Conference foundr::firearms

From: Tony Camuso <camuso@top.monad.net>
To: Mt Washignton Valley Daily Sun <dailysun@mountwashingtonvalley.com>;
Monadnock Shopper <monadnockshopper@monad.net>; Keene Sentinel
<letters@keenesentinel.com>; Foster's Daily Democrat <pkincade@fosters.com>
Subject: Senate Bill 193 
Date: Monday, March 17, 1997 2:53 AM

To the editors;

Alex Herlihy's letter in the Union Leader endorsing Senate Bill 193 is an
excellent example of the hyberbolic rhetoric typical of citizen disarmament
groups.  Mr. Herlihy's arguments are emotional rather than logical,
specious rather than substantive, and statist rather than constitutional.  
 
For example, Mr. Herlihy affirms, "Many studies show that unsafe storage of
guns leads to countless unintentional shootings, suicides, and homicides in
this country every year."  What studies?  Name your sources, Mr. Herlihy.
What do you mean by, countless shootings?  Have attempts to count shootings
in this country failed?

If SB 193 makes good sense, as Mr. Herlihy asserts, then it should be
expanded to include knives, scissors, baseball bats, automobiles, and any
other implement  that can be used to inflict injury and death.  Under such
an expanded version of SB 193, if someone steals your car, gets drunk, and
kills somebody, you will be criminally responsible for not disabling your
car or storing it properly.  

If Mr. Herlihy is really concerned about saving lives, he should consider
sponsoring sentencing and parole reform.  In a 1995 report on 156,000
parolees returned to prison, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found
that those parolees had committed at least 6,800 murders, 5,500 rapes,
8,800 assaults and 22,500 robberies while on parole an average of 13
months.  Those numbers were based on actual convictions that returned the
criminals to prison.  And a better way to prevent injury from firearms
accidents is an educational program, like the NRA's Eddie Eagle program.

Chipping away at the constitutional rights of citizens in the name of peace
and security is dangerous folly.  In the words of Benjamin Frankiln, those
who are willing to surrender freedoms in order to obtain more security will
have neither.

Respectfully,

Anthony Camuso

From: Tony Camuso <camuso@top.monad.net>
To: Union Leader <TheUL@aol.com>
Subject: Senate Bill 193 
Date: Sunday, March 16, 1997 7:33 PM

To the editors;

Alex Herlihy's letter in the Union Leader endorsing Senate Bill 193 is an
excellent example of the uniformed, unsubstantiated, hyberbolic rhetoric
typical of citizen disarmament groups.  Mr. Herlihy's arguments are
emotional rather than logical, specious rather than substantive, and
statist rather than constitutional.    

For example, Mr. Herlihy affirms, "Many studies show that unsafe storage of
guns leads to countless unintentional shootings, suicides, and homicides in
this country every year."  What studies?  Name your sources, Mr. Herlihy. 
What do you mean by, countless shootings?  Have attempts to count shootings
in this country failed?

If SB 193 makes good sense, as Mr. Herlihy asserts, then it should be
expanded to include knives, scissors, baseball bats, automobiles, and any
other implement  that can be used by miscreants to inflict injury and
death.  Under such an expanded version of SB 193, if someone steals your
car, gets drunk, and kills somebody, you will be criminally responsible for
not disabling your car or storing it properly.  

If Mr. Herlihy is really concerned about saving lives, he should consider
sponsoring a bill to prohibit alcoholic beverages. Last year in the U.S.,
26,000 people died in, and over 460,000 injuries resulted from,
alcohol-related car accidents alone.  

Respectfully,

Anthony Camuso

    
    
     Anthony I don't know if you wantneed to include the fact that a locked
    gun is usless for selfdefense and how many people are they going to
    sacrifice to criminals in order to accomplish some feel good law.
    
     
    Good letter and I'm sure you could get all sorts of suggestions from
    people here.
    
    
     Just my 2, cents
    
     Dave 

<...this country every year."  What studies?  Name your sources, Mr. Herlihy. 
<What do you mean by, countless shootings?  Have attempts to count shootings
<in this country failed?
<...
<...sponsoring a bill to prohibit alcoholic beverages. Last year in the U.S.,
<26,000 people died in, and over 460,000 injuries resulted from,
<alcohol-related car accidents alone.  

Tony,

    Good responses, but as you can see, you also quoted figures without giving
the source... It's very easy to do, especially when there are space constraints.
Another point you probably edited out to save space is that policing such a
ordinance, before an "accident" happened, would be tantamount to gun
registration as every law-abiding gun owner would be subject to an inspection. 

   If his concern is an "after-the-fact" charge, then he has saved NO lives and
has added more guilt, shame  and misery on the otherwise law-abiding citizen
who just lost a son, daughter, or friend. 


give 'em hell

Al

RE: <<< Note 6599.3 by BSS::DSMITH "RATDOGS DON'T BITE" >>>

>     Anthony I don't know if you wantneed to include the fact that a locked
>    gun is usless for selfdefense and how many people are they going to
>    sacrifice to criminals in order to accomplish some feel good law.

	Hmmm ... that's a good point that I missed.  Won't miss it next
	time.

	Thanks,
		Tony
    

RE:   <<< Note 6599.4 by NEWVAX::WHITMAN "gun control = 5% gun + 95% control" >>>

>    Good responses, but as you can see, you also quoted figures without giving
>the source...

	True.  But the figures I quoted are repeated often enough in the
	newspapers to almost be common knowledge, while Mr. Herlihy's data
	is nothing but myth.

        In my response to the newspapers that don't limit you to 200 words
        like the Union Leader (Note 6599.1), I used the parolee crime
        figures with source.  In the future, I will try to be more careful
	to substantiate figures with sources.  It helps to make us all more
	credible.

	Thanks and regards,
		Tony

Ahhh Gi'day...

    You must keep up the Self defense angle. Because once the state has
    taken away your  RIGHT to self defense, you really have no "genuine
    reason" to own a firearm. If target shooting or hunting is all you have
    left, then you have lost.
    
    The only way to defeat an emotional argument is with more emotion, and
    throwing statistics of how safe target shooting is will never win an
    argument against an opponent with a photo of a dead child, loads of
    tears, funeral shots, white ribbons and small caskets.
    
    I speak from bitter experience...