexico as an overall outdoor
	shooting and game-related sports center.  The Whittington center
	has been involved with the Park Service and  the National Wildlife
	Service [Association?  What do they call themselves?] in studying
	migration, mating, and hibernation of many species of Southwestern
	game animals.  Since the Whittington Center is just up the road a few
	miles from the Boy Scout camp, Philmont, I am sure they work with
	scouting organizations in that area.

-  In general, the NRA has been instrumental in developing a standard of
	firearms safety, and a standard of value/condition appraisal for
	collector's arms.

    
    JWHITE did  pretty good job of expressing my views. I generally
    don't like being spoken for, but he saved me a lot of time. I really
    don't have time for a topic generating this many notes, because
    I don't have time to  respond to them all. I do, however, want to
    address this idea that if we legislate gun control, we are infringing
    our rights and this is "scary". 
    
    This is absolutely ludicrous, because then any law is infringing
    our rights and is scary. The law says I can't drive a car without
    a license. Is this infringing on my rights? Should anyone of any
    skill level and any age be allowed to drive a car? If you say no,
    then this argument against gun control is null and void.
    
    Who was it that said, "My right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's
    nose begins."
    
    I gotta do some work.
    
    Roberta

    RE: .195

    Part of the problem here (the problem being you thinking that the
    NRA is not addressing the problem of guns used by criminals, is the
    media not reporting what they don't want you to know.

    The NRA has regularly and for years advanced proposals for laws to
    punish criminal use of guns. Things like stiff jail terms and
    restrictions on plea bargaining. Not only that but a major NRA 
    activity is the training of Police in the safe and effective use
    of their guns.

    BTW, did the press report that the teenagers were illegally in
    possession of those guns? It's true. What I don't understand is
    why because some punk is violating existing laws I should be
    punished.

    Guns are not destroying our cities, crime is. For example, last year
    the NYC Police arrested 75,000 people. 5,000 went to jail. Similar
    statistics are available for Washington DC (30,000 arrests and 1,500
    to jail). That is the problem. What we do is fight the NIMBY attitude
    and put criminals in jail. Right now we are letting people free early
    because of inadequate jails and disarming the general public to make
    it easier for criminals to rob, rape, and kill.

    		Alfred

    RE: .203 First off I personally don't believe that we should require
    drivers licenses but I suspect I'm in a minority. Of course car
    control is different than gun control. There is no 'right to drive'
    in the Constitution. A question. Would a 10 day waiting period before
    buying a newspaper violate the 1st amendment? If so than obviously
    a waiting period for gun buying violates the 5th. Now if a waiting
    period doesn't violate the 5th why should I assume that a waiting
    period for newspapers or Bibles will never be enacted?

>    Who was it that said, "My right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's
>    nose begins."

    Good point *against* gun control. Perhaps you don't want to target shoot
    but I do. Your law hits my nose. Perhaps you don't believe in using
    deadly force to protect yourself and family but I do. Your gun control
    laws, I see, as a clear and present danger to me and my family.

    			Alfred

    I had no trouble at all getting a permit to carry.  Our chief said
    he wished more women had permits and the arms to go with them. 
    This was two weeks after a woman and her two children were murdered
    in their home in the adjoining town.
    
    Dondi

    This string got my (brief, I hope) interest only when I noticed
    some men wondering why women weren't responding.  I have since read
    a few notes and they always seem to make my blood pressure rise,
    so I hope I will keep pressing "next unseen."
    
    The thing that angers me -- and that I assume was discussed somewhere
    earlier in this string -- is the assumption that the "right to bear
    arms" refers to individuals.  I don't buy that, and it's my impression
    that the courts, generally, have not.  Constitutional freedom of
    religion is *in no way* comparable to any so-called right to own
    and carry guns.
    
    As for target shooting, the target shooting places could own the
    guns for use only at the target-shooting facility!
    
    Outta here (I hope),
    Nancy

 re .203

 I am rather surprised you ran and hid. Rather unlike you. Unfortunately, many
of the guncontrol advocates (like yourself) are indeed unable to answer those
questions. They cop out, but still insist on the rightness of their position.
It is these people who are the scariest.

 I assume that you would be rather displeased with someone (who respresented
a large and powerful group) that had a stand against abortion, was unable to 
support their position through facts or even reason, but insisted upon forcing
their ideas upon you. That is the situation with the gun control groups in this
country. They have not a single shred of evidence that their ideas will or
could work, yet they insist on implementing them (at the expense of our rights).

 I will not sit by idly and watch it happen. I also will not turn in my guns,
even should they become illegal. I have learned from history that they key to
oppression is an unarmed populace. Not being entirely politically motivated,
I feel equally strongly that I have the right to choose which weapons that I
may defend my family, life and property with. I feel I have the right to resist
criminal attack.

 I also feel that you have the right to choose as well. However, you do not
have the right to choose for me, nor do you have the power to do so. 

 The Doctah

    Thankyou to all of those who answered my note.
    
    Bonnie

>    2) Do you believe that you have a right to choose how you may protect
>    yourself within your own residence?
>
>	* no. for example, i do not have the right to choose a thermonuclear
>	device for my personal protection. 

 A straw man. A thermonuclear device, besides being impossible to obtain, is
essentially useless as a personal protective device. I'd like to see how you'd
use one to thwart a burglary (and live to tell about it).

>    3) Do you think that banning a certain class of weapons (ie handguns or
>    "assault weapons") will significantly lower crime?
>	
>	* i have no idea. and don't really care; i believe that weapons are 
>	a danger to me and to society, regardless of 'crime'.

 Here's the most important thing you've said. You are afraid of weapons. Your
fear, sparked by ignorance, makes you want to make them all "go away." Not
reality, I'm afraid.

 You don't care if they lower crime. How amusing. If you take a minute to look
at the deaths from firearms, it will be obvious to you that eliminating them 
would be counter-productive for your aim. If you you eliminate firearms in the
hands of law abiding citizens, you will have a reduced amount of accidental
deaths due to firearms. Excellent! However, the corresponding increase in crime
would more than make up for the prevention of deaths due to accidents. Not a
workable solution.

>    5) Is it your position that the infringement on a constitutional right
>    (in this case the 2nd amendment) is necessitated by the "common good?"
>    Are other freedoms subject to this same type of abridgement?
>    
>	* yes and yes. the primary function of government is to provide
>	for the common good; all other rights and freedoms are secondary.

 This statement is quite simply false (in this coutry at least).

>	* gun control is not a penalty to a law abiding citizen.

 Say what? If I tell you you may no longer read what you want, that is not a 
penalty? If I tell you that "for the common good," you may no longer be 
afforded due process, that is not a penalty? Wake up and smell the coffee cake!

 Basically, your reply says that you do not think that gun control will lower
crime, but you want it anyway because you feel guns are a menace to society.
Thank God the founders of this country thought otherwise.

 The Doctah

    Some random thoughts from reading this file (from a woman, if that
    matters):
    
    1.  Can't say I'm for, can't say I'm against gun control.  Used
    to be for, but the arguments re. personal freedoms ARE compelling
    to me.
    
    2.  For those who are against gun control and for stronger measures
    against abusers of gun ownership, how (practically) do you propose
    to solve the problem of kids with guns shooting up schools, parks,
    streets, and innocent people on both the East and the West coast
    -- and probably many less-publicized places in between?
    
    3.  Even if you're against gun control, how can anyone justify Uzis
    and assault rifles and machine guns in private hands?  To use against
    government troops when they come in to take away all our freedoms?
    Sorry, that's one I can't buy.  After all, "it can't happen here."
    Discounting all those gun-toting crazies ;-), we're too sane and
    civilized. ;-}  (Just in case you missed the smiley faces, the last
    two sentences were an attempt at sarcasm.)
    
    4.  Finally, I don't plan to ever own a gun myself.  I'm too familiar
    with my temper (which would make some of those modified triggers
    mentioned earlier look like lava flow), and I know I've felt the
    murderous urge several times.  Thankfully I didn't have a weapon
    at hand.  I'd rather take my chances with other means of self-defense,
    including a reasonable criminal justice system that the US seems
    to lack and other countries seem to have (no, I'm not talking about
    you-know-who in the Mideast).  On the other hand, should anyone
    touch one of my babies, this Mamma turns mean!  And gun control
    or no, there are weapons to be had.
    
    Karen
                                     

re: .199:
    (Summary: lock up criminals, longer prison terms will reduce
    crime rates.)
    
Horsefeathers.  We have (per-capita) more people in prison than
almost any industrial country in the world.  (I think the Soviet
Union and South Africa top us.)  We've tried this, and it doesn't
work.  Also, us yuppies aren't exactly clamoring for more prisons,
especially in our back yards.

You want to reduce crime rates?  Try the following for a couple of
generations:

-- Jobs for all.  Gives folk something constructive to do.  Gets them
   tired so they don't hang out at night.

-- Make bsic social services freely available, including nutrition, health
   care, housing, and education.

I.e., bring back WPA and similar programs.  Western Europe did this to
good effect.

Martin.

    Yea Martin!

>You want to reduce crime rates?  Try the following for a couple of
>generations:
>
>-- Jobs for all.  Gives folk something constructive to do.  Gets them
>   tired so they don't hang out at night.
>
>-- Make bsic social services freely available, including nutrition, health
>   care, housing, and education.
>
>I.e., bring back WPA and similar programs.  Western Europe did this to
>good effect.

 Gee, Martin. We don't want socialism. It carries with it too much unacceptable
baggage. 

 It is impossible to have jobs for all when people do not want to work.

 Making social services freely available does nothing to curb crime.

 Tell me how letting violent criminals out of jail with a slap on the wrist
deters crime. I'd like to hear that rationale. Tell me how punishing law abiding
citizens deters crime. Tell me how disarming potential victims while doing
nothing to the criminals will stop crime. We'd all just love to hear it.

 The Doctah

re .203

>	The law says I can't drive a car without a license. 

	I don't know where you live, but in NH, the law only states that
	you can't drive a car on public roads without a license. There
	is a private business just down the road from my home which
	is engaged in the business of providing a place for unlicensed
	drivers to operate cars. Perfectly legal.


re .207:

>	As for target shooting, the target shooting places could own the
>	guns for use only at the target-shooting facility!

	Why should businesses have rights that individuals don't have?

re .211

>    3.  Even if you're against gun control, how can anyone justify Uzis
>    and assault rifles and machine guns in private hands?  To use against
>    government troops when they come in to take away all our freedoms?

	Don't be so sure. The government has already relieved the citizenry
	of the right to life, to own property, to freely associate, to 
	petition the government for redress of grievances. One day the
	citizens may decide to take back these rights.

							Tom_K

    re .214 (Doctah)
    
> Gee, Martin. We don't want socialism. It carries with it too much unacceptable
> baggage.
    
    At the rate we are going, the only people in this country that will
    have access to arms will be the police/military and/or criminals.
    
    While in Cuba the population has among the highest access to arms
    in the world. 
                                                                    
>   It is impossible to have jobs for all when people do not want to work.
    
    This does not make sense to me.
    
>   Making social services freely available does nothing to curb crime.
                                             
    Cuba has totally free medical care, totally free education through
    post-doctoral, low cost housing and low cost basic foodstuffs. It
    has sports and cultural facilities for all including in the
    countryside. Havana has more child care facilities than are needed.
    Schools are available to keep children from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM if
    both parents are working or if there is a single parent that is
    working.
    
    You can walk anywhere in the streets of Havana or any other city
    without fear.
    
    Les
 

 Re: justification for Uzi's, machine guns etc

 First, a distinction must be made between automaitc and semi-automatic 
weapons. Automatic weapons fire as long as the trigger is pulled- steady
pressure on the trigger will cause the gun to empty it's magazine. Semi-
automatic weapons shoot one bullet each time the trigger is pulled and load
the next round. Before the second round may be fired the trigger must be
released and then re-squeezed.

 All fully automatic weapons must be registered with the government, and a $200
tax paid on them. In addition, no new automatic weapons may be introduced to
the populace- hence the number of legally owned machine guns now is the same
as the number of legally owned machine guns until the law is repealed (if ever).
Machine guns are very difficult to obtain legally and are very expensive.

 Semi-autos including the "assault rifle" machine gun lookalikes are presently
no more regulated than any other rifles. They are frequently used by sportsmen
for hunting, target shooting and other lawful purposes.

 The whole rationale behind what kind of gun should be allowed to be owned by
the populace is this: if you are not doing anything criminal with it, there is
no problem. So it doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, as long as it is
used (or not used) legally, no one should take it away. It is only when one
commits a crime with a gun that a problem arises- then the problem is with the
individual and not with the implement. Thus the individual should be punished.

 People frequently claim that if we should be allowed to have machine guns or
assault rifles, then we should be allowed to have howitzers, grenades and
thermonuclear devices. The fallacy of that argument is that those items are
all indiscriminate, area weapons.  When you throw a grenade into a crowd of
people, you cannot selectively pick your victims.  With a gun you must fire
at each victim individually. It is a discriminate weapon. Thermonuclear devices
are too farfetched to even bother with.

 The  Doctah

>    While in Cuba the population has among the highest access to arms
>    in the world. 
>    You can walk anywhere in the streets of Havana or any other city
>    without fear.

 Hmmm. Rather interesting, eh?

    re .211 > Uzis and assault rifles and machine guns
    
    That's a nice 'package deal'.
    
    Uzis come in a variety of configurations - pistol, sub-machine
    gun, carbine, all of which are available in either full or
    semi-automatic form. The semi-auto versions are not, contrary
    to popular belief, easily converted to full-auto.
    
    'Assault rifles' has yet to be defined properly. According to
    pending legislation, my 22 cal. target pistol is an 'assault
    rifle'. Beware vague laws.
    
    Machine guns are difficult to obtain legally -extensive back-
    ground checks, heavy transfer fees. *Legally obtained* machine
    guns have not been used in crimes.
    
    Obtaining a machine gun illegally is difficult, subject to
    large amounts of cash. The same people in Bolivia who will
    sell you 20 keys of flake will be happy to supply a dozen
    machine guns. A safe, happy customer is a repeat customer.
    (I don't believe making drugs illegal reduces crime. Au
    contraire.)
    
    Dana
    

    re .197, Nancy, about obtaining a permit to carry and being denied
    based on gender/age:
    
    Please contact me.  My husband may be able to help you, as he is
    currently engaged in a battle with the police chief in our town
    to renew his permit.  He's the education and training officer for
    our town rifle and pistol club.  If you get the permit, he'll love
    to talk you into taking his pistol marksmanship course, or at least
    his two-hour safety course.  Actually, you can take either course
    whether or not you have a permit.  Taking these courses earn you a
    certificate in safe gun handling which you can take to your town's
    police chief as further 'ammunition' in gaining your permit.
    
    I would just *love* to see you beat the sexist pigs down in
    city hall on this one !!!!!  Please mail me.

    -Ellen

    And Nancy, would you consider also combining your two responses
    and posting them to the "Sexism is Alive..." topic?
    
    And people think there's no problem with police power?
    
    						=maggie

    Spend millions of dollars fighting ill-conceived laws.
    
    Absolutely.

    re .222-
    
    >     - Spend millions lobbying/extorting legislators

    Um, actually, I think they spend millions fighting ill-conceived
    legislation as Dana said, but not in direct lobbying or campaign
    contributions...rather, through activating the membership to do
    grassroots writein/phonein campaigns, etc.  If rallying the NRA
    membership to exercise their rights to influence legislators is
    "extortion" in your eyes, I think you missed a couple of civics 
    classes.
    
    Direct lobbying is done by some other group from whom the NRA separates
    themselves fairly carefully (in a legal sense).  I don't have the
    details, I'm not a member of either group (yet...).
    
    DougO

    RE. Note 210.203                     
    2EASY::PIKET 
    >The law says I can't drive a car without
    >a license. Is this infringing on my rights? Should anyone of any
    >skill level and any age be allowed to drive a car? If you say no,
    >then this argument against gun control is null and void.


    Calculations show the kinetic energy of a 44 Magnum, 240
    grain bullet at 1400 fps, to be just over 1000 ft/lbs.

    A 3000 pound car at 60 mph (88 FPS) yeilds over 700,000 ft/lbs.
    Should we therefore make the licensing procedures for cars
    700 times as difficult as that for a gun ? 

    In view of the auto fatality statistics, it would probably save 
    more lives.

    
    The logic of gun control is 'Since the 20000 laws allready on
    the books haven't stopped gun crime, pass more laws. Better
    yet, take away the guns.' Try to imagine the police mechanism
    required to search every home in America to confiscate the
    guns out there. Now picture some of the pseudo-fascists in
    government deciding "Well, since we have this wonderful police
    mechanism in place, now that guns aren't a problem, why 
    dismantle it ? Let's really clean house. Get rid of the (insert
    your own brand of minority - homosexuals, Democrats, Republicans,
    pro-abortionists, communists, suspected communists, Jews, Blacks,
    ERA supporters, liberals, reactionaries)"
    
    Do you still wonder why I oppose 'gun control' ?

    Dana

In case you're wondering why there is so much violence in America --
which directly translates to so much violence against women -- you might
want to reread the replies to this note to see how many ways violence
in the guise of self-defense is proposed as a solution to violence.

Martin.

    Martin, how many men shoot their wives in self-defense ?
    
    Sad to say, a lot of women could justify shooting their 
    husbands, but the opposite doesn't often hold true.
    
    And 'violence in the guise of self-defense' sidesteps the
    question of justification. Initiation of force is not
    justifiable. Defensive use of force *is*.
    
    Dana

>There is more to life than just survival

 Only if one first survives.

 The Doctah

>>There is more to life than just survival
>
> Only if one first survives.

I suspect that Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Thomas Aquinas, Rabbi Akiba, and
Socrates would be happy to discuss this with you, were it not for the fact
that they set certain principles ahead of "survival."

Martin.

Martin ,

Imagine being confronted with a life-threatening violent situation.

Let's get specific.  You sense you are in danger and attempt a non-violent
method of escape, but you couldn't run fast enough and your screams
weren't heard or responded to during your 15 seconds of "flight"
response.  Physical abuse is now being inflicted on your person
by two attackers. You've already pleaded for them to take all your
money and credit cards, but apparently that is not enough.  You try
quoting Rousseau's social contract, but that doesn't impress them.

You stated in (.228) :

> -- you might
> want to reread the replies to this note to see how many ways violence
> in the guise of self-defense is proposed as a solution to violence.

             "violence in the guise of self-defense"  ???

What specifically is your non-violent defensive solution to the violence 
being inflicted on you?

                                                  nancy b.

    There are principles more important than survival. If for example,
    I am given a choice between giving up my religion and dieing I will
    die. On the other hand if I have the means to resist that death and
    believe that my religion allows using those means than I have a
    third choice. This is not to say that there might not be times when
    my religious belief does not allow me to use those means.

    For the record, Jesus did not totally reject the use of violence.
    There is a record of him using a whip and forcibly moving people
    out of the temple. It is also common record that his disciples did
    carry weapon at times.

    A note back a few mentioned that they saw guns as a threat to the
    common welfare of society. I on the other hand see the removal of
    guns from the public as a clear sign of unhealthiness in a society.
    I don't see guns as a problem in a healthy society but I do see them
    as a necessity in an unhealthy one.

    Someone also suggested that the removal of something dangerous (ie
    guns) was not a threat to general freedoms and rights. I believe that
    gun ownership is one of the least threatening rights in our society.
    I believe that history has shown that free speech, a free press, and
    freedom of religion are a much greater risk for a society. Restricting
    gun ownership sets a precedent for restricting these other, more
    powerful rights. 
    
    I'd also like to point out that guns are far from the most dangerous
    objects in our society. People serious about removing 'killers' should
    first work towards restricting alcohol and tobacco. Both of which
    kill orders of magnitude more people than guns do and have far less
    value. Especially as both take up farm land that could be used to
    grow food to feed the hungry.

    		Alfred

    I like that, Alfred.  And add to the list of removes, the automobile
    which is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
    
    Dondi
    

    RE: .232, If martyrdom is your bag Martin, more power to you, but the
    majority of the world prefer to live. If your belief is that you would
    rarther lose YOUR life, than take that of your attacker, then I can
    respect you for it, though I will definitely disagree. But tell me,
    when your attacker chooses another victim to kill, what has not
    defending your life accomplished?
    
    The names you mentioned died for an ideal they believed in, be it
    religious or political, and not the issue of self defense. Their
    struggles were not either I kill you or you kill me, but that their
    lives were worth less then their beliefs. If that's your stand, then
    you are the ultimate pacifist, but I don't plan to go down without a
    fight.
    
    Eric

The following article appeared on the editorial page of Saturday's Dallas
Morning News.  It is a reader's response to an editorial that appeared
a week or so ago.  It expresses my own feelings so much better than
I could that I thought it worth typing in (reproduced without permission
of course).
    
	    		THE REAL ISSUE ISN'T FIREARMS

In Scott Bennett's March 23 Viewpoints column, "Gun debate should be
settled in a constitutional manner," he states that the definitions
of the terms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are
obsolete and should be redefined to modern usage by a constitutional
amendment.
    
The debate concerning gun control has failed to address the real issue.  We 
have been caught up in an emotional frenzy about guns, when the underlying 
problem is our criminal judicial system.  Our legal system lets dangerous 
criminals out on the streets due to plea bargaining, procedural errors in 
arresting criminals and prison overcrowding.

Parents who desire to raise their children to be successful realize that 
discipline is vital in controlling behavior.  To be effective, discipline 
should be immediate, fair, consistent, and final.  Effective discipline by 
a parent will (in most cases) cause the child to modify his or her behavior 
to meet the parent's expectations.

Our judicial system fails to meet most of the attributes of effective 
discipline.  Trials take years.  Criminals' rights are given higher 
consideration than the victims' rights.  Verdicts and penalties are not 
consistent.  The repeat criminal knows the loopholes.  Could our Founding 
Fathers foresee the judicial system changing to its current complexity?  If 
we are going to look at redefining terms of the Constitution to modern 
terminology, let's define "speedy" in Amendment 6 -- "the right to a speedy 
and public trial."  Due process can have a much better impact on the abuse 
of firearms than attacking firearms themselves.

Amendment 18 brought us Prohibition, the ultimate case of trying to control 
behavior by banning a substance.  Did it work?  Did we manage to control 
the abuse and violence associated with drunkenness?  Were people better 
off?  Amendment 21, the repeal of Prohibition, answers that question.  
Alcohol is still with us, and its abuse causes many more deaths of innocent 
victims than firearms.  Our response is to pass more laws -- 
open-container laws, minimum age laws, warning labels on alcoholic 
beverages and passing the responsibility to bar owners.

We address the symptoms, not the problem.  How many people who are arrested 
for driving while intoxicated lose their driver's licenses?  What are the 
chances of being caught driving while intoxicated or punished if caught?  
Slim and none come to mind.  If our judicial system enforced the laws 
already on the books, citizens would think twice before drinking and 
driving.  If America were serious about protecting itself from the abuse 
of drinking and driving, drunken drivers would lose not only their 
licenses, but the vehicles that they were driving when caught.  Forty 
percent of the deaths from automobile accidents are alcohol-related.  So 
why aren't people clamoring to outlaw alcohol?  Prohibition taught us that 
you cannot control behavior by outlawing a privilege previously granted and 
enjoyed by citizens.

Furthermore, it is rather ludicrous to think that drug dealers, already 
committing felony offenses, would be deterred by laws concerning firearms.  
Yet that is one of the reasons our lawmakers cite for gun control.,

It is time to face reality.  People must be accountable for their actions.  
That is how to protect a society.  Banning alcohol and firearms punishes 
the law-abiding citizen by denying the lawful use of these items.  In 
turn, it created more criminal activity as underground distribution 
develops.

If our criminal judicial system would do its job by sending criminals to 
prison, imposing maximum sentences and imposing stiffer requirements for 
parole, our police forces would become much more effective.  They would 
not be arresting the same person for repeated violations, criminal activity 
would be reduced, and law-abiding citizens would not have the level of 
fear that leads them to purchase firearms for self-defense.

There are many things that lead to the deaths of innocent people.  If we 
banned automobiles, planes, and alcohol, thousands of people would be 
alive who have been victims of abuse or negligence.  It is the people 
involved who must be held accountable -- not the objects.  Until our 
judicial system recognizes this, we are doomed to repeat history by 
trying to control people by controlling the objects of their misuse.
    
    							Pat
    

>  <<< Note 210.238 by DLOACT::RESENDEP "nevertoolatetohaveahappychildhood" >>>
>                   -< An editorial I thought worth reading >-

  THANK YOU, VERY VERY MUCH!  I appreciate your typing this in for all
to read and (hopefully) consider.

Amos

(Apologies for the length of this) re: .234: (risk of violence):

 > Let's get specific.  You sense you are in danger and attempt a non-violent
 >method of escape, but you couldn't run fast enough and your screams
 >weren't heard or responded to during your 15 seconds of "flight"
 >response. ...

Actually, I'm a fairly fast runner, and I'm sure I could do a 75 second
quarter mile in street shoes if necessary.  But that's irrelevant.

What is the risk that I will be "violently attacked" in, say, the next
ten years?  Multiply that by the probability that I could minimize the
violence done to me by carrying a weapon.  Multiply that by the amount
of money I normally carry and the monetary estimation I place on mugging-
related injuries.  Multiplied together, you get a [Bayes-strategy] estimate
of my "loss" at not having a gun.

Note that I haven't been attacked during the last 12 years I've lived in
the Boston area (and jogged some nights through Boston Common, parked downtown
and generally lived my life in innocent naivety).  So, the probability of
attack is low.  I might carry as much as $100 cash.  If we assume I should
expect to be robbed once in 10 years, I risk $10/year to theft.

Assume I purchase a (licensed) gun for personal protection.  What is the
probability that I would pull the gun in time for it to make a difference?
Say (optimistically) 50% of the time I get the gun, and the other 50% of
the time I'm conked on the head before I can pull it.  Assume further
that if I'm knocked unconscious, I lose the gun.  Assume the gun
costs $200 (decent weapon, but not spectacular); and training, maintenence,
and insurance an additional $100/year (including my time at the firing range).

Continuing this naive Bayes strategy analysis (where is Drs. Blinn and
Greene when they're really needed?), we find over a twenty year period:

Have a gun, attacked 2 times:
   -- Defend myself successfully with the gun:	loss $0
   -- Unsuccessful at defending myself:		loss $100 cash + $200 gun
   -- Add, gun ownership costs			$200 + ($100 * 20) = $2200
   Total loss $0 + $300 + $200 + $2000		$2500

Have no gun, attacked 2 times.  Total loss	$200.

In both cases, I'm assuming no medical expenses.  Assume $1000 medical
expenses:
   Defend myself successfully			loss $2500 + $1000 = $3500
   Unsuccessful					loss $ 300 + $2000 = $2300

Medical expenses would have average over $2000 per attack to make carrying
a gun economically worthwhile.  Also, in the "have a gun" scenario, I expect
to contribute one gun to the "underworld" in one incident and spend big bucks
in lawyer fees to defend myself against any legal charges connected with the
use of the weapon when the gun "protected" me.  I'm totally ignoring the
psychic "costs" if I actually have to pull the trigger to defend myself.
Furthermore, I ignore the risk to others associated with having a loaded gun
on my person or in my house, which further tips the scale against guns.

This, admittedly simplistic, analysis suggests that carrying a gun makes
no economic sense for me.

> You stated in (.228) :

>> -- you might
>> want to reread the replies to this note to see how many ways violence
>> in the guise of self-defense is proposed as a solution to violence.
>
>             "violence in the guise of self-defense"  ???
>
>What specifically is your non-violent defensive solution to the violence 
>being inflicted on you?

First, I dispute that the amount of violence being inflicted on me is
such that carrying a weapon will minimize this violence.  Second, I
dispute the naive "eye for an eye" philosphy that is central to much
of the discussion here.  My "non-violent defensive solution" includes
jobs, health care, and education and equitable treatment for the
entire population, and an understanding that it may take generations
to change our society.

re: .237:

    RE: .232, If martyrdom is your bag Martin, more power to you, but the
    majority of the world prefer to live. If your belief is that you would
    rarther lose YOUR life, than take that of your attacker, then I can
    respect you for it, though I will definitely disagree. But tell me,
    when your attacker chooses another victim to kill, what has not
    defending your life accomplished?

I haven't set myself up as a martyr, but rather accept that my choice
increases some risks to myself and others, while decreasing other
risks to myself and others.

Also, in my list of people who were willing to die for their beliefs, I
forgot the millions of people who chose to swear "to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
domestic or foreign."  While few people who join the military consciously
understand that they have put the freedom of their country before their
own personal survival, that is one aspect of the decision they made.

Also, I again dispute that I run the degree of risk of injury/death implied
in the above quote, and disagree that increasing my ability to inflict
violence on an attacker will significantly decrease the likelihod
of it being inflicted on me.

Martin.

    <--(.242)
    
    Mike, there's a fair amount of anthropological evidence to suggest
    that, in fact, Jesus was *not* a "turn the other cheek" person and
    that his words have been twisted to suit secular ends.
    
    I'll supply a reference, if you like.
    
    						=maggie

    Martin, ask any rape victim if she'd trade $2300 to not 
    have been subjected to the ordeal. You earlier brought
    up the issue of values more important than life, yet you 
    are quick to dismiss values more important than money. 

    Dana (who believes dignity and self-determination are 
    priceless)

    Isn't there a biblical quote from Jesus that says something to the
    effect of "I bring not peace but a sword"?
    
    Dondi

    Martin, the soldier analogy has one BIG difference, though he (or she)
    died, he had the means to defend himself and shoot back. The soldier
    doesn't willingly walk on the battlefield and say "shoot me"! That is
    an unfortunate result of war.
    
    You say that you've jogged 12 years with no problems; perhaps you've
    been lucky. I've been attacked twice while in NY, the first time
    unarmed and the second time armed. I'll let you guess which time I
    didn't end up with a scratch (and the time I'm speaking of now, I was
    outnumbered 4 to 1!). Some how, while being taken to the hospital, the
    LAST thing on my mind was the financial aspects of a mugging. Since
    those incidents, I've only needed to draw a gun once (when a neighbor
    called me at midnight when someone was trying to break into her home),
    but I fully plan to have one ready when needed. I value my life and the
    safety of my family much more than that of an attacker.
    
    Eric

Re:  .240  (Martin's long reply opposing personal protection weapons)

>   This, admittedly simplistic, analysis suggests that carrying a gun makes
>   no economic sense for me.

After rereading your analysis I think I understand your point.  But you
have presented a very specific set of circumstances (jogging through
Boston Common and possibly not alert (?) to the need to suddenly draw a
gun, no special fear of large economic loss through injury, and an assump-
tion that enduring a mugging would not be terribly psychologically trauma-
tizing).  These may well be correct in your case, but other people's
situations could well be different (not as fleet, more likely to be at
home and alert to the need to draw a weapon, more likely to suffer psycho-
logical trauma from the experience, etc.)

I can't find anything in your reply that suggests banning the use of
such weapons would be useful.  Even if they are not useful in your case,
they might be useful to others.

>   My "non-violent defensive solution" includes jobs, health care, and
>   education and equitable treatment for the entire population, and an
>   understanding that it may take generations to change our society.

These sound like sensible goals.  But they won't remove the weapons from
from the hands of the thugs who roam the streets right now.  And if you
are killed by one of them you may not be around to see that future day
where the entire population, now educated and and healthy, chooses peace
over violence.

I'm not suggesting here that everyone should own a gun.  (I don't, and
have no plans to do so.)  But so far I haven't seen any evidence to suggest
that we would be better off if *no one* were allowed to own a gun.

						--Q

    U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT  (ISSUE MAY 8, 1989)
    
    U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT has a great article and cover story dedicated
    to this issue.  GUNS AMERICANS AND FIREARMS: THE ATTRACTION, THE
    DEBATE is a very well written, factual and eye opening document.
    
    I'd like to quote here (from page 28):
                     
    "QUESTION: Is there evidence that gun ownership deters crime?
    
    ANSWER:   Yes.  When Orlando, Fla., trained 3,000 women with handguns
    after a series of rapes, the rape total dropped 90 percent and
    aggravated assualt and burglary fell 25 percent.
    
    Kennesaw, Ga., required citizens to have guns, and burglaries fell
    an amazing 80 percent.  
    
    In a federal survey of 2,000 prisoners, 60 percent reported that
    they were more afraid of armed citizens than of the police."
    
    Please pick up a copy of the magazine, it contains the best information
    on guns within American society that I've read in a long time. 
    It may change your minds.
    
    Mary 
    

    >  In a federal survey of 2,000 prisoners, 60 percent reported that
    >  they were more afraid of armed citizens than of the police.
    
    Could it be that 2,000 prisoners know that police are better trained
    in firearm safety and use than armed citizens?  And that police
    are taught to ascertain that, in fact, arms are required before
    drawing their weapon -- who knows about armed citizens?  And that 
    police are -- generally -- less likely to shoot to kill when a shot 
    to wound or disarm would suffice than armed citizens?  And that 
    police are trained in non-aggressive methods of diffusing a tense 
    situation, and armed citizens aren't?
    
    I'm not a prisoner, but I'm more afraid of armed citizens than of
    the police, too.
              
    Karen
    

    RE:  .252 
    
    You have 1000 homes in a town, out of those 1000 fifty belong to
    Police officers.  What are the chances of a prowler picking one
    of the fifty to burgularize? 1 in 20. 
    
    Now, arm 200 of those homes with a firearm. What are the odds of
    a prowler picking a house that is protected by a firearm? 1 in 5
    excluding the police, 1 in 4 including the police residence.
    
    See why prisoners sre more affraid of armed citizens?  Police aren't
    always there to intervien, chances are you will be.
    
    -Kendall Brown 

    
    It is far more likely that 2000 prisoners know that they can scream
    "Police Brutality" if an officer even looks at them askance and
    walk free because of violations of their "Constitutional Rights".
          
    The police are also a thinly spread bunch of people paid to do a
    job at a very low wage, making them perhaps less than eager to risk
    death unnecesarily. They are the mercenary soldiers of the war on
    crime, and merceneraies are notorious for taking minimal risks.
    
    Citizens are under no such constraints - with their lives on the
    line, if they think about it at all they are unlikely to worry about
    a law case, and in direct and hot-blooded defense of their own lives
    are much more likely to effectively use the weaponry available to
    them., and as such are far more dangerous to the criminal than a
    tired cynical pension hungry policeman.
    
    As for the police being better trained, I would hazard a guess that
    a fair percentage of the writers here with the "I'm the NRA" logos
    in their personal names could easily outshoot most police officers
    both for accuracy and speed of deployment on the standard FBI type
    combat courses (which penalise shooting the "good guy" targets,
    so forcing you to learn target discrimination).
    
    /. Ian .\

    re .252 >police are less likely to shoot to kill
    
    This is a fallacy. Police and civilians alike shoot, not to kill,
    but to *stop*. That jazz of 'shoot him in the leg' doesn't exist
    outside of James Bond-ish novels. Police are taught to shoot at
    the center of mass of an opponent, or upper-middle torso. Under
    the stress of a life threatening scenario, even this is difficult.
    
    Dana

<    Q: Are there psychological consequences of owning a gun?
<
<	Many people don't come to grips with the fact that owning a
<    handgun means being prepared to live with the aftermath of killing
<    another human being.  ...


      This, to me, is one of the big issues of gun ownership. In the
      time I worked in the hospital I saw a lot of people die. Up close and
      personal. Aside from those who were in the war I've probably got
      more experience with death and dying than most of those advocating
      shootouts with criminals. I know what it feels like to be bathed
      in blood. 

      People don't die neat and easy in real life the way they do on TV.
      You won't be able to shoot them and just walk away and forget it.
      Have you ever seen someone with the back of their head shot off?
      Or someone with a punctured lung gasping for air? Or a shoulder
      that's been blown open by a bullet? I'm not even sure I could
      handle it if my dogs had to attack someone but at least I know it
      can't be turned on myself or a loved one.
      
      I have complete empathy with wanting to be the one that lives,
      it's just that so many who own guns do not know how or when to
      really use them. Most of the gun shot wounds and deaths I came in
      contact with were not from confrontations with criminals.

      I worry about constitutional rights, they are being eroded. I also
      worry about an untrained army of citizens carry weapons. In
      Colorado you must pass a test on gun handling to get a hunting
      license. Is it too much to ask that a person buying a handgun get
      registered and have to pass a test on using it? I don't even know
      if that is an option in any of the bills that are around on this
      but it seems a reasonable option to me. There must be some middle
      ground on this issue. liesl
      

    
    re .259
    
    OK so you've seen a lot of bloodshed. 
    
    Have you ever been shot? I have.
    
    Have you ever been in a gunfight? I have.
    
    Have you ever been threatened by a mugger with a gun? I have.
    
    ===
    
    Re police shooting at centre of mass (a few back) - Yes I know that.
    I should have just said 'shoot' not 'shoot to kill'. Only in movies
    do the good guys shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. However
    I was trained to act as if any time I pull the trigger I am trying
    to kill my opponent. It is also true of unarmed combat techniques
    incidentally. 
    

>      I have complete empathy with wanting to be the one that lives,
>      it's just that so many who own guns do not know how or when to
>      really use them.
    
    This is indeed a problem. This problem will never be solved by
    disallowing the private ownership of guns, though. I have no problem
    with showing proficiency with a gun before purchasing it.
    
>    Is it too much to ask that a person buying a handgun get
>      registered and have to pass a test on using it?
    
    Well, in a word, yes. Registering a gun makes it a simple matter for
    the government to confiscate them if and when they are so inclined.
    I have no problem with serial numbers for identification purposes. I do
    have a problem with providing the government with a list of gun owners
    and serial numbers. Again, I don't have a problem in showing a
    reasonable amount of proficiency using the gun.
         
    The Doctah

    Uh, she did say that she favored registering the [potential]
    *owner*, not the ownee.
    
    						Ann B.

    "GOAL"?

    
    GOAL = Gun Owners Action League ... I think
    
    /. Ian .\

    Resp. my comment in .244:
    
    There's been quite a lot of interest in the reference I mentioned! Much
    more than I would have ever expected, actually, and I hope that I won't
    be judged to have overstated the case because the "evidence" is largely
    inferential and circumstantial.  
    
    The reference in question (I really will bring it in!) is to a book by
    a former chairman of the Anthro department at Columbia whose name I
    persistently forget.  
    
    I won't attempt to replicate his argument here, but he draws a picture
    of what was going on at the time and makes what --to me at least--
    seems a very dispassionate and plausible case for Jesus, insofar as he
    is a unique historical individual, having been a fire-and-sword
    politico-religious leader very like other similar individuals who
    claimed to be (or more often had claims made about them) the promised
    Messiah. 
                               
    						=maggie

re: .240 - an economic argument against personal protection weapons

Martin,

My emotions ranged from amusement to sadness at your reply which attempted
to provide an economic argument against personal protection weapons.

The thought of doing an *economic* analysis of the issue honestly caused me
to laugh, since the economic loss from an attack is the least of one's
worries.  This is true regardless of how much $$ was actually lost in the
attack.

You used "a priori" assumptions in your Bayes strategy to arrive at your
conclusion.  You, as the investigator, assigned probabilities that were in
some way proportional to the "intensity of belief" you had in your various
hypotheses.   In general, Bayes' Theorem's scientific usefulness is in
telling us how our "a priori" probabilities we subjectively assigned will
be modified when we have the additional information after the event (in
this case, an attack) occurred.  I suggest interviewing someone who has
actually been attacked to see if their medical and economic expenses are
similar to what you predicted.  Then you could adjust your original
assumptions to "a posteriori" and the Bayes analysis would be complete.

It saddened me to realize that you don't seem to have the tiniest inkling
of the emotional and psychological trauma that results from a violent
attack against your person.  What price (expense of being attacked) are you
going to place on common emotional and psychological results of being
attacked - nightmares, insomnia, fear, anger, guilt, etc..etc.. ?  What
price (expense of being raped) are you going to place on the fear of having
contracted AIDS from a rapist who will not submit to an AIDS test... the
worry of not knowing, the continual blood tests, a positive result after X
years,  AIDS treatment, dying, and death.  Gee, it looks like this attack
turned into a homicide.  Don't forget to add the expense of the funeral.

                                   wasting my breath (fingertips?),
                                   nancy b.

>    Well, I do dare say that if my brother were still around, he'd argue
>    that *he'd* be better off if no one owned a gun.
    
    Sorry to hear about your personal tragedy.
    
>    Yes, but there's a lot of us non-elitists who want to ban guns for
>    everybody period -- no "but for ourselves".
    
    If it were even remotely possible, I'd think about it. It is not even
    remotely possible. If it were possible, it would also have to make a
    difference for me to support it. I don't  think it would.
    
    The fact is that guns exist and will never go away. We can bury our
    heads in the sand and simply makes guns illegal (which will exacerbate
    the situation) or we can try to deal with the problem by allowing
    everybody equal access to the means to defend oneself.
    
    I saw an interesting comparison yesterday. The statement was made that
    if we tried to punish all gay people for AIDS, there would be a huge
    backlash. But it seems that it's ok to punish all gun owners for the
    actions of an incredibly small minority.
    
    The Doctah

The quotes are from .274, but I am going off on a tangent and not
implying that .274's author believes in the ideas I'm attacking.

> I suggest interviewing someone who has
>actually been attacked to see if their medical and economic expenses are
>similar to what you predicted.  Then you could adjust your original
>assumptions to "a posteriori" and the Bayes analysis would be complete.

Having never been attacked, my "a posteriori" probability of attack is zero,
which does not suggest that carrying a gun will benefit me.

A friend was mugged last week.  She had just run the Boston Marathon
and was hobbling around with a stress fracture when some guy grabbed
her purse and ran away.  She chased him a few blocks before her leg
gave away.  She's on crutches now.  Her medical costs will be about $250,
covered by health insurance.  If she had a gun in her purse, it would
have just added to the number of guns in criminal hands.

>What price (expense of being attacked) are you
>going to place on common emotional and psychological results of being
>attacked - nightmares, insomnia, fear, anger, guilt, etc..etc..?

What price, etc, will you place on the continuing fear that your 5 year
old nephew will find the gun under your bed and kill someone playing
like on tv?  Don't forget, the better you lock your weapons against
accidental use, the less useful they become when your nightmare rapist
comes calling.  Also, you stil have to ask whether actually having a
gun in your possesion at the time of attack will help you -- if you are
suprised before you get the gun out, you might have it used against you.

> [What] price ... are you going to place on the fear of having
> contracted AIDS from a rapist who will not submit to an AIDS test... the
> worry of not knowing, the continual blood tests, a positive result after X
> years,  AIDS treatment, dying, and death.  Gee, it looks like this attack
> turned into a homicide.  Don't forget to add the expense of the funeral.

One thing that bothers me about this discussion is the assumption in
some notes that there is a rapist behind every bush and a housebreaker
on every block.  This, to put it bluntly, paranoid fantasy, has several
troubling aspects for us as a citizenry:

-- totally innocent black men are seen as threats.  Police stop black
   drivers in "white" suburbs because they don't belong there, even if
   they live there.  White women turn their their street-smart evil eye
   on any black man they don't recognize.  What do you think this does
   to these men's feelings of self-worth and sense of belonging to the
   total community.  In the long run, what does a presupposition of
   guilt tied to gender and skin-color do the the fabric of our society?

-- we, as a society, have lost much of our common civility.  If I jog
   alongside a woman I don't know, I now make a point of not speaking
   to her or looking at her -- and speeding up so I don't stay alongside
   her -- so I don't cause her any anxiety.  

-- people believe that they are safer if they carry their '45 when they
   go down to the convenience store for a pack of cigarretes.  They may
   well be.  But, am I (or any other citizen) safer because they are
   carrying?  To what extent will people engage in more risky behavior
   because the gun in their pocket gives them a feeling of invincibiltiy?

It's easy to be fascinated by the pornography of violence.  But, it's
too easy to be so fascinated by it that you lose your sense of proportion,
barricading yourself in your house and seeing everyone else as an enemy.
The presumption that a normal citizen *needs* a weapon for personal
protection seems bound up with fantasies of power, fear, and revenge.
It also plays into the hands of politicians with simplistic solutions
to difficult problems.

Martin.

    RE: .276: as far as children around, my son (now 8), was taught from a
    very early age that guns can be dangerous and that he shouldn't handle
    them without either my wife or myself around at the time. I have never
    made a big "mystery" about having firearms. If David wants to know what
    a "real" gun feels like, I'll let him hold one (unloaded of course and
    with the action opened) in my presence only. If you make a big thing of
    NEVER letting a child touch or see the gun, then curiosity will find
    it, unless its locked up. When they know what its like, that curiosity
    problem is much less. And when children that are not mine are around,
    the guns are locked up (normally, most are, but one handgun and a
    shotgun is accessible easily). When my son is a little older, I'll take
    him down to the range, and teach him how to shoot.
    
    As far as having a gun being a crime deterrent, I'm able to write this
    note because a .45 I was carrying probably saved me when I was attached
    by 4 thugs. They took off and I came out unscathed. In another
    incident, I needed to call the Nashua police at midnight and it took
    ***20 minutes*** to get a car there. I don't like those odds,
    especially if the safety of my family is in danger.
    
    Eric

re: .277:
>    Re:  if she had a gun in her purse - There are many ways of carrying
>    a firearm.  I personally opt not to carry one in my purse.

However, this was a non-violent crime and, since she herself was not
under attack (the thief was running away with her purse), the gun
would still not be useful in this incident (and, if she had indeed
shot him, she would be liable to assault charges as the force used was
inappropriate to the situation).

>     You never answered Nancy's question regarding the price of emotional,
>    and psychological effects of physical abuse, injury and the threat
>    of death.

Nor can I, except by noting that you must weigh the consequences of *all*
actions and decisions not to take action.  Considering only the risks
of not being armed does not consider the risks of having weapons.

>    mention of contacting AIDS if raped..

The risk of contacting AIDS in a single act of unprotected anal intercourse
with an infected partner has been estimated at 10%.  The risk in unprotected
vaginal intercourse has been estimated somewhat lower (0.1%?).  Note,
however, that many rapes do not result in either penetration or ejaculation.
Also, whether a person contacts AIDS as a result of intercourse with an
infected person depends, in part, on the state of that person's immune system.
[The numbers are as I remember them from an article in the New Scientist of
a year or so ago.  You can get better information from one of the AIDS
hotlines.  The differences in likelihood of anal vs. vaginal intercourse
depends in part on the greater fragility of the lower bowel and, possibly,
on coorelation between frequency of unprotected anal intercourse and
already impared immune systems.]

>    Also, as far as criminals being
>    available just about anywhere in our everyday life, I suggest you
>    read your local newspaper.

The newspaper seldom reports on lack of crime.  Actually, a recent Boston
Globe noted that increased police presence in Boston Common has resulted
in a significant lowering of the crime rate in the past year.

>    Wellesley College
>    women have been raped while jogging in NYC.. One still remains in
>    a Coma. 

There is a very good article (if good is the right word) on rape from
the perspective of the victim in a recent New York Road Running News.
The author, editor of that magazine, discusses what happened when
she was raped while jogging a few years ago.  (Mail to me if you want
a xerox.)  Again, women have been raped while jogging, and women have
jogged without being raped.  Will carrying a gun make jogging safer,
or more pleasant?
    
>    Besides, I (female minority) noted earlier that
>    I and my daughter, were harassed by an armed man, in which the police
>    really wanted to deny that this could lead to physical harm to me
>    or my child.
 
Sounds like a good argument for disarmament.  Would you have been safer
with a gun?  *Did* the incident lead to physical harm to you or your
child?
   
>    Re:  Your closing remarks about fear, how about personal experience
>    being considered as rational for being armed?
    
That's certainly a reasonable rational.  However, again, it is not
necessarily the case that being armed makes you *actually* safer and,
as I have noted, it makes *all* of us slightly less safe.

Martin.

re: .276

> One thing that bothers me about this discussion is the assumption in
> some notes that there is a rapist behind every bush and a housebreaker
> on every block.  This, to put it bluntly, paranoid fantasy, has several
                   ^^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
                    rape is a paranoid *fantasy* 

                               ???

This comment {in addition to making my blood boil} enlightened me as to 
why you do not seem to comprehend the need for women to be able to 
successfully defend themselves.  Why should we defend ourselves against
something we really want to begin with?   

Yea, that's the ticket. 

The following letter was sent to a business in Newton, MA that makes
special purses and briefcases for people who carry handguns.  These
bags are designed for quick (1-2 second) access, concealment (you can
pay for your groceries without anyone knowing you are carrying), and
protection against losing your handgun in the event your bag is snatched
(the strap is connected to the trigger guard and stock; a jerk on your
bag would leave you holding the gun and the robber geting your purse.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guardian Leather, Inc.
Robert K. Smith, President
P.O. Box 277
Newton Centre, MA  02159

Dear Mr. Smith,

As Mr. XXXXX  told you I am a nurse working on personal injury cases
part time for him.  He apparently told you of my incident leaving the
hospital one evening a few weeks ago.

I work the three to midnight shift, and the hospital I am employed with 
is in the downtown XXXXXX area, with the neighborhood being questionable.  
Because of the hours I work and some of the incidents which have occurred
in this fine city I decided to carry a handgun a year or so ago; a few
weeks after a friend was stabbed coming into the hospital for night duty.

Upon leaving the hospital a little later than usual, I was walking to
the parking garage with another nurse.  Upon seeing a man approaching us 
which looked a little questionable, I immediately got ready to pull my
gun if necessary.  As he passed us he grabbed her arm and asked which one of
us wanted to come with him.  He pulled her toward him, and I pulled my gun
very easily from my purse and replied I don't believe either one of us is
coming with you.  He saw the gun and fled before the other nurse knew what
happened.  I quickly put the gun back into the holster.  She turned and asked
what I had done and I replied I showed him tear gas. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX...   
                                               I am very cautious so that no
one knows I have a gun.  Your purse makes that very easy because it certainly
does not appear any different than many other purses which can be purchased
in the stores.  I also found what a difference it makes when you don't have
to go digging to find something when your frightened and in a hurry to react.

I really do like your purses, I presently have a burgundy one and would 
enjoy a navy blue one.

                                                 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx

< Note 210.281 by SYSENG::BITTLE "Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSEE" >
                           -< rape as a *fantasy*? >-
re: .281:

>re: .276

>> One thing that bothers me about this discussion is the assumption in
>> some notes that there is a rapist behind every bush and a housebreaker
>> on every block.  This, to put it bluntly, paranoid fantasy, has several
>                   ^^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>                    rape is a paranoid *fantasy* 

The assumption that there is a rapist behind every bush is a paranoid
fantasy.

If you believe that my writing is unclear, please contact me offline.

Martin.

RE. Note 210.276                     
BOLT::MINOW "Who will can the anchovies?"            

>The presumption that a normal citizen *needs* a weapon for personal
>protection seems bound up with fantasies of power, fear, and revenge.
>It also plays into the hands of politicians with simplistic solutions
>to difficult problems.

>Martin.

The presumption that anyone but me is capable of determining *my*
needs regarding self-defense is bound up in fear, etc...
Most of the 'pro-gunners' aren't presuming the above. Rather, we
presume that everybody is entitled to make their own choice in
the matter. If you're happy unarmed, or with a can of Mace, or
a Doberman, well and good. If someone else feels safer with a
38, that's their business. Not yours or mine. Damn sure not Ted
Kennedys'.

(Ted is a classic example of the aforementioned elitist gun-control
advocate - forever pushing for tighter controls and outright bans.
Then he's simply *baffled* when his two bodyguards are stopped for
carrying machine guns.)

Dana

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    This is clearly a heated issue; do we need to let it cool down for
    24 hours?
    
    						=maggie

    Martin-
    
    The idea that "there is a rapist behind every bush" is not the issue.
    The idea is that there are SOME rapists, and that there is a
    probability that someone may be attacked by them is the issue. The fact
    that the law cannot protect us from assault is reason enough to accept
    the responsibility for our own personal protection. To do otherwise, in
    my opinion, is foolish and unrealistic. 
    
    Your quaint Bayes analysis neglected one very significant cost: that of
    a human life. Take the apparent serial killer in southeastern Mass for
    example. He abducts his victims, assaults them sexually, and then kills
    them- dumping their bodies along sections of highway where they are
    easily identified as his victims. I guess that none of his victims
    would have rather had a gun, eh?
    
    Now I know you are going to jump all over me, saying that the
    probability of being attacked by a serial killer is remote, and I'll
    agree with that. But I wouldn't want my wife or sister or mother living
    in the area of New Bedford where he seems to find his victims,
    especially with no means of resistance.
    
    The Doctah

    Ok, my turn.  I have looked throught his topic, and needless to say, I
    haven't been happy.  Martin, you're fighting a loosing battle!  The
    things you have come up with have both made my blood boil and have made
    me laugh.  I think that the one that really made my blood boil was the
    one about the "fantasy about a rpaist or a burgler behind every bush."
    
    clearly, there is not a rapaist behind every bush.  But, there are some
    behind some bushes!!  We just don't know which ones!!  Having a gun is
    basically the citizen's right to protect themselves from that attacker
    that is behind one of those bushes.  I was in an incident a few years
    ago that frightened me enough to buy a gun and to take a self defense
    course.
    
    Let me explain.  I was studying late in the library at college.  When I
    went out to the car, it was dark outside.  Unfortunately, I hadn't
    locked my car.  I got into my car and started driving down the highway. 
    An 18 wheeler came up along side of me and all of the sudden tried to
    run me off of the road.  He kept doing it, so I decided to get off at
    the next exit.  I needed gas, so I stopped at the nearest gas station. 
    As my gas was pumping, the gas station attendent asked me to step out
    of the car.  I figured that there was something wrong with the car, so
    I got out.  He asked me to step away from the car.  Just as I did, a
    police cruiser pulled into the station and I heard my car door open.  I
    looked around and saw a man running out of the back seat of my car. 
    The police got him right away, but couldn't really book him for
    anything, because he hadn't done anything yet.  The only thing they
    charged him for was the knife that he had (a quite large one I might
    add!)  Now, I don't know what I would have done if I had a gun with me, 
    but I wouldn't have been completely defenseless!  I probably would have 
    pulled the gun on him as soon as he attacked me.  I really don't know,
    because I don't know what he would have done to me.  
    
    The thing that made me laugh was your values that you put on being
    attacked.  That man in my back seat could very easily have killed me.
    What kind of value do you put on that?  Even if he didn't kill me, he
    could very easily have permanantly injured me or scarred me!  What kind
    of value does that have?  let alone any emotional strain injury it put
    on me!
    
    Let's face it, if guns were outlawed, that is basically taking away the
    citizen's right to protect themselves.  If we weren't allowed to have
    guns, then we would be at the complete mercy of any attacker.  Now
    you really don't think that if guns were outlawed that the attacker
    wouldn't have one.  Come on, be real!  They would always find a way of
    getting a gun.  Look at it this way.  Drugs are outlawed, but look at
    all of the drugs that are on the streets.  Do you honestly think it
    would be any different if guns were outlawed?  We'd be at the mercy of
    any attacker.  You not being attacked in 12 years is probably partially
    because you are a man but mostly because you have been extremely lucky. 
    Let's face it, a woman is more apt to be attacked than a man.  You have
    also been extremely lucky.
    
    Holly
    
    

    While there is not a rapist behind every bush or tree, not all
    of us have the luck to live in as crime free an area as others.
    For example, the chances of my wife seeing at least one individual
    that she knows for a fact has served time for rape in a day is
    about 50%. Higher if she goes outside. A convicted rapist runs
    a business with in sight of my living room window. There are others
    who visit his work site regularly. Now perhaps he is no longer 'into'
    that sort of thing and I admit that he has always been friendly
    to me. But somehow I feel a little better knowing that when I
    go out of town there is a gun available for my wife to defend
    herself.

    I don't understand how my not having a gun makes people safer
    unless of course you mean rapists, killers, and the like. But
    then again I don't see that society benefits from them having
    their jobs made easier and safer.

    Shooting is, BTW, a lot safer sport than say football or running.
    More amateur football players die each year as a result of game 
    injury than target shooters have died as a result of gun injury
    during a supervised target match in the last 50 years. And I don't
    know a serious runner who hasn't had a running injury or a target
    shooter who has had a gun injury. Incidental evidence perhaps but
    you'll never convince me that running is safer than shooting.

    			Alfred

    re: .287   Holly,
    
    You have my sympathy -- that is certainly one of the most frightening
    experiences a person could have!  I think I'd still be having
    nightmares!  If I experienced that, I *might* decide to buy a gun
    and learn to use it.  (I doubt it, but I might!) 
    
    Nevertheless, if you had that guy in your back seat for that long, it
    is clear that he could have killed you -- gun or no gun -- before you
    ever realized he was there!
    
    We should all learn from your experience to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER
    get in a car without looking in the back seat first!
    
    Nancy

The following are excerpts from a review about the book "Armed & Female", 
written by Paxton Quigley, published by E.P. Dutton, which supposedly will 
be on the book-store shelves in early May.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     In the preface to Armed & Female, Paxton Quigley describes her 
transition from founding member of the first anti-gun political action
group (National Committee for Handgun Control) to outspoken advocate
of women defending themselves with firearms.

     During the process, Paxton became aware of a change in other
women's attitudes, especially concerning violence against them.  She
writes, "If this trend that I have uncovered of gun ownership among
women continues and becomes an actual movement, there seems to be every 
indication, as you will read in this book, that rape and other assaults
against women could be turned around and decline in number."

     Upon that bold premise, Paxton Quigley builds argument after argument
for gun ownership, using simple logic and documented fact.  As the title
indicates, she focuses on a woman's point of view.  

     "If you are over the age of 12, then be prepared to be criminally
assaulted some time in your life.  If you are about 30 years old now, 
there's a 50/50 chance of your being raped, robbed, or attacked."

     The book begins by detailing the experiences of a number of female
victims, whose stories lead into a discussion of criminal behavior.  The 
statistics are all here, and the picture is frightening, but accurate.  
Paxton's profile of repeat felons is middle class America's worse nightmare:
.
.
.
     Paxton goes on to dispel many of the myths promoted to women concerning
defense by martial arts, Mace, stun guns, and rape whistles.  She discusses
the effects of rape on the lives of women and their families and explores 
the connection of rape by released prison inmates to the likelihood of
future victims' being exposed to the AIDS virus.

    It is on the subject of Second Amendment rights and gun control that
Paxton makes her most eloquent arguments.  She presents both sides, and
summarily exposes the liberal stance for what it is...
. 
.
.
    But that is only the first half of the book.  The remainder is a practical
guide to owning and using guns for self-defense.  The information is clear
and detailed, covering legal aspects of lethal force, children and safety,
and professional advice from experts.
.
.
.
... In short, Paxton Quigley has created the textbook of realistic self-
defense for women.  

    Armed & Female is one of those books you can't put down.  Though it 
will often give rise to a sense of outrage and at times may move you to
tears, this book will leave you filled with conviction and the comforting
knowledge that you are not alone.

The release of this book will focus America's attention on the subject
of women and self-defense.  Armed & Female, published by E.P. Dutton, will
be on the shelves of book-stores in early May.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was surprised and confused by a few of the statements made in the book
review in the previous reply...

>     In the preface to Armed & Female, Paxton Quigley describes her 
> transition from founding member of the first anti-gun political action
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^ 
> group (National Committee for Handgun Control) to outspoken advocate
> of women defending themselves with firearms.      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

???  I am VERY curious as to why she did a 180 on the issue.  
There was nothing in the book review to indicate she or her family had 
been violently assaulted or raped between the time she founded the anti-
gun group and when she became an "outspoken advocate of women defending
themselves with firearms."  I am skeptical that this did not occur.  

Speaking from experience, it took a very violent event for me to change
my mind on the issue.   My position was moderately anti-gun;  I didn't
agree that citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but I definitely
didn't want to be involved with guns in any way.  I didn't want to be
associated with the stereotypical wahoo who is out to shoot Bambi.  
Shooting was something that ex-soldiers liked to do with each other and
those merciless hunters...   But then again, it wasn't until I really
started reading the pros and cons of the gun-control issue that I 
realized how important it is to fight for this right we are quickly losing.
Maybe Paxton Quigley has arrived at the same conclusion without having
to go through a violent experience.  That would be admirable...but I
still doubt it.         

>     "If you are over the age of 12, then be prepared to be criminally
> assaulted some time in your life.  If you are about 30 years old now, 
> there's a 50/50 chance of your being raped, robbed, or attacked."

I am interested in seeing where these stats were obtained.

>Paxton's profile of repeat felons is middle class America's worse nightmare:
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Any speculations as to why she specifically states the "middle class" here
in exclusion of the lower class and upper class?  Well, OK,  the Kennedy's
can afford to hire bodyguards with machine guns for their protection.  What
about the poor?  I would think studies might show that they are at very high
risk of being confronted with life-threatening situations where they live.


>     Paxton goes on to dispel many of the myths promoted to women concerning
> defense by martial arts, Mace, stun guns, and rape whistles.  She discusses

I second this.  I had taken two very good self-defense classes that proved
ineffective when I needed it.  In addition, I had/have a great deal of upper 
body strength from years of competitive swimming, basketball, and tossing
a football around with older brother (Mr. Wide Receiver) while growing up 
in Florida.  OK, Martin, you bragged about your running -  yesterday (Sunday)
I swam 242 laps in the American Heart Association 1989 Swimathon at Waltham 
in 1 hour and 45 minutes doing mostly freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke,
and a little butterfly.    
Anyway, I am convinced that testosterone can overpower estrogen in a large
percentage of all violent encounters, and therefore I do not want to rely
on methods which have already been proven ineffective for me.  I have a
very low opinion of Mace and knives as methods of self-defense from what
I've read since...
What are stun guns and rape whistles?

> She discusses
> the effects of rape on the lives of women and their families and explores 
> the connection of rape by released prison inmates to the likelihood of
> future victims' being exposed to the AIDS virus.

Great.  This is one area where I am partially sympathetic to the criminal.
It is not fair that being sent to jail for say 5 years for a non-violent
crime really translates into a death sentence because they are very likely 
to leave testing positive for HIV.  
Is anything done in prisons to prevent forced sexual relations between
those who are HIV-positive and those who aren't?  
And almost everyone gets out sooner or later, right?  
Given these facts, is it paranoid or justified for a rape victim to get 
bi-annual aids tests?

Finally, has anyone seen Armed & Female on bookstore shelves yet?

						nancy b.

The book review was found in the April edition of a new magazine called : 

                Women & Guns
                201 Paradise Point
                Hot Springs, AR  71913
                (501)767-3160               ($18 for 1 year)

>I didn't want to be
>associated with the stereotypical wahoo who is out to shoot Bambi. 
    
    The wahoo is the largest member of the mackerel family. Being a fish,
    it has tremendous difficulty in pulling the trigger on conventional
    firearms, exceeded only by it's inability to remain in the woods long
    enough to even sight a potential "Bambi." Thus I question your use of
    metaphors. :-) I believe that the word you are searching for is
    "Yahoo" of Gulliver's Travels fame. N'est-ce pas?
    
    The Doctah
    

    
    I was told 2+ years ago that Tazers and other electronic stun devices
    are already illegal in Massachusetts. An attempt to make them illegal
    in New Hampshire failed.
    
    /. Ian .\

    There are more then just aesthetic differences between the LadySmith
    and other revolvers.  The grips have been reduced to accomodate
    smaller hands, the trigger pull has been shortened and smoothed.
    
      The choice of whether or not you choose a to carry a gun is nobodys
    buisness but your own.  Instead of trying to regulate law abidding
    individuals, we should concentrate on preventing known criminals
    from becoming repeat offenders.  We need more jails and tougher judges 
    rather then more laws.  The laws on the books today should be enforced
    before we institute new ones.                                                       
    
    Jeff

    
    Massachusetts, 1979: I was walking from the Burlington Holiday Inn
    (now a Day's Inn I believe) to the Bedford Education facility (a
    couple of miles), minding my own business, and enjoying the sunshine,
    when a couple of Massachusetts finest jumped out of a patrol car
    with guns drawn and 'arrested' me, apparently for vagrancy for daring
    to perambulate in a public place. After twenty minutes sitting
    handcuffed in the back of their car whilst they did a computer check
    they released me without a word of apology (fortunately I had a
    NATO ID card on me, so they had something to go on).
    
    Hew Hampshire 1988: I was walking in Nashua one night when a police
    car drew up along side me and the driver quietly pointed out that
    they had had a number of mugging incidents in the area and was I
    carrying protection, or did I need their assistance: no I didn't
    need their assistance, and yes I was carrying. After showing them
    my permit they asked *what* I was carrying. When I told them they
    expressed some concern about it *only* being a 9mm. However they left 
    happilly enough when the driver saw my gun club membership and NRA
    cards in my ID wallet...
    
    Like they say, gun control is every shot in the 10 ring in a match
    shoot... But what a difference between the Peoples' Republic of
    Massachusetts and the Land of the Free in New Hampshire.
    
    /. Ian .\

    If some nut wants to kill a bunch of people he can do it with a
    car, bombs, fire, etc..  I believe in increasing/enforcing the penalties on
    those who illegally own or use guns, but for god's sake don't take
    away more rights from the law-abiding (majority of) people.  There
    is always this attempt to take away rights instead of punishing
    the offenders.  I guess it is the easy way out, to make it look
    like something is being done.  But I don't understand the logic.
    If someone doesn't respect the existing laws, why are they going
    to give a damn about new ones?
    	Linda

	I had a chat with one of the folks in this topic the other day, and I
said "I don't think you should ban all guns, but who goes target shooting with
an assault rifle?"  The response I got was "How do you define an assault rifle?"

	Well, I admit that I don't know enough about guns technically to give a
definition of "assault rifle", but I look at it this way:

	o Would anyone keep any form of rifle as their "household protection
	  of life and property" weapon?  Rifles are "long distance" weapons.
	  Handguns seem to more in line for "personal protection" use.

	o Do you hunt, or target shoot with a weapon capable of cutting a
	  a human being in half in a stream of bullets?  Is that "sporting"?

	o It's sort of like the definition of pornography - I can't define it,
	  but I know it when I see it.

	o Yes, there are always going to be people who want to own Uzis.  How
	  many people *need* to own machine guns?

	o Does the fact that your local K-Mart sells guns bother you?

	o Those of you in favor of stiffer penalties for illegal use of
	  guns - are you willing to have a prison in your town?  Are you
	  willing to vote to reinstate the death penalty?  Are you willing
	  to bear the cost?  Are you willing to put a relative in jail 
	  because they got drunk one night and threatened someone with a
	  gun?


	These aren't questions that require an answer in this or any other
forum.  They're questions you should ask yourself, no matter what side of
the issue you're on.  I don't think there's an easy answer to this one.
The simple answers - "Ban all guns" and "Let anyone buy anything they want"
are patently unrealistic.  There may not be a "one true answer", and if
there is, I certainly don't have it.

	Think about it.

						--Doug

    Well...uh...I target shoot with two different "assault rifles".
    At paper and cans that is.  Some what proficiently too.  Do I need
    a twenty round mag to do it?  Sometimes.  Sometimes I put twenty
    cans up and have someone time me to see how long it takes to shoot
    them down...kind of like shooting baskets or something.  Sometimes
    I only put five rounds in it and shoot at 10X rings.  It's kind
    of like owning a Porche,  it'll do a 180mph but you don't do it.
    
    People have to stop stereotyping firearms owners.  They are like
    anybody else that participates in a sport.  Some of us like to own
    the best equipment.  I don't make people justify their owning a
    high performance car to me.  Or why do you need a boat that goes
    that fast, or why those kinda skis or........  It is most unfortunate
    that certain individuals choose my sporting equipment to do their
    dirty deeds.  I see high speed chases between law breakers and the
    police, maybe they should do away with sports cars that go faster
    then Police cars.
    
    There are two types of people, responsible and irresponsible.  Don't
    throw me into a certain irresponsible catagory because of an object
    that I own.  I scuba dive too, but I'm not one of those 
    FISH KILLERS :-)

    No flames here.....just my way of seeing things.
    
    -Kendall Brown    

    Re.303
      Ill try to answer some of your questions.
    
    "Would anyone keep a rifle for home protections?......"
    
    People that are not wealthy may be able to afford only one firearm.
    If I could afford only _one_ gun it would be a long gun rather then
    a handgun.  However, this is besides the point, as most of your anti
    organisations are anti-handgun.  ie Handgun Control International,
    National Committe to Ban Handguns.  
                           
    
    "Do you hunt or shoot with a weapon capable of cutting a human in
    half with a stream of bullets." 
    
    No, do you drive a car that is capable of doing 250mph?  None of 
    the firearms they are trying to ban can "cut a human in half with ]
    a stream of bullets"  Your attempting to describe a full auto weapon, 
    not a semi-auto.  
    
                  
    How many people *need* to own machine guns?    
    
    Who knows, how many folks need a car that can go faster then 65mph?
    More people are killed in auto accidents each day, then have been
    killed in the past year with assault rifles.
                                                
    
    Does the fact that your local K-Mart sells guns bother you?
    
    No, should it?                                            
    
    
    Am I willing to have a prison in my backyard?     Yes
                                            
    Are you willing to reinstate the death penalty?   Wish they would!
    
    Are you willing to put a relative in jail if they threaten someone
    with a gun?    You bet!

How do you define an assault weapon?  

I would define an assault weapon as an instrument used to unlawfully 
injure another...Examples of assault weapons include guns, knives, 
lead pipes, cars, water, baseball bats, rope, and potentially parts
of your body...  

Senator Kennedy has killed more people with his assault weapon (his car) 
than I have with mine.

The Department of Defense's definition of an "Assault Rifle" is a select
fire rifle capable of firing in full automatic mode or semi-automatic mode
at the option of the shooter.  Full automatic (machine gun) pulling and
holding the trigger will cause the gun to fire continuously until the
trigger is released or the supply of ammunition is exhausted.   With a
semi-automatic, the trigger must be pulled and released for each shot
that is fired.


>	o Would anyone keep any form of rifle as their "household protection
>	  of life and property" weapon?  Rifles are "long distance" weapons.
>	  Handguns seem to more in line for "personal protection" use.

Yes.  People keep rifles in their home for home protection and sport use.
Rifles are more accurate which is beneficial under stressful
conditions. Of course, handguns are more "in line" for personal protection 
use because a rifle can't be easily concealed.  I'm not sure if this is 
what you're implying, but a rifle is not necessarily more powerful or 
deadly than a handgun.  .

>	o Do you hunt, or target shoot with a weapon capable of cutting a
>	  a human being in half in a stream of bullets?  Is that "sporting"?

A machine gun would be able to "cut a human being in half in a stream of
bullets."  You aren't aware that machine guns are impossible to legally
obtain unless you are *federally* licensed.  We are able to obtain firearms
where 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet, not a "stream (or "spray") of bullets".  
No, shooting another human is not "sporting".  
You meant that as a joke, right? ;-)

>	o Yes, there are always going to be people who want to own Uzis.  How
>	  many people *need* to own machine guns?

All Uzis are not machine guns (were you implying that)?  Also, ALL legis-
lation currently under consideration has nothing to do with machine guns
or an assault rifle as defined by the Department of Defense (see above).
Dukakis is trying to define semi-automatic rifles as an "assault rifle". 
Many semi-autos look like the military version, but do not function in
the same manner.

>	o Does the fact that your local K-Mart sells guns bother you?

No, why should it?  K-Mart is licensed to sell like any gun dealer.
They also sell a variety of other sporting goods.  Not to imply that 
all who shop at K-Mart are poor, but the those with less money have 
every right and need to protect themselves as everyone else.

>	o Those of you in favor of stiffer penalties for illegal use of
>	  guns - are you willing to have a prison in your town?  

YES.  I would rather have a prison in my backyard than criminals loose
on my streets.  I have heard from people who live in Gardner and Shirley
where there are prisons, they often forget the prisons are even there.

>  Are you willing to vote to reinstate the death penalty?  

YES, under certain conditions (type of crime convicted for, irreputable
evidence, etc...).  

> Are you willing to bear the cost?  

For the death penalty or extra prisons?  When my father visited here
from Florida, the first thing he noticed was that police officers in 
this state do the same type of construction traffic assistance work 
that selected CONVICTS do in Florida.  No wonder it costs $30-40K 
per year per prisoner in MA.  Also, convicted drunk drivers do road work
and clean the highways in Florida, as opposed to state employees.

>Are you willing to put a relative in jail because they got drunk one 
night and threatened someone with a gun?

Absolutely.  Anyone using a firearm in a non-justified  manner, drunk 
or otherwise, should be punished.

> I don't think there's an easy answer to this one.

You are correct.  Carrying a firearm for the purpose of personal protection
is not an easy answer, it is an enormous responsibility.

							 nancy b.

>         <<< Note 210.303 by WAYLAY::GORDON "It's all foma to me..." >>>
>                              -< Perspective... >-

>	I had a chat with one of the folks in this topic the other day, and I
>said "I don't think you should ban all guns, but who goes target shooting with
>an assault rifle?"  The response I got was "How do you define an assault rifle?"

Among others the Massachusetts high-power rifle team, *ALL* Olympic shooters
and hopeful olympic shooters. anyone who participates in the Federally 
sponcered Director of Civilian Marksmanship matches. All of the above require
"current service rifles" such as the AR15 or FN-FAL M1A etc. All of these are
being classed as Assault rifles.


>	Well, I admit that I don't know enough about guns technically to give a
>definition of "assault rifle", but I look at it this way:

That is what we are fighting. people who do not know what they are talking 
about are trying to determine our actions/needs/requirements/rights/etc.
We can supply you reference books published by sources that no one would
question, that would educate you.

>	o Would anyone keep any form of rifle as their "household protection
>	  of life and property" weapon?  Rifles are "long distance" weapons.
>	  Handguns seem to more in line for "personal protection" use.

Many reasons, physical, financial, or whatever. What difference does it make
as long as it is used in a manner which doesn't endanger innocents. and if
it is used improperly then punish the Sh*t out of the offender. but otherwise
it is no ones concern.


>	o Do you hunt, or target shoot with a weapon capable of cutting a
>	  a human being in half in a stream of bullets?  Is that "sporting"?

    There are dozens of laws already covering what may or may not be *used*
in various types of hunting, some carry stiff penalties. banning a type of
gun will cause no more or less compliance with those existing laws.
Also your lack of knowledge is showing again or you, as so many others are 
a victim of the lies and deceipt of the media. A stream of bullets is not
possible with any of the rifles under discussion. Assault rifles (if they
exist) are capable of one-shot-per-trigger-pull-no-more! Thety are
*NOT* machine guns, though the press would show pictures of machine-guns and
voice-over about semi-auto's it is not true.

>	o It's sort of like the definition of pornography - I can't define it,
>	  but I know it when I see it.
      
What I consider obscene might be normal to you and vise-versa that is not an
argument but a rat-hole. I choose not to answer.


>	o Yes, there are always going to be people who want to own Uzis.  How
>	  many people *need* to own machine guns?

 AGAIN MACHINE GUNS are already regulated/taxed/legislated etc. the TV/press
has mislead you and lied.
However *NEED* should never be used to determine property rights.
You don't need a $1500 ROLEX a $25 timex works just as well.
A porsche VS yugo etc. 


>	o Does the fact that your local K-Mart sells guns bother you?

    What bothers me is that so few gun stores are around that it is very 
difficult for new shooters to get good information/accurate info.
K-mart sells them like paper-towels, they know nothing about the product,
I would rather see more stores devoted to guns and hunting. 
DO NOT CONSTRUE THE ABOVE TO MEAN IN ANY WAY THAT I DENY K-MART THE RIGHT
TO SELL THEM.

>	o Those of you in favor of stiffer penalties for illegal use of
>	  guns - are you willing to have a prison in your town?  Are you

          Already have one I voted to allow it to expand at town meeting.

>	  willing to vote to reinstate the death penalty?  Are you willing

      I'd pull the switch if that's what it takes.

>	  to bear the cost?  Are you willing to put a relative in jail 
         Costs? what are you and I paying for the willie Hortons and
other multiply-repeating offenders to be on the street? in terms of
increased insurance costs and increased police costs and companies hiring
security guards and therefore raising the cost of their product/service to 
you.

>	  because they got drunk one night and threatened someone with a
>	  gun?

You bet! ANYONE who breaks the law must pay the consequences.

A nation of LAW not MEN.(or to modernize, People)

Plea bargaining must go. Criminals must learn there are consequences
for their acts. They chose a particular life-style, no one forced them
into it. 
Amos "Take Back America"

RE:    < Note 210.303 by WAYLAY::GORDON "It's all foma to me..." >

	o Would anyone keep any form of rifle as their "household protection
	  of life and property" weapon?  Rifles are "long distance" weapons.
	  Handguns seem to more in line for "personal protection" use.
    
    My husband's household protection firearm is a handgun.
    
    Mine is an Ithaca 12-gauge pump.  Why?  Well, first of all, anyone who
    knows what a gun is will run at the sound of the action being worked,
    before the first shot is fired.  And if they don't, then the shotgun
    doesn't even have to be aimed.  All I need to do is point it in the
    general direction of the intruder and he's gone.  Messy but effective.
    When I'm at home alone, "effective" is a desirable goal. 

	o Do you hunt, or target shoot with a weapon capable of cutting a
	  a human being in half in a stream of bullets?  Is that "sporting"?

    As others have replied, that sort of weapon is already illegal.
    
    Have I *always* wanted to try shooting an automatic weapon?  You
    bet!  Will I ever get to?  Probably not.

	o It's sort of like the definition of pornography - I can't define it,
	  but I know it when I see it.
    
    You know *your* definition of it when you see it.  You don't know
    *mine*.

	o Yes, there are always going to be people who want to own Uzis.  How
	  many people *need* to own machine guns?
    
    Well, need has nothing to do with whether they should own an Uzi
    or anything else for that matter.  But for the record, machine guns
    are already illegal.

	o Does the fact that your local K-Mart sells guns bother you?
    
    Not in the least.  I've never bought a gun from them, but I purchase
    shotgun shells there regularly.

	o Those of you in favor of stiffer penalties for illegal use of
	  guns - are you willing to have a prison in your town?  
    
    Absolutely.
    
        o Are you willing to vote to reinstate the death penalty? 
    
    When was it abolished?  I live in Texas and it's alive and well
    here.  However, I would certainly oppose doing away with it.
    
        o Are you willing to bear the cost?
    
    Absolutely.
    
        o Are you willing to put a relative in jail because they got drunk
          one night and threatened someone with a gun? 
    
    Hope I don't have to, but would certainly be willing if the need
    arose.

    							Pat

    RE: .308:
    
   > Let's focus a little bit on Colt's AR15 and M16 rifles.  The M16
   > is a machinegun (hence the "M") 
    
    Asd a nit, but to clarify a point to those who are not familiar with
    weapon nomenclature, the "M" in M16 does not stand for machine gun
    (since the Garrand semi-auto WWII rifle was an M1-Garrand and the .45
    pistol is the M1911, and even the bolt action WWI rifle was the M1093
    Springfield). I believe that the M only indicates a small arms weapon.
    
    Eric
    

    to clarify .309
    
    Machine guns are not illegal!
    
    They are subject to very stringent rules. You must be photographed and
    fingerprinted and have a thorough background check performed by the
    FBI. The gun itself is registered as well. You must also pay a $200
    transfer fee to the government to pay for your "right to bear arms."
    (Well, ostensibly it's used for the background check) This $200 fee is
    above and beyond the cost of the gun, which generally runs around $2K.
    
    The total number of legal machine guns in the country in 1986 will be
    the total number of legal machine guns forever- no new machine guns may
    be added to the current population (unless the gun control  act of 1986
    is repealed.)
    
    The Doctah

	Well, I swore to myself that .303 was going to be my only reply.  Every
one of you who answered all my "questions" missed my point entirely.

	I prefaced my whole argument by stating my background knowledge level.
At this point in time, I'm not asking to be educated.  I didn't ask anyone to
answer any of the questions.  I don't think the questions are "answerable" to
anyone but yourself.  Some of them contain misleading terminology (as the
pro-faction was so quick to point out), but then my experience with guns is
limited to firing a .38 Police special loaded with blanks less than a dozen
times in my life.

	I'm pretty firmly middle ground on this topic.  I see no need to ban
all guns, nor do I see a need to let people buy whatever they want.  The
questions were designed to make those of you sitting more towards one of the
extremes see where a mind in the "middle ground" comes from.  I'm far from
an uneducated bozo and were I to believe it in my best interest to learn
more on the topic, I could find plenty of folks in this very topic who
could provide me with lots of fascinating information supporting both sides
of the argument.

	I'm not arguing against "specialized equipment" either.  Suppose I
really am competing in a world-class target shooting event.  Why shouldn't
my specialized equipment require a higher level of regulation?  Racing cars
aren't usually "street legal".

	Incidently, those of you making comparisons to "cars that go 165
mph", I think the analogy is partly flawed.  Driving over the speed limit
(the "illegal" part of the car) pales in comparison with killing someone
with a gun (the "illegal" part of the gun).  And the "number of people killed
in automobiles means we should ban cars" argument is also flawed.  Compare
the per capita number of people killed *with automobiles as a weapon* vs per
capita people killed *with a gun as a weapon* and there is no comparison.
Similar analysis of per capita people killed in automobile accidents vs.
gun accidents may indeed show that your chances of being killed in an
automobile accident are higher than in a gun accident, but so might your
chances of being killed by slipping in the bathtub.  Accidents happen.

	I don't believe that everyone who buys a gun is going to kill someone
with it.

	This is longer than I intended.  Those of you who still think I'm
misguided, well, I guess I'm going to stay that way.

						--Doug

    re .312, .303
    
    I did not in fact see your caveat about not needing an answer until
    I had composed a lengthy reply, so I entered it anyway.
    
    You personally may not have desired an answer, nor indeed needed
    one, since I believe you when you state that you occupy the middle
    ground, and posed the questions rhetorically. However these self
    same points, misleading terminologies, and propogandist postures
    also emanate from much of the media inspired paranoid anti-gun forces
    (surely if anything is paranoid, an irrational fear of an inanimate
    object is paranoid? - this question is also rhetorical of course).
    
    When the news reports that a criminal with a lengthy record, out
    on the streets because a DA was willing to to plea bargain a felony
    to a misdeameanour so failing to make it illegal for him to buy a weapon,
    using a legally purchased semi-automatic shoulder arm (properly
    designated - not incorrectly called an AK47) then I will consider
    my self imposed educational task is complete. But whilst they continue
    to refer to the "mass of machine guns on our streets" as CNN did
    the other day [we get CNN on our TV too... I think they should bill
    it as a sit-com] and ignore existing legislation in screaming for
    a ban (in terms that are absurd for the thing they are asking to
    ban is already effectively banned - ie *no* AK47 rifles, or 'Uzi
    machine guns' are currently being imported into the US - nor were
    they before the 'drug Czar' got them 'banned') then I will continue
    to protest their absurdities...
    
    Re 'M' in a gun's designation.
    
    It stands for 'Model' (as in Model 1911 pistol, or Model 16 rifle)
    
    /. Ian .\

    There was a great article by a woman writer on this topic in the
    most recent Montachusett Review.  She is a historian who learned
    history by studing historical documents and not history books (which
    she feels are edited to reflect the opinions of the current power
    structure).
    
    She says that historical documents confirm that the first thing
    a totalitarian government does is to disarm the public.  She used
    the Nazis for an example.
    
    It made me wonder if guns should even be registered.  
    
    Mary

    re .303 > would anyone keep a rifle for home defense
    
    Yes. 
    
    a. Many people have a hard time mastering handguns. 
    b. Many people have had difficulty obtaining the necessary permit
       to purchase handguns (See earlier notes) 
    c. Some people prefer the greater stopping power of a rifle
       or shotgun (I own magnum handguns, prefer a shotgun for
       defensive use.)
   
    Dana

    

          <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
          -
================================================================================
Note 2371.38           Justifying "permit to carry" in MA               38 of 38
SYSENG::BITTLE "Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSE" 108 lines  12-MAY-1989 02:58
                          -< The Battle Continues... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few of you have sent mail and called asking how I was making
out with getting a license - here is a quick update:

I am currently waiting for the chief to arrange a meeting with me
to discuss my application.  I expect this to happen within the
next two weeks.

My application included a cover letter, $10 check, completed
Application for License to Carry Firearms, and copies of the fol-
lowing:  Firearm Safety Course certificate, my birth certificate,
my town certificate of residency, my probation record form
stamped saying I have no criminal record, 2 letters of recommen-
dation, and 3 1" x 1" head shots.

I did not include a copy of the police report describing my
assault(I hate the R word), nor did I mention on the application
form any counseling I received following the assault.  I did not
include a letter from an employer stating I needed to carry a
firearm while on the job.

In my cover letter to the chief, my goal was to present a profile
of a typical member of a new class of gun owners:

INTELLIGENT WOMEN WHO DEMAND TO LIVE AND BE SECURE FROM PERSONAL
ATTACK.

My cover letter was as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Chief XXXXX:

Enclosed is my application for a license to carry firearms for
the purpose of personal protection.

I meet all requirements listed in the "Procedures Relating to the
Issuance of a License to Carry a Firearm" document given to me by
Officer XXXXX.

The third procedure states, "To qualify for a License to Carry a
Firearm, all other applicants must demonstrate that they are
suitable persons to possess a firearm and that they have a proper
purpose for carrying a firearm."

I am a "suitable" person to possess a firearm.  In terms of my
academic background, I graduated valedictorian of my high school
class in Orlando, FL,  and I graduated with honors and a degree
in electrical engineering at Duke University where I was re-
cruited by Digital to work at their headquarters in Maynard, MA.
I also contribute my time to the community.  I am presently ac-
tive in a Cambridge-based non-profit organization which provides
support, assistance, information, and publishes a newsletter for
female adolescents in the Boston area.  I am a member of the
Acton Area NOW.  Moreover, my character is unquestionable.  I am
logical, have a great deal of common sense, and am emotionally
stable.

I have a "proper purpose" for carrying a firearm.  I want to be
able to protect myself in the rare case in which my continued ex-
istence is at risk.  I am not worried about this town...I am very
concerned over my safety in areas I frequent mainly at night and
on weekends:  Boston, Cambridge, and Dorchester.  The Boston
Globe reported on 4/22/89 that homicides in Boston increased 22%
between 1987 and 1988.  In Cambridge, the homicide rate rose a
shocking 250%.  I have researched methods of self-protection, and
all statistics reveal the ineffectiveness of Mace, carrying a
knife, stun guns, rape whistles, etc.   I refuse to be defense-
less in the event of a life-threatening confrontation.

As required in procedure #4, I have completed an NRA certified
course in Basic Firearms Safety.  A copy of the certificate and
letter from the instructor is enclosed.

Women of this town interested in obtaining a license to carry
firearms should be encouraged to get proper instruction in using
a firearm for the purpose of self-defense.  Instead, it appears
that your office does everything possible to dissuade those in-
terested.  When I came to the station to pick up an application
and get an FID, Officer XXXXX questioned me for 45 minutes con-
cerning how I could possibly have a good enough reason to carry a
firearm.  I found it interesting that one week later it took an
acquaintance of mine who happens to be male only 5 minutes to re-
ceived both FID and application.  Only the standard FID required
questions were asked of him.

Chief XXXXX,  I would like to set up a meeting with you at your
earliest convenience to discuss my application.

I am aware that according to MGL Chapter 140 Section 131 you have
7 days of receipt of my application to forward one copy of my
fingerprints to the commissioner, and that I shall be notified by
the licensing authority, in writing, within 40 days of submitting
my application, of either approval or denial and in the case of
denial, such notice shall state the reasons thereof.  I am also
aware of my right of judicial review process which I will exer-
cise in the event I am denied a permit enabling me to carry a
firearm for the purpose of personal protection.

Thank you for your time, and, I hope, your understanding.

                                   Sincerely,


                                   Nancy Bittle


-----------------------------------------------------------

The following article comes from pg 17, Guns & Women, April, '89.

          "NJ State Senate President Insults Women"
           ---------------------------------------

The Legislative Bureau of Seton Hall University hosted a panel discus-
sion on March 3 entitled "Gun Control: A Loaded Forum for Russo in New
Jersey."   The title should have read "A Loaded Forum for Russo in New
Jersey."

The Moderator,  Steve Adubato  Jr., was clearly not an impartial host.
The forum  was supposed  to focus  on medical,  legislative, constitu-
tional, recreational  and law enforcement issues.  It never got beyond
providing a  platform for  Russo, who is sponsor of a bill calling for
"strictly limiting the availability of handguns by establishing prohi-
bitions on their sale, possession, and importation."

Although members  of the  panel included  such pro-gun notables as the
NRA's Richard  Gardiner and  criminologist Gary  Kleck, no issues were
allowed to be fairly discussed.

Col. Clinton  Pagon, Superintendent NJ State Police, took the route of
sensationalism.   Never bothering to check the chamber, he whipped out
a silenced  MAC-10, waving it at the audience in an attempt to intimi-
date and  confuse  the  unknowledgeable  in  attendance.    (Full-auto
weapons are virtually impossible to possess in New Jersey.)

Russo was repeatedly given the platform to digress at length.  Pro-gun
panelists who  tried to  present facts  and figures  were  cut  short,
rarely allowed to finish a statement.  Questions from the floor had to
be written  on cards  and pass  a screening  process.   Pro-gun points
never reached the panel.

Upon leaving  the conference,  [the author]  seized a chance to pose a
question to  Senator Russo,  asking, "Why  do you want to leave me de-
fenseless?"

His sarcastic  response as  he brushed  her aside, "Because I want you
raped, pillaged,  and robbed."  The exchange continued, before several
stunned onlookers:

woman: "May I quote you?"

Russo:  "You asked a stupid question."

woman: "What is so stupid about being a wife, mother, and
        businesswoman and wanting to protect myself?"

Russo aide: "Don't pay any attention to her; she's on hormones.  She
             thinks she's a man and wants to fire a gun."

================================================================================
Note 210.321                     Gun Protection                       321 of 321
SA1794::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA"                       0 lines  16-MAY-1989 07:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think that last one belongs in the "Sexism is Alive and Well"
    note.

    This is the citation I promised resp. Jesus perhaps being
    misrepresented as a peaceful individual:
    
    "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches:  the Riddles of Culture" 
    Marvin Harris, PhD
    Vintage Books, V372, 1978, $2.66 @ WordsWorth
    
    Particularly chapters "Messiahs" and "The Secret of the Prince of
    Peace"  (the whole book is strung together in such a way that a reader
    will profit by reading from cover to cover; the two chapters of
    interest are actually 7th and 8th in sequence, but he develops some
    needed background material earlier) 
                      
    						=maggie

I don't think quite all the details below have been brought up in this note. I
must admit, a lot of it caused me to laugh. I guess I can't quite conjure up
the woman worried about protection stopping to consider pastel handles.

From off the net:
 
From a SJ Merky News a few weeks ago.  
They got it from the Boston Glob.
"I swear I am not making this up."
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
                 _LadySMith: the 'elegant' handgun_
 
Ladies, you wouldn't use a man's deodorant, so why use a man's
revolver?  You want a revolver that's lightweight, with no edges to
catch on your nails, a dainty revolver that still packs a punch.
Maybe you want a .38-calibre LadySmith.
 
Smith & Wesson, the Springfield, Mass., firearms manufacturer, is
introducing the first-ever line of "elegant" women's handguns, called
LadySmiths -- in glossy blue, or frosted sterling, with your choice of
barrel lengths.
  
A promotion brochure depicts a fur coat, a yellow rose and a LadySmith
handgun.  "Just possibly," a LadySmith brochure states, "an ideal
answer to a very contemporary need."
 
Recognizing that most women are intimidated by macho gun talk, Smith &
Wesson is also hooking up a toll-free hot line, staffed by what the
brochure calls a "real, live, knowledgable woman."
 
Other weapons manufacturers have dabbled in the women's handgun market
before, but Smith & Wesson's efforts are thought to be the largest and
most serious of their kind.
 
"In the past couple of years, we've seen other manufacturers come out
with things like pastel grips, which have supposedly done well,
sales-wise," said Sonny Jones, editor of "Women & Guns", a Hot
Springs, Ark., newsletter that debuted last week.
 
Several Conde Nast magazines, including Mademoiselle, Glamour, and
Self, have said they won't accept the ads.  "Each magazine made its
own decision about that," said Eileen Roper Ast, a Conde Nast
Publications spokeswoman.
 
Meredith Group's Better Homes & Gardens and Woman's Day also said they
will reject the ads.
 
But Smith & Wesson says the as will run in other magazines, beginning
in April, including Ladies Home Journal, Cosmopolitan, McCall's,
Redbook, Harper's Bazaar and Working Mother.
 
"Who knows?" said Smith & Wesson spokeswoman Sherry Collins. "Next
year, we could be looking at TV."
 
[...]  the LadySmith concept is gaining admirers, including Sarah
LePere, owner of "Feminine Protection By Sarah", a Texas company that
makes 11 styles of women's purses with concealed handgun compartments.
 
"They're very beautiful," LePere said of the the LadySmiths.  "And, I
would think, handy.  We don't sell guns at our store, but I've had so
many women asking what type of gun, if I were to buy one, what I would
use."
 
"Of course," she added, "I always tell them that, personally, I would
recommend a small revolver, such as the Smith & Wesson.  I carry a
model .36 Smith & Wesson revolver myself, as opposed to an automatic."
 
"To me, an automatic is a thinking person's gun.  She has to remember
to take off the safety and put the clip in before she's ready to
shoot.  And then there's the jacket.  With a small revolver like the
LadySmith, all she has to do is pull the trigger, if there should be
an emergency."
 
A woman handgun owner without a special purse is just asking for
trouble, LePere contended.  "You will end up with cracker crumbs and
mints in the barrel, or tobacco, if you smoke, or anything else that
accumulates in the bottom of a lady's handbag," she said.
 
Her purses can accommodate up to a 5-inch-long barrel, and then, for
that cocktail party-size gun, LePere makes evening bags, with optional
gold straps, and "a touch of snakeskin," for $89.95.
 
					=*=

    heeeehaaaaHAAAAAAHOOOOOOOHEEEEEeeeeeehaaaaaaa
    purse-lint!!! haaaaaa
    
    good grief!
    
    pat

    why hay-ell, Mez...
    
    Ah wouldn't think a blowin' anyone away without a purty-pink handled
    gun...
    
    Affectionately,
    
    Rambo O'Hara
    

    
    This was found by my husband in a magazine called Shooting Sports USA.
    It's not about guns as self-protection, like this topic name says,
    but you may find the individual results from the 1989 NCAA (?)
    competitions enlightening.  (It appears that it's a nationwide college
    shooting competition or something; I'm not exactly sure.)
    
    Individual Air Rifle Results
    
    1. Michelle Scarborough, South Florida, 399
    2. Kristin Peterson, South Florida, 392-19X
    3. Tammie DeAngelis, West Virginia, 392-17X
    4. Anne Pfiffner, West Virginia, 391
    5 and 6 were men.
    In a 5-way tie for 7th: Sabrina DiBiagio, Xavier
    Numbers 16, 17, 18, and 21 were also won by women.
    
    So the top 4 college air-rifle shooters are women !
    
    Individual Smallbore Rifle Results
    
    1. Debra Sinclair, Alaska-Fairbanks, 1171
    2 through 5 were men.
    6. Michelle Scarborough, South Florida, 1163
    

    Well gee, I own mini-mag flashlights in 4 different colors, bought
    hiking boots in a color to match my pack, and own a tent in the colors
    of "burgundy and sand with a silver fly".  I suppose if I were in the
    market for a gun, I'd go for one with a fuschia handle...
    
    Karen.

    Don't worry Karen, dark blue is *always* correct :-)

The Peoples Republic of China has no Second Amendment. In fact the government
there has a history of laws and programs against firearms ownership.

<SCENE 1>
Thousands of students and citizens went to Beijing(sp?) for a peaceful
Demonstration to demand their rights, rights of free speech, and
political freedom.

The government brought in armour and infantry, who fired indiscrimently
into the crowds to get them to dispers. current reports put
the death toll at over 3000 the injured/wounded in the thousands.
And it is not over yet.

<SCENE 2>
Thousands of students and citizens went to Washington for a peaceful
Demonstration to demand their rights, rights of free speech, and
Freedom of Choice.

The Govern....................................



I asked a question many replies back. That question, which still has not
been answered is simply; if you disarm the law-abiding, how will you fight.


When I asked this before there was all the usual anti-gun stuff but nobody
answered the question. It is a serious and very important point.
 
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government..." -- Hubert H. Humphery
 
home-made molotov-cocktails and bare-hands don't do well against tanks
and massed infantry.

<SCENE 2>
Thousands of students and citizens went to Washington for a peaceful
Demonstration to demand their rights, rights of free speech, and
Freedom of Choice.

The Govern....................................

      I don't remember any demonstrations in the sixties that had
      individuals carrying and using firearms. The only government use
      of guns was at Kent State and that outraged the nation. It did not
      however cause the people to arm themselves in the street and start
      shooting soldiers. What's your point? BTW, everything I'm hearing
      now makes it sound like civil war is breaking out in China.
      regardless of who has the guns. Though I did hear that the army is
      now fighting itself. liesl

>>    home-made molotov-cocktails and bare-hands don't do well against tanks

    I doubt that handguns or even assault rifles would do much better. If
    the tank's lid is open, a well-aimed molotov cocktail would be pretty
    effective, though.

    Liesl,
    
    Guns were used against civilians one other time that I recall
    during the protest period of the late sixties early seventies.
    One man was killed during the 'people's park' protests in
    Berkley.
    
    Bonnie

    At the University of New Mexico at least three people were shot by
    National Guard troops. 
    
    Dondi

    re: .335
    
    It appears to me that you've contradicted yourself in your own
    answer.  First you've stated that no amount of citizen-owend 
    small arms owned would proved effective in a conflict with 
    heavily armed (and well-trained) combat units.  Then you indicate
    that the government would fear lots of small arms simply because
    they're unregistered.  One hundred unregistered peashooters have
    no greater effect on a tank than one does.  
    
    What I believe the goverenment does respect is the inherent power
    of the individual in a society where that government is elected
    by those individuals.  Yes, weapons have been used against people
    in this country in our recent past.  The numbers killed and wounded
    have been relatively small, but the massive public outcry made it
    clear to leaders that this was unacceptable and that if they wished
    to remain our leaders, they would have to put a stop to the killing.
    
    Steve

    A whip is not a lethal weapon.

    in re -1
    
    not true, it is quite possible to kill some one with a whip, it
    just happens more slowly and painfully.

    
    Bonnie, you beat me to it...
    
    It doesn't have to be slow (I think with a bit of practice I could
    get back to my old skill level with a bull-whip - and with that
    I used to be able to decapitate dummies in a "wild west" show.)
    
    /. Ian .\

     
     re: .330 (Amos Hamburger)
     -------------------------
     
     Panama doesn't  have a  Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms),
     either.  But that's to be expected from dictators like Noriega, right?
     
     Nah, it couldn't happen here...Not when we have folks like Mayor Flynn say-
     ing things  like, "To  hell with the constitution, we are fighting a war on
     drugs!"
     
     No, it  couldn't happen  here *overnight*.   But we are experiencing a slow
     and gradual deterioration of our personal freedoms that is a much more dan-
     gerous phenomena.  I would much rather see the politicians try to carry out
     their *real* intentions ...
     
     ("I will do everything in my power to disarm this state.  Only the military
     and police need guns" - Mike Dukakis)
     
     ...in one  big power  play than  the incremental  erosion that is occurring
     now.  It's so easy now to rationalize, "Well, why to you *really* need a 15
     round magazine for rifle?  Couldn't you get by with 10 rounds?", instead of
     recognizing that  this assault  rifle bill  will pave  the way for more and
     more restrictive bills on individual gun ownership which will primarily af-
     fect the law-abiding citizens.
     
     
     
     re: .331 (Liesl Kolbe)
     ----------------------
     
     >      What's your point?  (referring to .330)
     
     My interpretation  of his  point was  that we  are seeing a real life, real
     time illustration of the case for the right to individual gun ownership.
     
     Just saw an interesting cartoon with what looks like an early colonial set-
     tler holding  a rifle,  and a  British royalist equipped with a sword.  The
     British royalist is saying,
     
     "What use  would a student (farmer) have with a military assault rifle like
     that?"   (there is Chinese Kanji along the side;  I assume it says the same
     thing)
     
     If you would like a copy of the cartoon, please send mail.
     
     
     re:.332 (Paul Beck)
     ------------------
     
     >  -< I was wondering how soon this note would start up again... >-
     
     I can't tell if you said this sarcastically or not...
     
     Anyway, it  seems as  though the  media is  changing the  way it represents
     (slants) the gun issue in light of recent events :
     
     1) Peter Jennings on ABC(?) Sunday saying that this is an awfully lop-sided
     fight, the  military with AK-47's against students with only sticks, stones
     and bottles.
     2) Another  newsman (can't  remember his  name) saying the students have no
     firearms.
     3) Jane  Pauley on  NBC yesterday  morning asking  how can the students win
     when only the military has guns.
     

     Even if  the recent  world events (China, Panama, etc...) does not convince
     the most  naive that  individual gun  ownership is a good idea, or at least
     that gun  ownership rights  are among  the most important rights we have to
     fight for...

     and even if (for whatever reason) one chooses that a firearm is not the 
     method they want to use for personal protection...

     I think a large number of people and even the media are discovering they
     can now  identify with  the philosophical  basis of  the Second
     Amendment.
                                             nancy b.
     

     
<     re: .331 (Liesl Kolbe)
<     ----------------------
<     
<     >      What's your point?  (referring to .330)
<     
<     My interpretation  of his  point was  that we  are seeing a real life, real
<     time illustration of the case for the right to individual gun ownership.
<     
      The argument could be made that Martin Luther King jr and Ghandi
      might have changed the world if all their followers had guns. But
      I doubt it. Would midnight guerilla action have made Blacks any
      freer?

      What about what's happening in Poland right now? It seems that the
      passive resistance of work stoppage caused a change where armed 
      resistance would have caused a bloody backlash.

      If a government believes that killing "the people" is an effective
      method of population control there is little that will stop them.
      Those who control the military control the country once armed
      violence is given the OK. WWII resistance fighters may have made a
      difference but if Hitler had been less than a madman Europe would
      belong to Germany today.

      I don't disagree that we are losing liberties. I don't know what
      the ultimate answer is. Hundreds were slaughtered in China this
      week. From the looks of things those unarmed students have caused
      a split that may topple the current regime. liesl

Note 210.344                     
NOETIC::KOLBE 


>      If a government believes that killing "the people" is an effective
>      method of population control there is little that will stop them.
>      Those who control the military control the country once armed
>      violence is given the OK. WWII resistance fighters may have made a
>      difference but if Hitler had been less than a madman Europe would
>      belong to Germany today.
>
>      I don't disagree that we are losing liberties. I don't know what
>      the ultimate answer is. Hundreds were slaughtered in China this
>      week. From the looks of things those unarmed students have caused
>      a split that may topple the current regime. liesl

So what if those unarmed students did cause a split that may topple the
current regime Liesl.  The current regime deserves to be toppled.  
My heart is in China these days.  The Chinese people are the same as
us.  They are no more responsible for their government's atrocities in
Tibet than we are for our government's covert activities.  Our tax
money supports an Israel that burns homes of "suspected" rock throwers
and kills children.  We neither approve nor condone such acts but our
government sees to it that we financially support them whether we want to or
not.

There are times in the history of mankind when individuals decide that
it is better to fight to the death for freedom then to continue to live
under repression.  Perhaps the big governments and institutions are
too powerful to overcome, but I (as an individual) would prefer to die
for freedom than to die old and broken under an unfair and repressive
government.  We all die sooner or later anyway.  Some of us just die for 
(what we consider to be) better reasons than the rest of us.  

This is a country worth fighting for.  Its true that many of our politicians
(both parties) have sold out to the highest bidder.  Wealthy men representing
other wealthy men, who engage in any kind of sleeze to maintain their base
of power.   The answer to me is clear... they push us too far and we push
back.  If we go down, we go down fighting.  That (after all) is the American
way, and we (after all) are Americans_;-).   That still means something,
to us .... if not to our politicians.

Mary

> Note 210.344                     
> NOETIC::KOLBE

>      I don't disagree that we are losing liberties. I don't know what
>      the ultimate answer is. Hundreds were slaughtered in China this
>      week. From the looks of things those unarmed students have caused
>      a split that may topple the current regime. liesl

> So what if those unarmed students did cause a split that may topple the
> current regime Liesl.  The current regime deserves to be toppled.
    
    Um, Mary, I think the point of Liesl's remark was that China's 
    current regime would be toppled, *precisely because* the students
    were unarmed, not because they were running around with a bunch
    of AK-47's and shooting at tanks.  
                                              
    I don't think Liesl was bemoaning the fact that the current Chinese
    government was headed for oblivion.
    
>                                                            Our tax
> money supports an Israel that burns homes of "suspected" rock throwers
> and kills children. 
    
  Are you somehow trying to draw a valid comparison between the slaughter
  that has been going on in China, caused by the 27th Army, and the Israeli
  Army defending itself against (to be somewhat more accurate) boulder
  throwers?       

    Alan

      RE: Mary, Alan was correct in his assessment of my remarks. I was
      not in any way stating that the Chinese government is right or
      deserves to stay in power. I believe quite the opposite.

      I don't suppose any of us believe that a real war for rights can be
      won without bloodshed. The degree of bloodshed is indicative of
      the repressiveness of the ruling regime. Can we really say that
      what happened in China this week as compared to what happened in
      this country in the sixties is different in degree only because we
      could have guns and they can't?

      On the other side of the coin I can't help but think of South
      Africa. Certainly the white minority is armed to the teeth and
      they repress millions of Blacks. However, if we then armed the
      Blacks would the whites give up power or would they have to be
      slaughtered before things would change?

      RE: Eagles, I'm not so much trusting as I am afraid that "might
      makes right" is the only law that humans truely obey. Perhaps this
      is an instance where I hope fervently that believing things should
      be otherwise will make it so. liesl

	It should be noted that in 1956, freedom fighters in Hungary
	drove the Russians from Hungary with little more than
	bricks, gasoline bombs, and some small arms.

	Of course, the Russian Army returned in force, and crushed the 
	rebellion. However, this did prove that a determined populace can catch
	an occupier by surprise, and succeed in ousting them, at least 
	temporarily. If armed allies can then be secured, it might then be
	possible to prevent the return of the occupier. Had the US showed 
	some backbone, and responded to Hungarians's request for aid, 
	Hungary might today be a free nation.

						Tom_K

Unarmed resistance/civil disobedience  has been proven an extremely 
effective method of inciting change throughout history.

I think the line should be drawn when the slaughter of those protesting
begins.  

From news reports so far, it would appear that the students would have
a good chance of victory if they could defeat the 27'th army.  I am not 
under the impression that the Sino-Vietnam war veterans composing the
27'th army could be easily swayed from their stance against the students.
If the students were armed with modern handguns, semi-auto rifles, and
assault (automatic) rifles, I think that the students, along with the 
38'th army and some good stragegists could defeat the 27'th army.  

With the 27'th army defeated, it would appear that the government loses 
it's most oppressive and brutal form of power.

This is a serious question - why are the students NOT armed?  
Is it a cultural thing where they would prefer bottles, sticks, and rocks
instead of guns?

What are the gun control laws like in China?

I would think if the students  read their history books they would know that 
Chinese governments have thought nothing of wiping out tens of thousands of 
their own people. Maybe they thought it couldn't happen again, or not in 1989.  

It seems like the students were so close to victory, too.  Damn.

						nancy b.

Last week I went to talk to my legislative rep during their office hours 
concerning their position on Governor Dukakis' assault rifle bill 
and my representative's recent "yes" vote on placing further restrictions 
on gun licenses.

They made a comment something to the effect of, "Well, anybody who wants 
to obtain a gun license can just walk in to the town police station and
get one."  

I had not planned on describing my personal struggle to get a license to 
carry firearms that is currently taking place, because it is going to 
become a court case. This is also why I have been relatively quiet 
in this topic till most recently.  For now, suffice it to say that the 
reasons my town police chief gave me for denial were ones that would 
probably raise the blood pressure of many readers of this conference.

Anyway, the above comment made by my legislative rep made me realize they
needed enlightenment on the matter.  After describing in detail what has
happened, my legislative rep was shocked that such misuse of power could
be occurring.

So we got into a discussion on the current requirements to receive a 
license to carry, and why I think increasing the legal restrictions
on licenses to carry will have *no* effect on "the war on drugs and crime"...

Here is the scary part... My rep suggested a way to prevent violent types 
in MA from obtaining licenses would be to keep records in one centralized 
place of everyone in the state who goes to visit a public or private 
psychologist or psychiatrist.  It was my turn to be shocked.  My rep had
absolutely no conception of the damage that could be done with that type
of information.

But hey,  we can justify it because we're fighting a "war on drugs", right?

And tomorrow, we can justify mandatory drug testing for anyone who wants
an income tax refund in the name of the war on drugs.  It will be for the
good of society.

And next year, we can justify [fill in blank] because we will then be 
fighting a war against [fill in blank], all for the good of society.


							nancy b.

From off the net.

	 	It's era of guns for U.S. Women
              	    by Suzanne Fields
 
(Chicago Sun-Times, May 30, 1989) -- Women are scared.
 
While Chicago debates gun control and the constitutionality of the
President's crime bill, 12 million women go to sleep at night with a
gun near their beds -- some legal, some not. That's one of every
eight women who own a variety of Colts, Smith & Wessons or
Berettas.
 
Between 1983 and 1986, the number of women owning guns jumped 53
percent, according to a Gallop Poll commissioned by Smith & Wesson.
Some estimates range much higher. These women from different social
classes and ways of life, carry guns in the glove compartment, in a
holster or a pocket designed to conceal one.
 
These women have one thing in common: All want to be able to defend
themselves.
 
Like the rest of us, they read the daily crime reports. Sensationalized
crimes reinforce resolve based on statistics, a resolve that knows no
color line. Blacks grew angry that the media focused so much attention
on the white jogger who was beaten and raped in Central Park because
the rape of black women rarely makes the news.
 
Rape is an equal opportunity crime, and nearly every women knows
someone who has been mugged or raped. Statistically, a 30-year-old
woman has a 50-50 chance of being raped in her lifetime. If you are
a female over the age of 12, you are likely to be mugged at some
time in your life.
 
Enthusiastic shootists, pistol-packin' mamas and gun-totin' grandmas
are quick to tell you "you can't rape a .38." If a conservative is a
liberal who has been mugged, a woman who carries a gun is often a
liberal who has been thrust into a jam where she wished she had
one.
 
So it was for Paxton Quigley, who was a member of Robert F.
Kennedy's campaign staff in 1968. When he was assassinated, she
moved on to help John Glenn on the National Committee for Handgun
Control, which worked for the passage of the Handgun Control Act of
1968.
 
"Our vision was simple enough," she writes in *Armed and Female*, a
book about women like herself who own a gun. "Crime was the result
of an unwatchful, uncaring, uninvolved society, and criminals were
the victims of the system."
 
Quigley is no longer so naive or sympathetic to criminals to think
of them as victims. Her house in Los Angeles has been burgled twice,
her car stolen from in front of her house while she watched through
her window. Two friends were raped, one in her own bed.
 
She was afraid to enter her house alone at night. Strange noises,
the crackling of a branch across a window pane or the creaking of
joints in the water pipes bedeviled her. She bought a handgun, took
lessons in how to shoot and discovered that there were lots of women
who were armed just like she was.
 
They each have a story that terrifies as it consoles. Some saved
their own lives without firing a shot. In one study of 1,874
imprisoned felons in 10 states, almost 40 percent said that they
backed away from a crime if they knew or thought the potential
victim was armed.
 
Though few women have needed to use guns, most of them feel more
secure and confident just knowing they have one.
 
Some women see gun ownership as a feminist issue, believing guns
make women less dependent on male protection, but numbers also
suggest they think men have abandoned their responsibility to
protect women and children.
 
*Armed and Female* is a sad commentary on our society, because
Quigley may be right: "In today's increasingly violent society, a
women can't depend on a man, or even the police force, to always be
there to protect her. She should never trust someone else to do for
her what she can do for herself."
 

re: .335 (MEZ)

Thanks for posting the new story off the net.

> These women from different social
> classes and ways of life, carry guns in the glove compartment, in a
> holster or a pocket designed to conceal one.
 
I would bet the social class of most of the women carrying for personal
protection is upper middle and above...  
The poor are clearly discriminated against when it comes to getting a 
license, so many low-income women are probably forced to  carry 
illegally (without the proper licensing).  

Ironically, these low-income women are statistically
at greatest risk of becoming victimized.  Low cost handguns have been
outlawed, and few low-income women could afford the court cost of 
appealing a denial by their local chief of police...I've been told that
my court expenses for appeal could be around $2,000.   

It looks like who can obtain a gun for personal protection is already
a very elitist process.

> These women have one thing in common: All want to be able to defend
> themselves.
 
I think I fall into this category.  I am not "into" guns.  I merely
want to be able to defend myself with the most *statistically proven*
method.  If this method were Tai Chi or Karate, I would be taking
those classes now, instead of fighting for my license to carry.

>  a woman who carries a gun is often a
>  liberal who has been thrust into a jam where she wished she had
>  one.
 
Yet another category that personally applies.  I did not grow up with
guns.  I kind of cringed at the thought of firing a gun, and didn't
want to be involved or associated with them.  I had sufficient warning
when I was attacked that I could have deterred the attack by drawing
a handgun.  In hindsight, I think merely showing the gun would've been
sufficient, because he had a much lesser weapon...  Most rapists don't
carry any kind of a weapon at all (I think the figure is 88%).

 
> "Our vision was simple enough," she writes in *Armed and Female*, a
> book about women like herself who own a gun. "Crime was the result

"Armed and Female" (hardcover) is on sale at the Harvard Square 
Cambridge Booksmith in the women's section for $16.98.  I have not
seen it in the mall-type bookstores (they don't have women's sections - 
the women's books there are usually in the "psychology" section).

> of them as victims. Her house in Los Angeles has been burgled twice,
> her car stolen from in front of her house while she watched through
> her window. Two friends were raped, one in her own bed.
 
I have been wondering what caused her to do a 180 on the issue.  I had
been optimistic that she only had to read the Bureau of Criminal Justice
statistics, or stats concerning the number of people who successfully
defend themselves with firearms every day (the media doesn't report that).

So many people seem to have the attitude, "Don't confuse me with the facts,
I have made up my mind!" on this issue.

Carrying a gun is an enormous responsibilty and a very personal decision,
not one that should be made lightly.  I would never try to persuade someone
frightened of guns to carry for protection. That would be suicide.  I might
ask them if they wanted to go to the range with me to show them that 
shooting a gun is not a voodoo thing, and that ballistics is actually pretty
interesting.  
 
> Some women see gun ownership as a feminist issue, believing guns

Most definitely this is a feminist issue.  A 1966 newspaper article
on the success of a program geared to teaching women of Orlando, FL, 
self defense with a handgun stated : 

"Men are more afraid of women with guns than women are of mice and bugs."

I will provide more supporting evidence after my court case...

						nancy b.

 

           <<< HANZI::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FAR_EAST.NOTE;4 >>>
                  -< HongKong, PRC and other Asian countries >-
================================================================================
Note 368.124                Students' strike in China                 124 of 253
HPSCAD::MLAU                                         13 lines   5-JUN-1989 23:38
                  -< More information about number of death >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine was born in Beijing but raised up in Hong Kong. He still has
a lot of relatives in Beijing and as a matter of fact, some of his cousins
were in the protest too. One of his cousins is a doctor in the hospital.
From a recent phone conversation, this doctor said that he estimated that
30K people were killed. No kidding, 30,000 people..

As an oversea Chinese, I hope our donation money can help the Beijing
people a.s.a.p.. Sometimes, I dreamed of using the money to buy some
powerful guns (the one that the drug dealers used in U.S.) to fight with the
soldiers. This is just a thought..

\Margaret    

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly Margaret's thinking is distorted into believing that the only people
who presently have assault rifles are the "drug dealers."  This is the way it
might eventually be if current legislation passes.  However, at the present
time all the people I know who have assault rifles are NOT criminals, including
myself.  They are professional types who are very concerned about the direction
the political pendulum is swinging on the gun control issue.  By the time the
pendulum swings the other way, it may be too late.  I purposely bought a 
rifle that was on Dukakis' to-be-banned list, for the sole reason that it 
could someday be banned and the only people will have them will be the criminals
and and the elitist few who have connections.  {I did not buy the rifle for
personal protection, by the way :-) }

From Margaret's note it seems that people are realizing the hard way that an
armed population is the only safeguard against tyranny.

								nancy b.

    re. Note 210.355                     
 
>*Armed and Female* is a sad commentary on our society, because
>Quigley may be right: "In today's increasingly violent society, a
>women can't depend on a man, or even the police force, to always be
>there to protect her. She should never trust someone else to do for
>her what she can do for herself."

While it is sad that today's society is increasingly violent,
I think it's great that women are finding the self-reliance to 
take responsibility for their own defense.

Dana

    re . armed rapists - a recent Dept. of Justice study (*) indicated
    that 7% of rapists use a gun, 14% use a knife, club, or other
    'contact' weapon, the remainder rely on superior strength or
    strength of numbers. A woman armed with a handgun has the
    odds in her favor 93% of the time.

    (*) as quoted by Massad Ayoob in The American Rifleman, July 1989

          
Note 210.348                     
FDCV01::ROSS                               

>    I don't think Liesl was bemoaning the fact that the current Chinese
>    government was headed for oblivion.
 
  You are right Alan.  I misunderstood her.  My apologies to Liesl.   

> Our tax  
> money supports an Israel that burns homes of "suspected" rock throwers
> and kills children. 
    
>  Are you somehow trying to draw a valid comparison between the slaughter
>  that has been going on in China, caused by the 27th Army, and the Israeli
>  Army defending itself against (to be somewhat more accurate) boulder
>  throwers?       

    Alan, pick up today's Globe and read page 22.  The article is entitled
    "Egyptian in Israel, prods hosts on the PLO".  The third paragraph
    reads as follows:
    
    "A curfew remained in force on the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza
    where two Palestinians, INCLUDING AN 8 YEAR OLD BOY, suffered fatal
    gunshot wounds during clashes with Israeli soldiers on Saturday.
    
    Am army spokesman said a 16 year old Palestinian died yesterday,
    after he was shot Saturday during clashes at Jabalya."
    
    The Israeli army is fighting and killing unarmed children, some
    of whom are too young to be able to lift a "boulder".
    
    According to a May 22 Globe article there have been at least 496
    Palestinians killed in the uprising and 22 Israelis.
    Homes are being bombed on 'suspicion' without due process, children
    are being killed, Palestinians are confined to their homes as if
    they were prisoners.  
    
    I have always been a supporter of Israel but I cannot support nor
    condone the actions of today's Israel.  Unarmed women and children 
    are being killed, the Palestinian people are treated very badly,
    they have no rights at all.  An army that needs to use all of its
    sophisticated firepower to defend itself against children's rocks
    is an army out of balance, out of values, and out of order.  
    
    Mary
    

    
    Mary,  
    
    You should really try to find another source for news on Israel
    other than the Globe. It has a reputation as being extremely biased
    against Israel.  
    
    I don't approve of a lot of what the Israeli government is doing,
    but if you are going to throw around terms like "child murderers",
    you might want to verify your information first. 
    
    Roberta
    
                                                

Note 210.362                     
2EASY::PIKET 

    
>    Mary,  
>    
>    You should really try to find another source for news on Israel
>    other than the Globe. It has a reputation as being extremely biased
>    against Israel.  
>    
>    I don't approve of a lot of what the Israeli government is doing,
>    but if you are going to throw around terms like "child murderers",
>    you might want to verify your information first. 
    
    Roberta,  This is off the subject at hand and so I won't enter another
    note on the subject after I answer you.

    The Globe's articles were Associated Press and United Press
    International reports, not editorials.  I haven't read anything in 
    any publication that says that the AP or UPI are publishing false 
    reports, have you?  If so, I'd very much like to know, as I do not want 
    to pass on false information.  A person can see through bias, but 
    outright lies are quite a different thing.  Are you saying that these 
    reports are lies?

    This 8 year old child isn't the only child I've read of thats been 
    killed in Palestine.  I've read of a child of 3 being killed and a 
    12 year old girl.  Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.  
    Because we don't like it and we don't want to believe it, we pretend
    that it isn't happening...  but it is happening.  

    Hiding unpleasant truths is something that all governments are very 
    good at.  In today's world we must face the truth head on and not 
    pretend things are different because we wish they were different.  
    The only way to make things better is to face reality.

    I've been a supporter of Israel all of my life but I can not close my
    eyes to what is happening there today.  I cannot pretend it isn't 
    happening because it is inconvenient or unpleasant to face up to it.
    What term does one use to refer to a government that sanctions the
    killing of children by armed soldiers?

    Mary

    
	Mary,  


> Our tax  
> money supports an Israel that burns homes of "suspected" rock throwers
> and kills children. 

>    Roberta,  This is off the subject at hand and so I won't enter another
>    note on the subject after I answer you.

I agree it is off the subject at hand, but since you chose to bring it up I felt
compelled to respond.


>    The Globe's articles were Associated Press and United Press
>    International reports, not editorials.  I haven't read anything in 

AP and UPI reports can be manipulated. For example, it's been shown that the
Globe will change the order of paragraphs, and sometimes has even omitted key
paragraphs from UPI and AP stories on Israel. I've seen illustrations of this. 

>    In today's world we must face the truth head on and not 
>    pretend things are different because we wish they were different.  
>    The only way to make things better is to face reality.

Thank you for the lecture. I do not need to be told to face reality. I simply
believe that your reality is mistaken. If you rely on one single source
for all your information, I think that may lend credence to my belief.

Roberta

    Ok Roberta.  I'll start a new note on this and only post material
    I've researched from sources other than the Globe.  That way you
    can have confidence that the material is unbiased.  It may
    take me a few days to get it together.  
    
    Mary

    
    Can you *believe* this?
    
    My husband's pistol and rifle club wants to have a pistol target-shooting
    contest (or something like that) and have the entrants pay a fee to join
    it.  It is to be for charity, and the charity they chose the money to
    go to was Children's Hospital in Boston.
    
    So the club secretary wrote to Children's Hospital to tell them about
    the benefit they were proposing.
    
    Can you believe that they wrote back refusing to take the money??!!!!!
    
    They basically said that the event was not appropriate as a fund-raiser
    for Children's Hospital.  I read the whole account in my husband's local
    gun rag.  All that was printed was the 3 letters - no commentary was
    needed.
    
    The secretary wrote back saying that he was sure glad that Children's
    Hospital had all the equipment, programs, employees, and money for
    expenses that they needed.  He was sure glad about that.  And this way
    a truly needy organization could receive the money that they will be
    raising.
    
    My own personal opinion:  *truly* irresponsible management at
    Children's Hospital.
    
    

    Re .367: I wouldn't call the management irresponsible; in fact, it
    might be a fairly gutsy move. (I say "might" because it might also be
    out of fear - if they think they'll lose more support than they gain
    by accepting help from a pistol club, their decision could be purely
    monetary.)
    
    If I were running that kind of organization, I'm sure I would be faced
    with a lot of tough decisions; we need funds, and here's the NRA
    offering to provide some - fine. How about the tobacco industry?
    Furriers? <name your favorite industrial polluter>? Should I accept the
    money from any source because I intend a good use for it, or should I
    draw the line and not accept money from sources of which I do not
    approve?
    
    (Sounds like a good seed for a new topic, by the way...)
    
    Anyhow, I hope the pistol club isn't turned off of charity, and that
    they find an organization that can accept their offering with a
    glad heart.
    
    -b

Re: .367, 368

    You might  want  to  read  "Major  Barbara"  to  see this argument
    described  well.  Shaw  has a gift for making obviously reasonable
    positions seem unreasonable. Both enjoyable and thougth provoking. 

--David

    re:.367
    
    Yes, I can believe that, and I applaud their decision (but then,
    I'm a long-haired hippy commie pinko gun-control supporter, so my
    opinion is wrong anyways).
    
    While I would agree that their basic motivation for doing so may
    be out of fear of damaging their image, I'm sure they are also
    concerned about the fact that it may seem like a slap in the face
    to those children (and their parents) who may be in that hospital
    because of gun-related accidents.
    
    --- jerry

    See 677 for article about Women's Hall of Fame accepting $ from
    a tobacco company.

    Re .371:
    
    Brainwashed? Watch who you're calling "brainwashed," Col. Philpott!
    (Thinly-veiled allusion to a school of thought - not mine, particularly
    - that all military types are brainwashed.)
    
    Actually, I can see how it might have looked that way, but I wasn't
    trying to equate the whoositz Pistol Club with the NRA; I was simply
    supplying a list of potentially controversial donors of cash. 
    
    Now that I think of it, I should have begun my list of illustrations 
    with a vendor of firecrackers instead. Just as likely to cause a
    children's hospital to take umbrage, and a bit more timely...
    
    -b

    
    please don't be offended: as I read your earlier note you didn't
    supply a list - you suggested that in taking money from the local 
    club they were taking money from the NRA.
                   
    The media (largest source of 'brainwashing' in any society as the
    Chinese government are currently proving by their skillful use of
    TV) always refer to the NRA as if it were the single and total voice
    of support for the possession of firearms in America today. Your
    casual equation of taking money from the local club with taking
    money from the NRA is *exactly* the sort of disinformation that
    the press is guilty of.
                                                                  
    For every member of the NRA there are dozens of active shooters
    who aren't members of the NRA, and equally for every active shooter
    there are several people who own guns but haven't fired one in years.
    
    If the membership of the NRA equalled the gun-owning population
    of America it truly would be a force to be reckoned with.
    
    Am I brainwashed by NRA propaganda? perhaps, but I doubt it: I don't
    believe in sport or trophy hunting (though I confess I do hunt for
    meat for the table from time to time), and nor do I believe in private
    citizens owning firearms for 'self defence', so please don't assume
    that because I am a life member of the society that I cling to every
    utterence of the officers of the society as if they were axiomatic
    truths.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Statistic : # of gun owners in USA (Estimated) - 60 million
                # of above who are members of NRA  - 3  million
    

                         -< Amendments. Article {II} >-
    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.
    
    re 673.69-
    > I think there's something in there like:  it being the right of
    > the state to have an armed malicia, the people have the right to
    > bear arms. In other words, not the people individually, but the
    > states.
    
    Roberta, I read it differently from you ;-).  First, the state has no
    rights except those deriving from the just consent of the governed. 
    The state does have "security" needs; defined here as the need for a
    well-regulated militia.  "militia" as defined in those times means all
    able-bodied men who aren't already under arms (that is, NOT the regular
    armed forces).  The important part is the one that starts "the right of
    the people" and ends "shall not be infringed".
                                       
    Other people have already made the point in the "flag control" note
    (673.*, "Oh George") that 'interpreting' the second amendment to
    undermine this right provides a precedent for attacking all the
    others.  I agree with that concern.
    
    DougO

    
    two comments:
    
    1) it is at least arguable that at the time the second amendment
    was written that "militia" included all able bodied adult males.
    This was the conventional British definition which America had
    inherited. It is also arguable that in some degree this is still
    true.
    
    2) It is also arguable that whatever militia may mean, the amendment
    exists because if the people do not have the right to own, bear,
    (and practice with) military arms then in times of emergency there
    will be no pool of people who can be recruited to the militia. In
    this case the right to own arms is not directed at members of the
    militia but at people who might conceivably become members of the
    militia in some future time of travail.
    
    The Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army, nor indeed a
    regularly constituted militia: they wanted a pool of trained people
    that in times of emergency could be rapidly rounded up and deployed...
    
    Despite often quoted opinions to the contrary Britain had (and has)
    a basic right for its people to own firearms - indeed Britain did
    not legislate to control arms until somewhat after most American
    states had done so. At the time that the Second Amendment was being
    written the idea of owning arms for hunting and defence was so deeply
    ingrained in the people it is doubtful that they felt any need to
    comment on it. However they had just fought a war on the basis of
    militia opposing professional troops and were in the process of
    disbanidng the Continental Army. It is probable that the Second
    Amendment was introduced to prevent a total anti-military backlash
    resulting in a prohibition on military style weapons in private
    hands. 
    
    In the circumstances of course it is logical that the weapons that
    this amendment is applicable to today are not hunting and target
    shooting weapons but machine guns, military pistols and assault
    rifles - the very weaponry under most attack today!
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    "Women up in arms"  
    
    is the title of an article concerning women, guns, and self-protection
    in today's (Fri July 14) Boston Herald on page 43.  
    
    
    I'll try to scan it in over the weekend if I have time.
    
    							    nancy b.
    
    

    You might interpret what they said in that paragraph as sexist,
    Mr. Eagle, but I think it's factual, especially in that the sentence
    was not worded as a blanket generalization.
    
    It reads, "Women who have taken up shooting concede many women are
    against it.  'They hate any kind of aggression or any kind of control
    or power,' says Sharon Sullivan, who practices law in Cincinnati.
    'They sort of turn up their little noses.'
    
    I personally think it's more a case of just being afraid of guns
    and firing them, rather than hating any kind of aggression...
    
    After you do it the first time, the voodoo is removed, and you're
    no longer afraid.  Ballistics can actually be *fun*, believe it
    or not!
    
    It's also an enormous responsibility and a very personal decision.
    
    						nancy b.

In 719 I ask, for a noter, if there are some special undergarments to help
women with shooting practice.

This made me wonder if there were any stances or techniques that take advantage
of women's biology (ie -weren't designed by men for men, were designed for
women).
	Mez

    re.383 Is that for competition or self-defense ?
    
    Most women select a lighter-recoiling caliber and use the
    same shooting techniques as men (though I have met women
    who shoot 45's with considerable skill)
    
    You might try writing Joanne Hall at Guns & Ammo magazine -
    she's the womens shooting editor and a regular columnist.
    
    Dana

re: .383 (MEZ Zurko :-)
    -------------------

MEZ, a couple of months ago I had problems with shooting stances
which didn't sinc with the biological reality of being female, much
less "take advantgage of women's biology"!

Below is an excerpt of a note I posted in the Firearms notes conference.

+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
When shooting last weekend, it was pointed out that my shoulders
looked tense and too high.

I realized why I was doing this...When I lowered my shoulders and was
directly opposing the target with shooting arm front and center, the
elbow of my left supporting arm was, um, squishing my left breast,
which is not comfortable.

A couple things I did improved the situation somewhat - raising my
shoulders again;  twisting my shoulders to the right, and thus moving
my shooting arm at a 45 degree angle to my body and my left elbow more
to the outside of my body; and moving my left hand from under the
handgun to around my right hand around the grip, which resulted in my
elbow pointing sideways more, but didn't feel quite as stable.

I am primarily interested in what is considered "correct" in general,
but any suggestions on modifications I could make so shooting will be
more comfortable without a large sacrifice in proper technique would
also be appreciated.
+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

The entire note and it's replies are below.  One humorous mail I received
via mail said that "Amazon women had a solution to your problem!" (I wasn't
aware at that time that Amazon women cut off a breast).  

							    nancy b.


          <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 2446.0                  Proper shooting stance                    5 replies
SYSENG::BITTLE "Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSEE" 46 lines  14-MAY-1989 02:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the correct stance for a right-handed person shooting a
handgun downrange at a paper target?

More specifically, what is the proper:

   o  position of my body in relation to the target
      ( Directly opposing? at a 45 degree angle to? etc...)

   o  location of my shooting arm with respect to my body
           I know...aiming at the target, right? ;-)
      ( Given my body is directly opposing the target, should my
      shoulders be squared and right arm front and medial, or
      should my shoulders be twisted slightly to the right with
      my right arm at a 45 degree angle to my body? )

   o  position of my left supporting hand
      ( Under the gun, or around my right hand around the grip? )

   o  vertical position of my shoulders in any stance
      ( In their normal, lowered position, thus requiring my arms
      to be raised to bring the sights in line with my eyes, or
      shoulders raised to keep shooting arm parallel to floor? )


When shooting last weekend, it was pointed out that my shoulders
looked tense and too high.

I realized why I was doing this...When I lowered my shoulders and was
directly opposing the target with shooting arm front and center, the
elbow of my left supporting arm was, um, squishing my left breast,
which is not comfortable.

A couple things I did improved the situation somewhat - raising my
shoulders again;  twisting my shoulders to the right, and thus moving
my shooting arm at a 45 degree angle to my body and my left elbow more
to the outside of my body; and moving my left hand from under the
handgun to around my right hand around the grip, which resulted in my
elbow pointing sideways more, but didn't feel quite as stable.

I am primarily interested in what is considered "correct" in general,
but any suggestions on modifications I could make so shooting will be
more comfortable without a large sacrifice in proper technique would
also be appreciated.

                                                  nancy b.
================================================================================
Note 2446.1                  Proper shooting stance                       1 of 5
WOODRO::DOLL                                         15 lines  14-MAY-1989 06:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nancy, it's hard to say that there's a single correct stance for
    target, or any other, handgun shooting.  My own preference is for
    the isosceles position, that is, body facing squarely to the target,
    with both arms fully extended in the two-hand grip, shoulders relaxed.
    Others may prefer the Weaver position, in which the weak hand arm
    is slightly bent in a supporting position.  As you point out, the
    uniquenesses of different individuals' anatomies will also determine
    what is best.  There are many good books available on the subject.
    One that is readily available in most gun shops is The Gun Digest
    Book of Combat Handgunnery, A Guide to Competitive and Self-Defense
    Shooting.  There are as many opinions on this subject as there are
    shooters.  Best thing to do is study the options, experiment, and
    go with what is comfortable and works for you.
    
    	Bill
================================================================================
Note 2446.2                  Proper shooting stance                       2 of 5
ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action" 34 lines  15-MAY-1989 04:04
                           -< an exercize to try... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    The following exercize was taught me by Dr. Laszlo Antal (British National
    pistol coach). It works for either single handed or two handed
    shooting.
    
    The "correct" stance and hold is the one in which you feel most
    comfortable, and in which the gun held without undue muscular tension
    points naturally at the target.
    
    Therefore:-
    
    With an *UNLOADED* gun do the following exercise.
    
    adopt what you think is a proper stance and with the gun pointing
    down or on a table CLOSE YOUR EYES and with your eyes closed bring
    the gun up to where you think it will be pointed at the target.
    
    Now OPEN YOUR EYES and check where the gun is *actually* aimed.
    If left or right of the target move your left foot to bring it on
    line. If over or under lean forward or back from the waist to adjust.
    
    Try the exercise again.
    
    After three times your body begins to "remember" the position so you
    should take a break.
    
    If you have adopted a proper stance *FOR YOU* then the gun should
    be pointing dead center at the target when you open your eyes. In
    this position you will have the minimum of muscle induced shake.
             
    You should learn two such stances: one for two handed shooting and
    one for single handed shooting.
    
    /. Ian .\
================================================================================
Note 2446.3                  Proper shooting stance                       3 of 5
SSDEVO::OAKEY "I'm the NRA"                          16 lines  15-MAY-1989 11:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: < Note 2446.2 by ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action..." >

>>    adopt what you think is a proper stance and with the gun pointing
>>    down or on a table CLOSE YOUR EYES and with your eyes closed bring
>>    the gun up to where you think it will be pointed at the target.
                    ------------------------------------------------
    
    Actually, if I may correct the colonel -- bring the gun up in the
    most comfortable position.  DO NOT *TRY* TO POINT IT AT THE TARGET!
    
    As Ian goes on to say, you want you natural hand position to dictate
    where you place your feet.  You should not try to override your
    natural stance by trying to point the gun (with your eyes closed)
    at the target.
    
                           Roak
================================================================================
Note 2446.4                  Proper shooting stance                       4 of 5
ELMAGO::WRODGERS "I'm the NRA - Sic Semper Tyrannis" 35 lines  15-MAY-1989 18:25
                          -< stance and a sea story >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I was taught to shoot in military matches by an old Master Gunnery
    Sergeant whose name I can't recall.  He was a rifle shooter by
    preference, and his distaste for pistols was exceeded only by his
    distaste for 2nd Lieutenants.  England;  that was his name.
    
    Anyway, he used a method very similar to what Ian described, but
    with an element of what Roak described, too.  He had me take what
    felt like a comfortable position, emphasizing that any unnaturalness
    in the position will result in muscle tension, which will result
    in vibration.  Then he told me to close my eyes for 5 seconds. When
    I opened my eyes the pistol had drifted off target a bit.  The Top
    had me move my back foot or adjust my grip to adjust for the movement.
    He treated the body as a rigid beam on a crane.  If the end of the
    boom - no pun intended, but I refer to the pistol at arm's length
    - moved to the left, I would move my back foot a tiny bit to the
    left.  This would have the effect of pivoting my entire body slightly.
    The Top emphasized that the position be comfortable and natural.
    If the pistol dropped, I would move my back foot backward, etc..
    If the rear sight stayed on target but the front drifted off, I
    would adjust my grip.  It took many, many hours to perfect my posture
    and grip, but I broke 2600 in my first match with the Top's coaching.
    He averaged in excess of 2675.  Not bad for a rifle shooter!
    
    Ready for a sexist anecdote?  At a highpower rifle match one of
    the Navy shooters was a female.  One of the line marshalls noticed
    that when shooting off hand she would wedge her left breast under
    her left arm.  The marshall questioned whether this constituted
    an artifical rest.  The range officer bellowed through the loudspeaker,
    "Anything that big's gotta be artifical.  Disallowed!"  The woman
    protested that she was not using anything that hadn't grown on her,
    but I never heard the outcome of the controversy.
    
    Wess
    
    had me aim in carefully, then close my ey
================================================================================
Note 2446.5                  Proper shooting stance                       5 of 5
ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action" 13 lines  16-MAY-1989 04:39
                                 -< relax... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    As Roak and Wes pointed out I didn't say what I meant to say. Thanks
    guys.
    
    The essential point is to not consciously do anything... You'd be
    surprised how far off target a relaxed body posture can put the
    gun if you don't fight your own muscles.
    
    Re Wes' Master Gunnery Sergeant: I was taught by a somewhat similar
    sergeant major, who once admitted that the only thing that firghtened
    him was a 2nd. lieutenant with a map...
    
    /. Ian .\

re:             <<< Note 210.384 by HEFTY::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA" >>>

>>    You might try writing Joanne Hall at Guns & Ammo magazine -
>>    she's the womens shooting editor and a regular columnist.
   
This month's 'Guns and Ammo' mag has an article (I think it's written by
Joanne but can't remember) on shooting stances.

Jenna

    Well, I've slogged through the entire 350+ notes so I could see where
    the discussion is, and now I'll try to respond in the direction of the
    original topic, and leave gun control to SOAPBOX note 16...

    I will freely admit that I'm a *lousy* long gun (shotgun, rifle) teacher
    for women -- the stance I use would not work for any woman unless she
    had, er, a chest like mine.  But I have taught many women to shoot
    handguns -- both basic safety classes and advanced safety classes for
    practical pistol shooting (all practical shooting clubs in our area
    require a safety class for everyone before participating).

    First two definitions -- strong side is your dominant side -- right if
    you're right handed; weak side is the 'other' side.

    I used to teach a "Weaver" stance, which is feet 45 degrees to the
    target, strong foot back, strong arm straight and locked and weak
    arm bent and elbow pointing downward.  For women, the weak elbow can
    run into interference from the chest.  The Weaver has several other
    disadvantages:  It is a more complex position to teach, it takes a
    little more time to assume because of its complexity and assuming
    *exactly* the same position time after time, shot after shot, is
    difficult.

    After taking a class from Mike Plaxco last year (one of the top ten
    shooters in the US for practical pistol) I learned the isosceles
    position.  In the isosceles, you face the target directly, both arms
    extended and semi-locked (straighten them, but don't strain to lock
    them).  You lean forward slightly from your *ankles* NOT YOUR BOTTOM!
    The gun is 'clamshelled' between your two hands, but not tightly.

    The advantages to the isosceles are the opposite of the disadvantages
    for the Weaver -- it's easy to teach, it's easy to assume and it's easy
    to return to the same position shot after shot.  In addition, your arms
    are up out of the way of your chest.

    So much for stance.  Now about training -- you can't take enough safety
    and training classes -- I urge anyone that owns a gun, or is thinking
    of buying one to take an NRA safety class at the least.  If you're back
    East, you may want to look into some of the LFI courses that are taught
    in Concord, NH (?).

    Practical Pistol (IPSC -- International Practical Pistol Confederation)
    is an excellent way to keep on top of safety and to keep yourself
    honed.  IPSC has four laws of gun control, which, if followed will
    keep an accident from *ever* happening:

    	1) Treat all guns as loaded
    	2) Never point the gun at something you are not prepared to destroy
    	3) Always be sure of your target and whats behind it
    	4) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the
    	   target

    How many times has the first law been violated, and you hear the
    plaintive bleat -- "I didn't know it was loaded!"  ALWAYS TREAT IT AS
    LOADED, AND THAT WILL *NEVER* HAPPEN TO YOU!  Rule 4 is violated almost
    constantly by most shooters -- go to a gun show sometime and count how
    may times someone picks up a gun and *doesn't* put their finger on the
    trigger -- if you count on your fingers, I'll bet you have fingers left
    by the end of the day (unfortunately).

    I can't recommend competing in IPSC enough -- many people say we're
    "training people to kill" but it's quite the opposite -- we're training
    people to *think* before they pull the trigger.  As you compete,
    safety, markmanship (hmmm, sexist word, no?) and confidence become
    ingrained, freeing up a lot more of your mind to *decide* if you need
    to pull the trigger.

    Remember when you learned to drive?  You had so many things to think
    about that you drove slowly, were conservative to the point of being
    ridiculous?  The same thing is true of shooting -- you've got a lot to
    think about at first, but as time goes on, make many things become
    habit and you can think about more important things.  Going out to the
    range once every six months will never allow those good habits to become
    ingrained.

    Being unsure of the gun and unsure of your ability to hit a target may,
    in a defensive situation, tempt you to launch a 'pre-emptive' strike
    against a shadowy figure.  Being sure of your equipment and your
    marksmanship will allow you to think, identify the potential target,
    and only shoot when absolutely necessary.  The life you save may be your
    mate's....

    If anyone is interested in IPSC affiliated clubs (actually the
    organization is called the United States Practical Shooting Association
    (USPSA) in the US) in your area, go ahead and respond to this note and
    I'll post nearby club contacts.

                              Roak

    RE: .387
    
    I know this is a rathole. I can't help myself.
    
    RE:dominant limbs and strength
    
    As an ex-P.E. teacher, I know that while the dominant arm will
    be the stronger, it's the NON-dominant *leg* that will be stronger.
    (It's the one you stand on, the one that holds your weight 
    while kicking - the other is the more *accurate*)
    
    Thus, the proper stance for stability is (for a righty): right
    arm forward, LEFT leg back. 
    
    Is that what you were describing?
    
    (Sorry about this, but I LOVE kinesiology, and I don't get
    to discuss it much anymore.)
    
    --DE
    

    Conventional target, or 'bullseye' shooting is done with
    right arm extended, right foot forward, one hand only
    on the gun. As I was taught, this afforded the greatest
    pure accuracy (with moderate-recoiling target arms.)
    There is also a defensive handgun technique called the 
    kenpo punch, which is done similarly.
    
    However, the two-hand hold stances provide greater recoil
    control when hard-kicking defensive ammunition is fired.
    This has been extensively tested in defense-oriented
    matches, where ammunition power and fast follow-up for
    multiple shooting counts as much as 'pure' accuracy.
    
    dana
    
    PS Thanx, Dawn, learn something new every day here. 

Re: <<< Note 210.388 by VINO::EVANS "I'm baa-ack" >>>
    
>>    Thus, the proper stance for stability is (for a righty): right
>>    arm forward, LEFT leg back. 
    
>>    Is that what you were describing?

    Nope, for a Weaver, a righty's legs and shoulders are 45 degrees to the
    target, right foot back.  If you were to stand with your left foot
    back, you could not have your right arm straight, left arm bent unless
    you twisted 90 degrees at the waist, an uncomfortable position at best!

    Try it:  Face a spot on the wall.  Drop your strong (right for a
    righty) foot back so your feet are about 45 to the spot on the wall,
    shoulders aligned with your feet.  Now extend your strong arm toward
    the spot on the wall (don't move your shoulders), and surround your
    strong fist with your weak hand. Note that because of your shoulder
    position, your weak arm is "too long" and has to be bent to grab your
    strong hand.
    
    Note how difficult this is to explain -- one of the advantages of the
    isosceles position!  The Weaver theory goes that the bent, weak hand
    and arm can be used to pull down on the gun AFTER (important concept)
    the gun goes off to get the gun back on target quickly.
    
    For hand-to-hand combat you're right -- "weak" foot back -- but not for
    shooting!

                            Roak
    
    I think we have a problem of definitions -- in shooting we talk of strong
    and weak sides so the definition doesn't change from limb to limb,
    whereas in actuality, strength-wise, it might just change from limb
    to limb...

    OK - got it. You place the *strong* leg in the *weak* place 
    in order to allow the body postion you need.
    
    Ain't semantics fun?
    
    Thanks,
    
    --DE
    

    I was taught that you shoot (target shooting, this is) with the
    side that has your dominant *eye*.  Does this fit with the other
    things that have been said about stance, or is this something
    different?
    

    Being cross-dominant does throw a monkeywrench into the works, but in a
    defensive situation, where you may be actually firing for one to three
    seconds typically, it doesn't hurt to close one eye...

    Depending on what kind of shooting you're doing, you may or may not
    want to consider your dominant eye as your dominant side.  As you
    mention, format target shooting, which takes long periods of time, you
    must to cut down on fatigue in any way, so you may want to shoot using
    the hand that cooresponds to the dominant eye.

    Both my wife and I are cross-dominant -- she's left handed/right eyed
    and I'm right handed/left eyed -- when shooting handguns, I just close
    my left eye whereas she tips her head over and uses her right eye. 
    When shooting long guns, again I close my left eye, but she shoots long
    guns right handed for two reasons -- 1) So she can use her dominant eye
    and 2) she shoots semi-automatics which are setup for right handed
    shooters (they eject the brass out to the right).
    
    My wife and I compete in IPSC competitions, in which a course of fire
    lasts maybe a maximum of thirty seconds, so closing an eye or tipping
    the head isn't a problem.

                             Roak

Re: <<< Note 210.391 by VINO::EVANS "I'm baa-ack" >>>
    
>>                            -< Okey-doke >-
    
    Are you making fun of my last name?  :-)

    RE: .394
    
    Noak, not at all. Uh. Er..I mean *nope*, not at all!
    
    <nyuk, nyuk> ;-)
    
    --DE
    

    A few thoughts on firearm choices...

    I'm not a big believer in "lady's guns" -- the short, snubby revolvers
    and automatics -- velocity and bullet diameter suffer (which translates
    into so-called "stopping power") and recoil, muzzle flip and muzzle
    blast increases.

    A woman can handle *any* firearm, any calibre -- don't let anyone tell
    you otherwise.  Personal preference may steer someone (man or woman) to
    a smaller calibre, but to say someone can't handle something is
    hogwash.

    My religion (read: personal opinion) on defensive firearms:

    If you are not going to carry (home defense only) and you're not going
    to go 'house clearing' when you hear a noise (you're just going to hole
    up in the bedroom and dial 911, for instance) I'd recommend a shotgun. 
    HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, YOU NEED TO AIM A SHOTGUN, SO YOU
    MUST PRACTICE WITH IT!  Many people think that all you need to do is
    point a shotgun in the same time zone as something you wish to hit and
    you'll hit it.  Wrong.  Across a room, a shotgun has a group about the
    size of a grapefruit.  It's easy to miss with a grapefruit.

    If you're going to carry your firearm or you might want to investigate
    noises, you'll want a sidearm (handgun).  This leaves you with two
    choices -- a revolver or an 'automatic' (actually automatic is the
    incorrect term -- "autoloader" is correct).  Your choice between a
    revolver and an autoloader is driven by several factors...

    If you're not going to shoot a lot (like six times or less a year) I'd
    recommend a revolver.  You pull the trigger and it goes bang.  No
    safeties, nothing much to remember and, as an added bonus, a long, hard
    trigger pull to help control unwanted shots from adrenalin rushes.
    However, that long, hard pull also makes it a little less accurate
    (if you're not practiced) and you get a max of six shots, at which time
    you must reload, which can take some time.

    In addition, if you're not going to carry in a holster, a revolver is
    the way to go for safety.

    My recommendation for a defensive revolver?  A .357 Magnum with a 4"
    barrel.  Reasons?  You can fire .38s in a .357 until you're
    comfortable, then move up to the .357 rounds.  The longer barrel (4"
    vs. a "snubby") soaks up the recoil better (the gun weighs more) and
    it points a little more naturally.  Also don't forget the intimidation
    factor.  I like, in order, the Smith and Wesson 686 and 586, 66, and
    the Ruger GP100.  I would not go with a cartridge more powerful than a
    .357 because of recovery time (time to get the gun back on target).

    If you're going to shoot a lot (more than six times a year) and you're
    going to carry in a holster, I would recommend an autoloader.  They're
    more accurate because of the lighter trigger pull, they carry more
    rounds and they're faster to reload.  The choices are much to wide and
    the options too great for me to recommend anything, though I'd give the
    Glock 17 and 19 a good looking over, just make sure it fits your hand
    before plunking down the bucks.  The government .45 (1911A1) is an
    excellent gun, and is also available in 38 Super and 9MM calibers (not
    many people know that!).  It *is* big and heavy, and some smaller people
    thinks it weighs too much to have fun practicing (hence my suggestion
    for the Glock).

    Whatever you decide on, no matter what calibre you purchase, remember:
    One good hit with a tiny bullet is better than six misses with a big
    one!  PRACTICE!

    Also, in terms of home defense, remember the third law:

    	3) Always be sure of your target and what's behind it

    Research your house:  Where's good places to hide?  Is someone's bedroom
    in the line of fire?  Walls don't stop bullets.  Plan on that!

    Two excellent books I recommend are "Life Without Fear" by Mike Dalton
    and "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley.

    Hope this all helps!

                         Roak

    
    .-1 has a point: there is no such thing as a "Lady's gun" - I know
    women who shoot long range pistol (200 metres or more) with .308
    and heavier pistols (for those who aren't aware of it the .308 is
    the NATO 7.62mm *rifle* round ... rather more powerful than the soviet 
    7.62mm rifle round from the Avtomet Kaloshnikov rifle that is reputed to
    be able to cut a man in two...) My wife (4' 11" tall and weight
    to scale) can fire a long barreled .44 magnum revolver with my hand
    rolled silhouette rounds single handed, 5 shots in three seconds
    and get them all in the black on a standard 25 yard target...
    
    As for stance: the Weaver stance is the best two handed grip for
    standing and deliberate firing a heavy recoilling handgun. The
    isosceles stance is best for rapid fire of a heavy handgun, since
    you can bring the gun up into the line of sight very quickly, and
    in a live combat situation even fire before the sights are fully
    aligned ("firing over the sights" as it is sometimes called). The
    Weaver stance easily adopts into a barricade position (with the
    hands resting on the roof of a car say...)
    
    Incidentally a variation of the Weaver stance is also possible and
    sometimes taught in which the weak hand instead of supporting the
    gun actually grips the wrist of the dominant hand. Some people find
    this more comfortable and easier to learn than the Weaver position.
    
    The single hand style in which you stand side on to the target,
    with a line through your feet pointing at the target is not very
    stable, and originates in duelling when the main advantage was that
    it gave the minimum silhouette of your body for your oponent to
    fire at.
    
    The "best" single handed stance is with the feet at 45 degrees to
    the target, and with the left foot back (as suggested a few notes
    back - the left foot is dominant in a right handed person and this
    gives maximum stability). The exact posture can be "fine tuned"
    by taking a unloaded pistol and with your eyes closed bring the
    gun up to a comfortable position and then open your eyes. Now move
    your left foot till the vertical plane through the gun points to
    the target. Lean forward or back from the waist till the gun points
    at the target... Repeat the experiment as often as needed...       
    
    /. Ian .\
                                              
    PS: for what it is worth the point about shotguns is also correct:
    the rate of spread of a normal shotgun is about 1" for every yard
    of range. At 10' (across a room) the shot pattern is about 3" across...
    
    
    

    This is a very interesting and informative note.  
    Thanks,
    Mary

    Re: .396
    
    I agree with everything you've said, but I have to add my $.02 to
    one point.  If you're only going to practice six times a year, you're
    not very committed to developing and maintaining the skills necessary
    to preserve your own life with a firearm, should you face that
    situation.  Thus it doesn't matter whether you choose a revolver
    or an autoloader.  What counts is the headset you first establish
    that says you *will* use lethal force in defense of innocent life
    (your own or that of loved ones) and the skills you acquire to
    implement that conviction if it becomes necessary.
    
    	Bill  

    
    Just to add to the last few.  If a shot gun is your selection one
    must be extremely careful as to the type of ammunition used indoors.
    
    As was mentioned if you should miss you want to be careful of over
    penetration, especially if you live in an apartment.  Taking out
    your neighbors wouldn't make you too popular on the block.
    
    The balls contained in a shot gun shell get bigger as the size or
    number of the "shot" get smaller.  An example would be #6 shot would
    be smaller than #4 shot.  Definately stay away from "buck" shot,
    these go from 0, 00 and so on.  They are fairly large and will go
    through walls etc.  #6 shot would probably fit the bill for indoor
    use, IMO.
    
    Also, a shot gun shell with #6 shot in it contains more balls in
    it than say a shell with 00 buck.
    
    -Kendall

    I've heard of using rock salt in a shotgun you plan to use for
    defense.  Supposedly it inflicts a great deal of pain on the
    intruder without endangering his/her life.  Does that really work?
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
     It can be dangerous because you may not know how much is too much.
    If you put too much in the barrel, the barrel may explode.
    
    Gregg

    Rock salt [with or without lard] can be seriously damaging.  I've never
    been shot, so I have no direct personal knowledge of the comparative
    effects. However, I did get a pretty good look at the chicken-thief
    whose hide my grandmother salted.  He didn't die from the salting, but
    I'm sure he had the scars the day he died and a piece of his foot was
    beyond repair.
    
    It sort of reminds me of all the talk about rubber bullets used in
    crowd control... 'Rubber bullets' conjures up images of bouncy, pingy
    little projectiles when the reality is more like large hockey pucks
    with points on them.
    
      Ann

    re. rock salt, and shooting to cause pain
    
    1.Anytime you are justified in using a gun, that is, when threatened
    with immediate serious injury or death, you are legally justified
    in using deadly force. If you are not justified in shooting to
    stop/kill, you are not justified to 'hurt'. 
    
    2.At close distances such as encountered in self-defense, (for
    instance, across your kitchen,) a load of rock salt would be as
    damaging as a load of lead. 

    3. Since rock salt loads are not commercially available, you would
    have to reload your own. In court, using reloaded ammunition of
    any sort can be used against you. (Yes, righteous shooters are
    frequently brought into court, both civil and criminal.)
    The burglar you shoot may sue you ! And his attorney will point
    to you and say, "Your Honor, this person was not content with 
    commercial ammunition in her gun. Not content to merely defend
    herself, she concocted her own special, *extra deadly* loads, 
    the better to brutally maim someone. Surely this is not a mere
    case of justified self-defense."
    
    (I reload, for target practice and hunting. If I ever have to
    defend myself with firearms, you can bet it will be with 
    the same 38 Special ammunition my local police chief uses.)

    Dana

    A further clarification : a gun is *always* considered
    *deadly*. Even when *unloaded*. It is never considered
    as anything less. 

    Re:  Last couple
    
    a)  Forget rocksalt in a shotgun.  If you are going to defend your
        life against imminent and unavoidable threat, then do it with
        conviction.  Use commercial ammunition containing lead balls
        that has known and predictable ballistic properties.  Birdshot
    	is generally ineffective against a human attacker.  My personal
    	choice would be #1 buck shot, although many "authorities" might
        recommend 00 buck.  The latter is more part of the lore of shot-
        gunning than real practical fact.  My reasoning is that while
        00 buck gives you 9 .33 caliber lead balls in a standard 2-3/4"
        shell, #1 buck gives you almost twice as many (16) .30 caliber
        balls, thus increasing your hit potential against an attacker
    	while still maintaining sufficient mass in each projectile to
        inflict serious damage.
    
    b)  Generally speaking, you should also forget shotguns as defensive
        weapons to begin with.  They are too difficult to wield in any
        enclosed space in your home and, because of their length, also
        more subject to being taken away from you by your attacker than
        any type of handgun.  The exception might be to keep a pump-type
        shotgun with the minimum legal barrel length of 18" in your
        bedroom or other "safe room" in your home that you establish
        in your personal defense strategy as a final place of defense
        for you and your family.
    
    		Bill 
       

    In the Oct./Nov. issue of American Handgunner is the true story,
    under the column heading of 'The Ayoob Files', of a woman 
    who defended herself from a battering ex-boyfriend with a
    handgun. She was 63, he was 46, weighed 222 lbs. 
    
    Owing the her incoherence after the incident, and the way she
    answered detectives questioning, she was charged with murder.
    She was subsequently acquited. 
    
    This article illustrates many of the legal aspects of self-
    defense, as well as paying tribute to a woman who said "Enough."

    Re: .407
    
    Last week I listened to Massad Ayoob personally describe this incident
    as I sat in his "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" class in Dunbarton,
    N.H.  The woman who used justified lethal force in this case became
    the victim of post-violent encounter syndrome, which was the cause
    of her initial arrest for murder.  Basically she made statements
    to the police long before she was mentally capable of recalling
    the true facts of the situation.  Such post-shooting trauma on the
    part of the person who commits justifiable homicide is not well
    understood by the police or the courts.  Ayoob appeared as an expert
    witness in this case at the request of the woman's attorney and
    helped turn the ruling in her favor.
    
    	Bill

    	RE: .408
    
    	> Basically she made statements to the police long before she was 
    	> mentally capable of recalling the true facts of the situation. 
    
    	This may sound "suspicious" to some people, but something similar
    	happened to me after a serious car accident I had when I was a 
    	teenager.
    
    	When the first police officer approached me (while still trapped
    	in the car I'd been driving,) I gave the wrong name for the road
    	I had turned left from -- instead of naming the road I'd been on, 
    	I named the one that ran parallel to it (because it was the only
    	road name I knew at the time, and I had a habit of referring to
    	both roads by the same name.)  
    
    	Had I actually turned from the *parallel* road, the move would 
    	have been illegal (so it would have involved some serious issues, 
    	since the accident resulted in a fatality.)
    
    	Not only that, but when the other car hit the side of my car
    	(at 55 mph) during my left turn, I had already made most of the
    	turn, so I was facing the red lights of the cross street's
    	traffic (so the red lights stuck in my mind more than my own
    	left green arrows did.)  One of the first things I said after
    	the crash was, "Three greens and a red..." (but I told people
    	at the scene that the red light was mine, which wasn't true.)
    
     	> Such post-shooting trauma on the part of the person who commits 
    	> justifiable homicide is not well understood by the police or the 
    	> courts. 
    
    	In my case, I was lucky enough to refrain from making a formal
    	statement after the police read my rights to me (and was even
    	luckier that there had been an eye witness very close by who *did*
    	see what street I'd turned from, and who *did* see clearly that
    	I had the undisputed right of way during my left turn.)  
    
    	The witness not only made a point of telling the police what
    	really happened, but he also called my parents to tell them to
    	make it clear to me that I was *not* at fault.  As a result of
    	what he was able to tell investigators, I wasn't charged with
    	any sort of traffic violation for that accident at all.
    
    	Without this witness (who was an airline pilot, by the way,) I
    	might have remembered/understood what happened later on, but it
    	would probably have been too late for anyone to believe me.
    
    	In fact, I might never have believed it myself that I was not
    	to blame for what happened.
    
    	I don't think the police or the courts *do* understand how a
    	person can become confused enough after a traumatic experience
    	to make untrue statements that tend to incriminate (falsely)
    	the person who is making them.

    Re: .409
    
    Ayoob advises that you say as little as possible to responding and
    investigating police officers in the immediate aftermath of a
    justifiable shooting, e.g., "A man/woman attacked me, he/she had
    a weapon, I had to shoot him/her."  Nothing more than this for a
    minimum of 24, and preferably, 48 hours.  You might add something
    like, "I'm not waiving Miranda, I know this is serious, I want an
    attorney present when I make a statement."  The reason is that a
    whole raft of psychological phenomena are operating during and
    following a violent encounter that distort perception and could
    make it seem later that you are changing your story, etc.  Things
    like tachypsychia, which distorts remembered time frames because
    you were so intensely focused on the horrifying nature of the events
    at hand that things seemed to be happening in slow motion.  The
    same process could make perceived distances seem greater (shorter),
    the attacker larger, the weapon larger, than they actually were.
    Immediately following a violent encounter, cognitive dissonance,
    a form of temporary confusion, can cause people to recall things
    out of their true sequence, remember relatively insignificant details,
    or forget important ones.  Fugue, a "flight of fancy," often occurs
    and produces a zombie-like state temporarily in some individuals.
    
    As a general rule, police and prosecutors are not well trained in
    this area and the testimony of an expert witness becomes critical
    in establishing a solid defense and convincing a jury of your
    innocence.
    
    	Bill

    	RE: .410
    
    	> Ayoob advises that you say as little as possible to responding and
    	> investigating police officers in the immediate aftermath of a
    	> justifiable shooting...
    
    	The same holds true for a serious car accident.
    
    	In regards to the accident I mentioned in .409, my parents hired
    	a criminal defense lawyer for me (at the advice of their insurance 
    	company) immediately after the accident, since there had been fatal 
    	injuries to a passenger in the other car.
    
    	My lawyer advised me not to *ever* give the police a formal statement
    	(and to tell the police that "these were my lawyer's instructions"
    	every time they called to ask me for a statement, which they did
    	several times in the months following the accident.)
    
    	Even though we knew that the sole eye witness cleared me of being
    	charged with vehicular homicide (and any/all other traffic viola-
    	tions in regards to this accident,) we were advised to be cautious
    	at every step, regardless.
    
    	In any situation like the two under discussion, it's best to talk 
    	to a lawyer *first* (and then follow her instructions to the letter.)

    Re: .393
    
    An alternate solution for the cross-dominant person when shooting
    a handgun is simply this:  Rather than closing one eye or tilting
    the head, hold the gun in the strong hand, but tilt the entire gun
    at a 45 degree angle in the direction of the dominant eye, keeping
    front and rear sights aligned on the target.  You will find that
    this simple maneuver now moves the sights just enough to position
    them correctly in line with your dominant eye.
    
    An advantage of this technique is that you now can keep both eyes
    open and thus improve your peripheral field of vision in a threat-
    ening situation.  This could be of critical importance if you are
    facing multiple attackers.  A second advantage is that, with your
    head remaining erect, you may appear more convincing and more counter-
    threatening to your attacker; the body language of a tilted head
    suggests compliance or lack of commitment.
    
    The same technique can also be used by same-side-dominant shooters
    when shooting one-handed with the weak hand.  It is the technique
    I personally favor and it is the one used several decades ago by
    champion target shooter Capt. Bill MacMillan of the Marine Corps,
    who himself was cross-dominant.
    
    	Bill

    The problem with tipping the gun is twofold:

    First, the sights are set up for a bullet's trajectory along the axis
    of the sight.  Tipping the gun will make the sights inaccurate at a
    longer distance (if the top of the gun is tipped to the right, the
    bullets will hit too far to the right).  Admittedly, this is not too
    much of a problem in a defensive situation where the shots are not
    going to be 100 feet.

    Secondly, you can pick up and align a level sight picture much more
    quickly than a slanted one.  This is important where milliseconds
    count.  The human eye/mind can handle horizontal and vertical lines
    much better than slanted ones.  Interestingly, this is *not* the case
    in primitive cultures that do not live in a world of horizontal and
    vertical lines -- an aside, anyone ever heard of an "Ames Window" (I'm
    not sure of the spelling) optical illusion?

    The fact that a target shooter who 1) always shoots at a fixed distance
    (so the sights can be adjusted for that distance and that distance
    only) and 2) has more than enough time to aim (even the rapid-fire
    portion of the gallery course is an amazing amount of time when
    compared to firing in some self-defense situations) uses this technique
    does not surprise me -- it does not belong, however, in self defense
    shooting.

                                   Roak

    Re: .413
    
    Roak, I do not disagree with the technical basis of your argument.
    However, at the distances at which most violent encounters involving
    civilians or police occur (most authorities say something in the
    range of 4 to 10 yards), neither the trajectory nor the time to
    pick up the sights is a real problem.  I can consistently hit well
    within the "A" zone of an IPSC target drawing from a holster and
    more or less indexing the target over the sights.  Please try it
    for yourself.  I think you'll be surprised how easy it is and what
    a great mental and visual advantage you get.
    
    	Bill 

Looking back at the base note of this topic, 210.0 by PBA::GRIFFITH 
entered on 9/26/88, the initial focus here was on personal safety 
concerns and keeping a gun in one's home for protection.  Over the 
course of almost a year, the majority of the replies to this, and to
related note 218, have tended to center about RKBA and gun-control
issues.  I don't think that's what the author of the base note was
asking, as she seemed to have already made a personal commitment to
acquire a firearm for self-defense.

Some of the replies have offered good, practical, proven advice about
the selection and use of firearms for home and personal protection.
Others have repeated some myths of "popular wisdom" that will surely 
get you killed, maimed, or jailed if you follow such advice.  Still 
others have offered opinions which have sparked further discussion, 
but which were not always thoroughly developed for maximum benefit to
the participants of the conference.

I would like to suggest, and I would ask the moderators here to help 
decide, that RKBA and gun-control issues be kept out of this and that 
the discussion be limited to strictly a forum for the presentation 
and objective dissection of the technical, practical, legal, psycho-
logical, and moral aspects of guns used by women in self-defense.
There are other topics available in several existing conferences
(FIREARMS, SOAPBOX) for discussion of rights and control concerns.
    
    Bill

Re: <<< Note 210.414 by WOODRO::DOLL "45 ACP: One shot stopping" >>>

>>                                         I can consistently hit well
>>    within the "A" zone of an IPSC target drawing from a holster and
>>    more or less indexing the target over the sights.  Please try it
>>    for yourself.
    
    Better than that, I used to shoot IPSC that way weak and strong hand
    [canting the gun].  Now I have it level and I'm faster and more
    accurate (however, I'm no Robbie Latham :-))
    
    Rather than looking at this as an impass, however, I think it can be
    used to highlight one of the most important factors in shooting or for
    that matter any sport:
    
    Experiemnt and use what works best for you!
    
                       Roak

    Re: .416
    
    I have to agree, Roak.  What works for each individual is what's
    "best."  Lots of factors need to be considered, including your own
    comfort as well as the level of accuracy needed for the situation.
    Good discussion of alternative styles.
    
    	Bill

          re: 775.64 (Ren Foster)  <Harmony not conflict>

          >    I'm sorry if it bothers you that I will vote for gun
          >    control.

          The analogy to your voting for gun control (essentially you
          imposing your belief that guns are wrong for you onto *others*),
          would be for me voting that people should be required to own a
          gun.  Would that bother you :-) ? (rhetorical question :-)

          >    I will never walk up to you and try to remove your
          >    weapon from you.

          Yikes!!!  Ren!  *Please* understand that when you vote for gun
          control you do EXACTLY that !!!

          The proven effect of gun control is that it keeps firearms out of
          the hands of law-abiding citizens.

          It is *not* a proven deterrent to crime.  New York City is the
          longest standing example of the failure of gun control.
          Washington D.C. is a newer one, and most recent is Chicago, where
          gun control laws were enacted in early 89 and the violent
          crime/homicide rate has *increased* a double digit %, while the
          rate at which citizens have justifiably used firearms in their
          self-defense has decreased over the same time span last year.

          But hey, don't take my word for it.  Do your own research.  I was
          not convinced until I did.

          The facts can change your mind.

                                                            nancy b.

          >    To those of you who advocate gun safety, the best way is to
          >    keep the thing away from me. And then I won't fire in the
          >    air.

          The implications from this is that the *choice* of whether or not
          to select a gun for self-defense is one that should not be
          available, because the person is not able to rationally choose
          based on her beliefs and hence would not responsibly and safely
          use the gun.

          The general attitude that people are not responsible enough to
          decide about X and therefore the choice should be kept out of our
          hands is one that I've written massive mail-merges to all state
          reps and a few selected national legislators on two separate
          issues.

          This attitude is precisely the rationale that anti-gun
          legislators (Sen. Metzenbaum, in particular) and gun-control
          groups (HCI) use...That even law-abiding citizens are not able to
          make a responsible decision as to the proper use of guns, and
          therefore, the option simply should not be present.  That is
          their ultimate goal.

          When statements like the above are made, I can't help feel that
          more and more people are becoming like meek herds of sheep.  We
          want to be led.  We want our choices and decisions to be made for
          us.  The state knows best what is right for us.  Legislators are
          believing this also, and IT IS SCARY.  I have heard of state
          legislators making remarks like, "The people have no part in the
          legislative process."

							nancy b.

    And I seem to recall that one state legislator said "To hell
    with the Constitution". That bothers me. That he wasn't 
    impeached on charges of sedition bothers me more.

    RE: .420, I believe that was in California during a debate on banning
    "assautl rifles". Rather frightening attitude.
    
    Eric

    Re:  last several
    
    Every human being has the moral right of self-defense.  In a very
    practical sense, the only effective last-resort means of that defense
    is a firearm.  Mace, rape whistles, knitting needles, and dogs don't
    cut it.  If you believe the popular hype about the effectiveness
    of these objects, you are kidding yourself.  If you choose not to
    own and use a firearm for this purpose because you are personally
    uncomfortable with it, that is your prerogative; I will not try
    to convince you otherwise.  I, however, resent the imposition of
    any legislation that restricts or overrides my right to preserve
    my own life in self-defense against criminal attack.  I will not
    entrust my personal safety or that of my family to a government
    or police department that is demonstrably incapable of doing so.
    
    	Bill

================================================================================
Note 775.85                   Harmony not conflict                      85 of 85
SYSENG::BITTLE "healing from the inside out"         45 lines  21-SEP-1989 16:42
                            -< Stunned and Amazed >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: 775.82 (Lorna St. Hilaire)
    -------------------------

>    On the other hand, I have voted for gun-control because I do have
>    an idea that it would be better to limit the number of guns as much
>    as possible.  But, then, I really do question my right to do that
>    after hearing views such as Dana's. 

YEA, LORNA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEA, DANA CHARBONNEAU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I NEARLY FELL OUT OF MY OFFICE CHAIR WHEN I READ THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lorna, was that really you who entered that from your account ?!?!
(or was Dana holding you at gunpoint :-)? oooh, ouch, bad joke!!)

Watching someone learn and reason is truly an uplifting experience.

						just floatin' by,
						nancy b.
 

p.s.  For reference, the note Lorna referred to is appended after the
      formfeed.



================================================================================
Note 775.62                   Harmony not conflict                      62 of 84
SA1794::CHARBONND "It's a hardship post"             13 lines  20-SEP-1989 13:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        I respect the right of others to believe in an afterlife,
    or rebirth, or immortal souls. However, I do not share those 
    beliefs. I believe 'this is it'. My only chance at the 
    wonderful thing called life. And I will not let it be 
    taken from me without resisting, with as much force as
    necessary. (This to me is the only moral use of force -
    self defense.)
    
    I would ask that those who believe different than I not
    try to disarm me, thus forcing me to live by their 
    beliefs through depriving me of the means of protecting
    *my* life. 

          re: 812.8 (Joe White)
          >  ============================================================
          >  Note 812.8             Problems growing out of an assualt
          >  DECWET::JWHITE "I'm pro-choice and I vote"            4 lines
          >           -< only 3 replies to get to guns; typical >-
          >  -------------------------------------------------------------

          Instead of indirectly criticizing Jody Bobbitt's suggestion of
          the woman learning how to use a gun, why don't you (I challenge
          you to) offer a better alternative as to how she could protect
          herself in the event of another attack in the near future?

          What is your argument against this woman learning how to use a
          gun to protect herself?
                                                            nancy b.

    
    re:.424
    my understanding of note 812.0 was that the writer was concerned
    about a) what to tell her kids b) what to do with her kids as far
    as keeping them in the daycare program c) how to deal with her
    husband who disagreed with her on some of these questions and
    d) how to deal with her own guilt. i saw nothing that had anything
    to do with ms. bobbit's comment in 812.3, "if she [the victim,
    presumeably] wants to feel safer...learn to use a gun". in fact,
    the writer of .0 specifically said, "I do believe we have done
    everything reasonable to protect her and her children".
    
    my intention was to point out a non sequitur; and a non sequitur
    that has occurred with, to me, disturbing regularity. as i continue
    to read note 812 we have, in fact, yet another self-defence note.
    as far as i can tell, none of the basenoter's actual concerns are
    being addressed.
    
    finally, and simply because i like you ms. bittle, i will say
    for the record that i am not opposed to people having guns for
    any legal purpose. i am opposed to people being able to procure
    dangerous instruments without reasonable restrictions. i am put
    off by the narrow-constructionism that insists that any restrictions
    are a blasphemy against civil rights and the constitution. i also
    do not own, nor ever plan to own, a gun. *for me* it would be dangerous
    and wrong. for you (the big you) it might not be. any speculations i
    might have on the morality of you (again, in general) owning a gun
    are just that: speculations and thus totally irrelevent.
      

>        my intention was to point out a non sequitur; and a non sequitur
>    that has occurred with, to me, disturbing regularity. as i continue
>    to read note 812 we have, in fact, yet another self-defence note.
>    as far as i can tell, none of the basenoter's actual concerns are
>    being addressed.
    
     If, in fact, you were only interested in pointing out something that
    you feel did not address the questions in the base note, it certainly
    could have been done in a less condescending and acrimonious way. If
    you are really so concerned with your perception that no one has
    addressed the issues raised by the base note, why did you yourself fail
    to address anything in the base note?
    
     What bothers me about your reply is that you sound as if your opinion
    is morally superior to our side. You make a snide and derisive comment
    to someone who is not your proverbial NRA gun slingin' beer swillin'
    pickup truck drivin' good 'ole boy, but someone who is thoughtful and
    measured in her responses. This woman already had certain reservations
    about her advice, so much so that she felt it necessary to downplay its
    importance by saying "I will not defend this opinion because it is my
    gut reaction." And you come along and let her know that her opinion is 
    "typical" pro-gun garbage. Well, it isn't typical- not coming from her.
    Coming from Amos, well...
    
     I am really bothered by the current situation where the mere idea of
    defending the 2nd amendment is met with a moral superiority backlash.
    By both the anit-gunners and the media (almost one and the same.)
    
     A short while ago, there was a guy who escaped from a prison in
    Colorado and was involved in a media special- a shootout with cops.
    The media feasted on it as yet another reason to make NEW laws BANNING
    GUNS. Well, the news is that he has plea bargained a guilty plea to
    being an accessory to the commission of a felony. Among the charges
    DROPPED were *illegal possession of a firearm by a felon* and attempted
    murder of a police officer. The possession of a firearm by a felon is
    punishable by a _mandatory_ offense. And yet the charge was dropped.
    Do you think the media will make a stink about that? Not on your life.
    It doesn't fit into the agenda of making NEW laws against guns.
    
     I am so disgusted by the whole thing I could just scream.
    
    The Doctah
    
    

    
    re:.426 
    i am sorry you felt my little side comment in 812.8 'condescending and
    acrimonious', 'snide and derisive'. but i am a little confused; do you 
    find my remarks in 210.425 equally irritating?

    re:812.8
    i did not address any issue in the base note because i have nothing
    useful to contribute. my main reason for writing anything at all
    was because i thought it amusing that a few of us had had the same
    weird, melodramatic thought.

    i confess it did not occur to me that my remark might in any way
    be personally offensive to ms. bobbit, for whom i have great
    respect and admiration. if, in fact, it was, i apologize and i will
    be more than happy to delete it at her or the moderators's request.

    as for other things that bother you about my reply (i assume that here
    you mean note 210.425 not 812.8):
	1) *to me* my side *is* morally superior (as, obviously, your side
           is to you). 
	2) i don't understand why you bring 'the media' into the discussion.
	   surely, you are not implying any equivalence between 'the media'
	   and my poor self. what, then, is the point?
	3) i am really bothered by the current situation where the mere idea 
	   of poo-pooing the 2nd amendment is met with a moral superiority 
	   backlash [sic].
	4) i have yet to find anything i have ever written in this notefiles
	   seriously advocating any law to ban guns. in fact, even a
     	   superficial reading of 210.425 will reveal that i do not oppose
    	   ownership of guns per se. from the vituperative quality of your 
    	   remarks, i wonder if perhaps you misunderstood?
	5) your interpretation of events in colorado may very well be
	   correct; but i am not interested in it and do not see the
    	   relevance to either ms. bittle's questions or my answers. 
    
    in fact, i'm not interested in this topic. i only replied out of respect 
    to my friend ms. nancy bittle. i believe i gave a reasonably straight 
    answer to a reasonably straight question.    
     
    any other questions?
    

    Could you possibly capitalize proper names at least ? You
    can use small-case 'i' for the first person if you like,
    but 'Colorado' and 'Nancy Bittle' at least deserve the
    courtesy of proper usage. Thank you.
    
    Dana Charbonneau

    re:.428
    
    And "ms. bobbit" doesn't? :-)
    
    Given that Joe doesn't capitalize *anything*, I don't see why his
    not capitalizing proper names suggests discourtesy.
    
    --- jerry

>	1) *to me* my side *is* morally superior (as, obviously, your side
>           is to you). 
    
    No. Not morally superior. Demonstrably more effective at attaining the
    stated goal.
    
>	3) i am really bothered by the current situation where the mere idea 
>	   of poo-pooing the 2nd amendment is met with a moral superiority 
>	   backlash [sic].
    
    Insert a different number before the word amendment and see how
    intelligent that sounds.
    
>	4) i have yet to find anything i have ever written in this notefiles
>	   seriously advocating any law to ban guns. 
    
    Ok, taking that at face value. Do you or do you not support the current
    trend to ban "assault rifles" <sic>?
    
>	5) your interpretation of events in colorado may very well be
>	   correct; but i am not interested in it 
    
    I will, of course, keep this in mind during future discussions which
    involve gun control. Since you seem to come down firmly on the side of
    control, one would expect that you would want to understand what the
    problem is before proferring solutions. We shall see how your notes in
    the future tout or refute gun control based on your ignoring this
    incident (which is key to understanding the folly of gun control).
    
    The Doctah

This string is getting close to, and has stepped over the line several times,
personal insults. Think [of other people] before you strike.
	Mez

>    Many would consider this announcement good news, but I realize that
>    there are those who object to the notion that there is any moral
>    superiority attached to peace and nonviolence.  For that reason, and
>    for the sake of balance, perhaps the Nobel committee should also
>    consider awarding an annual Nobel Violence Prize in order to recognize
>    those individuals who have tirelessly struggled to glorify violence and
>    diminish the value of human life.  In that way, no apostle of violence
>    need ever feel insulted about their morality again.

 Thank you so much, Mike, for paying such strict attention to Mez's warning.
I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to see this shameless attack on the values
of several people in this conference. I am SO impressed by your ability to value 
our difference. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are truly a tribute to
moral superiority.

 The Doctah

    Mark, I know of nobody in this community who has "tirelessly struggled
    to glorify violence and diminish the value of human life".  Do you? 
    I doubt Mike does, either, and suspect that his berryesque note was
    written with tongue firmly in cheek.
    
    						=maggie  

    Re: .432
    
    Since you entered this reply under the Gun Protection topic, I must
    assume that you are directing your message about nonviolence and
    morality at guns, gun owners, and gun ownership.
    
    I don't know whether peace and nonviolence are morally superior
    or inferior to other concepts.  I'd agree that both are (simply)
    moral.  By moral we generally mean to describe acts or behaviors
    that people of good will would reasonably see as enhancing human
    dignity.  If a person carries a gun or other weapon, it implies
    that that person is prepared to take a human life.  Does this
    constitute violence?  Is this moral?
    
    Man has a natural right to life, especially if he is to achieve
    his highest aspirations.  If man has an absolute right to life,
    he also has the moral right to preserve that life.  Prudence, and
    perhaps even ethics, dictates that we should try to avoid meeting
    a probable assailant.  Reason should be employed initially if there
    is realistically any chance of success.  But when there is no other
    way of repelling the attack, lethal force used in self-defense *is*
    moral.  It is always morally viable to favor the defender of life,
    rather than the aggressor against that life.  When such a collision
    of rights occurs (your life versus that of your attacker's), the
    moral choice is clear.  By choosing unjustly to take your life,
    an aggressor forfeits his own right to life.
    
    The good of society requires that people be secure in their lives,
    especially those lives upon which others depend for their sustained
    existence and the quality of life itself.  If we do not defend our
    right to life, then we imply that criminals have a greater right
    to life than innocent citizens.
    
    There is a distinction between the aggressive use of force and the
    use of force as a reaction to aggression.  To lump both into the
    same category of "violence" is inappropriate.  To imply that the
    use of lethal force to preserve innocent life is not moral is wrong.
    
    	Bill

    <--(.435)
    
    Well said, Bill.  I would argue that in fact peace and nonviolence are
    indeed morally superior to other positions because when universally
    adopted they provide the greatest prospect for "enhancing human
    dignity".  I would agree with you that a person has the right to
    preserve their own lives from predation, but I'm unable to make the
    leap you seem to be making (please correct me if I've misinterpreted)
    and assert that a person has a moral _obligation_ to meet violence with
    violence.
    
    						=maggie

>    Mark, I know of nobody in this community who has "tirelessly struggled
>    to glorify violence and diminish the value of human life". 

 I considered the note to be a personal affront for the following reason:

> I realize that
>    there are those who object to the notion that there is any moral
>    superiority attached to peace and nonviolence. 

 This is a direct response to my note expressing displeasure that the gun
control advocates behave as if they have the moral high ground.

 It is interesting though annoying to note that most gun control advocates
equate gun control with non-violence. *If only it were so easy.* Time and
time again we see where that premise is proven false; when gun control is
enacted, violence against innocent parties INCREASES. (DOJ stats, FBI stats)

 Now Mike has deleted the reply, but the damage is done. There's really nothing
more I could expect him to do. Except, perhaps, refrain from entering that
stuff in the first place. That's the problem with making a joke out of it;
for victims of violent crime, defending yourself is no joke. It's not
difficult to see through the humor to the venom lurking just beneath the
surface.

 I hate playing this tit-for-tat game. But to let garbage go unchecked is more
than I can stand.

 The Doctah

>    Well said, Bill.  I would argue that in fact peace and nonviolence are
>    indeed morally superior to other positions because when universally
>    adopted they provide the greatest prospect for "enhancing human
>    dignity". 

 The key here is "when universally accepted." Actually, when universally 
accepted, both positions become identical because there is no violence to
counter. In a perfect society, there would be no need to defend yourself
against or accept violence. That's not here. (Malheureusement)

>assert that a person has a moral _obligation_ to meet violence with
>    violence

 I didn't see that in there. All I saw was that it is moral to defend an
attack with deadly force.

 The Doctah

> I hate playing this tit-for-tat game. But to let garbage go unchecked is more
>than I can stand.

I know that feeling. I request that you, and I, and everybody else that 'hates
to let something dorkey go', come up with other ways to do it. Maybe it's time
for a note in Processing...
	Mez

    <--(.438)
    
    Mark, I can't believe you really think both positions are ethically
    equivalent.  In the case of universal peace and non-violence everyone
    would have the option to non-violently make as much of their lives as
    possible.  In the case of universal hostility and violence the only
    ones who would have that option are the few most violent and lucky,
    because they would be the only free survivors.  That looks a very
    different outcome to me.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .436
    
    No, Maggie, I don't believe either that one has a "duty to kill"
    or an obligation to meet violence with violence.  If a situation
    can be defused verbally, it is far preferable to any other means.
    If an attacker turns tail when you draw your gun, then the threat
    has been neutralized in a nonviolent way as well.  My personal
    position on this is that I will consider these means as first
    responses, but if they fail, or if the situation is such that I
    know from my training and experience that they are likely to fail,
    then I will not hesitate to employ lethal force to preserve my own
    life or the lives of other innocents.
    
    	Bill
    

re: .438

>>    Well said, Bill.  I would argue that in fact peace and nonviolence are
>>    indeed morally superior to other positions because when universally
>>    adopted they provide the greatest prospect for "enhancing human
>>    dignity". 

> The key here is "when universally accepted." 

But if we care to move towards that point, if we think that's a good
place for human society to be at, isn't it necessary for *someone* to
start?  I don't believe countering violence with violence will move
us towards that goal, regardless of whether it's "effective" in an
individual incident.

Are we stuck in a "I'll drop my snowball after you drop yours" position?
And if we are, isn't it the moral high ground to say,
"I'll drop mine -- peace".  And then move us one small step closer towards
universal peace?  Or do people out there think there is some way peace
will just happen all at once?  Or are people just not interested in
moving humanity in that direction?

>Actually, when universally 
>accepted, both positions become identical because there is no violence to
>counter. 

?!?!?!?  The idea of violence is morally equivalent to the idea of non-violence
just because (when?) there is no violence?  I don't get it.

	MKV

re .440

>    Mark, I can't believe you really think both positions are ethically
>    equivalent.  In the case of universal peace and non-violence ...
>    In the case of universal hostility and violence ...

Several notes here have referred to "both positions", but I don't believe
that anyone has stated clearly what the two positions are.  Everyone seems
to be agreed that one position is "peace and non-violence".  Maggie seems
to be assuming that the other position is its opposite, "hostility and
violence".  

However, my impression is that the contrast intended by Bill and Mark is 
rather that of "absolute non-violence under all circumstances" versus 
"violence is permissible in defence against violent aggression".  Neither
of these positions sanctions the initiation of violence, so Marks observation
that both positions would lead to the same result does indeed make sense.

	-Neil
 

    Re: .442
    
    Mary, in my world there is a considerable difference between the
    goal of moving society as a whole toward universal nonviolence, and
    getting the scumbag who has just broken into your bedroom and is
    about to rape and then dismember you to give up with nonviolent
    means.  I don't like violence, I'm not a violent person, I don't
    like the thought of killing another person, and I wish none of us
    ever had to confront this issue.  But our world is what it is, and
    there are people out there who don't sit around debating in notes
    files what to do about it.  Instead, they're shooting up on cocaine
    and/or heroin, robbing and stealing to get the cash to buy more
    of it, and raping, killing, and maiming because of it.  The lives
    of these monsters are not worth more than mine or yours.  I'm not
    going to forfeit my life to them.  That may not move society in
    one giant leap toward universal peace, but, given the choice, you
    and I are more likely to continue making positive contributions
    to that society than are the criminals.
    
    	Bill 

Might I make a suggestion about this discussion?  There seems to be some
confusion about "morality" arising from semantics.  That is to say does
"X is a moral thing to do" mean it is morally required, or morally permitted?

I propose that we drop use of the word "moral" as an adjective, and use it
only as an adverb to prevent ambiguity.  In my Intro to Ethics course, an
act could be described as "morally required" (it would be wrong to perform
any other act), "morally permissable" or "right" (it is not wrong to perform
this act...all acts that are morally required area also morally permissable,
but not vice versa), "morally forbidden" (it would be wrong to perform the
that act, the opposite of "morally permissible").  

You will see that all actions (not generalized actions, but a specific action
at a specific time, an "extension") will fall into one of these three
categories.  (Andy two of these make a complete system, for any logic
buffs out there...sorry, I love this stuff...personal hobby.)

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I thought some agreed on
semantic rules would help alleviate ambiguity.

D!

>    Mark, I can't believe you really think both positions are ethically
>    equivalent.  In the case of universal peace and non-violence everyone
>    would have the option to non-violently make as much of their lives as
>    possible.  In the case of universal hostility and violence the only
>    ones who would have that option are the few most violent and lucky,
>    because they would be the only free survivors.  That looks a very
>    different outcome to me.

 Whoa! %COMM-ERR: Communication is not taking place

 What I said (What I meant to say?) was that complete non-violence and violence
only in defense against violence are the same when nobody is violent. My 
position is to use violence only when no other method of preventing imminent 
violence is possible or working. The use of violence as a last resort counter 
to violence is equivalent to complete non-violence under the condition that
there is no violence to counter. In other words, if we put only completely
non-violent people and people who only use violence to thwart violence in a
room, no violence would ever occur. It is when there are actively violent people
added to the room that a difference is seen. Unfortunately, there are violent
people in the world...

 Neil understood. Maybe he explained it better.

 I was definitely NOT asserting that total non-violence and total violence
were the same.

re: mary

> Are we stuck in a "I'll drop my snowball after you drop yours" position?

 I don't think so. It's more like, if you try to throw that snowball at me,
I'll make one and throw it right back.

 To me, the pacifistic solution is "Go ahead and throw your snowball at me.
I hope you feel really bad about it afterwards since I'm not defending myself.
You should learn to be nicer." Unfortunately, to a snowball bully, it just
makes another person willing to be victimized.

>?!?!?!?  The idea of violence is morally equivalent to the idea of non-violence
>just because (when?) there is no violence?  I don't get it.

 I hope I already explained that.

 The Doctah

re: .444 & .446

I see what you're saying, but I guess I just want to have both -- I want
to move the world forward away from all violence *and* not have people
get hurt (anyone, good guys or bad guys).

If someone throws a snowball at me (self-proclaimed good guy), I count 
that humanity is down one notch.  If I throw one back, it's down two.
If I can say "Hey, wait, why do you want to throw that snowball? You're
a good person, you probably want to be loved and are by someone, why don't
you help me make the world better" (saying it all very fast during the
wind-up), we're up a notch.  If they still throw it (down one) and I duck
or run-away (neutral response), we're only down one net.  If I throw one
back and they get madder and throw another, or their buddies do, it's just
escalating, especially when my buddies get into the fray -- down many
notches.

Yes, right, we're not  talking snowballs (hey, I live in California so
I don't have to be in that position :-)) -- there's an armed dangerous
drug-spittin' bad guy threatening my pet hamster.  My hope for myself and
is that I don't lower the world another notch by my response.  My hope
is that I don't *automatically* assume that the *only* or even an
acceptable way to  deal with this is coming down to that level.
My hope is that I have the creativity and good-wishes for the net good
of the world to look for and with any luck find another way.  We are
an intelligent creative species.  Dealing with someone drugged out we
should have even more of an intelligence advantage.  And if I had to
inflict temporary pain to someone, yes, it's down a notch for me, but
*that* is the last resort.  Killing isn't even an option in my book, I
hope and pray.

	MKV

    Re: .447
    
    Mary, I wish with all my heart that the world could be different
    for you, for me, and for everyone.  Yet I know that mutant monsters
    and feral humans have existed in every age, and likely will continue
    to do so.  You can take steps to avoid encounters with these creatures.
    In your lifetime you may successfully avoid a confrontation.  Then
    again, you may not.  Much of it is the luck of the draw.
    
    When it comes down to that terrifying moment when one of them breaks
    down your door and is so strung out on cocaine that reason is not
    possible, what will you do?  If killing is not an option for you,
    what will you do when you have run out of other options?  Is it just
    for you to forfeit your life?  Are you morally culpable to die and
    to let your attacker live?
    
    	Bill

>I see what you're saying, but I guess I just want to have both -- I want
>to move the world forward away from all violence *and* not have people
>get hurt (anyone, good guys or bad guys).

 I think most normal people would want an end to all violence- if it were
possible.

>If someone throws a snowball at me (self-proclaimed good guy), I count 
>that humanity is down one notch.  

 The point is that good guys don't throw snowballs unless you throw first.
So you don't have to fear good guys unless you throw snowballs.

>My hope
>is that I don't *automatically* assume that the *only* or even an
>acceptable way to  deal with this is coming down to that level.

 Bill and I aren't saying to automatically assume anything. We're talking about
a _last resort_.

 Mark

    I guess the degree to which you worry about dealing with life-or-death
    scenarios is determined by how likely you think it is.
    
    I have lived in Boston for six years.  I have lived in four states,
    sometimes in quiet areas, sometimes in cities, sometimes in-between. I
    have had a car for two years, but I still ride the T at night sometimes. 
    I do not own a gun and all the knives are kept in the kitchen.
    
     o  My car has not been stolen or damaged (yet) in the car-crime
        capital of the world.
     o  None of the places I've ever lived in have been broken into.
     o  I have never been physically assaulted.
     o  My purse was stolen once from work and they took $20.00
    
    I've been lucky:  nothing's happened.  Other people are not so lucky. I
    guess the question is whether you live your life assuming you won't be
    attacked or assuming you will be attacked. For me, I look at the
    reasons why people I know have died...cancer, old age, stroke, heart
    attack, car accident.  Not one of them has faced a "mutant monster" or
    "feral human".  I might.  But it's low probability.  
    
    I take only normal precautions, because worrying about extraordinary
    precautions would increase my stress level rather than decrease it. 
    Having to live with a siege mentality all the time would be exhausting
    to me.  I would not feel safer.
    
    Whether I would be able to shoot and kill somebody in an extreme
    situation is unknown.  Extreme situations by definition are abnormal; 
    I can't say, sitting here in a normal situation, what I would do.
    
    Other people feel differently...
    Pam

    Re: .450
    
    Pam, you evidently live your life in such a way and adopt behavior
    patterns that enable you to avoid high-risk, confrontational
    situations.  In my book, that is the best way to handle the whole
    issue.  Many people, because of where they must work, live, or travel,
    cannot do this as well as you.  You may, yourself, occasionally have
    to jump outside your usual environmental framework.  It is for those
    people, and for yourself when you're out of your normal element, that
    some degree of planning and preparation becomes a prudent investment.
    
    This is not to say that you need endure a siege mentality.  But have
    a plan, know what you will do.  Be educated about the risks and what
    can, indeed, happen to you on the street or in your home.  Know the
    escape routes open to you wherever you are.  Develop and use in a
    proper manner the defensive tactics that are appropriate for you.
    Your mental preparation and alertness are most important.  Invest in
    some safety and backup equipment that makes reasonable sense for your
    needs.
    
    Above all, understand what you will do if your life is in imminent
    and otherwise unavoidable danger.  You must make that decision before-
    hand.  You will not have time to make it if and when a lethal threat
    materializes.
    
    	Bill
   

    Hi Bill,
    
    You offer terrific self-defense advice -- I appreciate it.  Your
    concern for people's safety can be seen clearly.  A sad commentary
    about our society is that what you suggest in .450 is what I consider
    "normal" precautions...  :-(  Stay in the lighted part of the street,
    don't go out alone at night if you can help it, don't let people you
    don't know in your apartment without prior arrangement, etc.
    
    What I was reacting to was the slightly coercive tone being taken in
    previous replies to this topic.  I object to proselytising!  It seems
    to me that people who have NOT chosen to plan for violence by investing
    in guns, etc., are sometimes seen to be people who have not thought
    through their decision.  There is an assumption that we live in a world
    of our own, that we are unaware of danger, that we are foolishly
    squeamish.  There are a lot of attempts at re-education going on (did
    you know about this statistic, have you thought about this scenario and
    how you would deal with it).  My point is that a lot of the suggested
    scenarios are extremely unlikely to ever occur.
    
    The crux of what bothers me, I suppose, is that some people take the
    attitude that if you HAVE A GUN and if you plan your defense strategy,
    you will be safe.  I do not feel that is true.  You can never be
    completely safe.  There is always an X factor.   It is not ALWAYS a
    question of how well you plan, although that comes into it.  It is
    sometimes a question of blind, stupid LUCK.
    
    What I was trying to show is that it is possible to live in the city
    without a gun and not be faced with dreadful things.   (In case you
    think I live in luxury, I'm in the same apartment I lived in when I
    earned $13,000 a year and took the T everywhere.)  I don't live every
    horrible scenario in advance, because for me that would make my life
    worse, not better.  Gun-toting, maniacal, PCP-loaded thugs with bad
    breath and a desire to do others harm exist...but NOT ON EVERY STREET
    CORNER.  
    
    *Sometimes* all you get is a kid with a knife who wants your wallet. 
      1) non-gun approach:  give him the money and he goes away.
      2) gun approach:  show him a gun and he goes away.  
    Every crime is not violent.  Every criminal is not unhinged -- some
    just want to make money. With the gun approach, maybe he learns his
    lesson and quits crime.  Or maybe he figures he needs a gun next time 
    ...who knows.   Just because a person doesn't believe guns are the
    answer doesn't mean that that person is stupid or pro-crime.  It might
    mean that they are looking at a different part of the problem.
    
    People make different choices about what's important to them, and I
    wanted to show that it is possible to be happy and still -relatively-
    safe without a gun.   Put simply, owning a gun does not interest me.
    
    I agree completely that self-defense and awareness are a good thing. 
    Your suggestions are all excellent.  I just disagree that ALL of us
    have to believe RIGHT NOW that owning a gun and being prepared to shoot
    it at someone is the only smart way to live.  If I have misunderstood
    what anyone was trying to say or do, please let me know.
    
    Pam

>It has been shown both historically and experimentally that
>we are each capable of being a "mutant monster" or a "feral
>human."
    
    That does not excuse anti-social behavior.
    
>It seems to me that we all contribute to the problem, and to
>maintain that "our" violence is qualitatively different from
>"their" violence is self-deception of the highest order.
    
    I disagree.
    
>FWIW:  since this is the gun-control note, I will state that
>I am not pro-gun-control.
    
    That surprises me.
    
    The Doctah

    Re: .453
    
    I disagree with your assertion that by recognizing that violent
    individuals exist that one is part of the problem.  How do you reach
    that conclusion?  If a danger exists in reality, I'm going to take
    precautions to not fall victim to that danger.  To do anything less,
    would be to place no value on my own life and that would clearly
    be immoral.  Whether society has dealt these individuals a bad rap
    or they've failed to exercise some responsibility for their own
    lives is immaterial.  They exist nevertheless.  I'd like nothing
    better than for poverty and ignorance and drugs and crime and hatred
    and all the other things that contribute to violent and aggressive
    behavior patterns to go away.  I'm also not so naive as to expect
    it will happen in my lifetime.
    
    	Bill

    Re: .452
    
    Pam, your approach to personal safety is a very-well reasoned one.
    You perceive, correctly, that I do *not* advocate gun ownership
    for everyone.  The decision to own and use a gun for self-defense
    is a very personal one, as is evident from the range of opinions
    on the subject expressed in this note.  I have made my own decision
    in favor of gun ownership and I am glad to share my thinking about
    how and why I made this choice.  But if it isn't something that's
    comfortable for you or anyone else, then that's that.  I'm not going
    into missionary mode on this topic.
    
    On the other hand, the reasons why I own a gun, are the same reasons
    why *everyone* should at least give some thought to their own safety.
    It's not a completely safe world we live in.  The degree of risk
    for some people is higher than for others depending on where you
    work, live, and travel.  If you're a woman, your chances of being
    raped or attacked sometime in your lifetime are fairly high.  The
    kid with the knife may want more than your money.  You had better
    understand what alternative means you are going to use to deal with
    the eventuality of a violent confrontation.
    
    	Bill 

RE. Note 210.453                     
HYDRA::LARU 

>It seems to me that we all contribute to the problem, and to
>maintain that "our" violence is qualitatively different from
>"their" violence is self-deception of the highest order.

Self-deception ? Where I come from it's called making a moral
distinction. Those who refuse to differentiate between agressors
and defenders, lumping them both together as 'violent, period',
have taken a position which to me is amoral cowardice. I chose
a system of ethics which says "Initiation of force is wrong,
you have the right to life, and to defend that life." By that
code, I judge and am judged. Not by a code which says "defenders
are as guilty as agressors." I reject that with contempt.

IMO, if elimination of violence is your true goal, it can be
done quickest by  eliminating those who *initiate* it. (By jail, 
punishment, or if necessary, by judicious use of deadly force.)
Those who are willing only to defend themselves are not affected.

Dana Charbonneau

>       <<< Note 210.452 by CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" >>>
>                         -< different beliefs are OK >-

    
>    What I was reacting to was the slightly coercive tone being taken in
>    previous replies to this topic.  I object to proselytising!  It seems
>    to me that people who have NOT chosen to plan for violence by investing
>    in guns, etc., are sometimes seen to be people who have not thought
    
>    I agree completely that self-defense and awareness are a good thing. 
>    Your suggestions are all excellent.  I just disagree that ALL of us
>    have to believe RIGHT NOW that owning a gun and being prepared to shoot
>    it at someone is the only smart way to live.  If I have misunderstood
>    what anyone was trying to say or do, please let me know.
    
>    Pam


I haven't read replies beyond here so if I step on someone I apologise.

Gun owners in this file(even me, the admited fanatic, as the Doctah jokingly
refers to me :-}) Are not saying *YOU* must own a gun. We are trying
to cover several arguments at once.
The first; *WE* have chosen to own a gun, I personally will not avoid going
where I need to just because someone might harm me, rather I take defensive 
precautions that include a firearm. Your mileage may vary, you may choose to
not go out at night or whatever, I will not be a prisoner in my own home/town.

Second; We are arguing against those who believe we should all be disarmed 
because *they* don't believe we should own a gun. as the Doctah said "the
god guys *DO NOT* throw the first snowball" therefore you have nothing to 
worry about from the legal(registered, licensed etc) gun owner. 

Third; and to some extent this does apply to your comment directly,
You have never been attacked, you have not seen the damage that is done
everyday by the canibals in our society. I have been a target of delibrate
violence my life came down to a dollar value with people who didn't know me
and had no idea why I should be killed only that they wouldf be paid to do 
that. I have also seen what predators do to Women, Children, the elderly,
and all other helpless people as well as the 
sometimes-not-so-helpless-but-unlucky. Unspeakable things I will not put in 
writing even in mail but if anyone wants some real descriptions meet me at 
lunch or after work(you don't really want to know!) those predators in my mind
gave up all vestiges of humanity, and yet neither I nor anyone else in
this file advocates hunting them down and killing them vigilante style,
yet we(generic gun owners) are accused of that. what we are saying is we
have a right, and that is a moral right, to *DEFEND* ourselves against that
attack while it is happening, We also claim that right to defend our families
and loved ones and any innocents if we find ourselves in the position(ie
walk into the 7-11 as a bad-guy is beating the teen-age clerk to steal
a grand total of 30 dollars) The *moral* part of that argument is not peace
equals violence as some seem to imply, but that peace and defending human life 
are equal. also for those who choose not to defend themselves you are allowing
an attacker the freedom to go and attack again. every horrible attack and
crime I know of (or could describe) was commited by a multi-time offender.
horrendous crimes of cruelty are not done by first offenders.

To those who keep saying "there must be another way" yes there are some
not many, and there are drawbacks to most that I consider unreasonable
(ie 3 years training then 8 hours/week practise in Martial arts, or being
a prisoner of vfear in my home). I would love to see any of the anti-gun
crowd present an alternative that is workable and defencible in a reasonable
discussion. I have yet to hear one.

If there was a way to remove the criminal/predator from our society, without
violations of rights of innocents along the way, then I would be happy to
be buried with my guns and never pass them on, until there is a guarentee
that my children will live in a predator-free society I will keep my guns
and pass them to my children.

I will never submit to *ANYONE* my right to keep and *BEAR* arms.
Amos

    .458  the problem I have with the opinions put forth in this reply is
    that it is not all-inclusive.  It seems some noters have chosen to have
    and to bear arms for reasons as listed in .458.  But they fail in their
    argument in not addressing the issues around misuse of weapons.  The
    focus is on the criminal element.  Husbands and wifes in the heat of
    argument have misused legally obtained weapons, children have had
    terrible accidents with legal weapons, and unstable people have
    obtained legal weapons and used them to express their confusion.
    
    There will not be any guns in my home.  And if a friend of mine chooses
    to carry a weapon in my company, the excursion will be called of.  You
    see I was robbed by a criminal with a gun and I got out of it with far
    less trauma then the many incidents where my ex loaded and unloaded his
    legal weapon while I was trying to sleep. 

>            <<< Note 210.459 by PENUTS::JLAMOTTE "J & J's Memere" >>>
>                   -< And there is the middle of the road. >-

>    .458  the problem I have with the opinions put forth in this reply is
>    that it is not all-inclusive.  It seems some noters have chosen to have
>    and to bear arms for reasons as listed in .458.  But they fail in their
>    argument in not addressing the issues around misuse of weapons.  The
>    focus is on the criminal element.  Husbands and wifes in the heat of

I believe Bill Doll addressed this but as you know memory is the second,,,,,

Statistics gathered by FBI uniform crime statistics division show that for the
most part family quarrels that end in shooting/knifing/clubbing/beating(and 
guns *ARE* the *less* frequently used in these cases) have been cases where 
police have had to intervene some number of times before and usually the 
abused person has not pressed charges/sought seperation/etc. *ALMOST* *NEVER*
is there a one-time-only-first-offense serious assualt with a weapon it is
usually the third-or-after offense. (why wasn't something done first time?
ask the social planners and those that refuse to provide help to beaten-wives
etc. I have no easy answer but removing *ALL* guns in the country would only
eliminate a very few of these attacks).

As far as accidents with children; I agree with the Florida law holding
partents responsible for the injury just as I would if the child went and 
played with the power-tools in the basement or the chain-saw in the garage.
more children drown in their bathtubs than are killed by gun accidents
(National Center for Health Statistics, also many other catagories of 
accidents including electrocution are more common than gun accidents)
I raised two boys with guns as have millions of parents the obvious steps
of not leaving loaded weapons around was followed but the child was also
*EDUCATED* as to danger etc.
Mere prevention of access without education of the danger is never effective
and in my mind is criminal.

I don't, and neither does anyone I know, carry a gun 
day-and-night,-into-the-shower,-etc. It is *ONLY PART* of an overall defensive
plan. If you and I joyce were going to lunch at 99 in concord or supper and 
a movie at a mall, I probably wouldn't carry a gun. however if you asked me to 
take you on a tour of the combat zone at night, using the MBTA to and from
then I probably(read that definately) would. a legal and reasonable defense
against a percieved threat is the point here. not carry-to-play-Wyatt-Earp.
Also, as an aside, carrying is/should-be so discrete that *NO ONE* knows
you have it. I know of an individual(off duty cop) dating a woman, when
confronted by a mugger, before the cop had time to identify himself or warn 
the mugger off in any manner the date said something like "shoot him" or
"get your gun" or something that warned the attacker who then attacked first
causing injuries that might have otherwise been avoided.
Amos-who-thanks-you-for-reasonable-comments-rather-than-flames-or-sarcasm

    Re: .459
    
    This is getting away from the main topic and onto gun-control again.
    I suggested in .415 that we limit the discussion to some very specific
    aspects of gun protection and have heard no objections.
    
    	Bill

Hmmm, the other day my brother-in-law sent us up a video tape of a tv special
that was broadcast in South Carolina about the aftermath of Hugo. One woman
interviewed told of how she and her family were sitting around the table
after the storm when somebody tried to break in. The interviewer asked her
what she did, she said "Well, we all had our guns and we told them they could
come in but that they wouldn't be leaving anytime soon". The burglars went 
away only to return the next day and be told the same thing. One wonders
what more this woman and her family would have lost if they hadn't been
allowed to own firearms.

Regarding accidents, I hate this argument. Accidents involving firearms
are indeed a tragedy, especially when a child is involved. Unfortunately
you can tell people over and over and over to protect their children but
they don't listen. You can tell them not to leave a child alone around a
pool or bathtub, yet children still drown. You can tell them not to abandon
old refridgerators, yet children still suffocate in them. You can tell them
not to leave medicine where children can get it, yet children are still 
poisoned. You can tell them to buckle up their children every time they ride in
the car, yet you still see children riding on their parents' laps. I don't
know the answer to this, I don't think people will ever listen. I do know that
I grew up around guns. I'm not entirely sure where my father kept them but I
knew that if I found one I was not to touch it unless my father was there. I
think he taught me how to shoot when I was 9 or 10, and every time I picked up 
a gun he repeated the safety rules over and over. To this day, every time I
pick up a gun I hear my father's words. Accidents can be prevented if only
people would take the time to educate their children. But people don't listen.

Jenna

>        <<< Note 210.462 by MANIC::THIBAULT "While I breathe, I hope" >>>
>                                   -< sigh >-

>people would take the time to educate their children. But people don't listen.

>Jenna

  Thank you very much. Well said.
Amos

	  Re:  Last several

	  I think the issue for this topic is not that guns are 
	  dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, the careless,
	  the irresponsible, or the criminal, but that guns kept in
	  your home for self-defense purposes need to be managed
	  carefully.

	  First, it *is* possible to have guns in your home and never
	  have an accident.  I have raised my two daughters to adult-
	  hood while having a considerable number of guns in and about
	  my home without incident.  I have been a step-parent for the
	  last six years and have never feared an incident involving
	  my step-son, whom I have also taught to use, understand, and
	  respect firearms.  As Amos has pointed out, education of
	  your children in the operation, safety practices, and the
	  lethal danger of guns is the first step.  Keeping your guns
	  locked up in a secure safe and locking up and storing
	  ammunition separately from the guns are the minimum common-
	  sense things you can do to prevent problems.  ALWAYS observing
	  basic gun safety rules is of paramount importance.  I have
	  been a shooter and gun collector for over thirty years, yet
	  the first thing I always do when I pick up or am handed a
	  gun, even if I *know* it is unloaded, or if I have myself
	  just put it down, is check to be sure it is unloaded.  Always!
	  You need to get yourself and your kids thinking the same way.
	  Given these basics of precaution, a gun is no more dangerous
	  in your home, and perhaps even less so, than your kitchen
	  knives, your Skil-saw, or your lawnmower.

	  Simply having a gun in your home does not mean that it is
	  going to go off all by itself and injure or kill someone, or
	  that you will seize it in a moment of passionate anger and
	  direct its lethal force against a family member.  If you look
	  at the lives and the situations behind the statistics, you
	  find that the individuals who shoot their friends and family
	  members have lifestyles involving chronic behavior patterns
 	  of aggression and violence to begin with, OR were defending
	  themselves against an attack initiated by the family member
	  whom they shot.  Slightly more than fifty percent of "victims"
	  who are shot by family members themselves initiated the
	  aggression which led to them being shot.

	  	Bill

    Hey, Nancy:
    
    You can tell me over here what you're going to do tonight that
    you couldn't say in 827.  :-)
    
    So I'll 'fess up here, I'm on your side - let people choose
    how they want to protect themselves, including firearms.
    
    On the other hand, I'm a little bit tired of seeing it discussed
    over and over and over again in this file.
    

re: .465  (Ellen Gugel) and  re: .466  (an eagle)
    ------------------           ---------------

Ellen>              -< Nancy, you can tell us over here :-) >-
     (where Ellen was referring to what I couldn't say in the no-guns topic :-)

OK -  Last Fri night I was target shooting, and afterwards discussing 
the apparent contradiction in principles of pro-choice/anti-gun and 
anti-choice/pro-gun people and politicians with another woman at the
"sportsman's club" :-).   (where some of the opinions of what I would 
call a pro-gun person would be  1) for the right of law-abiding citizens 
to legally able to obtain firearms  2) against gun control aimed specifically 
at certain weapons as a means of reducing the crime rate, etc.)  

Experimented with a .25 Colt auto, a palm-size and very light handgun.
Thought it would have a big "kick" to it, but it did not, and I was able to
shoot reasonable groups with it.

Therefore, eagle,

>          -< Secret_Meetings_At_Freedom's_Arsenal >-
>  But Friday night she was Taking Back America for herself ... 

I would hardly call that a "secret meeting", or Taking Back America (that
was Sept 25 at the State House, silly :-).  

>    ...  And if a woman can't get a permit
>    to carry a pistol ... she can usually find a few male friends
>    whom "the system" trusts enough for purposes of practice ...

Thanks, Mr. Eagle.  This thrilled me to no end.  You're all heart. :-P

{ the fight is not over yet, but in the meantime, one must do what 
 one has to do; if this means being put in jail for a mandatory 
 year under Bartley-Fox for being unlicensed...well... would some
 kind soul out there send me =wn= extractions to help pass the 
 time?  (Bernhard Goetz only had to serve 8 months of his year) }

... funny how wanting to be able to protect ones self can turn one
    into a criminal

Eagle >    we don't know where Nancy is this morning ... 

Lessee - on Monday morning at the time of your note I was probably
placing an irate phone call to the Boston Glob person in charge of
the Metro section of the paper... Concerning their coverage (or lack
thereof) on the story about the 3 violent criminals that escaped from
Bridgewater State Hospital.  2 have been caught and the third, said
on "America's Most Wanted" (FOX TV, channel 25, Sundays @ 8pm), is
suspected to still be in the Boston area and is considered to be
the most dangerous sex-offenders in the state. The Boston Glob 
person told me there have been several sightings in the Boston area 
but he had not been caught.

Last weekend I had a couple of other rude awakenings to just how 
unsettled/violent some people's lives are...

o  Saturday afternoon I was in the Atrium mall (the new one in Chestnut
   Hill) in the glass elevator on the 3'rd floor going down to the
   parking level.  On the 2'nd floor about 7 guys (teenagers 15-17 yrs)
   dressed punkish style in black leather, chains, mohawks, etc... got 
   on.  Though I was the only other person on the elevator, I was more
   interested/curious about them then intimidated.  They were complaining
   about being kicked out of a store and how a security person was
   following them around.  Just as I was about to feel sorry for them 
   for perhaps being treated unfairly, one of them says,

   "Why don't we go out and kill somebody?".  He was serious.  

   I kinda flattened up against the back of the elevator and held my 
   breath, hoping they had not noticed me.  

o  Late Friday night (1am or so) I was walking through the parking lot of
   a Chinese restaurant w/ some friends.  I heard what sounded like a very
   high-pitched muffled whine, turned around, and saw a woman and a man in
   a car.  The man was yelling at her; she was just about hysterical.  I
   saw her open her door, and him reach over and shut it.  The people inside
   the restaurant _would not_ even call the police about it after I described
   to them what I saw.  They said it was probably just a domestic dispute.
   I said it wasn't too smart to speculate and why not let the police figure
   out what was happening.  I got the feeling they didn't want the restaurant
   getting bad publicity or something.  By the time I went outside again,
   they were gone.

							nancy b.

          
                         you say but guns
                         you are naive and wishing
                         will get you nowhere
                         you have not been raped
                         that is clear and
                         you are probably not aware of
                         how many times you came close to it

                         but i'll say guns
                         loud and clear
                         i have been forced into
                         taking my clothes off for a stranger
                         a masked stranger at that
                         a knife at
                         my throat
                         my choice yes some choice
                         open your legs to protect a pretty face
                         at least my cunt won't show
                         the damage only my mind
                         will show that

                         didn't you know?
                         i have been ravaged
                         in the old sense violated
                         embarrassed and ashamed
                            i was so naive myself
                         so very trusting
                         i hear people saying she could have fought
                         yes i suppose i could have but
                         you know what fear is
                         when your life is at stake
                         then you will pay
                         and being raped
                         seemed very small how many men have
                         we all slept with anyway
                         we can say does one more really matter

                         but there was the knife

                         then we women barricaded ourselves behind
                         the doors we cried and held
                         each other
                         and we were brave the next day

                         perhaps i would not kill next
                         time if there were a next time
                         if it were him

                         i would not kill i would castrate
                         and leave him to think
                         on why and by what rights
                         he thought he could
                         take me

      
                         and you too came to me
                         saying but guns but guns
                         yes i know violence breeds violence
                         and i too used to watch tv
                         see myself as mary tyler moore
                         while i laughed at the fallen woman raped
                         or merely leered at because she dared to
                         assert herself

                         i've seen hours and hours of it
                         slanted to look like she deserved it

                         so i don't watch television
                         anymore though i didn't smash the set
                         i sold it like a good little capitalist
                         and i could take on nbc cbs question
                         their view of female imagery
                         but i'm not strong enough yet it would be
                         just another psychological
                         gang bang

                         your solution was education
                         i can only laugh until
                         i see the revolution
                         then talk to me of education

                         and you told me in your grand exit to think on it
                         you thought you had the right
                         to the last word
                         being male

                         you tell me to think on it you pig

                         when every night for four months
                         and some days
                         that's what i've been fighting
                         especially those nights
                         alone and that's quite often love
                         quite often nowadays

                         golda meir said
                         why put a curfew on the women
                         when the men do the raping

                         no my solution after much
                         careful thought at least until
                         the men can humanize themselves is
                         mandatory castration
                         for all males age twelve
                         that should do the trick
                         that's what you were waiting
                         to hear wasn't it?

                                                       
                              happiness is no need for a gun
                              (i said that)
                              but then i used to believe
                              in fairies too
                              that's when i was young

                              but I'm grown up now--
                                  that's what growing up means

                              not believing
                              not believing anymore
                              not believing in anything
                              except myself and a handful
                              of other intangibles

    This is an excellent class if you want to get into a sport to hone your
    self defense skills.  It is *not* a class on self-defense, it is a
    class on how to compete in a sport -- however the knowledge gained
    each time you compete is immeasurable; much of what you'll learn is
    directly applicable to self-defense (accuracy, decision making under
    pressure, etc.)  Some is specifically not, and is pointed out in class.
    
    There will be an Introduction to IPSC (ItI) class held January 13th
    from 9:30 am until about 5pm at the Caswell Shooting Club at Jet Wing
    and Chelton (1 light East of Academy on Chelton).  If there is enough
    interest there will be a January 14th class opened as well.
    
    The ItI class is required before competing in any Eastern Colorado
    IPSC matches.
    
    Cost of the class is $15 which includes the "Getting Started Safely"
    handout, a USPSA/IPSC rule book and your first Pikes Peak Practical
    Shooter's (PPPS) match fee.  The next PPPS match is November 19th, so
    you'll be able to shoot the day after passing the course.
    
    To reserve a spot, contact Roger Oakey at PEAKS::OAKEY or 719-531-9673
    (Disclaimer: This is volunteer work; I make no money from the class.)
    
    A copy of our ItI information handout follows -- note: there are
    references to the class being at Ben Lomond gun club -- remember that
    this class will be held at Caswell's!

        
                             What's Practical Shooting?

          It's an international sport that stresses safe gun handling
          in action. Thirty-four countries belong to the International
          Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). In the United States,
          the IPSC governing body is the United States Practical Shooting
          Association.

          Practical Shooting matches are open to all reputable persons.
          The matches are diverse and based on the realistic use of pis-
          tol, rifle or shotgun. Practical targets are used and different
          firearms compete together without handicap to determine which
          offers the best balance of accuracy, power and speed in solving
          the shooting "problem."

          Course designers mix movement and props (such as walls, tunnels,
          doors, barricades and ports) with full or partial targets,
          reaction targets and no-shoots. It is then up to you to solve
          the problem, freestyle.

    
                           You need safety training first

          If you are the average TV-trained gun owner, you should not
          practice what you may have seen at a match! Owning a gun doesn't
          make you skilled. You need safety training first.

          The Introduction to IPSC (ItI) safety clinic was developed to
          help gun owners learn the skills needed to shoot an IPSC match
          safely. Our goal is to teach you the skills needed to pass the
          USPSA Practical Shooting Safety Check. You must pass the safety
          check before you can shoot a match. The rest of this handout
          should supply you with the information necessary for you to
          start shooting this exciting sport!

 
                         Introduction to IPSC Safety Clinic

          Because movement is coupled with handling of a handgun, it is
          required that all new competitors take an Introduction to IPSC
          (ItI) safety clinic before competing in any Eastern Colorado
          sanctioned IPSC matches. The only exception is if you have been
          competing in IPSC matches elsewhere and hold a United States
          Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) classification card
          (not just a membership card) or you are National Range Officer
          Institute (NROI) certified.

          The ItI course given in Colorado Springs is organized by the
          Pikes Peak Practical Shooters (PPPS) and is usually taught on
          Saturday, the day before each PPPS match. PPPS matches are held
          the third Sunday of the month at the Ben Lomond Gun Club in
          Palmer Lake.

          Note that the ItI safety clinic is not an introduction to shoot-
          ing! It is expected that you are familiar with your handgun and
          its operation. Basics such as trigger control, sight picture and
          firearm operation are specifically not covered in the clinic!

          The clinic is an introduction to the safety concerns of IPSC,
          the safety rules of IPSC, techniques of safe gun handling under
          competition conditions, the general rules of IPSC and the range
          commands. Get the feeling that safety is highly stressed? Good,
          because safety is our utmost concern!

          Taking this clinic does not automatically mean that you will
          pass it! If the instructor feels that your safety is lacking,
          you will be invited to observe a match or two, then return to
          re-take the ItI clinic at a reduced cost.

 
                                 Clinic information

          Cost of the clinic is $10 which includes course materials
          (USPSA/IPSC Rule Book, "Getting Started Safely" handout, USPSA,
          PPPS and Ben Lomond Gun Club club applications) and free entry
          into your first PPPS IPSC match. The Clinic runs from 9:30 AM
          until about 5 PM. Class size is limited, so you should sign up
          beforehand to be assured a spot. If someone who has signed up
          is not present by 9:50, people will be accepted from the wait-
          ing list. The clinic is held at the Ben Lomond Gun Club; to get
          there from I25, take exit 163 (County Line Road). Go west two
          miles and the club will be on the South side of the road; if you
          get to the train tracks, you've gone about two tenths of a mile
          too far. Signup and the classroom part of the class is held in
          the trailer that is on the left side of the driveway. Do not put
          on your leather or gun until instructed to do so!


                                   What do I need?

          1. Hearing and eye protection.

          2. A handgun of at least .355 (9MM) calibre or larger, whose
             bullet weight in grains times bullet velocity in feet per
             second is greater than or equal to 125000. 38 Special, 9MM,
             and larger guns (.45ACP, .357 Magnum) meet this criteria. 380
             autos do not.

          3. A holster which covers the trigger guard of the handgun
             when holstered. Tie-down and western rigs may be used in
             the clinic, but cannot be used for competition. No shoulder
             holsters will be allowed in the class.

          4. A belt for the holster.

          5. One or more magazines or speedloaders. Bring a magazine or
             speedloader holder if you have one, but one is not required
             for the class.

          6. Pen or pencil.

          7. 100 rounds of ammunition.

          8. Something to drink during the day and something to eat for
             lunch.

          Note: You cannot share equipment with someone else taking the
          class! You must have your own equipment throughout the class in
          order to be successful.


                       About the Pikes Peak Practical Shooters

          Pikes Peaks Practical Shooters is a practical shooting club
          fully affiliated with the United States Practical Shooting
          Association. PPPS is one of the larger of the seven Eastern
          Colorado Clubs. The club consists of a sizable membership and
          a seven member Board of Directors. The Board of Directors are
          dedicated to furthering firearms safety and the the sport of
          practical shooting through education and experience.

          PPPS holds twelve matches a year; each match consists of at
          least three separate courses of fire. A match usually consists
          of about 70 rounds and runs from 9:30am until about 3 or 4 pm
          depending on the number of competitors. During the summer months
          there are typically forty to fifty competitors at a match. In
          the winter (we shoot all year) that number dwindles to about
          twenty.

          Whenever possible, one of the three courses that make up a match
          is a National Classification course, enabling someone to earn
          national classification in USPSA within nine months of starting
          to compete.

          The cost of a match is $15 for non-PPPS members, $10 for mem-
          bers. A membership to PPPS is $15 for an individual, $20 for a
          family. A membership in PPPS also entitles you to receive all
          PPPS newsletters for the membership year. If you are not a PPPS
          member you will only receive the newsletter (containing the
          match results) for the match you competed in.

          
          re: 525.113 (an Eagle)
          
          >  ... the pistol you probably want is a "Glock" 9mm semi-auto ..
          
          Thanks, Eagle - Glocks _are_ lightweight because of the polymer
          technology, but I've read about a "stovepiping" problem as
          discovered by Miami PD.   Wouldn't trust one with my life.
          
          I think I'd be more interested in the Smith & Wesson new compact
          9mms, or Walther's streamlined P5 (It's Bond, _Jane_ Bond :-),
          or even the Sig Sauer .380 model.
          
                                                       nancy b.
          

          
          re: 525.114  (Rick King)
          
          >  Just what we need, another person running around with a
          >  semi-automatic gun.....
          
          My first response to this was:
          
          [Take your ax and grind it in another topic (or better yet, in
          Soapbox).]
          
          My next thought was:   [Too bad he feels that way.]
          
          Question [to both REK and anyone else who cares to respond]:
          --------
          What problem do you have with me (or any other law-abiding
          person) carrying a handgun for self-defense?  What threat do you
          see this causing to yourself or the rest of society?
          
          ( Please be honest and don't worry about hurting my feelings by
            sharing your true thoughts on that question)
          
                                                           nancy b.
          

    Nancy,
    
    Could you elobarate on the Glock stovepiping problem in FIREARMS? (the
    Glock note is #1156)  This is the very first problem I've heard of with
    the Glocks!
    
    I don't like the S&Ws for several reasons, but one is that the axis of
    the bore is quite a ways above your hand, causing the gun to whip a bit
    more than other designs.
    
    If you want to spend big bucks, get an excellent, as well as very
    hi-tech firearm look at the H&K P7M8.  However, you do need some hand
    strength to squeeze the grip to cock the gun -- my wife has a problem
    and she isn't exactly weak.
    
    The P7s barrel axis is the closest to the hand of any firearm I've seen
    -- it makes the recoil come straight back instead of kicking the muzzle
    up in the air.
    
                                 Roak

    Hi, Nancy, glad to see you doing some serious shopping :-)
    
    My $.02 - get a Charter Arms Bulldog Pug - not too heavy,
    throws 44 size slugs. Less blast-and-flash than any magnum.
    ('Course, my 357's still for sale, but do you *need* a flinch-
    ing problem ? >;-) )
    
    Take a good look at the Colt Officer's Model and the new
    S&W 4516 compact, both in 45ACP - moderate recoil, big 
    bullets, plenty of them.
    
    Avoid .380 like the plague - small bullets, low velocity,
    lousy stopping power. 
    
    Dana (who'd like one of those shotguns like Rico Tubbs carries)

    Re: .472
    
    Nancy, neither have I heard of a stovepiping problem with the Glock.
    I've had my own Glock 17 for about a year-and-a-half and have not had
    a single malfunction of any type.  The usual reasons for stovepiping
    with a semi-auto are underpowered ammunition that fails to kick
    the slide back far enough to allow clean ejection of the spent brass,
    or recoil springs that are too strong causing the slide to retract
    forward too quickly before the case has ejected.  Perhaps Miami PD's
    problems are due to the brand or type of ammunition they issue or
    they got a bad batch of Glocks with unusually strong recoil springs.
    
    All this aside, I would not trust my life to the Glock for three
    reasons:  1) the trigger pull in both double- and single-action
    is lousy, 2) the gun itself is too light in weight to absorb enough
    recoil for my tastes, and 3) the trigger safety feature of the gun
    is prone to causing, as well as preventing, accidental discharges.
    
    It continues to amaze me that this terrible "undetectable plastic gun"
    goes on creating such a furor among gun-control hysterics while
    it, in fact, contains 18 ounces of steel in the slide, the magazines
    have internal metal components, and the polymer frame is laced with
    lead particles.  The gun, IMO, is not one of the better semi-auto
    designs in existence, and would not be the top choice of many looking
    for good, advanced weaponry.
    
    	Bill

    re: .476 (Bill)
    
    	   Ah, the Glock.  Such controversy around a single weapon,
    	the functional value of which is only slightly greater than
    	a stainless steel weapon of the same sort (in that it not
    	only prevents rust, but is lighter as well).  
    
    	   Your point about stovepiping was accurate, for the most
    	part.  If one uses overpowered loads, it can cause the brass
    	to expand or crack, which can also lead to jams.  Happily,
    	this rarely occurs with factory-made ammo, and is usually
    	more prominent among handloaders who want extra punch.
    
    	   In general, semi-automatic handguns present a different
    	set of firing conditions from revolvers, and not all shooters
    	have an easy time making the adjustment.  When the slide is
    	pushed back by the expanding gasses, some of the recoil is 
    	absorbed, that is true... however, the center of gravity
    	also changes, which can be felt as a destabalizing influence.
    	If you're not familiar with how a gun's center of gravity
    	changes during firing, it can be difficult to control the 
    	weapon.
    
    	   In my opinion, semi-autos are a bit harder to master for 
    	this reason.  
    
    	   However, once they have been mastered, they provide 
    	superior firepower and similar accuracy of any revolver.
    	My own personal choice is the Browning Hi-Power (9mm).
    	It's easier to control and most .45 ACPs (particularly
    	those with short barrels, such as the Colt Commander).
    	Having never fired a Detonics .45, I can't say what 
    	impact extended barrel length has on the shooting 
    	characteristics of such weapons.
    
    	- Greg

          re: .474 (Roger Oakey)
          
          >    Nancy,
          
          >    Could you elobarate on the Glock stovepiping problem in
          >    FIREARMS? (the Glock note is #1156)  This is the very first
          >    problem I've heard of with the Glocks!
          
               hmmm...  If I can remember where I read about it and find
          the article to supply more background information that will
          undoubtably be asked, yes.  I recall reading it perhaps 8-9
          months ago, that the stovepiping is a problem with both models,
          and that the Miami PD discovered it.
          
          >   If you want to spend big bucks, get an excellent, as well as
          >   very hi-tech firearm look at the H&K P7M8.
          
          :-] - Roger, the H&K P7M8 was the first handgun I ever bought.
          
          >  However, you do need some hand strength to squeeze the grip to
          >  cock the gun -- my wife has a problem and she isn't exactly
          >  weak.
          
          To be exact, the force of actuation necessary to squeeze the
          safety is 12 lbs, but to maintain the safety in the "on" position
          only requires 3 lbs.
          
          I would bet that your wife's problem with the H&K is not her
          strength, but the length of her fingers.  I have long fingers,
          and the grip of the H&K is perfect for me.  On other handguns I
          tried, my fingers were getting in the way.  I spoke with John
          Farnum (an expert in the use of handguns for self-defense) on the
          phone, and he was surprised I (being a woman) was comfortable
          with the H&K, since his hands were not large enough for the grip.
          
          re: .475  (Dana Charbonneau)
          
          >    My $.02 - get a Charter Arms Bulldog Pug - not too heavy,
          >    throws 44 size slugs. Less blast-and-flash than any magnum.
          
          Too big and bulky for social occasions, Dana :-).
          
          >    ('Course, my 357's still for sale, but do you *need* a
          >    flinching problem ? >;-) )
          
          OK.  FINE.   So I have a _slight_ flinching problem from shooting
          things too big and too loud too soon.  Hey, it's fading :-).
          (or can I blame it on your reloads :-) ?
          
          >    Take a good look at the Colt Officer's Model and the new
          >    S&W 4516 compact, both in 45ACP - moderate recoil, big
          >    bullets, plenty of them.
          
          Thanks, Dana.  Though I question how compact the 4516 really is,
          I'll look it over.
          
                                                       nancy b.
          

Re: <<< Note 210.478 by SYSENG::BITTLE "nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE" >>>
    
>>          >  However, you do need some hand strength to squeeze the grip to
>>          >  cock the gun -- my wife has a problem and she isn't exactly
>>          >  weak.
    
>>          I would bet that your wife's problem with the H&K is not her
>>          strength, but the length of her fingers.
    
    Hmmmm.  Maybe she is weak -- she fires a .45 with a flat mainspring
    housing but a long trigger in competition, so her hands are not all
    that small.  Though it sounds like yours are large "for a woman" (gawd,
    that sounds like thin ice. :-))
    
    Can you palm a basketball? :-)
    
    I think H&K makes some great techno-gadgets -- I'd like to try a M8
    sometime.  I've tried the M13 and I have the same complaint that I
    have about a lot of 9s -- I dislike staggered magazines.
    
    If you come across that Glock article please post it.
    
                                  Roak

    Re: .478
    
    Nancy, I fired Massad Ayoob's T&E 4516 last summer when I attended
    LFI.  It's a nice gun but you're right, it's not that compact; it's
    only a half inch shorter than the 4506.  Then again, IMO, you really
    need some minimum mass to absorb the harder recoil of a .45 ACP.
    The 4516 gives some additional measure of concealability as a result
    of the shorter barrel and slide without sacrificing too much of
    the mass needed for controllability.  If you're looking for stopping
    power, the .45 is clearly the right choice.  Either the 4516, which
    is a double-action design, or the single-action Colt Combat Commander
    in .45, would give you a nice combination of power, concealability,
    and controllability.
    
    My personal choice of a carry sidearm is the 4516's predecessor, the
    S&W 645.  If I were in a mood to spend money, I would consider the
    4516.  But, the 645 has served me well, it's well-maintained, I
    practice regularly with it, and I'm very comfortable with it, so
    I see no reason to upgrade right now.  The 645 and 4516 are both
    big guns with an intimidating appearance.  Since both are stainless,
    the bright metal reflects more light and adds to the perceived
    appearance of their size.  IMO, this is important when you are facing
    a would-be assailant.  The double-action first shot feature of both
    guns is an extra safeguard against accidental discharge due to
    adrenalin rush in a threat management situation.  BTW, I'm an average
    size male with average size hands and have no problem with gripping
    the 645 due to the flat backstrap and single-column design.  I've
    talked with several women of average size who carry the 4516 and
    who indicate they are very comfortable with it.
    
    FWIW,
    
    	Bill 

          re: .479  (Roger Oakey)
          
          >   Hmmmm.  Maybe she is weak -- she fires a .45 with a flat
          >   mainspring housing but a long trigger in competition, so her
          >   hands are not all that small.
          
          Hand strength can be dramatically increased by squeezing those
          plastic grippers with the steel spring in the middle for a few
          minutes every day.  They're cheap and available in almost any
          sporting goods store.
          
          >    Though it sounds like yours are large "for a woman" (gawd,
          >    that sounds like thin ice. :-))
          
          :-) Well, the palm part of my hand is probably average "for a
          woman" (usually smaller than most guys I know), but my fingers
          are longer than many guys and most gyns I know.
          
          >    Can you palm a basketball? :-)
          
          A woman's bball - yes; not a man's basketball :-( (I approximate
          it with a combination of palm/lower arm wedge :-). (But I can
          dunk with a man's bball and a trampoline!)
          
          >   If you come across that Glock article please post it.
          
          Will do.
                                                       nancy b
          

    Onto other things...

    There is another reason, IMHO that the media attention died so quickly...

    Note: This is not an SRO reply, in fact it will address something that
    seems to be totally disconnected with the women's movement.  But the
    women's movement has been dragged by chance into a another battle going
    on at the moment.

    You're more than welcome to skip this if you'd like to restrict your
    exposure to SRO replies only...

    

    Over the last year I've seen the media lie, distort and misrepresent
    firearms to the point that I think firearms are covered with the same
    amount of accuracy as Pravda covers politics.

    How many of you heard Tom Brokaw apologize on the national news for an
    inaccurate story two weeks before?  He really did -- but the damage
    from such reporting was already done, so his apology mattered little.

    I know what some of you are saying; another paranoid gun owner, seeing
    conspiracy around every corner.  Oh well, I guess I can reply that the
    media has done it's magic on you -- just go onto the next note, but for
    those of you that can bear with me, read on...  I'll get to the point
    in a paragraph...

    In 1988 the scourge of safety was the cheap, easily concealable
    "Saturday Night Special".  We got images of lots and lots of handguns
    being confiscated.  Then came 1989 where the problem suddenly shifted
    to the expensive, non-concealable "Assault Rifle".  Lots of shots of
    AKSs with large magazines.  Note that in the space of two years they
    bracketed ALL firearms.  Cheap and concealable to expensive and
    non-concealable.  George Orwell would be proud of how the media can
    manipulate the focus of the general public, and erase all memories (as
    far as I can tell) from the year before.

    My point?

    Currently there is a carefully orchestrated effort at banning all
    firearms afoot, and someone going on a mass murder spree, and being as
    horribly successful as LePine was WITH A HUNTING RIFLE AND FIVE ROUND
    MAGAZINES just didn't fit into the correct timeline to work on banning
    those.

    They just can't awake the "sleeping masses" of firearm owners --
    the hunters -- quite yet.

    Don't believe me?  How many shots of the AKS that Purdy used did you
    see?  How many "special reports" on so-called "Assault Weapons" came
    out after that shooting and the shooting in Kentucky?  I bet 90% of
    people that own a TV can recognize an AKS on sight.

    Now how many shots of the rifle that LePine used did you see?  I saw it
    once.  It was just a flash, too.

    Nope, the timing's not right, and the coverage of this tragedy is being
    burnt because of it.

                               Roak
    
    Ps.  For further reading:
    
    The way the media twists information is amazing.  Rarely, when talking
    about "Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles" did the media show
    semi-automatics -- They showed FULL automatics firing, over and over
    and over again.  Don't know the difference between a semi- and a full
    automatic?  That's because the media blurred the difference, not only
    on the news but in TV shows like "Designing Women".  As I mentioned,
    Brokaw apologized for his inaccuracy of showing full-autos when he was
    talking about semis.  But it took him about two weeks to apologize, and
    it came on the heels of the passage of the California law. Thanks for
    the apology, Tom.  A little late, though.  How many people saw the
    demonstration of the "power of assault weapons" by blowing a watermelon
    apart?  That footage was run by most TV stations in the country.  Well,
    the watermelon was shot with a 9MM handgun after shooting it with a
    rifle did not produce the "desired effect."

    
    I've got some opinions on this topic and feel guilty for not reading
    all the replys to this note but what the heck, I couldn't even do
    a dir of the topic its so darned long.
    
    1. I'm a believer in the right to own guns. Simply put guns of any
    sort level the playing field with criminals.
    
    2. I don't think a gun is good personel protection because most
    of us can get enough training to use them well. When I was in Viet-Nam
    I worked on airplanes. One night we were told that we were going
    to have to take defensive postions in the case of an infiltration
    that someone expected. We tried to clean our M-16's and most of
    us couldn't figure out how to get the darned things back together.
    It had been a year since the last time any of us used them. There
    we were 5 of us trying to track down a grunt to help us at 2:00
    in the morning. 
    
    3. Maryland passed a law last year outlawing "Saturday night specials"
    and this year the commission that was to decide such things chose
    a long list of firearms none of which were inexpensive or unsafe.
    It should have showed anyone who didn't believe before this was
    just a chance to restrict gun ownership.
    
    4. Amoung the grunts there was a saying "don't point a gun at anything
    you don't want to kill." 
    
    5. The guy who wrote "Vacations in Hell" said that it was amazing
    how small the bullets were that could kill people. (This guy wrote
    about terriable places that he had to visit as a correspondent)
    He made his judgement from having soldiers point guns at him.
    
    6. Louis L'Amour said on 60 minutes that the old west was not all
    that wild because alot of the people who settled the west were civil
    war vetrans.
    
    Thanks for listening,
    
    Fred Mudgett
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

re. Note 210.483                     
BALMER::MUDGETT 
    
>    2. I don't think a gun is good personel protection because most
>    of us can get enough training to use them well. 

Do you mean that most of us *can't* get enough training ? I would
dispute that. Training is readily available. Or do you mean that
criminals also have this type of training ? Perhaps some do.
However, most criminals don't have the means to practice and
*maintain* their proficiency with firearms (it's *not* like
riding a bicycle.) Your example below shows this : 

>    When I was in Viet-Nam
>    I worked on airplanes. One night we were told that we were going
>    to have to take defensive postions in the case of an infiltration
>    that someone expected. We tried to clean our M-16's and most of
>    us couldn't figure out how to get the darned things back together.
>    It had been a year since the last time any of us used them. There
>    we were 5 of us trying to track down a grunt to help us at 2:00
>    in the morning. 

Most instructors recommend practice/familiarization monthly to
maintain skills. 

Dana Charbonneau

PS take the time to read this whole topic. It's worth it.






    
    3. Maryland passed a law last year outlawing "Saturday night specials"
    and this year the commission that was to decide such things chose
    a long list of firearms none of which were inexpensive or unsafe.
    It should have showed anyone who didn't believe before this was
    just a chance to restrict gun ownership.
    
    4. Amoung the grunts there was a saying "don't point a gun at anything
    you don't want to kill." 
    
    5. The guy who wrote "Vacations in Hell" said that it was amazing
    how small the bullets were that could kill people. (This guy wrote
    about terriable places that he had to visit as a correspondent)
    He made his judgement from having soldiers point guns at him.
    
    6. Louis L'Amour said on 60 minutes that the old west was not all
    that wild because alot of the people who settled the west were civil
    war vetrans.
    
    Thanks for listening,
    
    Fred Mudgett
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Did anyone else hear the NP series on Women and Guns?  I heard the
last segment today.  It was interesting and presented all the
differing ranges of opinions on the subject from that of the author of
Armed and Female to the Lady Colt and how it was advertized to women
who had been abused and attacked by men and who had armed themselves
to women who felt that it was just a consumer solution and who felt
that the focus should be on creating a society where everyone is safe.

john (am I really writing in the guns note? ;-)

re: .483 (Fred Mudgett)
    
>    2. I don't think a gun is good personel protection because most
>    of us can get enough training to use them well. 

Fred, in the greater Boston area, there is lots of good training
available.  In New Hampshire, there is also the "Lethal Force Institute"
run by Masood Ayoob that conducts weekend-long courses in self-defense 
with a handgun.  

Of course, to enroll in the course, one must have a license to carry,
which women in my town can't get.  Yesterday I received written
certification that I passed the NRA course to become a certified 
instructor for their basic handgun and rifle courses.  Getting this
involved passing 3 exams (where passing was 90% or above) and 2 very
long days in a classroom.  So now I can teach the basic handgun class
which one must take in MA to get a licence to carry.  

My motivation for taking the course was not so much to be able to teach,
but to have better credentials when I reapply for my license (which my
police chief has previously turned down) and subsequently go to court
over his denying me the license.  His reason for denial was that I had
insufficient reason (wanting to be able to protect myself) for having
the license.  I have not yet met one woman in my town who has a license 
to carry, yet just about all the men I have met do.  Interesting.  

In my opinion, Fred, it takes much _less_ time to become proficient 
with a handgun than it does to be well-trained a physical contact 
form of self-defense.  (moreover, it is statistically more effective)

						   nancy b.

Interesting, Nancy... what are the men's stated reasons for carrying a 
handgun?

    .486
    You should check to see what reason these men used to get the lic.
    I have one, but my stated reason was for sport and target, not self
    defense.  I also did not have to take any course to get mine.  My
    understanding is that  it is MUCH harder to get a license to carry
    for self-defense then for other things.  I can still use a hand
    gun for self-defense in my own home but the law get messy if I use
    it outside my home (like in my back yard....).  My guess is that
    you and you female friends were not issued the license because of
    you reason, not that you are female (I hope).  
    However, taking the course is a great idea and SHOULD be required
    of everyone who whats the lic. to carry or a FID card.
    
    Quinn

	re: .487  (Sharon Walker)    -< not self-defense, naaaah... >-

	>  Interesting, Nancy... what are the men's stated reasons 
	>  for carrying a handgun?

	"Target and sport"  _and_  "Personal protection"

	"Target and sport" is the most common, but I am not interested
	in that license, because it is extremely restrictive in that
	you can't carry a handgun anywhere with you except on your
	way to and from the practice range and at the range.  And while
	on your way to and from the range, you can't stop anywhere, etc.

	I know of several men who have licenses specifying "personal 
	protection" who obtained them with no hassle.  

	I even know of a man whom the Dept of Public Safety @ 1010
	Commonwealth Ave. has *ordered* to have his license revoked and
	the chief didn't.   The chief is his long-time friend.
	(the Dept of Public Safety wanted this man's license revoked
	 because a police report stated his son had made threats about 
	 using his Dad's gun after threatening his Dad with a knife.
         The chief is giving him "one more chance".)  

	This police chief reeks of the "old-boy network" in a sleepy,
	wealthy suburban town where his power to deny licenses to women
	probably gives him the biggest thrill of his week.


re: .488 (Quinn Canfield)

	>  -< perhaps it is reason not gender.... >-

	That was my first thought too until I started asking guys
	what their stated "purpose" on their license was.

	It could be age discrimination also (I'm < 25).

	>    I have one, but my stated reason was for sport and target, 
	>    not self defense.  

	Right - in my town at least, if you don't ask specifically for 
	"personal protection", you will get "target and sport" by 
	default if you are approved.

						nancy b.

From:  Cato Institute Policy Analysis
       David B. Kopel

"   Real world experiences validate the sociologists' findings 
[he's referring to a study showing that gun control does not impede
criminals, and that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deter-
rent to crime].   In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded
to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program
to train 2,500 women in firearm use.  The next year rape fell by
88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease
that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. 
.
.
Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the 
pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area
had suffered a 308 percent increase."

						nancy b.

     Use "all lawful purposes" on the "reason" line.
    
     The Doctah

This is in reply to M_VELENZA in 896, to honor a request that that note not
continue the "gun" discussions.

Actually this is to state my position as clearly as possible so that no one
misunderstands. I dislike cutsy comebacks to what I consider a very serious
issue.

I believe That human life is extremely important. I believe that anything
that promotes, encourages, aids, helps, improves life is good for society
and good for all people.

I believe that *anything* that decreases, insults, harms,endangers, damages
or ends life is bad or wrong.

I believe that the *INITIATION* of force or violence is wrong. but the 
use of counter-violence to stop the initiator is my duty and my right.
if as someone else said, after the first woman in Montreal was shot a
citizen with a firearm had "stepped up" and stopped lepine's attack
there would be only two funerals. his which was going to happen anyway,
and one victim not 14.

everyone has a choice be a victim or be a survivor, be a predator or live 
within the rules and laws that society sets. (providing those laws are
moral laws, I am not talking fascist/communist laws etc but our United States
and other western laws). Those who choose to be predators must face the
consequences. you mr. smart-*ss are suggesting that the victims must bear the
consequences of being preyed upon by merely going about their daily lives
and getting killed, raped. That *IN MY OPINION* is the old lay-back-and-enjoy
it-because-it-is-going-to-happen-anyway. 

I do not choose to lay-back and enjoy it.

now if you wish to discuss the facts regarding firearms for defensive use I
will be happy to continue this. If, on the other hand you wish to merely
display your writing style and cute (half)wit then I do not wish to go
any further with this.
Amos

    You're absolutely correct that this is a serious issue.  That is
    precisely the point.

    If I ever find myself in a situation where I make the decision to take
    a human life, I hope to God (if She exists) that I will never, ever, in
    a billion zillion jillion years, lower myself to the level of being so
    cavalier toward my action as to morally equate it with merely stepping
    on an insect.  That is a part of my humanity, and my conscience, that I
    do not choose to relinquish.

    -- Mike

    Mike, he-who-initiates-murder has lowered *himself* to the
    insect level. I don't call a two-legged biped 'human'
    just because he *looks* like one. A human-appearing jackal
    is a jackal, ditto human-appearing cockroaches, wolves,
    reptiles, (choose an animal you don't like.)
    
    I feel no qualms about shooting a sheep-killing coyote,
    no matter how many legs he walks on.
    
    Being truly 'human' is a matter of choice. If one chooses to
    act in a sub-human manner, he accepts the possibility of
    being treated accordingly. 

    Dana

    I think Mike's point is that while an person may commit acts
    that revile us, that make us feel no remorse for extinguishing
    their life, that individual is nontheless a human being.  It
    was born of a human woman and went through life as a human 
    being.  I believe that none of us is God and can know what 
    brings a human to commit acts of horror or insanity.  And I 
    believe that to declare any person is not human is, in a sense,
    playing God.  
    
    It seems to me that it's one thing to declare that we, as people,
    have rules of living a person should be executed for committing 
    certain atrocious violations of those rules.  But to say that 
    we should exterminate a person because they've somehow become
    less than human is a different matter.  Why is it any less jus-
    tifiable for any person to kill me because they've determined
    that I am less than human?  In years gone by, for example, it 
    was considered perfectly alright to extinguish the lives of count-
    less Blacks because they were "less than human".  
    
    Steve

    Thank you, Steve, and well said.

    Regardless of the necessity from society's point of view of taking
    lives in certain situations, which can be legitimately debated from
    both sides, what disturbs me is the casual dismissal of these actions
    when they do take place.  Rather than being justified as necessary
    evils (which I don't have a problem with in theory, even though I might
    disagree with it in practice), which then implies at least a modicum of
    tragedy and moral dilemma, what I see instead is a casual dismissal of
    these incidents.  The issue is elevated, with the help of some
    dehumanizing rationalizations, to a virtue, and all the messy moral
    questions are conveniently washed away.

    If the day ever comes when I could kill a human being, no matter how
    vile, without feeling something bad inside myself, I will have lost an
    irreplaceably precious piece of my humanity.  No thanks.

    -- Mike

re. Note 210.496                     
CSC32::M_VALENZA 


>    If the day ever comes when I could kill a human being, no matter how
>    vile, without feeling something bad inside myself, I will have lost an
>    irreplaceably precious piece of my humanity.  No thanks.

I wonder, is your statement an attempt to de-humanize *me* ?

My feeling is, if the day ever comes when I feel remorse or any other
bad emotion over stopping a murderer, I will have lost an
irreplaceably precious piece of *my* humanity - the willingness to
think and to judge and to act. 

    Dana Charbonneau
    
    PS. I didn't just 'wash away' all the 'messy moral questions'.
    I gave it a lot of hard thought and came to these conclusions.
    Such decisions should be made before one decides to own firearms,
    not after. If ever a situation arises where I need to employ
    force, there won't be time to consider the morality of self-
    defense.

    Re: Several by M_VALENZA
    
    I'm not quite sure how you've developed the perception that someone
    who is committed to the use of countervailing deadly force in self-
    defense against an assailant has categorically done so without regard
    to the moral and psychological consequences of committing the act.
    
    The prudent person does not make "the decision" (to use lethal force
    in self-defense) on an ad hoc basis at the time an actual attack
    occurs.  "The Decision," as it is indeed described, is made long
    beforehand through a process of understanding one's own feelings
    about the morality of preserving life through justifiable homicide,
    and of the full range of physiological, psychological, and emotional
    problems that universally befall human beings who kill other human
    beings.  When all other means of self-preservation have failed or
    are unavailable and one is placed in immediate and otherwise
    unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm, the trained and
    moral person will act accordingly.  "If X happens, I will do Y."
    
    This is not to say that anyone so trained considers it a virtue.
    I have never heard this statement from any responsible person who
    has prepared herself or himself to deal with a violent confrontation
    with justifiable deadly force.  That is reflective of a "warrior
    prince" mentality that has no place here.  Power and responsibility
    must always be in equal balance.  With the power (of the gun) goes
    the responsibility (to use it judiciously).
    
    Amos, Dana, I, and others have all been through this process and
    have all arrived at similar points of view.  I don't believe any
    of us believes that any other human being is of lesser value than
    us or has a lesser right to life than any of us.  I think our common
    feeling *is* that none of *us* is of lesser value than an aggressor
    who would deprive us of our own lives.  Therefore, such a person
    has forfeited his right to life.  It is a morally viable conclusion.
    
    	Bill
    

    The fact that a rationalization is carefully considered makes it no
    less of a rationalization; what matters is that it serves its purpose
    in whitewashing the moral implications of an action, not how it was
    arrived at.  Anyone who wants to lower their moral standards can easily
    do so with enough prior thought.  The point of certain kinds of
    rationalizations is in transforming what might have otherwise been
    justified as a necessary evil into a virtue instead.  The problem with
    necessary evils is that they are not particularly tidy, because they
    assume a certain degree of moral ambiguity.  It is much easier to throw
    morality out the window and simply deny the existence of any negative
    facet whatsoever.  Voila!  No moral dilemma whatsoever.

    As I have stated before, it is not the belief in armed self-defense per
    se that I find so offensive, even if I don't agree with its application
    in practice in most instances.  I do find it utterly offensive, however,
    when there is an amoral philosophical underpinning to that belief
    that presupposes that some human beings are more worthwhile than
    others, or have more value.  I'm not saying that all gun owners feel
    that way, but the use of phrases like "vermin" and "slime", and
    comparisons with termites, which then make the killing of the person no
    big deal whatsoever, do indicate an expression of this philosophy in at
    least certain quarters.

    Depending on one's stage of moral development, it is certainly possible
    to feel good and bad at the same time about the same action.  Does it
    feel good to stop a murder?  Fine.  Is killing necessary in order to
    prevent the murder?  If that is the conclusion you have drawn, then
    fine, that is a "morally viable conclusion."  So then, does it also
    feel just as good to take a human life in order to stop that murder? 
    Well, if the person you kill isn't really a human being in your eyes,
    then sure, why not?  No big deal.  You just squished a termite.

    Sorry, but I don't consider that a "morally viable conclusion."

    -- Mike

    Re: .499
    
    Mike, you've missed the point.  There's no whitewashing of the moral
    implications; it is direct consideration *of* them.  Further, if
    one ever feels "good" about a self-defense killing, it is due to
    having *survived*, not to having *killed*.
    
    	Bill

    Bill, one can, upon considering moral implications, simply change the
    equation if one doesn't like them, and thus declare them irrelevant. 
    If what you've killed is nothing more than a termite, then there are no
    moral implications to consider (unless, of course, you believe that
    there are inherent moral implications associated with killing
    termites.)  Equating certain individuals with termites thus eliminates
    morality from the picture entirely.  Of course, though this version of
    the self-defense argument is amoral, that does not automatically imply
    that there are not other, morally viable, ways of justifying armed
    self-defense.

    -- Mike

    Mike, I'll re-state my position : *I* don't make a
    murderer an animal, *he makes himself* an animal.
    I have no compunctions about treating him the way
    he *acts*. I have no compunctions about killing a 
    dangerous animal, or a human who has *equated himself
    to one.* 
    
    Dana
    
    

    Re: .501
    
    Mike, you're not listening.  You're hung up on your termite issue.
    *I* didn't make any reference to termites or lesser qualities of
    aggressors of human life.  Morality indeed remains in the picture
    in my equation and it is *because* of it, not in ignorance of it,
    that I have reached my conclusion.  See 210.435 for further elaboration
    of my thesis.
    
    	Bill

    Mike-
    
     You seem terribly hung up on this termite/vermin/subhuman thing. It is
    just a figure of speech. Yes, murderers are still human beings. Yes, it
    is not an especially pleasant or moral thing to kill human beings.
    However, situations in which people get killed while committing
    anti-social acts must be viewed in context. It is usually a case of
    preventing further anti-social behavior. The key here is effectiveness
    at eliminating further suffering of innocent people. I won't debate
    that killing human beings is inherently evil; however, certain actions
    of individuals render moralizing about the inherent badness of human
    termination moot.
    
    The Doctah

>        <<< Note 210.499 by CSC32::M_VALENZA "Echo and the Bunnymen." >>>
>
>    As I have stated before, it is not the belief in armed self-defense per
>    se that I find so offensive, even if I don't agree with its application
>    in practice in most instances.  I do find it utterly offensive, however,
>    when there is an amoral philosophical underpinning to that belief
>    that presupposes that some human beings are more worthwhile than
>    others, or have more value.  I'm not saying that all gun owners feel

>    Sorry, but I don't consider that a "morally viable conclusion."

>    -- Mike

 On presumming that some people are more/less worthwhile;

first this is a strange comment from someone willing to bash an entire
class/organization (the NRA) with insults and innuendos, if you'd made the
same comment about using NAACP or NOW stickers as you did about NRA stickers
you'd probably be talking to personnell.

*OF COURSE* some are more worthwhile than others, judgements have to be made.
otherwise you are saying that Lepine and purdey are morally equivelant and
equal to Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King.
You are also saying those 14 women were no better than lepine! Which of them
might have gone on to perfect pollutionless energy sources?
Which of them might have gone on to discover ways to improve the lot
of all humankind? why don't you suggest to their families that lepine
is as good a human as they were?

And just to clarify one more time. upto the time lepine made the decision
to kill, he *WAS* as important and worthwhile as anyone. *AFTER* he made the
decision and more importantly *DURING* the commission of the crime he needed
to be exterminated. same as a termite. *he* made the decisions.

RE: a few notes in 869(?) in a survey taken by Wright Rossi(professors from
UMASS study done at Gov't expense) 87% of criminals interviewed said
they would always avoid a victim or situation where the intended victim was
known *OR SUSPECTED* by them(the criminal) to own a gun. They always went
after the "easy mark".

Amos

    Mark, I disagree that it is just a figure of speech, and that is why I
    am "hung up" on the issue.  The use of dehumanizing metaphors and
    language when killing other people is a way of desensitizing ourselves
    to the moral significance of our actions.  This is why, for example,
    derogatory language is often used in warfare to describe the enemy;
    if you are shooting at "gooks" instead of human beings, then, hey,
    it's no big deal to kill them.
    
    Therefore, what offends me is therefore not the language that is used
    per se, but rather the underlying lack of sensitivity to the
    significance of the act of taking a human life that this type of
    language represents.  I don't consider this a minor detail.  I believe
    that a society that desensitizes itself to killing is a more brutal
    society.  The issue of if and when it is acceptable to kill is
    debatable; though I would probably be hard pressed to find specific
    instances when I personally find it acceptable, the point is that when
    it is deemed necessary, are we to trivialize the action?  To say that
    taking a certain human life is no more bothersome than killing a
    termite, or that certain human beings are simply not worthwhile,
    offends my most basic values.  And that is why I am concerned by this
    "figure of speech." 
    
    If you feel that killing people is not especially pleasant, then
    perhaps you don't equate the act with killing termites.  Okay, I can
    respect that.  If you are saying that killing is unfortunate but
    necessary under certain circumstances, then while I may disagree with
    the "necessary" part of that argument, at least I can respect the
    "unfortunate".  What I am seeing in certain quarters, though, is that
    sometimes the "unfortunate" is missing, and instead I see a casual
    disdain about the issue.  Again, that is why the "termite" metaphor
    offends me. 
    
    -- Mike

>    Mark, I disagree that it is just a figure of speech, and that is why I
>    am "hung up" on the issue.  The use of dehumanizing metaphors and
>    language when killing other people is a way of desensitizing ourselves
>    to the moral significance of our actions.
    
     I would doubt that people who would intercede during the comission of
    a violent crime by killing the perpetrator would feel nothing at all
    about having killed someone. Maybe some, but that would have to be a
    small number.
    
     You and I have differing views on what constitutes necessity. I will
    tell you this, the determination of necessity in and of itself releases
    some of the bad feelings about killing someone. It is indeed the best
    solution according to my moral code. Yours is different. However, were
    you to say that by virtue of the fact that my moral code differs from
    yours that I do not have a moral code, I would take vehement exception.
    To do so would be to judge me according to your standards- something I
    doubt you'd want me to do with you.
    
>If you are saying that killing is unfortunate but
>    necessary under certain circumstances, then while I may disagree with
>    the "necessary" part of that argument, at least I can respect the
>    "unfortunate". 
    
    Yes, that sums up my belief. I don't think any of us who would
    intercede in a violent crime wake up thinking "Gee, I hope some nut
    flips today so I can ventilate him with my Smith and Wesson."
    
>What I am seeing in certain quarters, though, is that
>    sometimes the "unfortunate" is missing, and instead I see a casual
>    disdain about the issue. 
    
    I think (totally opinion) that the "unfortunate" is missing from some
    people's descriptions because they have carefully considered the
    implications of killing vs. allowing someone to go unchecked and have
    come to the conclusion that the remedy is far more beneficial than
    "letting nature take it's course." You hardly ever hear a doctor talk
    about intrusive surgery as a horrible thing. If it means the difference
    between life and death, the path is clear. That you don't see any
    waffling is actually a good thing, from an effectiveness and safety
    perspective. Waffling at the wrong time could be deadly.
    
    The  Doctah

    Re: .506
    
    Mike, you know my position.  The morality of killing in self-defense
    has nothing to do with any view of my aggressor as a lesser person;
    *I*, however, am also not a lesser person than my attacker and will
    not forfeit my life to him/her.  I have a right to life and therefore
    the right to preserve that life.
    
    I don't know what your life experiences have been, but much of your
    argument seems textbook-based.  Let me tell you about human predators
    and what they do and why some of us are now and then inclined to
    use terms like "slimeball" and "scumbag."  Keep in mind that it
    makes no difference to me what a person's characteristics are if
    that person is about to cause my death.  But also keep in mind that
    the person who breaks into your home in the middle of the night
    with a gun or who accosts you on the street is not likely to be
    your parish priest or your sweet Aunt Emma.
    
    Human predators are a growing part of our society.  Society has
    created them in one way or another.  They consider themselves tough,
    you and I weak.  They view us as their rightful prey, fruit to be
    plucked at their desire.  They have no respect for our material
    possessions or our lives.  They themselves have nothing left to
    lose and don't worry about the risks.  It is all there for their
    taking.  You and I don't matter a rat's a** to these people.
    
    I have visually observed the results of some of these predators'
    violent behavior against other human beings:  A 13-year old girl
    stabbed to death and then decapitated and dismembered with a knife
    with a two-inch blade; an adult woman stomped to death by a biker's
    boots; a police officer stabbed and disemboweled in public view;
    and a woman literally exploded to death by one of these individuals
    who pulled the trigger of a 12-gauge shotgun inserted in her vagina.
    It goes on and on.
    
    I don't care to be anyone's victim.  I certainly don't want to end
    up like these unfortunate victims did.  Knowing that this can happen
    gives one a certain wariness of certain individuals.  That's not
    to say that they're any less human than the rest of us.  I just
    don't want to trade my life for anybody else's.
    
    	Bill

    I have a problem with with reductionist metaphors in general, but the
    comparison between killing a person and intrusive surgery is extremely
    offensive to me, and, yes, in my view amoral.  A bodily organ is not a
    human being.  As I have said before, all the careful consideration in
    the world does not justify an amoral rationalization.  I'm sure that
    there were quite a few Nazi intellectuals who gave a lot of thought to
    the issue when they formulated their policies of antisemitic
    extermination, but so what?  (I also have no doubt that they justified
    their atrocities in terms of societal surgery.)

    Comments like "he needed to be exterminated, same as a termite" are, to
    me, nothing short of sickening.  And that does not sound like the kind
    of comment that one makes unless one feels nothing at all about having
    killed them (nothing, that is, except perhaps a bit of glee); you say
    that such a view is a minority position among gun owners.  I hope that
    this is true.

    -- Mike

>        <<< Note 210.509 by CSC32::M_VALENZA "Echo and the Bunnymen." >>>
>                                 -< Re: .507 >-

>    Comments like "he needed to be exterminated, same as a termite" are, to
>    -- Mike

Why pick on only these comments? what about answering my questions such
as do you consider lepine the moral equivalant of those 14 women?

you are hung up on terminology, you spout a "moral stance" you accuse me
and others of no moral values, You ignore the fact that I did explain that
I(and others) have said that we consider others to be important humankind
*BUT* there are times when *THEY* make *THEMSELVES* less.
 I for one will end my comments here unless
you are willing to discuss all points put to you and stop the "holier-than..."
attitude.

Amos(termite exterminator)

re: .496 (Mike Valenza)

>    If the day ever comes when I could kill a human being, no matter how
>    vile, without feeling something bad inside myself, I will have lost an
>    irreplaceably precious piece of my humanity. 

	I agree, Mike.  I agree in both philosophical and practical terms.

	It's an easy statement to agree with philosophically, but to test
	how I really feel about it, I must try to put it in a real-life,
	practical situation.  If I were to ever kill someone in self-defense,
	I am positive I would feel "something bad inside myself" for a 
	long while.  

        Heck, I recall feeling horror at myself for a split second at what 
	I was trying to do to another person as I unsuccessfully attempted 
	to defend myself against attack.   (maybe that's why I lost)

	That is why I understand that I could only use lethal force
	if my continuing existence is being threatened by someone who
	also has the means to carry out that threat or if I am in 
        *immediate* danger of serious bodily harm.

	And that is why I become angered and offended by remarks like:

	re: 896.17    -< Ready to kill anyone you meet.... >-

	concerning what would happen in the scenario where more citizens 
	choose to own firearms for self-defense.

							nancy b.

>    I have a problem with with reductionist metaphors in general, but the
>    comparison between killing a person and intrusive surgery is extremely
>    offensive to me, and, yes, in my view amoral.
    
    Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree (which will no doubt trigger
    a collective sigh of relief from those with calluses on their
    "next-unseen" finger) because the analogy is perfectly valid (if
    personally distasteful). 
    
    The Doctah

    Re: .511

    I appreciate your comments, Nancy.

    Re: .512
    
    >Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree...
    
    Fair enough.
    
    >(which will no doubt trigger a collective sigh of relief from those
    >with calluses on their "next-unseen" finger)
    
    I have no doubt that you are right about that, Mark.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re: 210.508
    
    In the future, if you wish to enter graphic descriptions of violence
    such as the list you included, please preface them with a warning
    and a formfeed.  Common courtesy to the noting community demands it.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .514 (re: .508)
    
    I want to apologize to anyone who may have been caught by surprise
    and who may have been offended by some of the material in my reply
    .508.  I had not considered the descriptions of some violent events
    in that reply to be unusually graphic, but simply statements of
    the physical results of those confrontations.  The purpose of those
    descriptions was to illustrate the point that there are sociopathic
    members of our communities who are to be feared, not to shock or
    offend anyone.
    
    In future I will follow this conference's practice (of which I was
    not previously aware) of prefacing any similarly sensitive material
    with a warning and formfeed to give all noters the opportunity to
    skip over it.
    
    	Bill

    The following is posted from the FIREARMS notesfile.  This is an
    excellent program that has been running for about five years now.
    If you are a woman who is interested in learning more about self-
    defense, including the role of firearms, and live in southern New
    Hampshire, I strongly recommend enrolling.  I've assisted with the
    firearms training portion of this for several years and will do
    so in January.  Judging from the comments of many women with whom
    I've spoken, the entire program has been generally viewed as being
    quite worthwhile.
    
    If you're unsure how you feel about guns in your personal protection
    strategy, this may be an opportunity to find out more information that
    will help you make your decision.  In the past, some women who have
    attended this clinic have changed their views, from con- to pro-, and
    vice-versa.  Others have gone away with simply a reaffirmation of
    whatever position they started with.  In any event, I think you'll
    find it very interesting.
    
    	Bill
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 2924.0    Womens' free self-defense clinics in Manchester, NH       1 reply
LILAC::ZORE "I'm the NRA!"                           55 lines  17-DEC-1989 11:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This following article was in the Sunday Manchester Union Leader 12/17/89

page 8A

The UL, NH Sunday News and the Manchester PD will sponser another in a 
series of safety clinics for women Jan 16-18 at police headquarters, 351 
Chestnut St.

Crimes against women in their homes and in the streets are a concern to 
everyone, sponcers of the series say, and this continuing series of free 
clinics will be supervised by police officers and experts in firearms 
safety and self-defense.

The clinics will begin at 6 each night and will last approximately 3 hours. 
Each class will be limited to 90 women.  Participants can register with 
the accompanying coupon.

Participants will receive special attention in the art of self-defense 
from professionals of Fred Villari School of Self-defense. A 25 minute 
video tape will also be offered during one phase of the program which deals 
with safety in the home, on the street and while shopping.

Police officers will provide detailed instrution on weapons-handling.  
Additional weapons-firing training will be offered through instructors at 
Willson Hill Pistol Club in Manchester on Saturday, Jan 20.

A new highlight of the January clinics will be a presentation of how 
detectives resolve a typical assault case.  Specially trained 
detectives will attend the seminar to answer questions.  Others in 
specialized fields will work with participants on drawing composites of 
fictional attackers.

In order to particiapte in the safety clinics, simply fill out the coupon 
which appears with this story.  Deadline for enrollments is Jan 10.

The accompanying coupon has check boxes for the following clinics...

Tuesday night 1/16 at 6PM

Wednesday night 1/17 at 6PM

Thursaday night 1/18 at 6PM

Weapons firing clinic at Wilson Hill on 1/20

It requests your name and address and a phone number

Each clinic is limited to 90 women

If you need further info cal;l the UL Promotions Dept 668-4321 (ext. 509) 
or toll free at 1-800-562-8218.

Deadline for mailing the coupon is 1/10/1990

Rich

          In Portland, Oregon, 18-year-old Kurt Jensen was studying
          upstairs in his room at about 2 p.m. when he heard the doorbell
          ring.  _The Oregonian_ reported he went to an upstairs window
          that overlooked the front yeard but saw no cars.  He saw a 10-
          speed bicycle but did not recognize it.

          When he answered the door, no one was there.  Jensen went back
          upstairs.  Within minutes, he heard glass breaking as someone
          began to kick in a downstairs door.

          He went to his parent's bedroom where he got his father's
          handgun.  Crouching upstairs, he listened as more glass fell down
          to the floor.  The gun was in his right hand.  He put his left
          hand on the floor to keep his trembling body from falling.

          "I went downstairs and when I was halfway down the stairs is when
          I first yelled, 'Stop, I have a gun!'  There was no response,
          just glass breaking.  I thought he might be deaf so I moved down.
          He still couldn't see me, and I said 'stop' again," Jensen said.

          He saw Alex Rahm, 32, on his hands and knees breaking door panes
          and trying to get into the house through the opening he had
          created.  Stepping into Rahm's view, Jensen aimed the gun at
          Rahm's head and told him to stop again.

          "He didn't stop, he just looked at me and kept coming."

          Jensen told the _Oregonian_ he considered firing a warning shot;
          but fearful that Rahm had a gun, he did not want to lose
          ammunition.  He opted for a wounding shot, and then he fired.  A
          bullet hit Rahm's shoulder.

          Jensen expected Rahm to retreat and try to get away.  But Rahm
          only grunted, looked up at Jensen and grinned.  Jensen shot Rahm
          in the head, then emptied the handgun.  Another bullet hit Rahm;
          the rest went wild.  Jensen ran to a neighbor's house and called
          the police.

          The police later identified Rahm as an habitual criminal and ex-
          convict who, at the time of the shooting, was wanted on three
          outstanding *felony* warrants and parole violation.

          I entered the last reply, an example of a handgun being used
          effectively for self-defense, for the following reasons:

          o The media does not report on incidents where armed citizens
            successfully prevent a crime from occurring.

          o It illustrates the importance of being able and prepared to use
            a firearm once it is drawn in a life-threatening situation and
            your "bluff" is called.  Had Kurt Jensen decided he just
            couldn't pull the trigger at all, or again, as the career
            criminal kept coming after being hit with one shot, he probably
            would be dead today.

                                                            nancy b.

	In New Hampshire last Tuesday, legislation concerning the
        banning of semi-automatic firearms was debated. 

	A woman speaking _for_ the bill said, "I have the police to 
	protect me, I have the government to protect me, why would I ever
	need a gun?".  One person clapped.

	The Strafford Police Chief responded, "So you think that laws protect 
	you?  You ladies, when you get a restraining order put on your 
	husbands, HE STILL SHOWS UP, doesn't he?" 

     	Several other police officers, chiefs of police, and a former county
	attorney were Among those speaking against the bill.

	A person speaking **for** the bill admitted:
        "This bill will probably not affect crime much."

	An officer from the Nashua Police Department said the guns in the 
	bill were not "battle rifles" as the author claimed and the public 
	would be safer if more people owned guns.   He then pressed for more 
	enforcement of the existing laws.  He defined a "felon" who someone 
	who hurts, rapes, kills, steals, etc, **not** a person who owns a 
	particular kind of firearm. 

	I support, and have supported, gun-control/crime-control laws
	which are specifically targeted at known criminals.

	I fight gun-control/people-control laws which disable law-abiding
	citizens right to keep and bear arms.  Because, among other things,
	these laws make it illegal for me to be able to defend myself.

							nancy b.

          re: 907.71,.78  (Bruce Collier)

          > You feel that your position on gun control is correct,
          > rational, and validated by your experience of  violence.


          The day after I was raped,  I did **not** wake up with the
          realization that I should get a firearm for self-protection.

          It wasn't until several months later that I decided to quit
          pretending I wouldn't care if it happened again.  I realized
          I had to learn  __an effective method of self-protection__.

          It is **this** realization (the realization of the need for self-
          protection) that I indeed feel is (to quote you) "validated by my
          experience of violence".

          I do **not** feel that my position against gun-control/people-
          control(disarming the law-abiding) is "validated by my experience
          of violence".  That position is "validated" by facts and research.

          Facts that were meticulously and objectively researched after I
          decided to learn the most effective method of self-protection. I
          had not grown up with guns, my parents had never discussed
          firearms in any sense whatsoever with me, and I thought the only
          people that had guns besides criminals were hunter-types or
          overly-macho men who went shooting for a testosterone high.  I
          thought I was "above" that.  I went into my fact-finding mission
          thinking I was going to become a martial-arts expert (which is
          what I would have done if that was what the facts proved.)


          I had access to several very good law-school libraries at that
          time where I researched this data. Dept. of Justice, FBI Uniform
          Crime Reports, independent studies performed by university
          professors on firearms and violence, ETC...  (In other words, I
          did not read NRA stuff  (I didn't even know what the NRA
          was!:-)) ... conclusively stated that one has the best chance of
          surviving or deterring a violent attack if you are are armed
          (the worst thing to do is to carry a knife, BTW).   Fighting back
          (including martial arts), doing nothing, screaming, etc., all
          fall in the middle somewhere in terms of effectiveness.


          Then I started reading more about firearms-for-self-defense,
          firearms in general, and gun control.  I quickly saw how almost
          all gun-control laws have had little, to none, to a worsening
          effect on crime while they have a **tremendous** impact on law-
          abiding citizens.


          > You assert that Kennedy's experience of violence has rendered
          > him blinded, confused, and unfit to form a rational opinion.

          I said in 907.70 that Kennedy was blinded by emotions on the gun
          issue and ignoring all facts, statistics, and reason.  I said
          this in quoting a letter I wrote him in response to a mailing he
          sent out to all his constituents last year on the gun issue.
          That mailing was FULL of insidious lies and untruths.  I realize
          that trying to change his mind on the matter is futile, but I
          wanted to let him know that he should be ashamed of feeding
          misinformation and sensationalized, blatant lies to the public.

          I was not born when John F. was killed, but I have read that one
          of the first reactions (within days) of Senator Kennedy was to go
          after the gun.  As in "Ban them, ban them all, ban them now."  I
          have compassion for the way he was feeling at that time, no
          matter what it was.  However, his continued blindness to the
          realities, facts, statistics, and case-studies of gun-
          control/people-control can *not* be excused.  

	  Hence, whereas my conviction that disarming the law-abiding is 
	  not right was formed in law-libraries researching studies till 
	  I was kicked out at 1am,  Kennedy's anti-gun position appears to
	  be reactionary, a direct result of his brother's death and a 
	  distrust of the public (what does he - or you Bruce - have to worry 
	  about me using a gun for protection?), ignorant of facts and
	  statistics, and shows a blatant disregard for the constitution
	  ("to hell with the constitution, we're fighting a WAR on DRUGS!")

          Another thing that really annoys me about Kennedy is his stance
          against gun ownership by the law-abiding citizens versus the way
          he fought and whined so that his bodyguards could have Class 3
          gun licenses so they could carry automatic rifles in order to
          protect *him*.  (*no one* is suppose to be able to get class 3
          licenses but DEA or CIA agents, etc)   Kennedy thinks it's OK for
          *him* to have machine-guns (automatic "assault" weapons)
          protecting him, while he also wants to ban my handgun and make it
          illegal for me to purchase it or carry it for *my* protection????

          Bruce, do you see *that* as a double standard?

                                                                 nancy b.

	  P.S.  The gun control issue in itself is best debated
	        in Soapbox, not this topic.  I put this here to 
		1) answer your questions and 2) because the type
		of gun control I'm talking about strongly relates
	        to whether "gun protection" is even a viable option.

    Re: .520
    
    While I understand the background of Nancy's reply and her reasons
    for putting it under this topic, we *did* agree quite some time
    ago to limit discussion in this topic to the moral, legal, and
    practical issues of the use of guns in self-defense.  The politics
    of guns and gun control are more appropriately debated elsewhere,
    as Nancy points out.
    
    	Bill

    nancy -
    
    I have no particular reason for wanting to defend Kennedy, or
    sufficient knowledge of or interest in his gun control positions do so.
    But my reaction to your mode of "debate" on this point remains the
    same. You seem to be saying, roughly,
    
    	THE FACTS ARE ALL ON MY SIDE AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SEE AND ADMIT
        THIS IS A WORTHLESS @%$@^%@%.
    
    It seems to me that the "facts" are almost never so clearcut, and that
    there are _plenty_ of credible studies which support gun control
    (though that doesn't lead me to assert that there are _none_ on the
    other side).  Further, you are unlikely to change my mind - anyone's -
    with "arguments" like this:
    
.520> "I said in 907.70 that Kennedy was blinded by emotions on the gun issue
    and ignoring all facts, statistics, and reason. . . .[His]  mailing was
    FULL of insidious lies and untruths. . . . He should be ashamed of
    feeding misinformation and sensationalized, blatant lies to the public.
    . . . His continued blindness to the realities, facts, statistics, and
    case-studies of gun- control/people-control can *not*  be excused. . . . 
    Kennedy's anti-gun position appears to be reactionary, . . . ignorant
    of facts and statistics, and shows a blatant disregard for the
    constitution."
    
    It still seems to me that this fits the class of arguments from authors
    "who know that THEIR anger is legitimate reaction to objective facts,
    while the OTHER side's anger is emotional blindness to reason and
    reality." It still seem to me to rest on a double standard respecting
    anger (not male/female but my side/your side).
    
    - Bruce
    

    Re: .522
    
    Again, this topic is not for debating gun control issues.  Moderators,
    please?
    
    	Bill

	re: .522 (Bill Collier)
    
	>    I have no particular reason for wanting to defend Kennedy, or
	>    sufficient knowledge of or interest in his gun control positions 

	Well, geezums, now you really have me confused as to why you claimed I 
	was insulting gun control advocates, when, in fact, I never said 
	anything about gun control advocates in general whatsoever, and the 
	ONLY reason I brought Kennedy and his position into 907.71 was to draw 
	an analogy to *my* reasoning as to why I would not take a stance on 
	the violent porn issue.

	>    But my reaction to your mode of "debate" on this point remains the
	>    same. You seem to be saying, roughly,
	> THE FACTS ARE ALL ON MY SIDE AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SEE AND ADMIT
	> THIS IS A WORTHLESS @%$@^%@%.

	Bruce, don't put words into my mouth (onto my fingertips?).

	I do not think the case *against* gun-control/people-control is at 
	**ALL** obvious to many people.  Many plausible-sounding arguments
	can be made for gun-control/people-control.  

	Kennedy, on the other hand, is a politician who has a **responsibility**
	to know the facts.  My letter was directed at *him*, not gun-control/
	people-control advocates in general, because *he* signed his name and
	put his picture in a document filled with gross distortions of the 
	truth.

	> Further, you are unlikely to change my mind - anyone's - with 
	> "arguments"  like this:

	Bruce, it was not my purpose in either 907.70 or 210.520 to change 
	your (or anyone else's) mind on gun-control.  In 907.70 my purpose
	was to draw an analogy, and in .520 it was to explain why I don't
	feel my "experience of violence" (or however you worded it) also 
	justifies my position on gun-control, as that was what	you *asserted*
        I felt in 907.78.

	> It still seems to me that this fits the class of arguments from author
	> "who know that THEIR anger is legitimate reaction to objective facts,
                                                               ^   ^   ^   ^  ^
	No.  [for the last time:]

	My anger ("disgust" is a more appropriate term for that moment) was 
	a reaction to a politician misrepresenting an issue in a flier that 
	is sent to all her or his constituents.  I would have written a similar
	letter in an analogous situation had the flier been about another 
	issue that I have researched independently the media's interpretation
	of the facts.

								nancy b.

    
    	Carole Ashmore, the author of 525.167, told me about
    	a modification that can be made to some revolvers by
    	Smith & Wesson that only enables the gun to be fired if
    	the person is wearing a special magnetic ring on their
    	finger.
    
    	She had this modification done about 10 years ago because
    	of a safety concern for her child, and also because if it were
    	ever taken away from her in a struggle, the gun could not be
    	fired.                            
    							nancy b.
    

    Re: .525
    
    Massad Ayoob recommends this magnetic-ring system in his book
    The Truth About Self-Protection.
    -------------------------------
    
    It evidently works well and is about the most secure safety system
    for a revolver that can be had.  As Nancy points out, the resultant
    user-proprietary benefit is itself of immense value should your
    gun be wrested away from you in a struggle.
    
    My understanding is that the cost to modify your firearm with this
    feature is quite high; I recall in the vicinity of $200-300.  But
    then, the value received could be priceless.  I will look up the
    name of the supplier (I believe there is only one) and post an address
    and price information here.
    
    	Bill

    Re: .525 and .526
    
    The magnetic trigger safety system described is known as the
    MagnaTrigger conversion.  It was pioneered by gunsmith Joe Smith
    and originally offered by the Magna-Trigger Safety Company of
    Cupertino, CA.  The service is now evidently franchised to local
    gunsmiths.  In the New England area, the person to contact is
    Rick Devoid, 67-1/2 Rumford Street, Concord, NH 03301 (Rick is a
    senior instructor and armorer with Lethal Force Institute).
    Current price for the conversion is about $250 and the rings are
    an additional $25 each.
    
    The best guns for the conversion are leaf-spring revolvers such
    as K, L, and N frame Smith & Wessons, including the S&W Model 66,
    an excellent home defense firearm in .357 Magnum caliber and
    available in short (2-1/2") barrel lengths with smaller, round
    grips suited to the hand size of many women.
    
    	Bill

	re: .527 (Bill Doll)

	Thanks for entering that information, Bill.

   	> The best guns for the conversion are leaf-spring revolvers 

	Is there anything similar for semi-autos?  That sounds like
	a very useful modification, but I don't like revolvers...

						nancy b.

    Re: .528
    
    Nancy, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a successful
    MagnaTrigger conversion done for a semi-auto pistol.  I would suggest
    you contact Rick Devoid at the address in .527 for more information.
    
    	Bill

	Below is the result of something that's been on my mind
	for a while now.  I wasn't going to post anything here
	about it till the details are more firm, but I'm interested
	in hearing suggestions and discussion from the =wn= community
	before the details become firm in replies here (but if you 
	are personally interested in this group, please respond
	to me via email, not as a reply.)
						
							nancy b.


          <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 3054.0                        A.W.A.R.E.                         15 replies
SYSENG::BITTLE "nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE"  115 lines   5-FEB-1990 00:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment


               (All of the following is Rev 0.1 -- am looking for any
                  suggestions for improvement or ideas you may have)


                                     Description:
                                     -----------

          A.W.A.R.E. are women interested in using firearms as a method of
          self-protection.


					Logo:
            				----

	 ?? Looking for something that represents strength, protection, 
	    and possibly feminity
			

                                    Purpose/Charter:
                                    ---------------

          To provide information for women on issues related to the use of
          firearms in self-protection.  For example:

               o    Determining if a gun is the right choice for her
                    particular life situation
                    (i.e., has her Significant Other (SO) ever acted
                     violently toward her before?  Does she have teenagers
                     in the house that would possibly not act responsibly
                     with a firearm? etc...)
               
               o    Legal aspects / court precedents in using a firearm for
                    self-defense

               o    Support with the hassles involved in obtaining proper
                    licensing

               o    Choosing a handgun for self-defense

               o    Responsibly storing firearms

               .
               .    [any other ideas?]
               .

                    {This information could be delivered in the form of    
                     lectures, books, magazine articles, etc., from the    
                     "experts" in the particular area.}


          To organize classes with local experts on firearms instruction:

               o    Basic handgun safety

               o    Self-defense with a firearm

               etc...
          .
          .
          .


          What other major purposes could this group have or functions
          could it provide?



          How could I advertise this group to potential members?

               o  gun clubs
               o  this notesfile
               o  Womannotes-V2
               o  ?? 


          The initial advertisement could contain a description of
          A.W.A.R.E., along a brief questionaire to return to me, such as:

          |---|
          | x |  Yes, I am interested in becoming a member of A.W.A.R.E.
          |___|  Please send me more information.


          Name: ___________________________

          Address : _______________________


          Have you had any experience with firearms?  _____

          If so, briefly describe:________________________________

                                  ________________________________


          Please return to : Nancy Bittle
                             P.O. Box 510
                             Maynard, MA  01754-0510


          Any other thoughts, ideas?

							nancy b.


	  p.s.  Hal Berenson, could you FAX David Kopel a mail asking
	        for a way to contact Nikki Craft of Dallas, the 
		organizer of Women Armed for Self Protection?  He 
		mentioned her in a "Women and Guns" magazine article,
		and hasn't gotten back to me on how to contact her.

    Nancy B.,
    
    Great idea! Any program to develop AWAREness about self defense with a
    gun is good. So many accidents would be avoided if people knew how to
    handle, care for, store, and most of all safety, of guns.
    
    My SO sells Undercover Wear, every time she goes on a job I worry. I
    worry cause I know whats out there, I know thru experience. I would
    feel much better if she were better protected.
    
    She has taken a hand gun saftey course at the Framingham Sportsmens 
    Club and she enjoys shooting. A group such as you propose would be an
    excellent means of getting good information, training, and saftey out
    to people who need it, and want it.
    
    Good luck, keep us posted! You have two charter members, if men can
    join, only one if they can't  :^) .....
    
    Don

    A firearms responsibility course for women, sponsored and approved
    by the Auburn, N.H. Police Department, will be taught on March
    1 from 6:00 - 10:00 P.M. at the Auburn Village School in Auburn,
    N.H.  Call (603) 483-2389 to register.  There is a $2 fee.  You
    need not be an Auburn resident.
    
    The course will cover principles of safe gun handling and storage,
    elements of responsible gun ownership, types of firearms and selection
    criteria for various uses, the law enforcement view of civilian
    gun ownership, and related topics.
    
    Instructors are Officer Paul Sanford of the Auburn Police Department,
    A.J. Christie, Auburn Police Commissioner, and myself.
    
    	Bill

    March 1990 issue of 'Guns & Ammo' has a feature by Jo Anne
    Hall-Aune (women's editor) on firearms basics - types,
    calibers, training, etc.

The accounts below are actual stories reported in newspapers on how 
women with firearms have protected themselves or prevented a crime in 
progress.

1) According to a November 2, 1989 news story in the Daytona Beach, 
Florida _News Journal_, a 24 year-old woman heard unusual noises in the 
back bedroom of her home.  When she went to see what was happening, she 
was attacked by a man who tried to pull off her clothes.  The woman 
broke free and ran to a closet, where she loaded her revolver and fired 
from inside the closet...the would-be rapist quickly fled.

2)  The Hangerstown, Maryland _Morning Herald_ reported on November 2, 
1989 that a pregnant Weverton, Maryland woman heard her doorknob being 
rattled as she washed dishes in her kitchen.  She then discovered a ski-
masked man trying to break in.  Racing to the bedroom, the woman grabbed 
her husband's revolver and called the police.  While she was on the 
phone, the prowler broke out the kitchen window to gain entry.  The 23 
year-old woman fired a shot into the floor and the frightened criminal 
fled.

3)  A 19 year-old woman made news when the Champaign, Illinois _News 
Gazette_ reported how she used a firearm to force a man from her home.  
After hearing a knock at her door early in the morning, and thinking it 
was a friend, she opened it to find a stranger asking to use her phone.  
The man pretended to make a call, and when the woman asked him to leave 
he began to walk toward her in a threatening manner.  The intruder 
backed her into the bedroom, but the woman turned the tables by drawing 
a handgun from a holster on the headboard.  She forced the man from her 
home and then called the police.

4) According to the October 19, 1989 _Dubliner Courier Herald_ a Georgia 
man was scared off and then later arrested after a woman pulled a small 
caliber handgun from her bag in response to his attack.  The man pulled 
her from the bicycle she was riding, ripped her blouse, and then pulled 
down his pants and exposed himself.  "What stopped him was that she had 
a gun," said Investigator Carson Knight of the Laurens County Sheriff's 
Office.  Willie James Ellington, 27, was charged with criminal attempt 
to commit rape and public indecency.

5)  Even the anti-gun Charlotte, North Carolina _Observer_ had to report 
in its )October 27, 1989 issue that a woman used a gun to save her life.  
When the glass shattered in her kitchen door and a man's arm reached in, 
she ran for the bedroom to get her handgun.  The resident told him to 
stop, but the intruder opened the door.  She fired as he came toward 
her, but missed.  The man began smashing windows and then advanced 
toward the woman again.  She then shot and killed him.

From : February, 1990, _Women & Guns_ magazine

    Good point.  Note please, you doubters, in the majority of these
    cases, it was not necessary to kill the offender to stop the crime.
    Too often, the anti's (e.g. Ann & Abby) promote the notion that
    being armed is a liability to the honest citizen, BASED SOLEY ON
    BODY COUNT.  They don't want you to know that most sociopaths are
    cowards who will backpeddle fast at the first show of serious
    opposition - so, of course, we'll have few bodies to prove successful
    defenses.

==============================================================================
    	Reprinted without permission from Springfield Mass Union-News.
			Wednesday,  March 7, 1990  Page 27.
==============================================================================

	Dear Ann Landers:

	    Three months ago our 21-year-old daughter was abducted by
	two men as she was walking from the library to her college
	dormitory late at night.  She was blindfolded, tied up and
	driven to a wooden area where when was beaten and raped.  After
	several hours, her abductors turned her loose on a deserted
	country road.  "Paula" has since become active in a program
	called "Take Back The Night".  This is a group that fights
	crimes against women ranging from sexual assault to murder.

	    Several months ago, she persuaded her father, a retired
	Army Ranger, to buy her a handgun for protection.  For
	Christmas, he gave her a 38-caliber revolver, which she
	carries in her purse or tucked in the belt of her jeans.

	    I have no doubt that Paula would hesitate to shoot and
	kill any man who tried to mug or rape her.  I have told her
	several times that I am opposed to people carrying guns for
	protection.  She says I am naive and unrealistic and that
	several of her girlfriends at school also carry guns.

	    Ann, I worry more about her carrying that gun then I
	worry about her getting raped again.  What is your opinion ?

					- A Concerned Parent in St.Louis -

	---------------------------------------------------------

	Dear St.Louis:

	    I'm with you.  There are already far too many guns out
	there.  Witness the fact that guns were the number 4 cause
	of death in the United States last year.  In 1988, four times
	many people died from gunshot wounds in Washington, D.C. then
	the entire country of Japan.

	    Statistics show that the proliferation of firearms has
	not decreased the number of muggings or rapes.  it has only
	increased the number of shootings of innocent people.

	    The best way to avoid being mugged or raped is to travel
	in groups and stay off dark isolated streets at night.  Carry
	a police whistle at all times.  Keep car doors locked and so
	not get out of the car at night for any reason.

    I wonder where Ann L. gets her stats. In Florida (Tampa?) 
    where firearms training for women was instituted, rape
    decreased approx. 88 % in a year.

    Orlando

       Re: Note 210.536 by SA1794::CHARBONND "Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND"
                          -< perpetuating fear >-


       >    I'm with you.  There are already far too many guns out
       >there.

	  "Too many" guns?  Too many for what, or for whom?  Of the
	  estimated 200 million firearms currently owned by Americans,
	  less than two-tenths of one percent of them are involved in
	  any criminal activity in any given year.  Said another way,
	  99.8 percent of guns will NOT be involved in any criminal
	  activity.  Of the estimated 70 million Americans who own
	  those 200 million guns, 51 percent own them for the primary
	  purpose of hunting, 32 percent for the primary purpose of
	  protection, 13 percent for target shooting, and 4 percent
	  for historical collecting?  "Too many?"  Please Ms. Landers,
	  give us a break.


       >        Witness the fact that guns were the number 4 cause
       >of death in the United States last year.

	  Ms. Landers is quoting statistics from an unnamed source
	  and which do not yet even exist for the referenced time
	  period.  According to data from the National Center for
	  Health Statistics, the leading causes of death for 1987 -
	  the latest year for which this data is available - are,
	  in order,

	  	Heart Disease				762,820
	  	Cancer     				477,190
	  	Strokes					149,220
	  	Chronic pulmonary diseases		 78,270
	  	Pneumonia and influenza			 70,120
	  	Diseases of the arteries		 46,390
	  	Motor vehicle accidents			 45,901
	  	Diabetes				 37,900
	  	Firearms (including accidents,		 32,069
	  		  suicides, homicides,
	  		  and legal intervention)
	  	Liver diseases				 26,050
	  	Kidney diseases 			 24,880

	  Guns, therefore, were the number nine, not number four,
	  cause of death in the U.S.  I doubt that the picture
	  has changed that dramatically from 1987 to 1989.


       >                                          In 1988, four times
       >many people died from gunshot wounds in Washington, D.C. then
       >the entire country of Japan.

	  Both Washington, D.C. and Japan have strict gun control
	  laws.  What point is Ms. Landers making here?


       >    Statistics show that the proliferation of firearms has
       >not decreased the number of muggings or rapes.  it has only
       >increased the number of shootings of innocent people.

	  In communities, such as Orlando, FL, where gun ownership
	  and responsibility training have been actively encouraged
	  and supported by the police, the incidence of both rape
	  and other crimes of violence has, in fact, DECREASED
	  dramatically.  Where strict gun control laws, such as in
	  major metropolitan areas like Washington, New York, Los
	  Angeles, and Chicago, have been enacted, the incidence of
	  violent crime against law-abiding citizens who go unarmed
	  has INCREASED at the hands of criminals who sneer at such
	  laws.

	  Of the 70 or so million U.S. gunowners, about 11 percent
	  have at one time or another actually used their firearms
	  to protect themselves successfully against criminal
	  threat.  8 million occurrences of legal defensive use of
	  firearms to stop or deter crime!

	  Incidentally, of the 32,069 firearms-related deaths in
	  1987, over half were suicides.  Only 1,649 were the result
	  of accidents.  2,675 were the result of law enforcement
	  officers or armed civilians intervening to stop criminals
	  from completing a criminal act.  Of all domestic shootings,
	  the "victim" shot had initiated violent behavior against
	  the person doing the shooting who was acting to defend
	  her/himself in 52 percent of the cases on record.
	  "Innocent people," Ms. Landers?  Really now.


       >    The best way to avoid being mugged or raped is to travel
       >in groups and stay off dark isolated streets at night.  Carry
       >a police whistle at all times.  Keep car doors locked and so
       >not get out of the car at night for any reason.

	  This is excellent advice as far as it goes.  Situation
	  avoidance and rape whistles may work in some cases.  Mace
	  and stun guns are also often recommended, but both have the
	  disadvantage of requiring you to be in contact distance of
	  your attacker.  Carrying a gun, essentially a remote-
	  control weapon that is much more positive and safer for its
	  user, as a last resort means of defense, is an entirely
	  correct and moral decision for many people that Ms. Landers
	  has no right to criticize, particularly when she misstates
	  and distorts the facts to do so.  The gun, however, should
	  be viewed as just one part of one's whole system of personal
	  defense, not as a magic device that ensures invincibility.
	  With the power to end the life of another human being goes
	  the concomitant responsibility to understand the law and all
	  of the moral, ethical, psychological, and practical
	  ramifications of the judicious use of lethal force.


	  	Bill

re -.1

I don't know what Lander's sources are, but according to the numbers you
posted, guns are the number two cause of non-disease related death (behind
accidents).  You're more likely to die of having been shot than you are of
liver or kidney disease.

>>	  Both Washington, D.C. and Japan have strict gun control
>>	  laws.  What point is Ms. Landers making here?

Washington D.C. has had strict gun control laws for only the last couple of
years. It has no control over the import of guns at all, so even if a person 
can't buy guns there (which is unlikely, because Washington's gun controls
aren't nearly as strict as Japan's) all they have to do is go to Maryland.

Japan, on the other hand, has strict gun control laws that have been in
force for years, so even if they didn't try to collect all of the guns,
the parts to keep them in working condition are probably not easily
available, so eventually most of them break, or they get turned in, 
or they get trashed, or whatever.  As a result, fewer guns are left,
and combined with easy import controls the number of guns stays down.

A better comparison might have been Canada, which has a similar culture.
Japan has much lower crime rates overall than does the U.S.

M

    Correction:
    
    	Washington DC has had strict gun control laws since at least 1960.  
    This is not a few years.  The City has gotten progressively more, not
    less violent as the gun control laws have stiffened.  I'm very glad to
    be living in a state that, as yet has not instrituted some idea of
    "strict ownership of gun control" and where I am free to defend myself
    and daughters with whatever force I feel is necessary.

	Re: Note 210.540 by SCHOOL::KIRK "Matt Kirk -- 297-6370"

	  > guns are the number two cause of non-disease related death
	  > (behind accidents).  You're more likely to die of having
	  > been shot than you are of liver or kidney disease.

	  	It's not quite as simple a conclusion as you suggest.
	  	You're more likely to die of having been shot primarily
	  	IF you are a criminal, IF you are a violent spouse
	  	abuser, IF you are prone to taking your own life
	  	to begin with, or IF you leave yourself defenseless
	  	in situations or environments with a high degree of
	  	risk of lethal attack.  Your statement is a gross
	  	generalization that is highly misleading.

	     Bill

>    I would be interested to see the data supporting this, Bill.  The
>    information we have is only the lump-sum.
    
     Well, the number of people that were killed by guns can be broken down
    into several groups.
    
     Suicides is a large portion of the total number of firearms deaths.
    Unless you kill yourself, you have no reason to fear falling into this
    group. :-)
    
     Legal intervention is another fairly good chunk of the total. this
    includes deaths caused by law enforcement authorities as well as
    self-defense related deaths.
    
     Crimes which result in death are a large but not overwhelming number of
    the total. This group consists of what most people think of as a
    firearms related death, ie- a bad guy shoots a good guy.
    
     Accidents are a relatively small piece of the puzzle (and continues on
    a downward trend).
    
     I will see if I can find the raw numbers for 1987. (I hate it when I
    misplace that sort of stuff). :-)
    
     This is why Bill raised an objection to the statement in question.
    And I agree with you, maggie, while the statement was misleading, it
    was a result of the coarse granularity of the data.
    
     The Doctah

    Re: .544
    
    Maggie, please reread the following data reproduced from the
    original in Note 210.539:
    
    		.
    		.
    		.
    
    	 >      Firearms (including accidents,		 32,069
	 >      	  suicides, homicides,
	 >      	  and legal intervention)
    		.
    		.
    		.
    
	 >Incidentally, of the 32,069 firearms-related deaths in
	 >1987, over half were suicides.  Only 1,649 were the result
	 >of accidents.  2,675 were the result of law enforcement
	 >officers or armed civilians intervening to stop criminals
	 >from completing a criminal act.  Of all domestic shootings,
	 >the "victim" shot had initiated violent behavior against
	 >the person doing the shooting who was acting to defend
	 >her/himself in 52 percent of the cases on record.
    
    The implication in Matt's statement is that the average person is
    more likely to be killed by a firearm than by certain diseases.
    That assumes complete randomness of firearms deaths.  In fact, such
    deaths are not completely random but rather strike specific subsets
    of the population at large with significantly greater frequency
    due to the lifestyles and/or environments of the persons killed.
    These are identified in the data shown.  When it's all added up,
    by the way, about 70 percent of all shooting "victims" are criminals
    or suicides.
    
    	Bill

     I have rounded up the information as promised. :-)
    
     Total firearms related deaths:    32,069
    
     suicides using guns               18,273
     homicides                         10,564
     legal intervention                 1,578
     accidents*                         1,649*
    
     The astute noter will notice that my breakdown leaves 5 deaths
    unaccounted for. This is due to my having to convert the raw data into
    the form we need (rounding errors, etc). The reader is free to place
    the extra 5 into the category of their choice (like it will make the
    difference :-).
    
     A few interesting things to note: the prevalence of firearms in both
    crime and suicides is about 59%.
    
     more people kill themselves with guns than kill other people
    
     You are more likely to get liver or kidney diseases than to be
    a homicide victim where the perpetrator uses a firearm.
    
     Only 3% of all gun related deaths involve accidents OR murders by
    persons who do not have previous histories of violence (ie people don't
    _become_ violent because of the guns).
    
    The Doctah
    
    * for accidents, the latest figures are from 1985
    Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Ok, that still leaves 10,564 murders in the U.S. last year, which is 
considerably higher per person than most of the rest of the Western
world (no, I don't have the stats here - if anyone cares to look them up,
the murder rates are in the issue of time that discussed gun deaths last
year).  Also, the numbers you give don't indicate what portion of the 
deaths were considered justifiable killings - homicides?  And what portion
of those justifiable killings were Joe innocent being attacked by John
guilty, and what portion of those were Joe guilty defending himself
against John even-more-guilty.

I am not a dyed-in-the-wool abolutionist as was implied in .541 (?) - just
that the statistical evidence not created by either the gun lobby or the
anti-gun lobby appears to indicate that guns are a major factor of the
high gun death rate in the U.S.  As I think has been argued in this note
before, it's much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun (no, I've
never tried either, and I'm not about to) - a gun is a "remote" weapon - I
can shoot someone 30 or 40 feet away.  A knife requires that I get close
enough to stab (people don't usually throw them).

    >appears to indicate that guns are a major factor in the high 
    >gun death rate

    At first glance that's funny. It does, however, neglect one
    serious statistic not mentioned, namely, the hundreds of
    thousands of crimes *prevented* by guns in the hands of
    citizens. (The number 600,000?year comes to mind.) 
    
    So, do we trade 10000 deaths for 600,000 robberies, rapes, etc.?
    
    While guns are 'remote' weapons, the average distance for a 
    gunfight is 7 yards, with half at 7 *feet*.That same remote
    capability makes the gun the only viable defense against a knife
    or club, but very few murders are comitted at long distance.
    

     Matt-
    
     It is not at all obscure that you have made up your mind on this
    subject, and no amount of facts will change that. The fact remains that
    your initial statement was misleading. End of story.
    
     The Doctah

re .549

I suspect that number's a bit inflated - but if it comes from a federal
agency I'll accept it & change my mind. If it comes from the pro-gun
lobby, forget it.  

Seven yards makes a gun a remote weapon. I can't throw a knife 7 yards and
have it do damage. I can certainly hit a target 7 yards away though with a
gun (much more than that I seriously doubt).

re .550

As I said, based on the information I've seen, I see no compelling reason to
change my current opinion of guns. But it's not a fixed opinion (i.e. I
reserve the right to change my mind). Why should I change my mind based on
the say-so of the gun lobby (or, for that matter, the anti-gun lobby, which
I consider to be only marginally more rational)?

re .551

That would be the implication (that there are much higher crime rates in
those countries), but it doesn't really work that way.  Japan apparently 
has much lower crime rates than does the U.S. (though that could be cultural),
but apparently so does Canada.

    <--(.546)
    
    Right you are, Bill; my apologies for missing it.
    
    So does anyone reputable have stats comparing homicides to
    "life-saving" uses (ie, disabling or killing an armed (and thus
    presumably life-threatening) criminal)?  
    
    (The wag of 600K life-saving incidents (I think I read that correctly)
    isn't at all persuasive to me since it's just a wag, so no point
    offering it again.)
    
    						=maggie

>    So does anyone reputable have stats comparing homicides to
>    "life-saving" uses (ie, disabling or killing an armed (and thus
>    presumably life-threatening) criminal)?  
    
     There are no stats kept for any defensive uses except when you kill
    your attacker. About 1214 justifiable homicides were committed by
    civilians in 1987, more than three times the number committed by police
    and other law enforcement agencies.
    
>         (The wag of 600K life-saving incidents (I think I read that correctly)
>    isn't at all persuasive to me since it's just a wag, so no point
>    offering it again.)
    
     I'm sure you recognize that every defensive use of a gun, like every
    defensive use of any other weapon, does not have to result in the death 
    of the attacker to save someone's life or health. Unfortunately, no
    stats are kept on the number of times an intruder met the business end
    of "the family shotgun" and decided to take his business elsewhere; no
    stats are kept on the number of women who have warded off a would be
    rapist with her piece; no stats are kept on the number of attackers
    sent to the hosptial with gunshot wounds that manage to leave the
    hospital through the front doors. I say this is unfortunate because it
    gives a false sense about the actual consequences of guns in our
    society to ignore these things.
    
     The message it sends to a politically active gun owner is that if you
    wish to help your cause by making the numbers look better, the
    defensive uses of your firearm ought to result in the death of your
    attacker. Yet clearly this is against both the intent (and sometimes
    letter) of the law, and against common sense. You should never use more
    force than is necessary to eliminate the problem.
    
     The Doctah

    um, I did say "disabling or...", Mark.
    
    You're right, it is a pity that no stats are kept.  How about the
    percentage of homicides committed by known felons -vs- previously
    respectable citizens?  (or did someone already give that and I just
    fogged it?).
    
    						=maggie

    Spending a good bit of my time outside of work as I do, as a civilian
    threat management consultant with the crime prevention departments
    of several local law enforcement agencies, I have a few empirical
    observations to add to the statistical debate.  I regularly talk
    to cops, I work with cops, and I train with cops in this capacity.
    I interact with the rank-and-file officers, as well as with chiefs
    and police commissions.
    
    What I have learned from them, and what the honest ones (the ones
    who have no political axes to grind) will also tell you, is that
    the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S. involve criminals
    killing other criminals, suicides, or police or armed civilians 
    killing criminals.  They will also tell you that no number of gun
    control laws (about 20,000 already on the books in this country)
    will prevent "access" to guns by the criminals.  In addition, they
    will tell you that they simply cannot protect you from criminal
    threat at all times or respond to your calls for assistance in a
    reasonable time in every instance.  They do not fear the armed
    honest citizen, and they acknowledge that firearms kept and used
    responsibly by such citizens indeed work as a deterrent to crime
    and can be a reasonable choice in implementing your personal or
    home defense strategy -- a choice that may in fact save your life
    or the lives of your loved ones when the police cannot be there
    to intervene and when you have no other alternative.
    
    It is my wish (fantasy, perhaps) that Ann Landers and others who
    perpetuate the hysteria and fear of guns in this country would take
    the time to talk to these same people and become informed about
    the reality of gun ownership and gun crime, namely that not all
    guns are bad and not all gun owners are bad.
    
    	Bill  

Bill, why don't you mail a copy of .556 to Ann Landers and call this 
information to her attention? 

--bonnie

    
    
    	Matt, In reply to your earlier reply, if you beleieve the
    	article in TIME, then there is no hope for you. That was 
    	one of the worst baised out and out BS I've ever seen!!
    
    	Also for those who site Japan vs the US, how about Switzerland
    	vs the US? I've heard the Japan one in the TIME article. Tell
    	me, want to guess why they didn't look at Switzerland and the US?
    	Every Swiss male is REQUIRED to own an Semi-Automatic Assualt
    	rifle and also keep ammo for it. Yet, they have a much lower crime
    	rate than the US. Seems to me, if GUNs caused all the killings as
    	the anti's claim, then Switzerland would be right up there. Murder
    	rate in Switzerland is almost unheard of.
    
    	Trouble in this country, no body wants to take responsibility
    	for their actions, it's much easier to blame an object and advoid
    	admitting the PERSON did it not the object. I've owned GUNS since
    	I was 9 years old (I'm 42 now) and I've yet to see one make someone
    	kill someone or to harm anything by itself.
    
    	Check out the Wright-Rossi report (think I have the right report -
    	help Bill, anyone), it was commissioned by the goverment and
    	not funded by the pro or anti side. 
    
    	G_B

    .51:  My information is rather old (ca. 1975), but the homicide rate
    in MEXICO, due to edged weapons alone, was higher than the entire 
    homicide rate in the U.S.  Seems that even if guns COULD be eliminated,
    that the overall homicide rate wouldn't drop; it would just SHIFT.
    	It was not for nothing that Sam Colt's revolver became known as
    the "equalizer"; it made the small of stature no longer an easy victim
    to the large and vicious.  Do we really WANT to return to a time when
    the latter was true?
    						der
    

    Re: .557
    
    Bonnie, it's a good suggestion.  But, while I can hope it might
    make some difference in Ms. Landers' thinking, I have this nagging
    fear that it's also been tried before by others and ignored.
    
    We seem to be at the point in the gun control debate in this country
    where facts no longer matter.  IMO, the reason the facts don't matter
    is that gun control really isn't about guns at all; it's about people
    and controlling classes of society and establishing or preserving
    a power structure for a privileged elite within the government and
    within influential private circles that is threatened by gun ownership
    by other classes.  Secondarily, gun control laws that do get enacted
    enable this class to achieve the *appearance* of having done something
    positive to "fight crime" and thus gain some measure of public support.
    This is all pure, unadulterated bull**** and it is being perpetuated
    through the Big Lie of Ms. Landers, Handgun Control, Inc. and their
    supporters.  Josef Goebbels would have been proud of this operation.
    
    It is time, people, to cut through this nonsense and start critically
    examining what the *real* issues are here.
    
    	Bill

          re: .553 (=maggie)
          
          >    So does anyone reputable have stats comparing homicides to
          >    "life-saving" uses (ie, disabling or killing an armed (and
          >    thus presumably life-threatening) criminal)?
          
          From a Harvard Law school text (I bought it in the Coop when I
          was trying to make up my mind about all these issues):
          (_Firearms and Violence, Issues of Public Policy_, Pacific
          Institute for Public Policy Research, Don B. Kates, 1984.)
          
          "    Yet another variable that should be included in the
          formation of control policies is the deterrent effect that
          civilian handgun ownership has for the gun owner and society at
          large.
          
          ...San Francisco Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver estimates that
          between 1960 and 1975, the number of instances where handguns
          were used for defense exceeded the cases where they were misused
          to kill by a ratio of fifteen to one.
          
          ...Even in the case of burglars, who generally take care to
          strike only at unoccupied premises, handgun ownership appears to
          provide a deterrent effect against crime that is _at least as
          great_ as the risk of imprisonment.  Kleck and Bordua calculate
          that a burglar's small chance of being confronted by a gun-armed
          defender probably exceeds that of being apprehended, tried,
          convicted, and actually serving any time.  Which, they ask,
          provided more of a deterrent:  a slim chance of being shot or an
          even slimmer chance of being punished?
          
          ...Specific localities have experienced dramatic reductions in
          crime following publicized handgun-training programs.  One of the
          best known is the Orlando program undertaken because of an
          abnormally high rate of rape in that area.  Between Orlando 1966
          and March 1967, police trained women in the use of handguns in a
          highly publicized program.   The rape level in Orlando fell 88%,
          while the burglary level fell 25%.  During the same period in
          other major cities, rape rates either stayed constant or
          increased.  ... Similar programs have resulted in decreasing
          store robberies by as much as 90% in Highland Park and Detroit,
          Michigan, and in New Orleans.
          
          ...Perhaps the most publicized case comes from Kennesaw, Georgia,
          where every noncriminal head of household is required to keep a
          gun.  In the ten months following this widely publicized
          enactment, there was an 89% decrease in crime.
          
          ... Kleck's and Bordua's calculations imply that police services
          do not provide the level of crime protection that widespread gun
          ownership does.
          
          ... At the same time, Kleck and Bordua conclude that citizens who
          resist crimes with firearms are much less likely to suffer
          victimization without being more likely to be injured than those
          who do not resist at all, (as well as less likely to be injured
          than those who resist without weapons)."
          
                                                            nancy b.
          

          re: .560 (Bill Doll)
          
          >  IMO, the reason the facts don't matter is that gun control
          >  really isn't about guns at all; it's about people and
          >  controlling classes of society and establishing or preserving
          >  a power structure for a privileged elite within the government
          >  and  within influential private circles that is threatened by
          >  gun ownership by other classes.
          
             I agree.
          
          re: .559 (Dale Rogers)
          
          >  .51:  My information is rather old (ca. 1975), but the
          >   homicide rate in MEXICO, due to edged weapons alone, was
          >   higher than the entire  homicide rate in the U.S.  Seems that
          >   even if guns COULD be eliminated, that the overall homicide
          >   rate wouldn't drop; it would just SHIFT.
          
              Which is exactly what has happened in Washington, D.C.
          
              The overall homicide rates have increased since strict gun
          control has been put in effect, with murders by edged weapons
          having a larger percentage than before.      
          
                                                       nancy b.
          

          re: .552 (Matt Kirk)
          
          > I suspect that number's a bit inflated - but if it comes from a
          > federal agency I'll accept it & change my mind. If it comes
          > from the pro-gun lobby, forget it.
          
          Matt, I bet you didn't know that the NRA has won the award given
          to the lobbying group which uses the _most_ factual and accurate
          data in their lobbying efforts out of any lobbying group
          (I forget what the award is called)...
          
          > As I said, based on the information I've seen, I see no
          > compelling reason to change my current opinion of guns.
          
          I don't think I have a good picture of exactly what your opinion
          is about guns, who should have them, who shouldn't, etc...  I'm
          curious about what you think and why, and I promise I won't flame
          you, honest! (well... maybe a singe or 2 if you really hit a hot
          button ;-)
          
          > But it's not a fixed opinion ...
          
          Glad to hear you're keeping an open mind!!  {and if I didn't
          think that anyway I wouldn't waste my fingertips typing this to
          begin with ;-}
          
                                                       nancy b.
          

    Thanks, Nancy, that's interesting and reassuring to read.  (I presume
    the authors had no presumable personal/ideological/political interest
    in the outcome they reported?)

          Re: .564 (=maggie)
          
          >  Thanks, Nancy, that's interesting and reassuring to read.
          >  (I presume the authors had no presumable personal/ideological
          >  /political interest in the outcome they reported?)
          
          From the "About the Authors" section in the back of the book:
          
          The author is a Yale Law school prof that has also served as
          Civil Rights Consultant to the Judiciary Committee of the US
          House of Rep as well as the Poverty Lawyers for Effective
          Advocacy.
          
          One way to answer your question above is to answer another
          question:  Where are these authors getting their incomes?
          
          Of the 16 authors listed, 14 of them are either professors of
          economics, sociology, or public affairs.  Of the 2 authors that
          are not professors, one is a historian and the other is a lawyer.
          
          Specifically, the co-authors have the following positions:
          
               o  Professor of economics  (U. of Illinois - Chicago)
                  Assistant Prof of criminal justince and economics
          
               o  Associate professor of economics with research focusing
                  on analysis of regulatory policy, decision-making
                  behavior in the public sector, law, and economics
          
               o  Ph.D from Harvard, Professor of sociology,
                  visiting professor at Stanford Law school
          
               o  Professor of law at Maryland
          
               o  A lawyer specializing in firearms litigation whose
                  writings have appeared in _The Right to Keep and Bear
                  Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
                  of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Victims of
                  Crime
          
               o  Assistant professor of criminology; editorial consultant
                  for the _American Sociological Review_ specializing in
                  research on violent behavior
          
               o  Ph.D and professor of Economics, California State Univ.
          
               o  a historian (Ph.D) who has instructed at Boston Univ,
                  Northeastern
          
               o  Professor of public administration; was a senior
                  economist  with the Joint Economic Committee of the
                  US Congress in 1981.
          
               o  Associate professor of public affairs and director of
                  policy analysis
          
               o  Professor of economics, University of Illinois
          
               o  Professor of economics at U. Cal, Berkeley
          
               o  Assistant professor of criminal justice at U Illinois
          
               o  Associate professor of sociology
          
               o  Professor of sociology and Director of the Social and
                  Demographics Research Institute at Univ. of Mass
               
							nancy b.

Sorry I didn't respond last week - was on vacation & just got back
today.

Nancy - 
	re NRA statistics - the NRA is the major pro-gun lobby.  This
	would make me doubt their statistics regardless of what or how
	many awards they get.

	re Open mind - I'm glad you agree that I still have an open mind. My
	statement about changing my opinion was related to a somewhat
	offensive but expected comment made by The Doctah in .550 that I had
	obviously already made up my mind and would never change it. This
	is, unfortunately, the typical view of the polarized pro/anti
	whatever groups (name your topic) that was referred to in a later
	note. Everyone who is against the PC view as expressed by the
	mumble group is	automatically irrational, etc.

	re General position - my general position was, until today,
	uncomfortably anti-gun.  I would probably have favored a ban on guns
	if it were voted on yesterday, but I was never comfortable
	enough with the position to contribute anything to the anti-gun
	lobby. 

	At this point, my opinion would be pro-gun control (which the NRA
	seems to despise), but also pro-availability. No, I haven't fully
	formed the idea yet so I don't really have an opinion on who should
	be able to get guns & what sort of gun control would be appropriate.
	This is contingent on being able to find some of the information
	discussed in the last 10 or so notes (Swiss guns, and the
	Wright-Rossi report - reports of Mexico I would tend to discount).  

(Bill?):re TIME: I was uncomfortable with that article, but unfortunately,
	most of the press tends to favor rather biased articles one way or
	another and, as with most lobbyists information, it's rather
	difficult if not impossible to sort through the bull.

Bill:   re the gun control debate:  the statement that the entire issue
	has become so polarized that everyone falls into one camp or another
	is, I suspect, a fallacy pushed by both the anti-gun and pro-gun
	lobbies.  "If you don't believe completely in OUR view, you must be 
	in their camp."  The same applies to a number of rather hot
	issues such as abortion and welfare.

re Swiss Guns (don't remember who said this):  I wasn't aware of that.
	This fits in with my belief that the high U.S. murder rate is
	mostly societal.

M

    re  .566 Matt, are you aware that the NRA's lobby is consistently
    rated as one of the *best*, among all the lobbies in Washington, in 
    providing factual information ?
    
    From the "Library Journal"  in a survey of effectiveness of
    Washington lobbying groups :

    "the American Library Association and the National Rifle Association
    lobby are the only ones whose information was considered consistently
    trurthful and reliable by legislators."

>  Note 210.568  By  ORACLE::GRAHAM 
>    Actually in Swissland it's a FULLY AUTOMATIC gun (ie a machine gun),
>    not a mere assault rifle per home...
    
    Just a slight nit here. An Assault rifle is FULLY AUTOMATIC. The
    Politicial do-gooders here that make the laws don't even know what
    they are making the laws on/for!!!  The ones us everyday folks over
    here in the US of Amerika can (in some cases we still can) buy are
    sporting versions of the assualt rifles (ie Semi-Automatic).
    
>    Not the best for a 'typical' crime anyway: big, noisy (certainly not a
>    'backfire'...), expensive (ammo) to operate, etc.  (drug wars not
>    included of course)
    
    Excuse me, where did you get yer info?? 
    	Did you know that the ammo for an AR15 is .223? That is a pretty
    	small round and is not BIG, NOISY, EXPENSIVE round. Look, most
    	typical hunting rifles are of the calibre .308, .30-06, .30-30
    	and the like. These rounds are on the whole BIGGER, NOISIER,
    	COST A FEW CENTS MORE, and most importantly, do a lot more damage
    	than the AR15's round will. Let's see, if memory serves me today,
    	the .223 military round is somewhere around a 50 grain bullet. The
    	.308 Pump rifle I used for hunting I used a 180 grain bullet.
    
    	G_B

While the Swiss (males) keep their military weapons at home,

-- they're under lock and key.
-- the ammunition is in sealed containers.
-- it is a court martial offense to open the container without permission.
-- you don't get a weapon if the military decides they don't trust you with one.

Read John McFee's book, La Place de la Concorde Suisse (it's in English)
for more information on the Swiss military.

Martin.

    "Yea, a .223 is relatively small...
    but have you ever heard one without earmuffs"
    
    It is all relative and subjective.  I thought they were rather quiet,
    my M-14 was fairly noisy.  Now the 8"'s, they were something
    else, indeed -- I was caught unprepared when we fired one and couldn't
    hear right for 3 days.
    
    ed

    	I carried an M-16 in Vietnam long enough to get some
    	general opinions of them.
    
    	(1) Small, light, fairly easy to take care of.
    
    	(2) Looked (and felt) like a toy, especially after going
    	    through boot camp, etc., with an M-14.
    
    	(3) Not very dependable. I was with K Co., 3rd Battalion,
    	    1st Marines. Our CO would not allow any point man to
    	    carry and M16 on point. Point men usually carried an
    	    M-14 with a selector. One, a fella named Chisolm, carried
    	    an M-60 machine gun hung from his neck like a saxophone.
    
    	(4) 223 caliber was quite small, especially after the 7.62 MM
    	    M-14. But, the stopping power of an M-16 was something
    	    else. We were told (true or not, I don't know) that the
    	    round traveled through the air like a wobbly football.
    	    When the round hit something, it would deflect in weird
    	    directions. I saw some pretty mangled VC. Storied were told
    	    of people getting hit in the stomach and having the round
    	    exit near there should, things like that.
    
    	My whole point is that the M-16 has a reputation of killing
    	not only by the loss of blood, but also by the amount of shock
    	the round creates.
    
    	I'm not a ballistics specialist, just a jarhead who saw some
    	pretty messy stuff in Vietnam from the M-16.
    
    	Scott (Give me an M-14 or an M-1 Garand any day)	    

    
    	 Just a quick BTW,
    
    	   The M14 uses a standard 7.62mm NATO round, which is
    	a .308 150 grain to use everyday hunting types. :^)
    	Assualt weapons, NO THANKS!! I'll do just as well, if
    	not better with my .308 rifle and my .44 Mag. handgun. ;^}
    
    	G_B

	If you live in southern New Hampshire and own a gun for
    	personal protection, are thinking about buying a gun for
    	protection, or are just curious, you may wish to take
    	advantage of the following event this coming weekend.
    
    		Bill

	------------------------------------------------------------------
    
	    MANCHESTER PISTOL CLUB TO HOLD OPEN HOUSE, "SIGHTING-IN DAY"
                                                           


	  	The Wilson Hill Pistol Club, located at 1732 Lake Shore
	  Road, Manchester, will hold an Open House and "Sighting-In Day"
	  for all handgun owners and interested persons of the area on
	  Saturday, March 31.  The club's indoor range will be open from
	  9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  Certified NRA instructors and members
	  of the club will be on hand to help handgun owners properly
	  sight in their firearms and learn safe shooting practices.

	  	The club is offering this public service to residents
	  of the area as part of a nationwide program conducted by the
	  National Rifle Association.  Thousands of NRA-affiliated clubs
	  throughout the country annually take part in this program.

	  	"Correctly sighted-in firearms are important for safe
	  and accurate shooting, and are an essential part of responsible
	  gun ownership," says William Doll, president of the Wilson
	  Hill Club.  "We encourage all handgun owners in the area to
	  use our range facilities during this event to become familiar
	  with the operation of their firearms."

	  	Detailed information and assistance with handgun safety,
	  responsibility, and shooting will be available at the range.
	  All firearms must be unloaded and actions open when entering
	  the club premises.  A safety check will be made of all firearms
	  brought to this event.  Club officers and members will also
	  be on hand to answer questions about the club's programs and
	  activities for any persons interested in becoming members.

	  	To help defray range expenses, a fee of $2.00 will be
	  charged for each firearm sighted-in.  Participants must bring
	  their own ammunition in good condition and of the correct
	  caliber for the gun(s) they plan to sight-in.  Hearing and
	  eye protection equipment will be provided.  All persons who
	  wish to fire on the club's range will be required to sign a
	  waiver of liability and indemnity agreement.

	  	For more information on the Open House and "Sighting-In
	  Day," call (603) 669-5888.
    

  <<< Note 210.570 by MILKWY::BUSHEE "From the depths of shattered dreams!" >>>
    
>>    Just a slight nit here. An Assault rifle is FULLY AUTOMATIC. The


    I see a problem in the definition of an "assault rifle".
According to an editorial in yesterday's Gardner News written by the
editor, (paraphrasing) the legal definitions in proposed legislation
of assault rifles would specifically exclude FULLY automatic rifles yet
include semi-auto rifles.
   The term assault weapon (rifle) IMHO is just a way to frighten people.
It seems to mean different things to different people.

				KBear

    
    Beats me why the gunnery experts insist on driving their crap 
    down your throats in this notesfile when you all can just
    dial up the soapbox and read it there....
    
    

    
    
    re: (last one) -->  Like a dog peeing to leave his scent.
    
    			A common occurrence in =wn= of late...
    
    

Note 210.579 by TRNSAM::HOLT "Robert Holt. ISV Atelier West."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >Beats me why the gunnery experts insist on driving their crap 
    >down your throats in this notesfile when you all can just
    >dial up the soapbox and read it there....
    
    This topic was started quite some time ago to address the pragmatic
    issues associated with the role of firearms in personal protection.
    With the exception of an occasional foray into the world of gun
    control, it has, for the most part, continued to do so.  May I ask,
    sir, what you mean by the term "crap?"
    
    	Bill

    Bob, enough with the provocation already.
    
    Bill, it was just a chain-yank.
    
    						=maggie

re: 1092.11 (Robin Aagesen)

>> 7) DO NOT CARRY A WEAPON THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE...DO NOT CARRY
     >  A WEAPON THAT YOU ARE AFRAID TO USE. ...

> ..., but part of my concern is exactly what you have stated here. about
> 5 yrs ago i purchased a firearm. after a few lessons from my brother-in-law, 
> i just buried it away. the last few nights i have drug it out to place under 
> the couch in the livingroom where i've been sleeping. i plan on 
> trying to find some kind of safety/training course here in town so that i 
> have confidence in *my ability* to use it, instead of a fear of having it 
> turned against me.

	I agree with Kate's statement too (#7 above), and what Robin added about
	the importance in having confidence in your ability with it.

	Robin, gun safety courses are given frequently and I've heard of some 
	offered specifically to women.  Where is "in town"?  

	Instruction ranges from classes for people who aren't interested in
	ever firing a gun, but their spouse has a gun in the house.  This 
	course would teach you how to determine if a gun is unloaded, and how to
	unload a gun.  It is a non-firing course.   The most common safety
	course includes firing practice at an indoor range, and it sounds like
	this would be a good class for you to start.

	Also, if you're not licensed, you should try to become licensed.
	Send mail for more details.

							nancy b.

	This is an update on the non-profit I'm starting that I initially 
	described in .530 of this topic.  Next week will be the third
	organizational meeting of this group.  Our main purposes will be
	to provide education and support for women thinking about
	firearms for self-defense or competitive shooting, and to raise
	an AWAREness among women that firearms are an option for their
	self-defense system.

	The women I've met in the first 2 organizational meetings are 
	incredibly diverse, creative individuals.  One is the VP of the 
	MA Wildlife Federation, another has helped start a couple of 
	other nonprofits dealing with cross-bow shooting and a court
	reporters association, another was the assistant to the president
	of Boston NOW, recently graduated from law school, and was just
	named director of the NRA Office of Women's Issues and Education,
	and 3 others are on the GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) (based in
	Southborough) Board of Directors.  

	The organizational meetings have not been advertised to the public
	and I've purposely kept them small because of all the work that
	has to get done to get this off the ground.  

	After the first meeting my head was spinning - oh my god - so many
	details to be worked out, so many rules to follow, etc.  We first
	discussed the purpose (as stated above), then the name.  EVERYONE 
	but me thought the original acronym 
	(AWARE - Armed Women Against Rape and Endangerment) 
	would be too off-putting to those who were hoping to reach - women
	who have little to no experience with firearms, who probably didn't
	grow up with a relative that used firearms, etc...  Since that time
	we have just about agreed on another name also using the word AWARE
	as an acronym (but the acronym doesn't stand for the same thing).
	
	In that first meeting we also discussed what type of a group we
	wanted to be for tax purposes but it ended out having a practical
	impact as well.  We decided to be an OUTREACH type group, and not 
	a membership type club.  In other words, those who are part of the
	group will either be called directors or officers.  Those are the
	people who will be doing the "outreaching".  We're also musing over
	having an advisory board of "experts" in various areas.  People
	who are interested in using whatever service we offer can do so 
	without being members or joining anything.  After 3 hours, we all
	left totally exhausted.
	
	By the next meeting I had received a ton of paperwork from the Feds
	and state that has to be completed to qualify as a non-profit tax-
	exempt 501(c)(3).   We completed the most important document, the
	Articles of Organization where the purpose, bylaws, and activities 
	of the group are described.  Then we discussed the logo.  The female
	gender symbol with rifle sights in the circle was rejected on the grounds
	that you aim sights at something you want to shoot which is definitely
	not the female gender ;-)!  Someone came up with the brilliant (IMHO)
	idea of using a variation of the female symbol of justice.  Instead
	of being blindfolded, she is taking _off_ her blindfold with one hand,
	and holding the scales of justice with her other hand.  On one bowl
	is a book (symbolizing Education, the new "E" word in AWARE), and on 
	top of the book is a small handgun.  On the other bowl are a pair of
	handcuffs.  You can guess which side is heavier.  {The handcuffs
	symbolizing both crime and lack of _our_ freedom}.  

	The third meeting is next week.   Stay tuned ;-).
	
								nancy b.

	p.s.  Your thoughts and comments are welcome.  Anybody have a better
	      idea about what should go into the bowls on the scale of
	      justice?

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
    
    re .583 nancy
    
       i live in greenville, south carolina. i was thinking about asking
    the officers who will be at the CRIME WATCH meeting on monday night if
    they could suggest a source for my firearm education.
    
       i need to either take a course/training, or get rid of the gun.
    i have mixed feelings about either choice what i mean by that is, t
    i'm not absolutely sure i want to feel more comfortable handling a gun.
    it seems like the only time i consider the idea remotely positive is
    when i have been exposed to something that frightens me to an extreme.
    the last time that happened is when i purchased the gun.  right now,
    i'm kind of leaning towards taking the training and then deciding how i
    feel about it.
        
    ~robin
       

	re: .585 (Robin Aagesen)
   
    >  i'm not absolutely sure i want to feel more comfortable handling a gun.

	Robin, I would like to better understand what you mentioned above...

	Becoming confident with handling a gun (aka "comfortable") will
	not turn you into somebody you are not.  

	Is this what your concern is?  
	Could you elaborate on the above?  (by mail if you'd prefer...)

	I really want to better understand what you said. 
        
>       i live in greenville, south carolina. i was thinking about asking
>    the officers who will be at the CRIME WATCH meeting on monday night if
>    they could suggest a source for my firearm education.
 
	That's a good idea.  A local rifle and pistol club would 
	probably have information for you also.

	Good luck with whatever means of protection you choose.
	If you do go to training, remember to bring eye (clear wraparound)
	glasses) and ear protection (I use both earphones and those yellow
	squishy things you stick in your ear - I have sensitive ears).

							nancy b.
       

    Re: .585
    
    The NRA maintains a list of certified firearms instructors across the
    country.  If you call their training division in Washington, D.C., they
    may be able to refer you directly to someone in your area.
    
    	Bill

    One trick I've heard of, Robin, is to have the first round be birdshot
    rather than a slug.  That way you can fire at the body without major
    injury (or even any, if he has a coat), and if the whole idea doesn't
    put the attacker off right there and then (which the very sight of the
    gun should do, and the blast and impact from the birdshot, plus the
    convincing evidence that you're not just a pretty face *certainly*
    should do!), then you know you have to shoot him "for real" or else die
    yourself.  Presumably you'd prefer the former to the latter.
    
    						=maggie

    Sorry =maggie, at close ('cross the room) range birdshot is as deadly 
    as a slug. There are no degrees of deadly force. (There are degrees
    of *effectiveness*, but if deadly force is justified, why handicap
    yourself?)
    

    Re: .589 - .591
    
    This discussion has previously taken place in this topic in replies
    .400 - .406.
    
    Quick summary of salient points:
    
    	1)  Forget rock salt.
    
    	2)  Forget bird shot.
    
    	3)  Use #1 buck shot (00 buck tends to overpenetrate, anything
    	    smaller than #1 underpenetrates).
    
    	4)  In general, shotguns are not advisable as indoor defensive
    	    weapons; for one thing, they can be easily levered out of
    	    your hand by an assailant due to the long barrel.
    
    	5)  A short-barreled revolver in caliber .38 Special or larger
    	    offers the best combination of stopping power, reliability,
    	    and weapon retention characteristics.  Glaser "Safety Slug"
    	    or similar ammunition used in such a firearm reduces the
    	    likelihood of ricochet or overpenetration in enclosed areas.
    
    	Bill

    Bill, given Robin's very important concern about not killing even an
    assailant needlessly, what *would* you recommend then as a "warning
    shot" that can be fired at the assailant?   I had heard that
    birdshot in a (maybe under-loaded?) .38 would work just fine.
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie, there is simply NO circumstance when you can use a
    gun or any *deadly* force in a non-deadly manner. Picture 
    some thug in a court of law saying "but my gun had non-deadly
    bullets". A gun is a deadly weapon. Period. If you can't 
    overcome *that* then don't use a gun. It's not a "wounding"
    tool, it's a "stopping" tool. And "stopped" may equal "stopped
    dead". You can't dance around that.
  

    Sure there is, Dana...I can club somebody with it!  And I don't mean
    that facetiously.  I do understand your point about the gun being a
    deadly weapon, but so is the chinese cleaver that I use to cut up
    dofu:  intentionality and mode of use count for a lot.  Which is
    precisely the argument *you* would normally be making!
    
    There's no point in telling someone "well, it's an all or nothing
    proposition, if you use the gun at all then you must be willing to
    kill with the first shot".  That's disabling in the first place and
    nonsense in the second:  if you put blanks in (for a simple example)
    nothing lethal will occur...unless the person has a heart attack
    from fear!  So clearly there's one case, surely you guys who really
    work hard at understanding the technology can offer suggestions
    about other intermediate steps.
    
    						=maggie

 Maggie- your point is well taken.

 In terms of personal safety, a .38 with glaser safety shells is probably the 
best choice. Since Robin is less concerned with her safety than she is with not
killing someone unless absolutely necessary, perhaps the birdshot would be
acceptable for her (as a first bullet).

 There are disadvantages to doing that, as have been pointed out. The attacker
may just get riled by the virtual blank, and become determined to do extreme
harm should he manage to take the gun away. On the other hand, he may turn tail
and leave, allowing Robin to be protected without having to kill. He may become
injured and eventually sue (sure, it sounds ridiculous, but given the way
liability judgements have been coming down...)

 I imagine that Bob et al are wary of saying "Sure, it's ok to have a birdshot
round in the chamber for the first shot.." and finding out that something 
happened to Robin, and the police found the gun with a single shot fired, etc.
So basically, Bob is trying to give the best advice from a personal safety
standpoint. It may well be that Robin prefers risk to herself to risk for
her attacker; that's a personal decision.

 The Doctah

re: birdshot

Hmmm...I've always been taught that if I have to fire at someone I should
fire 2 quick shots, that way I don't have to stand around waiting to see
if the first one stops the attacker. Seems to me the time spent waiting
to see if s/he is going to continue the attack or run could be deadly.

But my personal opinion is that if someone is not sure whether they could
shoot someone then they ought not to have a gun. I made my decision but
I hope the only thing I ever shoot is a paper target (although I hear that
VT100's make nice targets :-)).

Jenna

    Imigine this : you have a gun loaded with a blank in the chamber.
    You surprise a burglar in the kitchen. He shoots *you*, and
    pleads self-defense. The jury lets him go. Why ? Because a
    gun is *always* deadly. If you're carrying a deadly weapon, 
    with*out* the willingness to bring deadly force to bear if
    needed, you're playing with fire.

    Use of deadly force is *only* justified when threatened with serious
    bodily harm or death. If one is justified in pulling the trigger,
    one is justified in killing. There really is no middle ground,
    and looking for one can get *you* killed. As the old elephant
    hunter said, "Use enough gun."

    Dana

    Re: .594
    
    Maggie, I think Dana and others have made the point pretty well.  Let
    me see if I can wrap it up for Robin this way:
    
    o  If you are facing down an assailant with any gun, do NOT fire a
       warning shot.  First, you have just demonstrated to your attacker
       that you do not have the fortitude to kill him/her by shooting
       directly at him.  Second, you do not have any control over what
       that shot might hit; it could be your child in an upstairs bedroom
       or your neighbor in the next house.
    
    o  When holding an intruder at gunpoint, you always have the option
       to tell that person to get out.  If s/he does, you have just used
       your gun in the same way that an estimated 600,000 individuals
       a year in the U.S. do, to deter crime without firing a shot.
    
    o  But don't think this will always be the outcome.  Today's home
       burglar or street mugger is more often than not strung out on
       crack, PCP, or some other substance and may not have the presence
       of mind to sense the danger to him- or herself.  Therefore, if you
       are going to have the gun, be prepared to use it, if necessary, to
       take the life of that person who is placing you in immediate and
       otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.  You
       MUST have made the moral decision required to do this long before
       an incident occurs; it cannot be done when the threat first occurs.
    
    o  Once having made this decision, take prudent steps to acquire the
       best, proven equipment that you can afford.  If you shoot, then
       shoot to STOP, to neutralize your attacker.  That means using
       ammunition with a proven track record as a consistent man (or
       woman) stopper.  Birdshot will not do it reliably.  If you think
       that you can use something like this to effectively counter the
       threat and not cause the death of a human being, consider that the
       attacker hyped on drugs may keep coming at you and kill you, and
       then may himself bleed to death from a lethal wound that did not
       stop him immediately, but nevertheless killed him.  Now you have
       two deaths - yours and your attacker's.  What has been gained?
       The idea is not to take him with you, but to send him on ahead.
    
    o  If and when you must shoot, keep shooting until your attacker
       goes down.  One-shot stops rarely occur outside of the movies
       and television.  There are cases on record in which subjects
       running on the adrenalin rush of crack did not go down until as
       many as TWO DOZEN rounds had been fired into their bodies.
    
    o  Bottom line:  If you are going to keep a gun for home or personal
       protection, be prepared to kill another human being and know how
       you will handle it both tactically and morally.  Shoot neither to
       kill nor to wound; shoot to STOP.  If your choice is a handgun,
       centerfire calibers of .380 Auto or .38 Special or larger, loaded
       with ammunition such as the Glaser Safety Slug, which delivers
       maximum energy to the target and reduces ricochet and
       overpenetration, will fill the bill.  If you insist on a shotgun,
       #1 buckshot has the optimum combination of stopping power and
       reduced risk of overpenetration.
    
    	Bill

    
    the firearm i own is a .38 special (rossi?). 
    
    i didn't understand that it could be loaded with different "types" of
    ammunition.
    
    it holds five shots. the chamber directly behind the hammer is the only
    one empty.
    
    the first year i kept the bullets in one room, and the gun
    in another, until i could get my brother-in-law to show me how to use
    it. i figured something bad would happen if they were too close
    together{-:  he took me out a couple of times, so i know how it feels.
    i just haven't used it enough (2 or 3 times in the last 6 yrs) to be
    confident.
    
    as someone said in a previous reply, i am not sure i could use it if i
    needed to - but then again, i've never been in a life-threatening
    situation. i don't know what i am capable of doing if my life were
    threatened.
    
     ~robin

    Robin, the willingness to use the gun, with all that implies,
    is *the* question. After you answer that, everything else follows.
    
    As was said before, during a violent encounter is no time for
    philosophizing. 
    
    Take your time, ask your spiritual counselor if you are so inclined,
    consider the alternatives. If you honestly don't think you can
    shoot an attacker, then get rid of the gun. It's a false sense
    of security that could be taken from you and used against you, or
    an attacker could become murderously violent when faced with 
    that level of resistance. 
    
    You can't bluff with a gun. Someone might call your bluff. A lot 
    of street criminals can tell if someone's bluffing. Better to offer 
    *no* resistance than phony resistance. The latter will be seen as 
    a challenge.
    
    Dana

    Re: .601
    
    Robin, I recommend you obtain a copy of the excellent book by Massad
    Ayoob entitled In the Gravest Extreme.
                   ----------------------
    It should be available at a gun shop in your area.  The book discusses
    in a very straightforward way the moral and ethical implications of
    owning a firearm for personal defense, as well as the practical aspects
    of selecting and learning how to use it.  Read it, study it.  I think
    it will help you reach a personal decision with which you can be
    comfortable.
    
    Dana's point is also well made.  If you reach the conclusion that you
    are not totally comfortable with keeping the gun, then by all means get
    rid of it.  A gun is never the whole solution to begin with; it is only
    part of a system of home and personal defense that should be viewed as
    a last resort.
    
    	Bill

          Talking with other women who have lived in several towns in this
          area and gone through the licensing process in each town has
          enlightened me to the following:
          
          My most unpleasant experience [described in .197] with attempting
          to get a license (which I still do not have) is not at all
          incongruous with other women's experiences in other towns.
          This was both maddening and comforting to learn at the same time.
          Maddening because I can't believe there's so much _blatant_
          sexism being used against women trying to get gun permits, but
          comforting because now I know for sure that others are/have been
          in the same boat.
          
          Other women's experiences include:
          
          o  one woman was told (outright, as opposed to what _my_ chief
          said)  "we don't give permits to women here"
          
          o  another (different town) was told "we don't give permits to
          broads"
          
          o  another woman was denied a permit because her husband already
          had one and why would she need one if her husband had one
          
          o  one lucky woman said the police chief gave her a hard time
          until she mentioned who her father was
          
          
          It's clear to me that abuse of power is rampant in Boston suburbs
          where the police chiefs are given ultimate authority with _no
          one_ to answer to in why they denied a given permit.  The person
          can always appeal the denial, but winning is NOT just a matter of
          the judge saying, "I think she should have a permit, you are
          wrong" to the chief.  To win a court appeal of a permit denial,
          one must PROVE that their chief's denial was "arbitrary,
          capricious, or misuse of discretion".
          
          There are 2 bills currently under committee debate [THIS WEEK],
          soon be passed on to the representatives for voting [NEXT WEEK].
          If these bills receive enough YES votes to be made into law, I
          believe the licensing problems many law-abiding citizens are
          facing would be significantly reduced.
          
          Most important is  _H.3400_  "An Act Related to the Validity of
          Firearms Licenses"  which would resolve the issue of license
          validity according to the "reason of issuance" your police chief
          deemed appropriate for you.  "Reason of issuance" is a very key
          part of your license...
          
          For example:  My chief says he would give me a license with
          "reason of issuance" as "duck hunting".  Well, if I am caught
          with a handgun (just for instance) as a result of being searched
          prior to attending Rocky Horror Picture Show where my toast would
          also be confiscated ;-), I would definitely sweat bullets, so to
          speak.  Because I am not duck hunting or driving en route TO or
          FROM duck hunting grounds, I will be given a MANDATORY 1 year
          jail sentence, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE AN OFFICIAL "LICENSE TO CARRY".
          In other words, H.3400 says that GIVEN you have a license to
          carry (and therefore have met all of the qualifications of
          obtaining a license to carry), you can not be wrongfully
          imprisioned under the mandatory 1-5 years in jail.
          
          Another important bill is _H.3399_  "An Act Regarding Court
          Approved Licensing", which states that if an individual is denied
          a License to Carry Firearms, and successfully appeals that denial
          in court, the applicant can regain attorney's fees.
          
          This would discourage police chiefs from merely saying, "Take me
          to court" as an intimidation tactic, in addition to serving as
          some kind of a check against police chiefs who have been PROVEN
          to issue permits  as "arbitrary, capricious, and misuse of
          discretion"  (court costs can run between $500 - $2000.)
          
          If you are interested in writing or calling your congresscritter
          to let them know how you feel about those two bills, I have typed
          in a list of senators and representatives along with their state
          house room number and what town they represent.  If I left your
          town off, and you are interested in expressing your opinions
          about the 2 bills to your congresscritter, and you don't know who
          your congresscritters are, let me know via mail) 
          and I can get that info to you. The letter would be addressed to:
          
               The Honorable [firstname] [lastname]
               State House Room ___
               Boston, MA  02133
          
               Dear Representative [lastname]:      or
               Dear Senator [lastname]:
          
          
          Here Goes:...
          
          town           name - State House Room
          ----           -----------------------
          
          Acton          Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. John Loring - 540
          
          Amherst        Sen. John W. Olver - 511
                         Rep. Stanley C. Rosenberg - 473F
          
          Andover        Sen. Patricia McGovern - 212
                         Rep. Susan C. Tucker - 473G
          
          Arlington      Sen. Richard A. Kraus - 443
                         Rep. Mary Jane Gibson - 370
                         Rep. Robert A. Havern - 467
          
          Ashland        Sen. Edward L. Burke - 416C
                         Rep. David P. Magnani- 43
          
          Athol          Sen. Robert D. Wetmore - 409
                         Rep. Mary Jane McKenna - 541B
          
          Ayer           Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Augusta Hornblower - 26
                         Rep. John F. MacGovern - 473F
          
          Bedford        Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. Augusto F. Grace - 443
          
          Belmont        Sen. Michael J. Barrett - 405
                         Rep. Mary Jane Gibson - 370
          
          Berlin         Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Robert A. Durand - 478
          
          Billerica      Sen. Patricia McGovern - 212
                         Rep. Michael J. Rea - 146
          
          Bolton         Sen. Mary I. Padula - 416A
                         Rep. Patricia A. Walrath - 237
          
          Boxboro        Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Patricia A. Walrath - 237
          
          Boylston       Sen. Thomas P. White - 518
                         Rep. Peter I. Blute - 146
          
          Brookfield     Sen. Robert D. Wetmore - 409
                         Rep. Stephen M. Brewer - 43
          
          Burlington     Sen. Richard A. Kraus - 312
                         Rep. Augusto F. Grace - 443
          
          Carlisle       Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. John H. Loring - 540
          
          Chelmsford     Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. Carol C. Cleven - 36
          
          Clinton        Sen. Thomas P. White - 518
                         Rep. William Constantino - 541B
          
          Concord        Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. John H. Loring - 540
          
          Fitchburg      Sen. Mary L Padula - 416A
                         Rep. George J. Bourque - 134
                         Rep. Robert A. Antonioni - 163
          
          Framingham     Sen. Edward L. Burke - 413C
                         Rep. Barbara E. Gray - 237
                         Rep. David P. Magnani - 43
          
          Grafton        Sen. John P. Houston - 213B
                         Rep. John R. Driscoll - 548
          
          Groton         Sen. Paul J. Sheehy - 213C
                         Rep. Augusta Hornblower - 26
          
          Harvard        Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. John F. MacGovern - 473F
          
          Holden         Sen. Mary L, Padula - 416A
                         Rep. Mary Jane McKenna - 541B
          
          Holliston      Sen. Edware L. Burke - 413C
                         Rep. Barbara Gardner - 473F
          
          Hopkinton      Sen. John P. Houston - 213B
                         Rep. Barbara Gardner - 473F
          
          Hudson         Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Patricia A. Walrath - 237
          
          Lancaster      Sen. Mary L. Padula - 416A
                         Rep. Patricia A. Walrath - 237
                         Rep. William Constantino - 541B
          
          Leominster     Sen. Mary L. Padula - 416A
                         Rep. Robert A. Antonioni - 163
          
          Lexington      Sen. Richard A. Kraus - 312
                         Rep. Stephen W. Doran - 472
          
          Lincoln        Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. Stephen W. Doran - 472
          
          Littleton      Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. John F. MacGovern - 473F
          
          Lowell         Sen. Paul J. Sheehy - 213
                         Rep. Susan F. Rourke - 146
                         Rep. Edward A. LeLacheur - 146
          
          Lunenburg      Sen. Mary L. Padula - 416A
                         Rep. Augusta Hornblower - 26
                         Rep. Robert A. Antonioni - 163
          
          Marlborough    Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Robert A. Durand - 478
          
          Maynard        Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Lucile P. Hicks - 541B
          
          Natick         Sen. Edward I. Burke - 413C
                         Rep. Joseph M. Connolly - 472
          
          Newton         Sen. Lois G. Pines - 421
                         Rep. John C. Bartley - 163
                         Rep. David B. Cohen - 446
          
          Northborough   Sen. John P. Houston - 213B
                         Rep. Peter I. Blute - 146
          
          Pepperell      Sen. Paul J. Sheehy - 213
                         Rep. Augusta Hornblower - 26
          
          Reading        Sen. Robert C. Buell - 321
                         Sen. John A. Brennan - 319
                         Rep. Geoffrey C. Beckwith - 236
                         
          Shrewsbury     Sen. Thomas P. White - 518
                         Rep. Peter I. Blute - 146
          
          Southborough   Sen. Edward L. . Burke - 413C
                         Rep. Barbara Gardner - 473F
          
          Sterline       Sen. Mary L. Padula - 416A
                         Rep. William Constantino - 541B
          
          Stow           Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Patricia A. Walrath - 237
          
          Sudbury        Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. Lucille P. Hicks - 541B
          
          Tewksbury      Sen. Patricia McGovern - 212
                         Rep. James R. Miceli - 237
          
          Waltham        Sen. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. Peter G. Trombley - 427
                         Rep. Anthony M Mandile - 134
          
          Watertown      Sen. Michael J. Barrett - 405
                         Rep. John C. Bartley - 163
          
          Wayland        Rep. Carol C. Amick - 413E
                         Rep. Lucile P. Hicks - 541B
          
          West Boylston  Sen. Thomas P. White - 518
                         Rep. William Constantino - 541B
          
          Westborough    Sen. John P. Houston - 213B
                         Rep. John R. Driscoll - 548
          
          Westford       Sen. A. Paul Cellucci - 520
                         Rep. John F. MacGovern - 473F
          
          Westminster    Sen. Mary I Padula - 416A
                         Rep. William Constantino - 541B
          
          Winchendon     Sen. Robert D. Wetmore - 409
                         Rep. Chester A. Suhoski - 427
          
          Worcester      Sen. Thomas P. White - 518
                         Sen. John P. Houston - 213B
                         Rep. Kevin O'Sullivan - 146
                         Rep. Andrew Collaro - 167F

	re: 210.592  (Mike Valenza)

	>   In fact, if you are not comfortable with the idea of killing 
	>   another human being, then I commend you for your admirable values.  

	Mike, I don't think anyone here (gun-owners or not) would be 
	"comfortable" with the idea of killing another human being.

	Your response caused me to think about how I've changed 
	since developing a certain level of "confidence" in my ability
	to handle firearms...

	I now have a greater level of discomfort with seeing someone
	shot on TV or movies,  and I get disgusted to see firearms 
	sensationalized like in music videos (ex: Prince's latest).  

							nancy b.

    Re: Note 210.592 by CSC32::M_VALENZA
    
    >Robin, there is no reason for you to apologize for the fact that you
    >value human life.  In fact, if you are not comfortable with the idea of
    >killing another human being, then I commend you for your admirable
    >values.
    
    Mike, I think we've had a similar conversation before, but I need to ask
    a question in the current context.  If one values human life, then does
    that not include one's own life?  If so, why should one's life be
    forfeited to an aggressor of life?  If, in not resisting an aggressor,
    one so forfeits one's own life, how is this an admirable value?
    
    	Bill

    
    	RE: .607
    
    	Mike,  I hear ya. It is indeed such a grey area and with some
    	it is an easy choice to take anothers life to save their own.
    	On the other hand, there are gun owners that enjoy shooting
    	targets only and know they could never kill another, even if
    	it meant their own life. Like you say, there are no pat answers.
    	One thing I would like to ask of you or anyothers in here: Please
    	don't judge all gun owners on the image the media paints of us.
    	We are NOT all 5' 2" high and 5' 10" wide with three days beard
    	growth, unshowered for atleast two weeks, smoke those short stubby
    	stinky cigars, and have blood dripping out of the cornor of our
    	mouth from the last kill we made when we ate it raw! Oh yeah, one
    	last thing, I don't even own any thing in camouflage/hunter orange,
    	nor do I even own a hat of any kind (hate the things). BTW, for
    	your information only (non-debatable), I don't hunt and only shoot
    	at paper targets! Would I use a gun to save my life? Maybe, only
    	if I couldn't protect myself with my baseball bat that I have in
    	my apartment. While I am a gun owner, I don't use it around my
    	apartment for protection and NEVER have one loaded in the house!
    	
    
    	You asked about gun owners feelings on shooting another over ones
    	property. I for one don't condone this, in my mind there is nothing
    	I can own worth the price of ANY human life. As for the guy who set
    	up the gun to go off when someone broke in. He should have been
    	arrested and charged with MURDER ONE if someone died because of
    	that stunt! I don't know about Co, but most states(in the northeast
    	anyways) have laws against booby traps.
    
    	G_B

    Re: .607
    
    Mike, you've dodged the central issue.  My question, as posed to you,
    implied nothing about the humanity of the aggressor.  The defense of
    property issue is entirely different.  In general, it isn't in my view
    or that of gun owners I know, or in that of the laws of most states,
    ever justifiable to kill a human being solely in defense of your
    property.
    
    Rather than continuing to assume what the outlook among gun owners
    who keep guns for self-defense on this subject is, you ought to talk to
    as many of them as you can and ask each of them individually how they
    view the issue.
    
    	Bill

    Re: .611
    
    Mike, there are no winners in a gunfight or any other type of violent
    confrontation where one of the parties acts to take the life of the
    other.  The idea of killing another human being is as distasteful and
    repugnant to me as it clearly is to you.  But if I must do it, I will.
    My belief is that since I have a natural right to life, even 'though
    my attacker has the same right, I also have the right to preserve my
    life.  My attacker has not forfeited his humanity, but he *has*
    forfeited his right to life by choosing to deprive me of mine.
    
    I am very much aware of the emotional, psycho-physiological, social,
    and legal consequences of committing such an act should I ever have to.
    It is not a pretty scenario.  But I will take it over simply handing my
    life to an aggressor when all other means of stopping that person have
    failed.  Resolving the moral dimension of the issue has actually been
    the easy part.  I do not relish the personal aftermath of such an
    incident should it happen to me, but my own moral decision has been
    made and I will act accordingly if and when it does happen.
    
    	Bill

 Tell us just ONE MORE TIME.

	re: Mike Valenza

	Mike, I've read your recent series of notes over a few times.

	At a purely intellectually level, I can almost accept what 
	you're saying.  But when I think about a real-life, practical 
	situation where loss of life or severe bodily harm is imminent, 
	it just doesn't jive.

						respectfully,
						nancy b.

    In re: .616
    
    Nancy - {and Mike_V} -
    
       I think you mean not "jive" but "jibe."   We can probably agree that
    Mike's entries don't jive.  What they may jibe with is another matter.
    
    			- Bruce
    
    {  The same-spelling sailing term comes from Dutch.  My at-hand
    dictionary says "origin unknown" for this meaning. I am NOT going to
    haul out my OED at this hour. }
    

    Re: .613
    
    Mike, I really want to understand where you are coming from on this.
    I hear you say that you value human life, all human life, but you seem
    to place little or no value on your own.  It appears that you are
    quite willing to offer up your life in trade for that of an aggressor.
    That, I guess, is OK if that's what your system of values dictates,
    but I don't see what society gains from it.  In my system, such a
    collision of rights has to resolve in favor of the defender of life,
    not the aggressor against life, because the former enhances human
    dignity while the latter does not.
    
    The idea here is to be neither the wolf nor the sheep, but the
    shepherd.  If you choose not to be the shepherd of your own life,
    can you morally exercise the same choice when it comes to other
    innocents to whom you are bound by responsibility, obligation, or
    affection?  Is it, for example, moral to stand by and allow an
    aggressor to take the lives of your children, your mate, your
    parents, or your friends when you have the power to prevent such
    loss of life?
    
    	Bill

	re: 210.617 (Mike Valenza)

	(about your beliefs...)
	> If they don't ji(b)e for you, that is because they don't strike 
	> the same, melodious chord for you that they do for me.

	Mike, please know that I am asking the following in a very
	gentle, non-antagonistic voice:

	

	Would your beliefs strike such a "melodious chord" if someone
	was banging your head against a wall (with stated intent to 
	do worse?)
							nancy b.

 The chord they strike for me is discord. :-)