Conference quark::mennotes

    	Under British law you are allowed to use the minimum amount of
    force neccessary to protect yourself and your property. If you are
    accused of assault, then you as the accused get the benefit of any
    doubt. It is highly unlikely that either of you would have a gun, but
    if he had any credible sort of weapon and you happened to knock him
    unconcious he would be wasting his time in the courts.
    
    	Britain doesn't have the death penalty for theft, and taking it
    into your own hands would be regarded as not quite the done thing
    anyway. You have a right but not a duty to restrain him in such
    circumstances. If the local police are any good then a good description
    should be quite sufficient.

    
    
      Their was a case here in Dublin a couple of years ago when a thief 
      entered a house with a knife. When confronted with the owner (who
      had in his pocession a legally held shotgun) the thief ran at him
      with the knife. The owner of the house shot him dead. No charges 
      were ever bought against the house owner as it was in self defense,
      however since this case the owner was hounded out of his home.
      
    
      Gary...

>      however since this case the owner was hounded out of his home.

 By whom?

    
    If we're talking about the same case...
    
    By relations of the victim (He came from a large itinerant family). 
    The case had more to it than meets the eye. The accused was 70-80 yrs of age. 
    The victim was shot in the back while *exiting* the house. 
    The victim was a piece of scum with a record of larceny and unprovoked
    assault (unknown to the accused).
    
    My opinion...
    
    Shoot now and get a good Lawyer later !
    No Judge will convict you for defending your home. They have famlies
    and homes of their own !
    
    Peter.
    

    Peter,
    
    The case I was talking about happened in a suburb of Dublin. The owner 
    of the house was mid 30's and the lynch mob was friends of the victim.
    This happened mid 80's.
    
    Gary...

    I say if the burglar want's to leave let him. Provide the police with
    a good description and let them find him. If he comes after you
    fighting fair is for idiots - hit him with what ever you have.

    I remember a policeman in New York City explaining it this way. If
    someone attacks you you can defend yourself anyway you want. But if
    they catch you running down the street after a guy with a deer rifle
    in your hands you're in trouble. :-)

    			Alfred

    Shoot first.
    Call police.
    Place large kitchen knife in burglar's hand if none already there.
    Call lawyer.

    
    
    But in this case the burglar did'nt want to leave. What kind of choice
    does that leave you if he is about to attack you with a knife ???
    I dont think that the owner had any choice, he shot the bastard dead.

In the US, the laws regarding this situation vary from state to state.

			Steve

    I would concentrate on defending myself and family.  If she wanted to
    run off (she? why not she? is it ALWAYS a he? lets not be biased here)
    then I would let him/her and hope a good description resulted in an
    arrest.
    
    Someone said ARMED break ins at night are unusual.  They ARE?  I would
    think an UNarmed night break in unusual.
    
    I think ones' primary objective should be to keep yourself or family
    from getting killed or hurt.  After that, you have TIME to think over
    options.
    
    The night time robber usually has an advantage over most of us:
    
    He/she is fully awake vs. not having just woken up.
    
    He/she knows why he is there and what he is after and what he is
    willing to do to get it.
    
    He/she is probably armed.
    
    How many of you KNOW how far you would be willing to go to protect
    yourself and family without being confronted by the situation?
    
    Scenerio:
    
    Noise downstairs in middle of the night.
    
    Homeowner wonders if its just the cat but noise was a bit loud for
    that.
    
    Homeowner sleepily calls out...."ANYBODY THERE?"  No answer.
    
    Homeowner proceeds downstairs (armed OR unarmed) still calling out
    'ANYBODY THERE'?
    
    Robber now knows where the homeowner is and that he is probably dealing
    with just one sleeply but alarmed person.  Robbers options.  Hide and
    wait and clobber/shoot homeowner when ambush is right.  Run?  Fight?
    
    A variation of this conclusion is IF the homeowner is skillful enough
    to proceed downstairs and outwit/fight the robber.
    
    My point is that the homeowner is probably far better off STAYING up
    stairs, calling police, and 'holding the fort' from any further
    instrusion till the police arrive.  Now, if the robber cut the phone
    lines first you may have to hold the fort on your own.
    
    But I think a person is far better off thinking this over BEFORE you
    wake up from the bump in the night, and KNOW what your going to do to
    keep the odds on your side.
    
    Jeff

re .-1

>    My point is that the homeowner is probably far better off STAYING up
>    stairs, calling police, and 'holding the fort' from any further
>    instrusion till the police arrive.

This happened to me a few months ago. We came back from a date late-ish,
and went upstairs to go to bed. We heard noises downstairs. So I got out
the shotgun and loaded it while my wife called the police. I positioned
myself at the top of the stairs to protect 'the gang'.

After listening for awhile we conclude the noise is in the kitchen. Then my
wife does a bed check, and finds an empty bed where our oldest should have
been. I went halfway down the stairs and called to oldest, he responded and
was quite surprised to see me with the shotgun (I had put the safety back
on by then). I explained I would be real sure it wasn't him before I pulled
the trigger, and we called the police to cancel the previous call.

>    But I think a person is far better off thinking this over BEFORE you
>    wake up from the bump in the night, and KNOW what your going to do to
>    keep the odds on your side.

I hadn't - scary stuff!
   

    In Colorado, if he's _inside_ the house, armed or not, and has entered 
    the house w/o permission, you can blow him to smithereens and the "Make
    My Day" law protects you.

    In any case if you can convince a jury that you were "in fear of your
    life" you'll probably walk on grounds of self-defense.

    There was a widely publicized case in Baton Rouge, Louisana a month or
    so ago.  A boy and his friend, a Japanese exchange student, went to the
    wrong house for a Halloween party (in costume).  Scared the &^%$ out of
    the wife when she answered the door.  She screamed for her husband to
    get  his gun, and slammed the door.  He got his gun and went outside.
    The exchange-student rushed at him from around the corner of his house. 
    The home owner shouted "stop" but the student didn't  understand
    English well.  The homeowner put a 44 mag. through the student's head. 
    Big public gun control outcry.  Lots of  negative publicity by
    student's family in Japan.  Jury deliberated for about 30 minutes
    before finding the homeowner "not guilty".

    fred();

    That unfortunate incident regarding the guy shooting the foreigner was
    most unfortunate.... partially caused by cultural differences.  Did
    the guy RUSH the man, or walk toward him?  An important distinction
    I think.  Interesting... the man and his wife ASSUMED he was out to
    get them rather than on an innocent mission.  I don't know if it was
    after dark, but if it was it makes the incident far more
    understandable.  If the homeowner hadn't HAD a gun.... well I won't
    say any more about that.
    
    The cut phone line is a real hazard because it takes one of the
    homeowners responses away and makes it far more likely the homeowner
    WILL come after the intruder.  Now that portable cellular phones are
    here cutting the phone line is not nearly as foolproof for stopping
    communications as it used to be.  Burglars.... think twice.
    
    I read in some article which was interviewing a night time burglar what
    he thought of 50 % of the homes in the U.S. having guns, and whether
    that tended to scare him off.  Nope, it didn't, just part of the 'job'
    dealing with armed homeowners.  One adapts.
    
    I will say one thing... if the burglar cut my phone line and passed
    the critical point in my house (somewhere on the stairs) he would find
    himself in serious danger.  God knows what I would do if backed into
    a corner like that. I would assume HE (oops, sorry SHE) wasn't fooling
    around.  I think I would rather deal with a jury than continue to deal
    with the intruder.
    
    

    Most police officers will unofficially tell you that when confronted
    with an intruder at night inside your home "shoot to kill". If they had
    intended to escape the professional burgalar would have done so before
    confronting the homeowner. The unprofessional inexperienced drug
    adicted intruder is the most dangerious. The most dangerous situation 
    is an intruder at bay while you are trying to call the police....they 
    know their time to escape is running out.
    
    First call 911, inform the police that you have an intruder in the
    house, that you are armed and in fear for your life. If you have no way
    to escape and are forced to defend yourself I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to
    kill. Always make sure the intruder is inside the house, try for a head-on 
    shot which places the intruder in a position to attack, make sure he/she is
    disarmed and dead (let em bleed to death if necessary - don't shoot them 44
    times while they are down), when police finaly arrive don't greet them
    with a loaded weapon in hand, repeat over and over "I thought he/she was 
    going to kill me .... I thought he/she was going to kill me".
    
    I've thought about this many times and my presumption is that a night
    time intruder probably knows the house is occupied due to cars in the
    driveway, bedroom windows open, etc. Knowing this and entering anyway
    I make the assumption they have prepared (armed themselves) to deal
    with household defenders if necessary. Given that assumption I would
    definitely fear for my life anytime I was confronted by a night time
    intruder and make an appropriate response to that threat.
    
    Dealing with a jury is better than dealing with a live intruder.

    re .13

    My information of the incident comes form an interview of the 
    defendant's lawyer on the Gil Gross Radio Show.  The  chronology
    of the incident according to the lawyer and to the best of my
    memory was:

    The house of the family had been robbed twice before. Knock on door. 
    Wife opens door.  Two young men at door in  "Halloween" costume
    behaving very strangely.  Japanese student, behaving bazaarly, tried to
    force his way past wife.  Wife panicked, slammed door, screamed for
    husband to get gun, grabbed kids and headed for  bedroom.  Husband came
    to door,  opened door, went outside, called  out he had gun.  Second
    later Japanese student came around corner of house in dim lit area
    waving something that turned out the be camera and "rushed at" husband. 
    Husband leveled gun  at student and said "stop".  American boy called
    out to student, but too late.  Husband fired.

    A big deal was made out of the size and power of the gun.  44 magnum
    (as in Dirty Harry).  

    A regrettable accident due to cultural and language barriers.  It's
    one of those split second things that if you fire and are wrong, its 
    a #$%@, but if you don't fire and are wrong it's an even bigger
    #@$%^&.

    fred();

    re:.7
    
    People have done jail time for that.

.13> The cut phone line is a real hazard because it takes one of the
.13 homeowners responses away and makes it far more likely the homeowner
    
    Simple solution for city-dwellers ... get a cellular phone.
    
    I keep mine on at home all night.  It costs $0 unless I call out or
    someone calls in (and only a select few have the tel #).  Since I'm
    on the computer for many hours each night, it solves a bunch of
    problems at once.  Also gives me access to a telephone during the 90
    minutes I spend in my car commuting.

>    someone calls in (and only a select few have the tel #).

Don't you get serially-dialed telemarketing calls?

    There is alot of debate regarding an 'appropriate' weapon for the
    homeowner.  A shotgun seems to be a good choice since it doesn't 
    require accurate aiming under poor light stressful situations and
    the pellets aren't as likely to keep going and penatrate a neighbors
    house or hit somone in a passing car.  On the other hand a long gun
    is hard to manuver under the relatively close quarters in a house.
    Imagine sticking a shotgun out around a corner in front of you...
    WRONG!  Gun gets grabbed.
    
    A .22 handgun is small and 'convenient' but hardly would stop a big
    guy fast unless hit in an immediately vital area which is hard to do
    under stressful poorly lit conditions.  The 44 magnum has the stopping
    power all right but the bullet could penetrate a wall and go into a
    neighbors house or a passing car injuring innocent people.
    
    To those that scream at me 'hey your talking about killing people here
    and shooting people and things like that!"  
    
    Yeah?  I am talking about saving my families' and my own life under
    conditions which I should even BE in.
    
    What is the intruder DOING in my house in the middle of the
    night?  The police are retroactive (read AFTER we are dead) they
    can do something.
    
    Don't get me wrong.... I think we have a horrible problem with people
    being killed with guns of all types.  Get these creeps off the streets
    and we won't NEED to keep guns in our houses under fear for our lives.
    
    Jeff

    In the States the general reference for armed defense is "In the
    Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.  Although the rules in Ireland
    for self-defense are probably different from those across the 
    puddle, you may want to procure a copy anyway.
    
    Just speaking in general, you never should alter a crime scene.
    
    Depending upon country (and state, as mentioned before), your permitted
    responses to impending violence against you or your family vary widely.
    For example, in a well-known European country a woman tourist was
    jailed (and still may be there) for defending herself against assault;
    her mistake was that she used a pocket knife.  The courts threw the
    book at her.  Apparently the use of deadly force against rapists and
    murderers in that country is not considered sporting; you are to die
    instead.
    
    - craig
    

.9> In the US, the laws regarding this situation vary from state to state.

Right.  In MA, where I work, there was a case a few years ago in which a
woman was attacked by an intruder, retreated into her cellar, and then
shot her pursuer.  She was convicted on the grounds that she could have 
escaped through the cellar door.  There was a lot of fuss about it, and the 
law may have changed.

.10>    Someone said ARMED break ins at night are unusual.  They ARE?  I would
>       think an UNarmed night break in unusual.

I had the impression that .1 was speaking of Britain, where even the cops 
were unarmed until recently.

In the US, folklore and some statistics showed that back before crack, few 
burglars would carry weapons.  For one thing, the law was easier on an 
unarmed burglar.  For another, burglars reasoned that if they had a weapon,
they would use it, and instead of 3-5 years, they would be looking at life
or execution.  Also, burglars looked hard for an unoccupied house.  Finally, 
burglars considered themselves a superior sort of criminal, compared to
armed robbers, and would lose status if they carried a weapon.

Under those conditions, the usual advice if you heard a noise was to listen 
for a repeat, then call the cops and shout loudly: "Who's there?  I've called 
the cops!"  When the cops arrive, they will find a house free of burglars
and bodies.

With the spread of crack and the general breakdown of social distinctions (:-)
there a lot of armed burglars out there, so your burglar may be armed.
Especially at night, since professional burglars have taken advantage of two
wage earner families to work the bedroom suburbs in the daytime.

    RE: .21
    
    The law was changed under Ed King.
    
    Marc H.

    Wasn't there a long discussion on this topic several months ago? 
    Sounds ver-r-ry familiar.  
    
    L
    

    The controvery over the woman who shot the intruder in the cellar seems
    to have failed to have taken two things into consideration:
    
    1. A victim under the stress of being persued and trapped in the cellar
       might not be too rational.... thus, failing to notice and use an
       escape is understandable to me.
    
    2. Who is the 'burdened' party here?  The victim I think.
    
    I hope the jury agreed with me.
    
    Jeff

    Re: Discussed before?
    
    Yes, I suppose it has been, but its a relevent topic and it needs 
    discussing I think, don't you?
    
    Jeff

    >Yes, I suppose it has been, but its a relevent topic and it needs
    >discussing I think, don't you?
    
    It's relevant.  Does it need discussing?  That's a totally subjective
    question.  Personally, I'm not interested.  I'll do a next unseen. 
    That doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss it if you'd like.  I was just
    wondering if people were making the same points that had been made in a
    previous discussion.
    
    Do as you wish, of course.
    
    Laura

    I am not pleased that there is even a need to disuss things like this.
    But having people break in to ones home is a reality.  It is such an
    important 'event' in ones' life if it happens to you that I don't 
    think it can be overdiscussed.  What you YOU do if you woke to a
    'bump in the night' Laura?
    
    Jeff

    RE:  -1
    
    Jeff,
    
    You'll have to excuse me if I choose not to spend time contemplating
    such a possibility, nor how I might/would/should respond.  I've got
    enough frightening stuff in my life to deal with already, that I don't
    want to dwell on the subject.  The thought of being burglarized while
    I'm present inevitably leads on to contemplating rape.  I'd rather take
    reasonable precautions and spend my mental energies elsewhere.
    
    Laura

    
    Laura,
    
    
    Not to stir the pot, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
    cure.  Same goes for planning out what you would do.  It only needs to
    be planned out once.
    
    
    Mike

    Many people are morally against keeping firearms in their homes. Also,
    many people prefer not to worry about every possible danger in their lives.
    Having guns on their nightstands would be a constant reminder of the
    potential of being attacked by a burglar, something of which they don't
    want to be reminded. The less worrying they do, the happier and more
    positive they are. Sure, once in a while something happens, but they roll
    with the punches. There is a chance, a miniscule chance, that they will be
    murdered by an intruder. But the price they pay in worry and stress, for
    them, is just not worth the tiny amount of insurance they could get from
    having a gun.

    - Jim

    I think .30 makes a valid point; I note that Jim carefully makes not
    having guns a personal choice, not one forced down the homeowner's
    throat by some busybody PAC.  This is, I believe, the right way to do
    it.
    
    Bear in mind that MOST burglars will look for an empty house first;
    they'd rather not take the risk of running afoul of an irate homeowner,
    with or without a gun.
    
    I play the percentages - I use a half dozen electric timers to run some
    lights when we're away.  My most recent timers have a randomness of one
    hour built into them to vary the cycle; I will soon replace all of them
    with an X-10 system that I can program from my Apple IIGS.  Beyond the
    gimmicked lights and a call to the cops to let them know we'll be away,
    I just don't fret over it.

    I called the police recently to let them know no one would be home and
    they essentially said "So, what's your point?"  They basocally couldn't
    care less.  Not enough officers, funding etc. to watch a neighborhood
    that was experiencing a rash of break ins at the time but certainly
    enough funding to have an radar unit set up down the street.  
    
    Brian

    Re .32
    
    Police support depends on where you live.  Nashua, NH, has more police
    per capita than any other city over 50,000 in the US.  And the Nashua
    police will actually do something about it - they want to know if there
    should be cars there, who has keys (if anyone) and will they be in the
    house to check on it, will there be timer'ed lights, and so on.  They
    make extra patrols along streets where there are vacation-empty houses. 
    I know they do this; I've observed it.
    
    Sorry your police aren't as helpful.

    re:11  (son down stairs, not theif..)
    
    Yoikes!
    And this is exaclty what scares me about having a gun around!
    
    We have two dogs, and I'd bet you all 50 bucks, that they'd probably
    not do anything more than bark and wake me up, (which is good) these
    follish hounds are so friendly I think that's all I could hope
    for..
    
    Personally, I would let the Thief, take what ever the jerk wanted
    until that involved members of my family.  Then I honestly don't know
    how I'd make out against a stanger who could be armed, but   we'd
    find out...
    
    I can't see myself being be able to shoot  anyone.  Of course all these
    things are easy to say now.  I have guns, but I've not owned a round of
    ammo or a shotgun  shell for 15 years.
    
    All I would hope for would be some chance to wake up to get my wits 
    about me...  (Enter the dogs..)
    

    
    >> Don't get me wrong.... I think we have a horrible problem with people
    >> being killed with guns of all types.  Get these creeps off the streets
    >> and we won't NEED to keep guns in our houses under fear for our lives.
    
    Maybe we should collect all the unemployed, homeless, starving and
    desperate people in one big field and kill them all in one go ?
    
    Surely, they're a threat to the people who can afford houses. Maybe 
    they're a moral threat to all those people who CAN afford to feed their 
    children and get fat themselves and buy guns to protect their wealth.
    
    Maybe none of them *deserve* to have a life.
    
    -Tony

    I think that "creeps off the streets" was not referring to unfortunates
    (such as homeless, unemployed or starving people) but rather creeps as
    in criminals.   
    
    I could be wrong.
    
    kim
    

    
    Sure,
    
    I'm not questioning the scenereo of an almost premeditated domestic 
    assault. Some theives are pro's and would not hesitate to attack.
    
    What distresses me is the people who are so desperate for food that
    they must try and steal it and are killed in the process for what is
    essentially a Government ignored problem.
    
    I realise that in that split second there is little time for judging
    an intruders intentions, its still disturbing.
    
    -Tony

    	The professionals *never* attack, at least not in most parts of
    Europe. Around here, when you contact the police, whether it's about a
    car accident or a burglary, the first question they ask is "Is anyone
    injured?". If not then they regard it as a matter for insurance
    companies, and the serious burglars know this.
    
    	This area (C�te d'Azur) has about the highest burglary rate in
    Europe. Many DEC employees here have been burgled. One night in the
    estate on which we were living, nine houses were burgled, not just
    small valuables but antique furniture too. Nobody saw or heard a
    burglar. I only know one person (was a DEC employee here) who actually
    saw a burglar. She woke up in the middle of the night to see him
    sorting through her jewelry. He apologised for waking her and walked
    out (without offering to empty his pockets).

    I can see defending one's self and family, but sure I have to ask:
    What do you own that is worth more than another human life?
    
    I can't think of one thing or all that I own that I would take another
    life for.
    Some of you people scare me more than the thought of an intruder.
    ed
    

    Remember that the person entering your abode might not have the same
    value set about life as you do. There are many victums that have no
    life. They are dead. :]

.17> I keep mine on at home all night.  It costs $0 unless I call out or
.17> someone calls in (and only a select few have the tel #).  Since I'm
    
    This was a poor choice of words on my part.

    I pay $19/month basic fee, so it costs me $0.60 per day for the
    phone, not $0.
    
    
.18> Don't you get serially-dialed telemarketing calls?
    
    Not yet, and I don't expect to.  The exchange is private to cellular
    phones in RI.  If telemarketers started dialing those with sales-
    pitches, there would be a huge public reaction.

.19> under stressful poorly lit conditions.  The 44 magnum has the stopping
.19> power all right but the bullet could penetrate a wall and go into a
.19> neighbors house or a passing car injuring innocent people.
    
    Or you could use glaser safety slugs in your large caliber pistol.
    
    Upon impact, they expend a lot of their energy in directions perpin-
    dicular to the direction of travel.

.32> I called the police recently to let them know no one would be home and
.32> they essentially said "So, what's your point?"  They basocally couldn't
    
    I have a police lieutenant next door, a sergeant a few houses down
    and across the street.
    
    They care.  That's an advantage to living in a small town.

>    I can see defending one's self and family, but sure I have to ask:

 Some of us aren't capable of determining the intent of intruders without
the benefit of a potentially fatal question and answer period. Thus the
safest reaction to an intrusion may well conclude with the termination of
said intruder. The lives of my family and indeed myself are more important
to me than that of an intruder of indeterminate motive. And if an intruder
ends up on the receiving end of a projectile, blade or blunt object, that's
the price they must pay for intruding. Obviously there will be psychological
ramifications to such an event and I hope I am never forced to experience 
such an occurrence. But you've got to be prepared to defend yourself by
whatever means necessary to eliminate harm from your family.

    RE .35:    Say what?!  Who said anything about locking up all the street
    people so homeowners could be safe?  I didn't, in the quote you refer
    to.  I said get the creeps (read criminals) off the streets. 
    
    I know, it won't happen.... too many of them, not enough prison room
    not enough money or resources to round them up etc etc.
    
    Whats so wrong with wanting to be safe in my home?  I know life is
    tough and we never will really BE safe, but its a goal to work for
    isn't it?  Not at the expense of street people either.
    
    There is a big difference between 'collecting' (you mean killing)
    the homeless, starving desperate people and attempting to get repeat
    criminals off the streets isn't there?   Come on, at least compare
    apples to apples when you 'quote' me.
    
    Jeff
    

    re. 39   "What do you own thats worth another human life?"
    
    Nothing... except my families and my life.
    
    Here is the catch.  Its one thing if you KNOW the guy coming up the
    stairs is ONLY after your possessions.  Its quite another trying to
    figure out WHAT HE WILL DO TO GET THEM.... maybe kill someone?!
    
    That unknown factor is what scares people into arming themselves.
    
    Can you understand that?
    
    Jeff

    
    >> That unknown factor is what scares people into arming themselves.
    
       Which scares the desperate novice "TV and Video" thief into arming 
       him/herself.
    
       There's a pattern developing here. Whats next ? You carry a loaded
       weapon in your car because you fear getting into a row with another 
       motorist and getting blown away ? You encourage your kids to take a 
       .44 magnum to school ? Your wife takes an AK47 to MacDonalds ? Its 
       verging on paranoia.
    
       There are alternatives to discourage the novice burgular. Good home 
       alarm system, neighbourhood watch schemes, pressure on Government to 
       improve unemployed/homeless problem to name a few.
    
       -Tony

    	Out of those countries normally regarded as civilised, the U.S. is
    about the only one to still have a death penalty, and I am told it has
    a larger proportion of the population in prison than any of the others.
    
    	If you have reason to be more frightened than the average German,
    Frenchman, Briton, ... , none of whom have handguns, then maybe you 
    should look for other ways in which your society should be changed,
    rather than just being more successful in killing burglars.

    
    There is a difference in scope of the option here.  Long term,
    one of the things that I base my political choices on is reducing
    the overall crime rate.  Short term, I base my choices on the
    equipment in my home on controlling the current local crime rate.
    When the local crime rate changes due to the the longer term stuff
    then I will change my equipment accordingly.  Anyone who comes
    through the locked door at night without ringing the bell had
    best expect the same considerations that they are showing me...

    There seems to be some degree of compassion for the intruder in
    some of the replies... I have NO compassion for anyone "intruding"
    on my family's or my safety. Maybe if we killed everyone who 
    broke into our homes/apartments/etc. they would stop intruding.
    
    /Bob

How about anyone who trespasses on our lawns to?

>How about anyone who trespasses on our lawns to?
    
    Not the same thing, but I think you knew that. I have given
    away - free for the asking - much more than has been stolen
    from me. Operative word here is 'asking'. When it comes to
    'taking', a new value system goes into effect.
    
    /Bob

re .47:

I submit that the vast number of honest and upstanding people who purchase
self-defense tools do so for reasons other than having experienced a
recently-aired rerun of Miami Vice or an overdose of hip-hop on MTV.  Some do
so because they have educated themselves.  Many do so as a result of a
real-life "close call" or worse.  I have trained a few of them myself. 

Some of "the ignorant�" pretend all criminals are just "sporting thieves" and
gentlemen, such as the wife of my Dad's best friend from the exclusive East
Side of Providence, Rhode Island, found exsanguinated and quite dead on the
kitchen floor due to a stab wound to the throat dealt by a burglar who was in
the house when the woman came home from a short errand to the supermarket.  A
trusting and carefree woman, she was.  Of course, carrying a firearm would have
been paranoid and hardly civilized.

Your so-called "developing pattern" is a red herring and a complete fabrication
of your imagination, and you know it is.  Your assertion constitutes merely
another variant of "Reefer Madness" syndrome, paranoid in itself, entirely
ludicrous and discredited long ago.  The vast, vast majority of gun owners I
know (and martial-arts experts, for that matter) are far less worried about
their own safety than those I know who are essentially defenseless, because
they have confidence in their abilities to thwart almost any attack.  In fact,
one woman recently told me that owning a firearm and learning how to use it
safely and effectively was, for her, "the final liberation -- from fear." 
Those were her exact words, and I'll never forget them. 

You refer to the "novice burgular" [sic] and suggest deterrents.  I agree with 
your first two but not with your third because it is not the State's 
constitutionally-protected or -mandated task to use money coerced from citizens 
to feed, clothe, and house people who are not working.  There are other methods
to reduce this problem.  The last time I checked, there was no clause in the 
U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights relating to or authorizing the State's
seemingly-unstoppable pursuit of the taking and redistribution of wealth.  But
I digress. 

So.  Now you've decided how to deal with the novice thief, what are your plans 
for deterring the professional burglar, or the doper, or the gangs, or the 
rapists, or the murderers, or stopping such people once they've broken down 
your door or dragged you into an alley?  Or, perhaps being lucky enough to have
lived all your life in neighborhoods in which such threats are not present,
would you care to suggest how those less fortunate than you are to deal with
such matters?  Yes, Tony, this stuff is quite real for many people.

re .50:

Although your solution is rather draconian, your point is well-illustrated by 
the town of Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta).  While violent crime 
thrives in all the surrounding communities, it is almost nonexistent in 
Kennesaw, where every household is required by law to have a firearm present.

re .48:

Have you asked yourself how many rapes, murders, and assaults of innocent
Germans, French, and British could have been prevented had those victims been 
armed?  Or do such unfortunate events not occur at all on the other side of the
puddle? 

I agree we should strive for utopia.  We should not exclude reasonable short-
term precautions, however, during our quest for a violence-free society.  
Reality is today, not tomorrow, and in the interests of self-preservation one
is well-advised to adjust his/her habits to fit present conditions.

Quiz time.  What major European country has the same law as Kennesaw, provides 
machine gun (i.e. assault weapon) and ammunition to each citizen for storage in
the home, mandates its citizens train with and completely expend all this
ammunition yearly, and has a very low violent-crime rate? 

- craig

-----
� I use the term to describe people who are unaware of recent crime statistics.
  I make no attempt to demean.

    RE: .53
    
    Well done...except for the fact that a machine gun doesn't have to be
    an assault rifle.
    
    Switzerland?
    
    Marc H.

    	Of course there are rapes and murders in Europe. Statistically, the
    vast majority are done by relatives and friends of the victim, and that
    is even if you include terrorist bombings in the statistics. We too
    had a close friend who was murdered, along with her baby daughter,
    stabbed to death with kitchen knife by a woman schoolteacher who was a
    colleague of her husband. All of the indications are that our friend
    had invited this woman in for a cup of coffee.
    
    	I don't know about murder statistics in the U.S., but I have seen
    similar rape statistics - a substantial proportion of rapists are
    relatives of the victim, and by the time you include "friends" and
    neighbours you have something like 90% of rapists.
    
    	Incidentally, Switzerland has the fastest growing crime rate in
    Europe as their unemployment rate is rising to match the rest of
    Europe. And the Swiss don't use their guns in self defence. They are so
    brainwashed into the fact that the government is only supplying them
    with the weapon for defence of the country that there are reported
    cases of Swiss men going to buy a gun to commit suicide with because
    they knew they mustn't use the government issue one in their house. The
    issue as to whether the guns they have (long barreled rifles) are
    suitable for dealing with a burglar in the house has already been
    discussed.

    
    I would not buy a gun to protect my family because I consder it, imho, to 
    ENDANGER their life, rather than protect it. If I did buy one I would be 
    encouraging and fueling the vicious circle.
    
    -tony

    re: .53
>Although your solution is rather draconian, your point is well-illustrated by 
>the town of Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta).  While violent crime 
>thrives in all the surrounding communities, it is almost nonexistent in 
>Kennesaw, where every household is required by law to have a firearm present.
    
    	This sort of indicates that the majority of criminals are capable
    of recognising some element of self interest. Europe and the U.S. use
    this in different ways. In Europe, if you don't damage someone then you
    will probably not be caught because the police are less interested; if
    you damage someone you will probably be caught and the penalty will be
    much higher.
    
    	Kennesaw has obviously just moved violent crime to the neighbouring
    communities, and I hope these neighbouring communities are grateful.
    
    	You are not going to stop crime while there is serious social
    injustice. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it was not a crime
    to steal to provide *neccessities* for yourself or direct dependants.
    To fail to steal, if that is the only solution, would be equivalent to
    commiting suicide which he maintained was the greater sin.
    
    	The European solution tends to move violent crime to non-violent
    crime (while also working on social problems). The Kennesaw solution
    tends to move violent crime to your neighbours, and that cannot be
    continued indefinitely, particularly if you try to persuade them to
    follow your example.
    
    	Unemployment of some level is neccessary to the capitalist system,
    otherwise the employers would have no bargaining point. Unemployment
    without some sort of safety net means crime - do you die from exposure
    because your clothes and housing are inadequate during the winter or do
    you die on the wrong end of a gun??      Given that sort of choice many
    people choose the wrong end of the gun even if they happen to be
    holding it themselves at the time.

    
    .57
    
    Good note!
    
    I think some of the pro-gun notes in here highlight what a sorry
    selfish state of "I'm alright Jack" we live in today.
    
    -Tony

>    I would not buy a gun to protect my family because I consder it, imho, to 
>    ENDANGER their life, rather than protect it. 
    
    I've heard this before. I've never heard it backed up with logic
    though. Do you have some? Thanks.
    
    		Alfred

    
    .59
    
    Certainly.
    
    1)  Homeowners buy firearms to protect possesions because they have no
        faith in Police.
    2)  Word gets round to small time theives (who would normally turn and 
        run a mile if confronted by a homeowner whilst they were 'on a
        job') and they carry firearms to protect themselves whilst they
        steal. 
    3)  Because both parties are armed, inevitable fatalities occur.
    4)  Goto 1).
    
    Any better ?
    -Tony

    RE: .60 If that were valid logic than there would be many more
    gun fatalities in New Hampshire where almost every house (well
    according to my local Police at least 3 quarters of homes) have
    guns than in Boston where they are rare. So there are clearly invalid
    assumptions in your logic. Try again.

    		Alfred

    Logic is not made up by assumptions Alfred, check your dictionary. If 
    you refuse to listen to reason in the first place then I won't continue 
    to waste my breath with you.
    
    -Tony

.48> a larger proportion of the population in prison than any of the others.
    
    A direct result of the War on Drugs.  We now imprison a larger %age of
    our population than any other country in the world, including China.

.60> 2)  Word gets round to small time theives (who would normally turn and 
.60>     run a mile if confronted by a homeowner whilst they were 'on a
.60>     job') and they carry firearms to protect themselves whilst they
.60>     steal. 
    
     You've been wathing too many movies.

    Tony,

>   <<< Note 77.62 by NEWOA::DALLISON "They make redundancies don't they?" >>>
>
>    Logic is not made up by assumptions Alfred, check your dictionary. If 
>    you refuse to listen to reason in the first place then I won't continue 
>    to waste my breath with you.

    Logic: Valid reasoning, esp. as distinguished from invalid or
    irrational arguments

    Valid: Founded on evidence or fact

    You are right. Logic is not based on assumptions. It is based on fact.
    Your "logic" was based on assumptions not facts and so, as you suggest
    quite correctly, your note was not based on logic. 

    Reason: To determine or conclude by logical thinking

    I'd be more than happy to listen to reason. That's all I'm looking for
    - factual supportable reason. If you are unable to present such
    I understand your not wasting your breath with me.

    		Alfred

    RE: .61

    The reason why there are more gun fatalities in Boston than in New
    Hampshire is much more closely related to the fact that Boston is a
    densely populated city while New Hampshire is a sparesly populated state.

    People in cities tend to be relatively tense while people in the country
    are usually more laid-back.

    Also, the fact that people are packed together in the city means that more
    confrontations between people are bound to occur.

    The tense atmosphere and the cramped conditions cause people to be more
    violent in the city.

    - Jim

    RE: .66 Quite right. One of my points is that other factors contribute
    far more to gun fatalities than does gun ownership.
    
    		Alfred

    At some point here I would like to see the 'bleeding hearts' admit that
    we have such a serious problem regarding home break ins with 
    murders/rapes that resisting violence with violence if there are no
    other options is appropriate.  
    
    I get the impression that some expect people to sit back and let
    themselves be victims.
    
    

>    RE: .66 Quite right. One of my points is that other factors contribute
>    far more to gun fatalities than does gun ownership.

    OK, that works for me. You're saying the number of gun-related deaths in
    Boston would not improve noticeably, if at all, if everyone had guns.

    - Jim

    Re .68: There are very few people here, bleeding-hearts or otherwise,
    who are advocating total non-resistance when threatened. There's quite
    a range of possibilities in between that and keeping a loaded gun
    handy... Heck, some kid chased off a burglar a while back by bashing
    his fingers with a baseball bat as the guy tried to climb in the
    window. Would the kid have been better off with a gun? [Some will say
    yes, some will say no - we'll never know...]
    
    Some people obviously believe that having a weapon around improves
    their odds in case they are attacked, while others obviously believe
    that if they have a weapon around it (a) may be helpful if an attacker
    breaks in, but may also be taken away and used against them, or (b) may
    be found by a visiting child and cause accidental injury, or (c) be
    stolen by a sensible burglar who visits while nobody's home, and then
    uses it to commit a crime elsewhere, or (d) cannot be used effectively
    by themselves because they are morally opposed to killing and
    understand that using a gun when you _don't_ intend to kill is a risky
    business at best. [I'm sure there are other reasons, but those bubbled
    to the top first.]
    
    Even people who firmly believe that any kind of violence, for any
    reason, is morally wrong, don't tend to sit back and let their children
    be murdered. They might interpose themselves, they might try to take
    the attacker's weapon, they might try to call for aid so that several
    of them could seize the attacker and stop him/her from doing harm.
    Sure, these things might not work, but then again, they might; and if
    that's what people believe, who are we to say, "No, you fool, you HAVE
    to kill the guy!"
    
    -b

    Re .69
    
    Jim, I would go further and suggest that the number of gun-related
    deaths in Boston might well decline if everybody had guns.  History in
    other cities (Miami, Orlando, et al.) indicates that this relationship
    is valid.

    	Holland has a higher population density than any state of the U.S.
    (I think New Jersey is the highest there). Drugs are relatively
    uncontrolled, so there are a large number of addicts. There is a large
    and varied immigrant community, varying from Indonesian to Portuguese.
    They do have gun control laws.
    
    	In fact they have everything that has been put forward as an
    explanation for a high level of violent crime.
    
    	The one thing they don't have is a large number of U.S. citizens.
    Now would anybody like to put forward an alternative explanation for
    relative violent crime rates?

Re.70

Did you notice how the discussion continued on it's predictable painful course 
seemingly totally oblivious of a well balanced, unemotional argument (.70 was
a good note).

- Paul.

>    Sure, these things might not work, but then again, they might; and if
>    that's what people believe, who are we to say, "No, you fool, you HAVE
>    to kill the guy!"

 Few people, if any, are saying "No, fool, you have to kill the guy."
The dynamics we are witnessing are completely consistent with and are
indeed rather typical of people working to secure their rights in an
emotionally and politically charged arena. What it all boils down to
is that whether you choose to prepare yourself to deal with an intruder
or not is nearly irrelevant� to me. Just let me prepare myself in the
manner of my choosing. That's all. If it takes a handgun to make me
feel secure, then I want to be able to exercise my right to own one
and keep it where it can do me some good.

 The Doctah

 � Of course, if more people had handguns and were trained and inclined
to use them against interlopers, the incidence of such intrusions would
plummet. And in that way, what you do affects me.

    RE: .72
    
    If you are trying to put Holland up as the way a nation should be,
    you'll have a mightly hard time convincing people.
    
    Marc H.

    Re .74:  Well, the remark that triggered _my_ remark seemed to be very
    close to the line - if not, "You have to kill the guy," at least "if
    you _don't_ agree that you should consider some form of violent defense
    against attackers, then you're just going to lie back and let criminals
    destroy you." It did not seem to me to be directed at people who
    were trying to limit gun ownership by others, so much as at people who
    chose not to use them themselves. [Though I also agree that the reason
    the issue is so hot is what you mention - many people believe that, in
    the long run, reducing the number of guns in private hands will tend to
    save lives, so they want to legislate that reduction. I'm not confident
    of this myself, but don't feel strongly enough about it to lobby one
    way or the other.]
    
    -b

    	I thought I had admitted that Holland has every disadvantage that
    is claimed here to cause a high level of violent crime. It *is*
    overcrowded, has lots of drug addicts, ..., but it doesn't have a lot
    of violent crime compared with the U.S..
    
    	I was just asking what was the compensating factor that accounts
    for this relatively low crime rate. I tongue in cheek suggested less
    Americans there, I could have suggested the much higher consumption of
    raw herrings. If there is no compensating factor then we have to
    conclude that all of the above factors are irrelevant to the level of
    violent crime, and we still have to find out what is relevant.
    
    	Now, maybe if all Americans were forced to wear clogs?...

    RE: .72 I believe there are a number of factors contribution the the
    rates of crime and safety in any country. I believe that population
    density is one. I believe that the ethnic mix is an other (not what
    ethnic groups so much as what the mix is and how  those groups get 
    along.) I believe that economics plays a big part. I also believe that
    things like education (type and level) plays a part. Also the political
    structure, the historical culture and values, and peoples general
    attitudes play a part. There is no one factor that one can look at. I
    have a degree in sociology and one thing that taught me is that these
    issues are complex with multiple factors to consider.

    However, I do believe that the issues around gun availability are almost
    insignificant compared to any of the issues listed above and many others in
    determining the crime rate or even gun crime rate. Evidence in the US
    seems to support my contention.

    			Alfred

    	One difference between the US and Holland might be the price of
    drugs.  I'm told that drugs are rather pricey in the US.  If the
    dollar figures that the cops put out when they sieze drugs have any
    connection with reality, then this is probably so.  If the average
    druggie has to steal ten times as many toasters in the US to support
    his predilection, then we'll probably have ten times as many intrusions
    into homes as we would if the price were one tenth as high.
    	Does anyone have any idea what the relative prices of drugs are
    between the US and Holland.  I looked in the Wall Street Journal under
    commodity prices and there were no listings.
    					John
    

re .77
I'll go with forcing people to have an open attitude to smoking a little 
dope now and again.  Maybe decriminalise it or something so the attitudes
aren't so negative and then allow a gentle business to run making a 
relaxing spliff affordable to most people to get them a little less hyped up, 
a little more laid back and hopefully a little more at peace with the world.... 

Then again maybe people that hyped up and not at peace with each other 
to start with would probably just get paranoid and panicked when they 
felt their defenses dropping and shoot each other either way  :-)

(Of course making sure particularly addictive or agression inducing drugs
which might encourage theft to supply the habit or violence are policed far
more!)


jo

    There once was a king who lived in a Fairy Tale castle.He didnt keep
    any guns as he felt this would endanger his loved ones.
    
    Then one stormy night three wise men arrived on crack and stole all his
    money,raped his wife and left in his car which was later found burnt
    out a few miles away and they all lived happily ever after.
    
    PS The police arrived later,much later !!!!.
    
    When the King saw the police officer he asked what is that shiney
    object in the wholster arround your waist.
    "Oh thats a gun"replied the officer.
    "Its for protecting our selves against wise men"
    
    Hows that for logic ??
    
    
    

    	I didn't see a police officer with a gun until I visited the U.S.
    embassy at the age of 19!

    	Yes, Europe does have violent crime.
    
    RTw  06/29 1713  BRITONS JAILED FOR RAPING CHILDREN

    LONDON, Reuter - A Briton who raped and assaulted seven girls and boys
    in his own family was jailed for life Tuesday by a judge who called him
    a monster.

    Two other men from the family were also jailed for rape and the mother
    of some of the children was found guilty of joining in incestuous,
    "intergenerational sexual abuse" with the young victims, including one
    so neglected she was known as Cinderella.

    "This is about as dreadful a case as I have ever encountered," judge
    Brian Capstick told the four, among them the 67-year-old grandfather of
    some of the children.

    All members of an extended family, they were variously convicted of
    buggery, rape, indecent assault and child cruelty between 1978 and
    1989. They denied the charges.

    "Cinderella" was sexually abused by her own grandfather who was
    imprisoned for four years, by her 41-year-old stepfather who was jailed
    for life and by his brother-in-law, 31, who received a 12-year
    sentence.

    Before the girl was nine she was forced to work, was barely fed and
    clothed and her mother made her walk the streets in a nightdress
    searching for cigarette ends, prosecutors said.

    Her mother, 29, often drunk, was present when other children were
    abused and forced to watch obscene videos, and joined in when her own
    niece was indecently assaulted, they said.

    She was jailed for 18 months. None of the four can be named to protect
    their victims, some of whom are now adults.

    REUTER
    

>    	I didn't see a police officer with a gun until I visited the U.S.
>    embassy at the age of 19!

	I didn't see airport security forces armed with machineguns until I
	visited Europe (Italy) at age 21. Still haven't seen it at US airports.

			Alfred 

    	It seems it's probably just a problem of different needs. In Italy
    there have been cases of terrorists machine-gunning queues of tourists
    waiting for an Israeli airlines plane (El-Al). In the U.S. you get
    murderous burglars against whom you need defence.
    
    	I am not sure why you get murderous burglars and not terrorists,
    but from the sounds of recent events you may be in for both. I have
    seen guns in U.S. airports, but I wouldn't have the technological
    knowlege to recognise what type. Does it make a difference? Those
    British police who are permitted to handle a gun have to spend a very
    substantial amount of time in regular training, and I am not sure the
    same is required of every U.S. citizen who is permitted to handle a
    gun. There are certainly a lot more U.S. police accidents with guns
    than U.K. police accidents.
    
    	The whole concept in the U.S. seems to derive from medi�val
    England, where every able-bodied man was required to have bow and
    arrows and spend every Sunday afternoon practising. Since the
    technology of warfare (and even crime) has changed I wonder if it
    wouldn't be more relevant to require the playing of certain computer
    games on a Sunday afternoon - such as guiding cruise missiles.

Re.81 

Sounds like the logic of an American who's pro-gun - 'Don't tread on me' !

I've been trying to gather some facts and figures from the Autrian, German
and British consulates here in Munich concerning the number of and type of
Gun licences available and crime statistics. All have been slow in responding
but very polite. The Austrians and Germans have referred me to their national
statistics office, the Brits said they didn't have that information available
and I should contact my local police station in the UK.

Within Germany and Austria the laws are very extensive and detailed as to the
purchase, storing and the use of Guns (sporting or otherwise). I've visited
a number of shops here in Munich which sell guns and I visisted on in Vienna,
Austria (which can be found in the middle of the cities shopping precinct by
the Cathedral i.e. it's VERY accessible to everybody). The assistant was very
guarded with his answers to my questions but he did tell me that although the
law does provide (for example) the possibility to obtain a licence to carry you
would have to be either very rich or know somebody in powerful places to obtain
one i.e. not likely.

The other thing I've been doing lately is scanning papers, watching the news etc
(both national and regional) to see how regularly shootings, rapes etc are 
reported. With the exception of the recent assaults on Turks (which I take to be 
an exceptional rather than normal case) nothing. No crimes committed where guns 
were involved (even the Mollingen and Sollingen attacks did not involve guns). 
Some (I've counted 4 reported cases so far) neo-Nazi arms caches have been 
grabbed by the Police. But that's about it.

You also don't see Turks or Germans arming themselves against the rising number
of attacks of foreigners - and nobody has even suggested that that is a reasonable
course of action.

You also don't see the British people arming themselves against attacks by
terrorist groups which operate in and around our Islands. The Economist reported
that they are disturbed by the rising number of drug traffickers who have guns
and are looking at ways of stemming the tide. Arming the population was not
one of the proposals.

- Paul.

>You also don't see Turks or Germans arming themselves against the rising number
>of attacks of foreigners - and nobody has even suggested that that is a reasonable
>course of action.
    
    Why not? Especially given the very poor job the Police are able to do
    in providing protection.
    
    			Alfred

    >I have
>    seen guns in U.S. airports, but I wouldn't have the technological
>    knowlege to recognise what type. Does it make a difference?

    Yes, it makes a big difference. If security were to be seen in US
    airports with machine guns there would be a huge outcry. Just the 
    step from a hand gun to a rifle is a big one in  terms of police use
    or self protection in public. To go to automatic weapons would likely
    cause panic in many US areas. As it is I've talked to a number of 
    American tourists who've gotten quite nervous in European airports but
    who are quite used to seeing hand guns on Police.

    		Alfred

>You also don't see the British people arming themselves against attacks by
>terrorist groups which operate in and around our Islands.

Which is probably as well otherwise given the strength of feeling after 
the IRA attacks we'd probably not have many good old Irish pubs left.

It's bad enough when people get away with anonymously beating someone up
for something nothing to do with them or even verbally abusing - I think
if it weren't illegal to be out and about with a gun in your possesion 
there'd be a hell of a lot of dead people with Irish accents/names.

    	Again, I suppose it's what you are used to. I know that
    theoretically a gun with a long barrel is more likely to be accurate
    than one with a short barrel, so provided the person who has it has no
    reason to point it at me I am happier with the long barreled types.
    
    	Actually, I do know of three gun-related incidents in Valbonne. In
    every case it was a long hunting gun, for which it is fairly easy to
    get a licence. There is a lot of wild boar hunting in this area.
    
    	In the first case, several shots were fired late one
    night through the front window of an estate agency (realtor for our
    U.S. friends) which happened to belong to the mayor of Valbonne. There 
    were no witnesses, nobody was injured, and the criminal was never caught.
    
    	In the second case, one morning in the local bar someone who had
    just been eliminated in the elections for mayor walked in. He accused
    one of the other failed candidates who was eating his morning coffee
    and croissantes of welshing on some sort of election deal, and then
    shot him dead. Everybody in the bar knew both men personally, so that
    didn't remain an unsolved crime for long.
    
    	In the third case, again in a local bar, and in fact with several
    DECies present, a couple of them personal friends of mine, a lad walked
    in with a gun and demanded money. Everyone dived for the floor (except
    those who were too drunk) so he couldn't find anyone to unlock the
    till. To emphasise his point he fired at the ceiling, but hadn't
    allowed for the fact that it was mirrors, which shattered, giving him
    minor cuts. At that point he panicked and ran out. My friends needed
    several more drinks to revive their shattered nerves.
    
    	I am not sure what moral this may have with regard to gun
    ownership. This is all the gun incidents I know of within (say) a ten
    mile radius of here in the last 12 years, and I am not sure that either
    more or less guns would have affected the outcome in any of the cases. 
    It does have a moral about getting involved with politics.

Alfred,

You can't fault the German Police. The perpetrators are not organised in any way,
meaning to say there's no master-plan being worked on by a national group of
neo-Nazis. The attacks are sporadic incidents by frustrated, mis-guided, 16-22
something years of age, unemployed, yobs. 

As opposed to taking the armed approach the German people are trying to 
understand and resolve the problem through discussion and democracy. Through 
politics the Turkish people are involved in this process which brings the two 
sides closer together.

Guns aren't the answer to a problem which lies in the law, the constitution, and
the hearts and minds of the people.

- Paul.

* Ken Charles Barger, 47, accidentally shot himself to
death in December in Newton, N. C., when, awakening to
the sound of a ringing telephone beside his bed, he
reached for the phone but grabbed instead a Smith &
Wesson .38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to
his ear. [Hickory Daily Record, 12-21-92] 

Now, my view on all this.  The previous item, though some may laugh at it,
demonstrates a very real problem caused by those who keep guns in the
house for "protection".  In order for the gun to be of any use, it needs to
be kept loaded and readily available - if someone breaks into your house and
starts attacking your wife, are you going to ask him to wait while you locate
the keys to your separate lockers for the gun and ammunition?  Not very
likely.  I believe that indeed most people who keep guns for "protection"
leave them loaded and accessible.

Now we have the problem that there's a loaded gun around the house.  If kids
are in the house, one of them is likely to find it and either shoot themselves
or someone else (many documented cases of this happening).  Also, if there's
an argument, it's very easy (and all too common) for one of the parties to
pull out the gun and threaten the other with it.  A lot of "domestic violence"
shootings happen this way.  And it's also easy (and again there are many
such cases) of mistaking a family member for a burglar and shooting them.
And I have read that even when confronting an intruder, having a gun means
that it is more likely that I will get shot or hurt than the intruder.

I do not deny that a loaded gun has the potential to be an effective
deterrent to crime.  But my belief is that it has a MUCH GREATER potential
to contribute to an accidental shooting of myself or someone I love.  Like
in any other aspect of life, I have to weigh the risks, and I come down on
the side of the gun being more harm than good.  Therefore I do not have
and will not allow guns in my home.  I will defend myself, my loved ones and
my property as best as I can - I don't need a gun for courage.

Others have to make their own decision, though I can't help but believe that
many who keep loaded guns handy are doing so more to satisfy some inner
emotional need than as realistic protection against a credible threat.
I would urge those who do keep guns to keep them locked up, if nothing else
than in a locked drawer to which you keep the key separate.  And if you have
children, please think twice if not thrice about keeping guns where kids
can possibly get at them.  

				Steve

re:      <<< Note 77.93 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>I believe that indeed most people who keep guns for "protection"

I do, plus for sport... my kids have all handled my guns, ages 9-15.

>leave them loaded and accessible.

I don't. I agree with you on the added risks that causes. On the 'night in
question' that I previously described I had to get the key, unlock the gun
case, get out the 12 gauge (not the .22 mag.), go to the closet, get the
shells, and load up. It took maybe 60-90 seconds to do that.

I may not be ready for every possible intruder or problem situation, but I
consider this a good compromise that allows for protection in many
situations while avoiding 'accidents'.

 Your beliefs are not grounded in reality. They are grounded in fear and
a false sense of superiority, and I find myself thoroughly disgusted.

    re .93
    	I think a lot of what you are saying reflects what you see and hear
    in the news.  You never hear about the much greater number of cases
    where a gun is drawn, and the baddie leaves quietly.  Incidents like
    that just aren't sufficiently interesting to be news.
    	Similarly you will only hear about cases where kids are injured
    accidently.  You claim that it is "likely" that kids will be injured if
    there is a loaded gun in the house.  In my opinion the chance of this
    happening is vanishingly small, especially if the kids are properly
    educated.  However, the news of any such injury is likely to be
    reported over a multi-state area making it appear that such incidents
    are much more common than is actually the statistical case.
    	Gun control advocates often use rather bogus statistics when trying
    to push their case.  One that they often use is to include 19 year olds
    who are legal adults in most respects as children.  The reason is that
    if they were to use 18 or some more usual age as the cutoff, their
    statistics would fall flat.  Using 19 means that they could (dunno
    whether they do) use some american casualties from Desert Storm to
    justify their agenda.
    	In news as well as in notes it is a good idea to carefully separate
    anecdotes and statistics.
    						John
    

	RE: .93 That's largely how I feel about alcohol which is, IMHO, a much
	greater threat to health and safety. But which for some reason is 
	vastly under regulated.

			Alfred

    re .93, well, Steve, I totally agree with you.  You expressed just
    about exactly the way I feel, too, especially the part about owning
    guns satisfying an inner emotional need that some people seem to have.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .93
    
    Fine...no problem at all. Just let me make the decision.
    
    Marc H.

I find one particular term Steve used to be a 'loaded' term which indicates
an emotional rather than a reasoned approach to the issue:

"I will defend myself, my loved ones and
my property as best as I can - I don't need a gun for courage."

That's a slur, Steve, upon those who will defend their families with 
guns; a throwback to the machismo tradition of slighting another man's
courage to imply superiority of your approach.  Its a vile usage and I
think less of your position for it.

DougO

Re: .99

I didn't say anything about preventing you from making the decision.  But
there are others who would suggest (indeed, it was reported that it was
required in one community) that I have a gun in my house.   I applaud those
such as Darryl (.94) who are aware of the risks and have taken reasonable
steps to avoid them.  But "buy a gun" is not the universal solution to
stop crime or assaults, and the gun advocates who push this position are
not doing any favors.

Re: .95, .96

Mark, you say my fears are not grounded in reality?  Are you denying that
the sort of accidents I describe happen?

John, I read a lot more than the Telegraph.  I have read of many cases where
6-year-olds (and even those younger) have found "Daddy's gun" and played
with it as if it were a toy, shooting themselves or their playmates.  It
happens!  All I am asking is that those who keep guns do so responsibly,
and that guns not be pushed onto those who don't want them or who are not
willing to take the precautions which can reduce the risks.

I also object to those "gun lovers" who automatically lash out against anyone
who expresses a negative opinion about guns.  If more people were like
Darryl says he is, there would be many fewer problems and less
reactionary behavior.

					Steve

Re: .100

I suppose you have a point, Doug, but I believe that there are many who do
treat a gun exactly that way.  That comment was a response to the "everyone
should have a gun" position which I have seen spread throughout this topic
(and elsewhere).

			Steve

    RE: .102
    
    Some people also use high end audio to make up for a lack of "manhood".
    Some people use kilowatt ham amps to make up for a lack of "manhood".
    
    I believe your point about guns is wrong...but....thats your right.
    Just let me make my own decision ( general comment....).
    
    Marc H.

    The number of kids who accidently shoot themselves or others with
    'daddys gun' is alarmingly high if I remember my statistics right....
    something on the order of 3 kids per DAY in the U.S..
    
    I agree that educating kids about gun safety is a step in the right
    direction but I don't think its enough to insure safety.  Kids are
    kids, and kids have a way of breaking the rules.
    
    I believe that anybody with an operable gun in the house who also
    has kids who live in or visit the house MUST keep their gun(s)
    and ammo locked up.  Anything short of that is risking peoples
    lives.
    
    There IS a problem with being ready for an intruder (loaded gun by
    bedside) vs. safety.  The odds of needing the gun on any given
    night are low..... having a loaded gun around IS risky for the reasons
    others have cited.  The compromise is to keep the gun locked up, BUT
    that costs time.  If you wake up with an intruder upstairs with you
    its too late.... no time to load up.
    
    Another issue is whether you want to be ABLE to shoot an intruder.  If
    your not sure you can live with having shot an intruder you better not
    keep that loaded gun by your bedside.
    
    Someone mentioned a well alarmed house.... thats not a bad compromise.
    It affords safety at night (warning) without risking anybodies life.
    
    Jeff

Re Note 77.104 SALEM::GILMAN

>    There IS a problem with being ready for an intruder (loaded gun by
>    bedside) vs. safety.  The odds of needing the gun on any given
>    night are low..... having a loaded gun around IS risky for the reasons
>    others have cited.  The compromise is to keep the gun locked up, BUT
>    that costs time.  If you wake up with an intruder upstairs with you
>    its too late.... no time to load up.
    
	-OR- you could add 'gun' to the list of nitely chores you go
	through just before bed: let the dog out, set up the coffee pot,
	get the gun, let the dog in, etc. In the morning, lock the gun up.
	

	/Bob

    >    The number of kids who accidently shoot themselves or others with
>    'daddys gun' is alarmingly high if I remember my statistics right....
>    something on the order of 3 kids per DAY in the U.S..

    I'd like a source because I don't think you are even close. That rate
    is higher than the total number of kids killed by guns let alone kids
    shooting kids. Other items which kill more kids than guns do include
    swimming pools and bicycles.

>    I believe that anybody with an operable gun in the house who also
>    has kids who live in or visit the house MUST keep their gun(s)
>    and ammo locked up.  Anything short of that is risking peoples
>    lives.

    I agree. My guns are always locked up. As is the ammo. Protection at 
    home isn't why I own guns. Though I would use them for that if need
    be. On the other hand if people who don't own guns trained their
    children as much as people who do we'd all have a lot less to worry
    about.

    			Alfred

      <<< Note 77.93 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>In order for the gun to be of any use, it needs to
>be kept loaded and readily available 

Steve,
	Quite true.

>I believe that indeed most people who keep guns for "protection"
>leave them loaded and accessible.

	Can't speak for "most" people, but in our house this is certainly
	true.

>Now we have the problem that there's a loaded gun around the house.  

	This is not a "problem". By itself and left untouched a loaded
	gun is no more than an oddly shaped paperweight.

>If kids
>are in the house, one of them is likely to find it and either shoot themselves
>or someone else (many documented cases of this happening). 

	Please define the term "likely". There are 200 million firearms in
	70 million households in the US. There are roughly 1200 accidental
	deaths attributed to firearms (all ages) in a year. Even if we
	assume that all the deaths were children in the home (they are not),
	we are looking at a incidence of .0017% (17 ten thousandanths of 1%).
	To my way of thinking this does not constitute the correct use of
	the term "likely".

> Also, if there's
>an argument, it's very easy (and all too common) for one of the parties to
>pull out the gun and threaten the other with it.  A lot of "domestic violence"
>shootings happen this way. 

	Again, we need a definition of "common". Murders among family members
	make up about 30% of the total. Of course not all of these crimes
	are committed with firearms.

> And it's also easy (and again there are many
>such cases) of mistaking a family member for a burglar and shooting them.

	See the accident stats above.

>And I have read that even when confronting an intruder, having a gun means
>that it is more likely that I will get shot or hurt than the intruder.

	You have read incorrect information spread by the pro-control
	crowd. They use a very interesting stat. They compare the number
	of murders  against the number of criminals killed by armed citizens
	in order to "prove" that guns are ineffective in preventing crime.
	You can see where the problem lies with this comparison. It assumes
	that the only crimes that were stopped resulted in the death of the
	criminal. In reality most instances do not even involve firing the
	gun at all.

>But my belief is that it has a MUCH GREATER potential
>to contribute to an accidental shooting of myself or someone I love.  

	Your belief is incorrect. Firearms are used 650,000 times per
	year to prevent a crime. Compare this to the 1200 accidental deaths
	per year and you can easily see that guns have a far greater potential
	for  stopping a crime than being involved in an accidental death.

>I will defend myself, my loved ones and
>my property as best as I can - I don't need a gun for courage.

	How you choose to defend yourself or your family is, of course,
	your choice. If your choice is to utilize a less effective means
	of protection simply because you are uneducated about firearms,
	then possibly you should seek more (and accurate) information and
	at least make an educated choice. You can still choose a "non-gun"
	route, but at least your decision will not be made out of ignorance.

>Others have to make their own decision, though I can't help but believe that
>many who keep loaded guns handy are doing so more to satisfy some inner
>emotional need than as realistic protection against a credible threat.

	Police response time in our neighborhood averages 20 minutes (this
	to several calls we have had to make, including a prowler at 3:00
	AM). If someone was truly interested in doing harm, the only thing
	the deputy is going to do is take a report.

>I would urge those who do keep guns to keep them locked up, 

	As you pointed out earlier, the usefulness of a defensive firearm
	is determined to a large degree by it's availibility. Currently
	there are 3 loaded firearms in our house, mine (Winchester lever
	action in .45 Long Colt), my wife's (a S&W .45ACP) and my daughter's
	(.22 revolver). In the several years that we have had this situation
	no one has been harmed by any of these guns.

>And if you have
>children, please think twice if not thrice about keeping guns where kids
>can possibly get at them.  

	It would be better to teach firearms safety to the children for a couple
	of reasons. One, they can (and will) learn to defeat measures to secure
	the guns. Two, they may come across a gun outside your home. 

	A good rule of thumb is that you can not "child-proof" a gun, but
	you can "gun-proof" a child.

Jim

     <<< Note 77.102 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>That comment was a response to the "everyone
>should have a gun" position which I have seen spread throughout this topic
>(and elsewhere).

Steve,	Could you please point to a note by an anti-controller that advocates
	that "everyone" should have a gun? I've been involved in this discussion
	for many years and in many forums and have never seen this argument
	made by anyone arguing the anti-control side.

	I HAVE seen folks say that "anyone" who WANTS a gun (with limitations
	for convicted felons, etc.) should have the right to own one. But
	of course that is not the same thing.

Jim

                      <<< Note 77.104 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

>    The number of kids who accidently shoot themselves or others with
>    'daddys gun' is alarmingly high if I remember my statistics right....
>    something on the order of 3 kids per DAY in the U.S..
 
Jeff,	That's 1095 per year. Even if the stat is correct (and it seems 
	awfully high given the "scenario" describedf, it truly is
	an insignificant percentage considering the opportunities for 
	such accidents.
   
>    I believe that anybody with an operable gun in the house who also
>    has kids who live in or visit the house MUST keep their gun(s)
>    and ammo locked up.  Anything short of that is risking peoples
>    lives.
 
	I disagree. I "gun-proofed" my daughter at the age of 6. She has
	had "her own" gun since age 9. She is now 13.

>The odds of needing the gun on any given
>    night are low..... having a loaded gun around IS risky for the reasons
>    others have cited.  

	If the odds of a break in in any given year are higher than .0017%
	(see my previous reply) then the "odds" favor NOT locking the gun
	up.

>    Someone mentioned a well alarmed house.... thats not a bad compromise.
>    It affords safety at night (warning) without risking anybodies life.
 
	There is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea or the concept of
	having large dogs (we have 2 that go over 100 pounds) or any other
	security measures you can take. This is the concept of "layered 
	defense". All many of us are saying is that a firearm is a viable
	last layer.
	
Jim

Re: .108

I interpret .50 that way.  The Kennesaw, GA law mentioned in .53 is
another.

			Steve

     <<< Note 77.110 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>


>I interpret .50 that way.  The Kennesaw, GA law mentioned in .53 is
>another.

Steve,	.50 does not even mention firearms. You will admit that there 
	are other methods besides firearms that can be used to kill,
	will you not?

	 .53 simply reports the experience of the Kennesaw residents. Is 
	simple reporting of facts actually what you consider as advocating 
	that everyone be armed? This seems a little thin to me.

	It should be noted that the Kennesaw ordinance has never been enforced,
 	but the publicity ALONE had a dramatic effect on crime.

Jim

    
    I feel really sorry for you guys that have to live in this fashion,
    ie surrounded by guns. I think that real efforts should be made to
    gradually disarm all societies. I realise that in some, like yours,
    this has to be done in a manner where the innocent public are not left
    exposed to armed criminals. Surely this has to be the dream of the
    future, rather than one where everyone carries a gun.
    
    1200 accidental deaths - insignificant? Come on!
    
    Archie.
    PS I live in Scotland and in the area where I live, I don't have to
    lock my car at night. Still, maybe that's a comment about my car! 8-)
    

Steve, 

Good note and I agree with your stance. 

I heard that last year of 12,000 shootings claimed in the name of self-defence
(and I don't know if the result of those shootings was death or injury) some 
250 were ruled 'justified' (SRC: CNN Special Report). Which in my opinion calls
into question the use of a gun in self-defence situations. A gun (although not
all types of gun) represent the very real possibility of using extreme force in
situations which might not justify the use of such force (ie. it's a little
heavy handed). 

However, I do agree and uphold an individuals right to self-defence. I do
agree that particular types of gun, in trained hands, present a viable means of
defending oneself.

What I object to (and it's my impression that some members of the pro-gun lobby
fanatically pursue this approach) is that many types of gun and a large assort-
ment of other types of weapon are also available and that this choice is 
defended by hiding behind aspects of the constitution.

- Paul

>Mark, you say my fears are not grounded in reality?  Are you denying that
>the sort of accidents I describe happen?

 You believe that a gun is more likely to cause harm to a family member
than to thwart an attack. There is no factual basis for that belief. Your
perception is incorrect. Yes, there are tragedies that happen every year.
But there are many, many more instances where guns prevent crimes.

 Your belief that gun owners are satisfying some inner emotional need
is (typically) arrogant and reeks of a (false) sense of moral superiority.

 I believe your position on guns is a result of the standard combination
of fear and ignorance that so typifies those who oppose guns.

 Doug hit upon the point that most annoys me about your position. It's not
that you are anti-gun. It's your attitude and the way you so cavalierly
slur gun owners. Your opinion is not respectful, nor is it respectable.

    >    I feel really sorry for you guys that have to live in this fashion,
>    ie surrounded by guns. I think that real efforts should be made to
>    gradually disarm all societies. I realise that in some, like yours,
>    this has to be done in a manner where the innocent public are not left
>    exposed to armed criminals. Surely this has to be the dream of the
>    future, rather than one where everyone carries a gun.

    Most people don't "have" to be surrounded by guns. I don't lock my cars
    at night either BTW. There are a lot of other uses for guns than self
    protection. I'd hate to see sporting equipment banned. I really enjoy
    my time shooting - both at the range and less formally. (BTW I don't
    believe that a gun without sporting use has ever been made. If it
    shoots and is safe to the user it can be used for recreation.)

    The dream of the future is that people don't have to carry guns out of
    fear but are allowed to carry them if they want. Personally, for
    someone like myself who is not physically imposing, being threatened
    by a large powerful person is not my dream for the future.

    >    1200 accidental deaths - insignificant? Come on!

    Things are relative. Compared to the number of people killed by smoking
    and drinking the number killed by gun accidents is small. Also in the
    US at least gun accidents are decreasing (in number and in rate) while
    the number of guns goes up. I must admit that I often have serious
    doubts about the sincerity of people who say their reason for gun laws
    is safety but who would object to similar restrictions on smoking
    and/or drinking. The argument that "prohibition didn't work" argues
    against gun bans as much as it argues against alcohol bans.

    			Alfred

    re: .115
>   The argument that "prohibition didn't work" argues
>   against gun bans as much as it argues against alcohol bans.
    
    	Not quite. A 12-year old kid can make beer or wine with just a
    recipe book and kitchen equipment. Most adults could make an effective
    still with ordinary domestic items from any hardware shop.
    
    	How many people would obtain guns and ammunition if their sale was
    very strictly controlled, and illegal imports were going at the same
    price per kilo as imports of heroin? I doubt if even the enthusiastic 
    adult would make his own, in general.
    
    	I admit you have an enormous problem to reduce the number of guns,
    with (from what someone quoted earlier) approximately one gun for every
    man, woman and child in the country. Maybe controlling ammunition would
    work?

>    	Not quite. A 12-year old kid can make beer or wine with just a
>    recipe book and kitchen equipment. Most adults could make an effective
>    still with ordinary domestic items from any hardware shop.
    
    Guns are easier. 
    
    			Alfred

    Re .116
    
    As Alfred says, it's easier to make a gun than it is to make booze.
    
    At the age of 12 or so I could - and did - make a gun from a bit of
    iron pipe, a pipe plug, and a bit of wood for a stock.  My gun used
    firecrackers for propellant, and it was capable of throwing a glass
    marble 1500 feet - quite adequate to kill someone nearby.  It was not a
    rapid-fire weapon, but I could have made several of them as easily had
    I desired.  I had no plans or instructions to which I worked, just the
    idea of what a gun is and does.
    
    The US Army has a field manual that describes hundreds of ways to make
    guns, grenades, land mines, and the explosives to power them, all from
    found materials such as pipe and wood and paper matches.  Some of this
    (and other similar) information is widely available on many computer
    bulletin boards of the sort that teenagers frequent.

     <<< Note 77.112 by KIRKTN::AMILLAR "And some late news just in..." >>>
>                                 -< Guns kill >-

	A lot of folks make this statement. We see it most in the media.
	When my daughter was 7 we happened to be watching a segment of
	60 Minutes that was doing a report on older folks that had decided
	to end their lives. One portion of this report was about a couple
	that had decided to go out together. They decided to use a revolver.
	The husband shot his wife (while she held the gun to her head) but
	was unable to complete the pact when the gun's recoil pulled it out
	of his hand and it landed under a couch that he could not move.

	Mike Wallace started one part of the report by saying "The gun that
	killed Mrs. Mumble.......". Christina looked up at me, and with all
	the wisdom of her years said "I thought her husband killed her".

	We decided to try an experiment. I brought out a revolver, loaded
	it with 6 rounds and laid it on the coffee table. We then watched the
	rest of the show. About 20 minutes later Christina once again looked
	up and asked "Are you dead yet?". We decided that guns generally do
	not do anything besides lay where you put them.

	Curious that a 7 year old is a fair amount brighter than your average
	network "news" journalist.

    
>    1200 accidental deaths - insignificant? Come on!
 
	Out of a population of 250 million, yes it is. Accidental gun deaths
	rank 17th on the list of causes of accidental death in the US. Cars,
	of course, are number one. If the pro-controller were REALLY interested
	in reducing the number of accidental deaths they would have 16 other
	areas to pursue BEFORE they would need to address the gun issue.

	The fact that they focus on guns tells us that their motivation is 
	NOT the saving of lives.

Jim

       <<< Note 77.116 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>

>    	How many people would obtain guns and ammunition if their sale was
>    very strictly controlled, 
 

	Well we could look at a country that has RIGID controls and see
	what kind of results they have experienced.

	The UK has rigid controls. The number of crimes committed with 
	guns in the UK last year DOUBLED. I don't beleive that this
	constitutes "success". Do you?

>I doubt if even the enthusiastic 
>    adult would make his own, in general.

	You would be wrong. Heigh School kids in NYC have been making
	"zip guns" (usually one-shot small caliber) for years. It's 
	not that difficult.

>Maybe controlling ammunition would
>    work?

	Producing ammunition is even easier than producing a homemade gun.
	Note that I reload (make) my own ammo (it's cheaper than buying 
	factory made).


Jim

    	The reason that our constitution recognizes our right to keep and
    bear arms has little to do with defense against criminals.  It has a
    lot to do with concern about governments not being trustworthy.  
    	The number of people accidently killed with guns in this country
    pales in comparison with the number killed in Europe by governments. 
    From the present genocide in Yugoslavia, to the 6,000,000 killed by
    Hitler to the various atrocities performed by the British government
    like the Glencoe massacre and some of the activities in Ireland from
    1916 to the present.
    	It may be paranoid, but i would just as soon not become accustomed
    to being occupied by a foreign or domestic tyanny every 50 years or so. 
    I don't think that it is particularly civilized to have an occupying
    force treat me, my property and my loved ones as their property.  And,
    yes I do think that the recent events in Idaho and Waco are a
    disturbing sighn that our government may be starting to achieve the
    same level of civilization that european governments from time to time
    reach.
    						John
    		

    re .112, I agree that the dream of the future would be a society where
    nobody wanted a gun.  You are so lucky to live in Scotland.  I spent
    only 3 weeks there, 2 yrs. ago, and I loved it.  I admit I was only
    there a short time, but I think, on average, people are nicer to each
    other in Scotland than they are in the U.S.  Of course, it is a much
    smaller country, with less ethnic diversity, and is more rural, with an
    apparently slower pace of life (except on the highways!), so that
    probably makes it easier to be nice.
    
    re .119, actually, the only thing you've proven to me is that you've
    successfully brainwashed your 7 yr. old.
    
    Lorna
    

           <<< Note 77.122 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "wandering spirit" >>>

>    re .119, actually, the only thing you've proven to me is that you've
>    successfully brainwashed your 7 yr. old.
 
Lorna,	If education of our children is to be considered "brainwashing"
	I truly fear for the futire of our society.

Jim
    

    Re .122
    
    Depends on whose viewpoint, doesn't it?  From Jim's viewpoint it
    appears that someone might have successfully brainwashed you.
    
    To elaborate a little.  It is not brainwashing to teach someone respect
    for guns - or for cars, airplanes, sewing machines, flatirons, or any
    other object that has the potential to cause harm if misused.  Bathtubs
    are involved in far more injury-producing accidents than guns are - so
    we should make possession of a bathtub illegal, right?  No, I don't
    think so.  We should instruct our children in the proper use of a
    bathtub.  The same thing applies to guns.  As Jim has pointed out, you
    cannot get rid of all the guns and you cannot child-proof a gun.  So
    the only responsible course, given this reality, is to gun-proof the
    child.  Why is this such a difficult concept?

>Why is this such a difficult concept?

 The terrible twosome: fear and ignorance. Killed more people then every
gun ever conceived...

    Well, I can't help but wonder if Jim has taught his child to respect
    the viewpoints of people who would not allow a gun on their coffee
    table.  Or, does his child, at age 7, already have a negative viewpoint
    of those that prefer to go through life unarmed?
    
    Lorna
    

           <<< Note 77.126 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "wandering spirit" >>>

>    Well, I can't help but wonder if Jim has taught his child to respect
>    the viewpoints of people who would not allow a gun on their coffee
>    table.  Or, does his child, at age 7, already have a negative viewpoint
    of those that prefer to go through life unarmed?


	She has been taught to respect others until such time that they
	prove that they do not deserve respect. 

	She has friends whose families do not own guns. So do I for that
	matter. In fact, my wife's sister will not allow guns in her home,
	but she doesn't have any particular problem visiting our home.

	Christina dearly loves her Aunt and enjoys her company, the issue
	of armed or unarmed doesn't even enter into the equation

	By labeling the values that I have instilled in my daughter as
	"brainwashing", you sink to a level where I do not choose to
	join you. I suppose some of my more conservative friends might
	call the social values (like civil rights for all citizens) I have 
	taught Christina "brainwashing" too. I suppose the difference between 
	brainwashing and education, at least in the case of small minded 
	persons, is whether you happen to agree or disagree with was is being 
	taught.

    
Jim    

    re .127, I think the difference between brainwashing and education
    would come into play if your daughter ever said to you, "Dad, I think
    you're wrong about having guns in the home.  I think the dangers of
    having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits."  
    
    I think your reaction to that would indicate whether your goal had been
    brainwashing or education.
    
    Lorna
    

           <<< Note 77.128 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "wandering spirit" >>>

>    re .127, I think the difference between brainwashing and education
>    would come into play if your daughter ever said to you, "Dad, I think
>    you're wrong about having guns in the home.  I think the dangers of
>    having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits."  
 
	Hasn't come up. Of course it should be noted that you labeled it
	brainwashing with no data whatsoever. Just how did you come to 
	this conclusion with no evidence one way or the other?

>    I think your reaction to that would indicate whether your goal had been
>    brainwashing or education.
 
	It's likely that we would discuss the evidence, just as I've done
	here and in other forums. It's fairly easy to show that the dangers
	do not, and never have, outweighed the benefits. Of course that's
	something else that I have tried to "brainwash" into my daughter,
	the capability for rational decision making using facts, observable
	evidence and logic rather than making illogical emotional choices
	based on no evidence, or worse, lies.

Jim

    	I think that the difference between brainwashing and education is
    that education is teaching verifiable facts.  Brainwashing consists of
    repitition of assertions without any basis in fact until the subject
    accepts the assertions as truth.
    	I've seen propaganda from HCI, the press and others about guns, and
    the striking thing is how often their assertions are patently false and 
    distorted.  When I see things like including 19 year olds in their
    definition of children, I tend to give little credence to anything else
    from the same source.  I figure that if they'll use an obvious
    distortion like that then there are probably many other less obvious
    distortions.  It's a lot like the "environmental scientists" who figure
    that it is OK to cook the figures to promote their ideology. 
    In my case the distortion destroys their credibility.  However it does
    seem that a lot of people do believe the propaganda because it is being
    repeated here practically verbatim.
    	On the other hand Jim Percival's data is internally consistent, and
    has not been contradicted by anything I've seen from any other source. 
    The same goes for the NRA.  Now if his daughter were one day to say
    that she has come to believe the unsubstantiated assertions of HCI or
    the like, I think he would probably feel about the same as he would if
    she decided to join some cult that rejects facts and reason and takes
    the utterances of a charlatan as the word of God.
    						John
      

	Lorna,

	What would your reaction be if you daughter came home and said she
	no longer felt safe without a gun and wanted to by one? And even 
	carry it on visits to her mother.

			Alfred

    re .131, I'd call Nancy Bittle and ask her if she could meet us for
    dinner to discuss what she would need to know, classes on using a gun,
    firearms safety, the best way to go about getting a license to carry a
    handgun, etc.  I'd figure if Melissa really felt she needed a gun in
    order to feel safe, then I'd support her decision.  Although,
    privately, I would be worried about it - accidents, etc.  But, having a
    good relationship with my daughter is the most important thing in the
    world to me, and I do realize that there is a lot of violence directed
    towards women in this society, so know that self-defense is a
    legitimate concern for women.  If I couldn't get in touch with Nancy,
    I'd probably send mail to Amos Hamburger, or maybe even *you*, Alfred.
    
    re Jim P., oh, so when people agree with you they are have "the
    capability for rational decision" and when they disagree with you they
    are making "illogical emotional choices."   That's very open-minded of
    you.
    
    Lorna
    

Lorna, chiding Jim for lack of openmindedness when you've just accused 
him of brainwashing his child isn't very fair of you.

DougO

    re .133, well, I can't help it if that's the way I feel.
    
    Lorna
    

           <<< Note 77.132 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "wandering spirit" >>>

>    re Jim P., oh, so when people agree with you they are have "the
>    capability for rational decision" and when they disagree with you they
>    are making "illogical emotional choices."   That's very open-minded of
>    you.
 
	I said nothing of the kind, and you know it. You seem to have
	a REAL problem with someone who does not agree with you, first the
	"brainwashing" accusation, now this. Maybe it's time to take a deep
	breath and count to ten. We can then move on to more productive
	discussions.

Jim

    As to why people so easily believe the unsupported, inconsistent
    propaganda of HCI and other anti-gunners, rejecting the factual
    documentation of the pro-gunners, the answer has been well known for
    millennia.  Julius Caesar said it best in his commentary on the Gallic
    War:
    
    	Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
    
    	Men willingly belive what they wish.
    
    It is comforting and "safe" to believe that getting rid of guns is the
    solution to gun injuries, so it is easy to believe people who say that. 
    It is more difficult to believe people who say that guns are not the
    problem, people are, so even in the face of real facts their argument
    is rejected.  It's as Sydney Smith wrote in "Lady Holland's Memoir":
    
    	Don't tell me of facts, I never believe facts; you know Canning
    	said nothing was so fallacious as facts, except figures.
    
    Or, to put it more bluntly:
    
    	My mind is made up.  Don't confuse me with facts.

    Just an observation:

        Information that supports one's position is reality, or The Truth.

        Information that supports the oppisite position is propaganda or
	    "brainwashing."

    - Jim

    	What we've seen here are some people saying that a gun is more
    likely to hurt you than deter an intruder, and that 3 children a day
    are hurt of killed in gun accidents in the US.  Then other people say
    they agree and that they feel the same way.
    	 Another person comes along says that there are XXXX number of
    fatal gun accidents in the US per year and a source, he comes up with a
    total number of guns and accidents as a percentage of the total.  
    	Some person who hasn't made up their mind is reading the whole
    exchange.  Which of the parties is that person more likely to believe?  
    	Some version of this exchange is repeated over and over in notes. 
    Why is it that the anti-gun people never can come up with any
    verifiable or believable numbers?  Why is it that the numbers from the
    anti-control people are verifiable and also make sense from what one
    can see in one's own life?  Is it surprising that the anti-control side
    is the side that undecided people join?  Is it surprising that when
    someone changes sides it always is from pro-control to anti-control? 
    If there truly are valid arguments or statistics that support
    gun-control, I'd like to see them.  So far all I've heard from the
    pro-control people are anecdotes and assertions that fall apart
    whenever I apply my own knowledge of the world, or when I see real
    data.
    						John
    

Re: .138

Why are you talking about "pro control" and "anti control"?  Who in this
topic has been discussing control, other than the gun owners who seem to
throw out "don't restrict me" as a knee-jerk response when someone says
that they don't like guns?

				Steve

    Ok, my figure of 3 kids per day injured or killed by firearms accidents
    was the number I remember from my reading.... I was suprised at the
    number..... thats why it impressed me.  Whether the number is accurate
    or not I can't say because I don't know if the source of information
    was reliable, (it was in a periodical).  My POINT was that nationwide
    there seem to be a substancial number of kids injured or killed by
    firearms each year.  There are a substancial number of kids killed or
    injured in auto accidents too.... far more than by guns.
    
    I agree that gunproofing the kids is wiser than trying to kidproof the
    guns because one cannot control ones' neighbors gun safety (or lack
    of) safety procedures.
    
    I am impressed by the polarization of this discussion.  People tend to
    be FOR or AGAINST guns... there is little middle ground and once a
    person takes a side it seems that little can move him or her from their
    position regarding guns.  "Facts don't count."  Emotions do.  Its sort
    of a moot point anyway because its tough to find out what the facts ARE
    because each side tends spout statistics which support THEIR position.
    
    Its interesting that .21 has been the ONLY one to suggest that
    protection from the government is a valid reason for general gun
    ownership by the population.  I tend to agree with the position .21
    takes.... i.e. the government cannot be trusted to maintain its' 
    position as a government FOR the people rather than the government
    tending to become out of control and taking over to the ultimate
    detrement of the population.
    
    You tell me......... IS the government getting out of control so that
    its wise to have an armed population?  I don't know the answer but I
    wonder.
    
    So in addition to 'protection from burglars' (depending on your point
    of view as to whether guns are effective at preventing harm to
    homeowners) we have the protection from the government issue too.
    
    Jeff

    re .139
    Steve,
    	The arguments that you use and the numbers that you quote are the
    ones that are repeated by the people who think that guns should be
    controlled.  If I confused your use of these with an impression that
    you would like to control guns, I apologize.  I'm so accustomed to
    seeing the arguments followed by the conclusion that honest citizens
    cannot be trusted with guns that I may have made a leap that wasn't
    justified.  
    	I'm not particularly into guns myself, but I am very disturbed by
    what appears to me to be a campaign of lies intended to disarm the
    populace.  
    						John
       

    	The CIA, as evidenced by Irangate, is out of control of the
    government, and is currently threatened with reduced funding. If there
    is anyone in there with any commercial sense then they will be looking
    at the example of the KGB, who with the ending of the cold war are
    openly offering their services for industrial espionage.
    
    	If the CIA doesn't want to compete directly in that field, maybe
    you could employ them to protect you against your government.  ;-}
    
    	Just for curiosity, in general Europe has gun control and the U.S.
    does not. I can't always identify where a noter is from by their node
    name or style. Are any of the people against gun control from Europe? I
    get the impression that those living with strict gun control are fairly
    happy with it, while those that don't have gun control are mixed.

    re .140
    	That 3 kids per day may be the number that Handgun Control Inc.
    throws out.  I wouldn't be surprised if it were the number of
    "children" (19 and under) killed with guns both accidentally and
    intentionally.  If so it is probably unreasonable to make conclusions
    about gun safety in the home when it seems very likely that most of the
    fatalities are of the urban violence sort.
    						John
    

                      <<< Note 77.140 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>

>Its sort
>    of a moot point anyway because its tough to find out what the facts ARE
>    because each side tends spout statistics which support THEIR position.
 
	It's really not that hard to find verifiable facts. Of course,
	none of them supporthte pro-control position.

>    Its interesting that .21 has been the ONLY one to suggest that
>    protection from the government is a valid reason for general gun
>    ownership by the population.  

	It's the ORIGINAL valid reason. I don't get into that part of
	the argument much because of my personal belief that I stand
	a far better chance of needing to defend myself from the criminal
	element than I have of needing to defend against a government out
	of control.

Jim

     <<< Note 77.139 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>Why are you talking about "pro control" and "anti control"?  

	Because it is a more accurate representation. There are gun owners
	that believe that there should be more controls. And there are
	folks that do not own guns who believe that more controls are
	waste.

Jim

    Following to .145, owners who want more controls and non-owners who
    don't.
    
    I happen to own two .22 rifles.  One was my mother's, a Winchester
    Model 57 "boy's" rifle that she used in college to take national honors
    in men's competitions, there being no organized women's competition. 
    The other was my grandfather's, a BSA Martini bull-barrel target rifle
    that he used to take national honors in amateur competitions after
    college.  Neither of these rifles has been fired in the past 10 years,
    and neither is likely again to be fired as long as they remain in my
    family.  Hardly usable for home defense, these weapons, although they
    do qualify me technically as a gun owner.
    
    I have no handguns, nor do I have any desire to own a handgun.
    
    But I still am not self-righteous or deluded enough to think that I
    have the right or the wisdom to decree that ordinary civilians should
    not own handguns.  Verifiable facts tell me otherwise.

    re: courage/guns
    
    No doubt about it, a gun does offer an increased sense of courage.
    
    That doesn't mean gun owners have no courage unless armed.

.104> The number of kids who accidently shoot themselves or others with
.104> 'daddys gun' is alarmingly high if I remember my statistics right....
.104> something on the order of 3 kids per DAY in the U.S..
    
    One child per day is killed with a firearm.
    
    More children die in bathtubs and cribs every day.
    
    100 times more children die in automobiles.

     <<< Note 77.147 by HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG" >>>

>    No doubt about it, a gun does offer an increased sense of courage.
 
	I would submit that it is not an increased sense of courage, it
	is an increased sense of confidence.

Jim

    
    re .148
    	Is that the figure from HCI that includes 19 year olds as children?
    						John
    

.149> I would submit that it is not an increased sense of courage, it
.149> is an increased sense of confidence.
    
    Semantics, shemantics.  Same thing, in my book.  Shall we see whose
    dictionary is bigger?  ;')

.150> Is that the figure from HCI that includes 19 year olds as children?
    
    I dunno, it was in some magazine.
    
    The one per day sounds about right.  And that includes all deaths from
    firearms, not just at the hands of other children.

    WHEN TO SHOOT IN SELF DEFENSE?

    In the US, the laws vary from state to state. In general, you can only
    use lethal force when you are under the immediate, imminent threat of
    death or severe bodily injury (rape is considered severe bodily
    injury). A few states allow you to shoot in defense of property (I
    personally don't agree with this). You are usually allowed to use
    deadly force in defense of another person who is under the immediate
    threat of death or severe bodily injury; however, some states limit the
    definition of that other person (i.e. you can only use lethal force to
    protect a family member etc.).

    In Massachusetts, (this is a paraphrase and should NOT be considered
    legal advice) you can only use deadly force against a person if they
    pose the immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury
    to you and there is no reasonable alternative. You can also use deadly
    force to protect another under such threat (this is not always a good
    idea if you have no idea who is the "Good Guy" and who is the "Bad
    Guy")

    In the home, you can use deadly force for self defense only if the
    above threat exists. However, in the case of a person legally in the
    dwelling being attacked by someone illegally in such dwelling, there
    shall be no duty for the person legally in the dwelling to retreat.
    This was not always the case, but was changed under Gov. King as
    pointed out in another reply.

    Referring to the question that sparked this whole debate, if a burglar
    is in your home (in Massachusetts, however), you cannot simply shoot
    him for standing there or when he is leaving. However, if he attacks
    you, draws (or reaches for) a weapon, or in some cases, even approaches
    you (a 250 lb unarmed intruder approaching a small woman would probably
    be regarded as threatening by most juries). You do not need to retreat
    (though sometimes it may be a good idea to retreat to a safe room (with
    your firearm)  and call the police, depending on the circumstances;
    in this cas the firearm would be used if the intruder(s) attempted to
    get at you in the safe room). Also, you don't have to wait for him to
    draw on you...in such a situation, you may not recognize the object in
    the intruder's hand as a gun or knife until it is too late. Remember,
    it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.


    Well that's all for now. I will write some additional replies later.
    

    
    -1
    
    Most of that is pretty much full of holes and allows the average gun
    totting nutter in the home to literally get away with murder.
    
    -Tony

Re .154
        
.154>  Most of that is pretty much full of holes and allows the average gun
.154>  totting nutter in the home to literally get away with murder.
    
.154   -Tony

Why do the rights of the intruder supercede the rights of the homeowner
to defend himself?  Would it be more acceptable if a fish club was used
in self defense? I say that as soon as the criminal enters the house, he
has forfeited ALL his civil rights. What is one supposed to do, have a
preliminary interview to determine intentions? What if the burgler is
also a liar? What if he says, oh, I'm just going to rob you, but he is
also going to play with the wife and kids for a while too, if he can
get the upper hand?

/Bob

    I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Thats what the LAW is
    for. If a person breaks into your home that DOES NOT justify you blowing 
    his damn head off.
    
    -Tony

 So we should be able to break into their house? What if we've got better stuff
in our house than they have? That doesn't work.

 If a person breaks into my home, I have to expect they are not planning
on having tea. I have to expect they intend to do me harm (if I don't and
I'm wrong then I end up dead or worse.) I will respond accordingly. If
that means I bop them upside the head with a heavy flashlight, so be it.
If it means I scare them off by calling the police, so be it. If it
means I put a hole through them, so be it (but truth be told, that's
the last alternative if for no other reason than it's SUCH a hassle.)

Re: .156
    
    > I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Thats what the LAW is
    > for. 
    
    	I agree. But the LAW, and its due process, occurs AFTER the fact.
    
     	Then its revenge, which is better than defense?
    

    
    .157
    
    Thats exactly my point. You're taking the law into your own hands.
    Whats wrong with calling the Police or better still not spending the 
    money on a gun and buying a decent home security system instead!
    
    -tony

 >>If a person breaks into my home, I have to expect they are not planning
 >>on having tea.

	I'd hold out for wine, Mark.  And the _good_ stuff, none of this
	Beringer crap.  *^)

	Di

    Re .159
    
    Tony, you appear incredibly na�ve.  Maybe you've never been burgled.
    I have been, although fortunately we weren't home at the time.
    
    A decent home security system is worthless if your intruder has the
    presence of mind to cut your telephone cable and then your mains.  If
    you're lucky enough to have buried utilities, then good on you.  I'm
    not so fortunate.
    
    Even if your security system has battery backup and shrieks like a
    banshee, the odds of its being ignored by your neighbours are very
    good.  Our across-the-street neighbour's alarm goes off spuriously at
    about biweekly intervals, and we have all learnt that it's crying
    wolf.  (He's *never* been burgled.)  We ignore it because the police
    have bluntly told us that they cannot afford to respond to it.
    
    A determined intruder *will* get in, and *he *will* get what *he came
    for, whether it's a loaf of bread or a free ride on the homeowner's
    wife.  Or the homeowner.
    
    Calling the police is worthless if a determined intruder is in your
    house.  The fastest a police cruiser can *possibly* respond is a lot
    slower than an intruder's bullet can travel.  It's all well and good to
    take note of the fact that you are taking the law into your own hands;
    but, as it has been pointed out, that's better than having your friends
    and neighbors take your coffin into their own hands.  Quite frankly,
    giving an intruder the benefit of the doubt - or of the law - is not
    worth the risk to me and mine.
    
    -dick

    Even though I would prefer to live in a world where nobody had guns,
    and even though I think that keeping guns in the home poses more
    dangers than benefits, I have to say that *if* I did have a gun and
    knew how to use it, and I ever caught anybody trying to steal my
    jewelry, I'd blow their heads off without regret.
    
    Nobody has a right to go into anybody else's home and take something
    that is not theirs.   The minute someone breaks and enters,
    they've forfeited all rights and respect I give to normal people.
    
    Lorna
    

    
   >> Maybe you've never been burgled.
    
    Yes I have. My flat (apartment) was burgled last year and some items
    with great sentimental value were stolen. I was angry but I wouldn't
    have killed the thief had I caught him/her.
    
    -Tony

    >>I have to say that *if* I did have a gun and
    >>knew how to use it, and I ever caught anybody trying to steal my
    >>jewelry, I'd blow their heads off without regret.


	Wow.  This is extremely scary stuff.

    
    >>    <<< Note 77.163 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "a period of transition" >>>
    >>
    >> and I ever caught anybody trying to steal my jewelry, I'd blow 
    >> their heads off without regret.
    
       Lorna, are your Jewels are more important than a human life which
       you would, as you have said, blow away withut remorse ?
    
       Sad.
    
       -Tony

    
    For what its worth, I agree that every person should have the right to
    defend themselves and their family/loved ones in a life threatening
    situation. BUT ... I think though that some people (maybe like the 
    author of 77.165) are not interested in life preservation but more like 
    wealth preservation. Such people are clearly not mentally stable and are 
    not safe with a firearm.
    
    In my humble opinion.
    -Tony

   >> situation. BUT ... I think though that some people (maybe like the 
   >> author of 77.165) are not interested in life preservation but more like 
   >> wealth preservation. Such people are clearly not mentally stable and are 
   >> not safe with a firearm.

	I hope you meant .163.  I don't have any good jewelry.  *^)

	Di

    
    Sorry Di, the mods starting deleting notes again and as usual it 
    screwed up the flow of things.
    
    8^)
    -Tony

    re .166, no, of course,  I wouldn't kill homeless tramps.  What do
    homeless tramps have to do with anything here?  The discussion is about
    breaking and entering, not about homeless people.  I have a great deal
    of sympathy for all homeless people, however I do not have any sympathy
    for people who break into other people's homes and steal things that do
    not belong to them.
    
    I, also, have a great respect and reverence for life, both human and
    animal.  However, I expect people to conduct themselves in a civil
    manner, obeying the laws of society and not infringing upon the rights
    of others.  In order to make society safe for the majority of people,
    and in order to insure that human life is valued, we need to make
    criminals realize that they cannot get away - with breaking the law,
    with stealing, breaking and entering, hijacking vehicles, etc.  The
    courts of this country are far too lax with those who break the law and
    infringe on the rights of others.
    
    I have known from the time I was a small child that it is wrong to
    steal, to take from another person what doesn't belong to me.  I have
    never, in my entire life, stolen anything from anybody, even from a
    department store.  I have worked hard for everything I have, and since
    I am only a low-paid secretary, that still isn't much.  But, it's mine. 
    Everybody knows that it is wrong to steal what isn't theirs, and I
    believe that once someone decides to make that move, they have
    forfeited the normal respect I give to other people.
    
    Nobody has a right to take what belongs to me, or to anybody else. 
    This isn't a question of respecting human life, it's a question of
    civilization vs. a free for all.  I believe people have a right to
    protect their own property.  
    
    Lorna
    

>	I'd hold out for wine, Mark.  And the _good_ stuff, none of this
>	Beringer crap.  *^)

 The private reserve isn't too bad. ;-)

>    Yes I have. My flat (apartment) was burgled last year and some items
>    with great sentimental value were stolen.

 So the fact that you're around is more a matter of sheer luck than anything
else? The burglar could have a) shown up while you were snoozing and b)
decided not to leave any potential witnesses.

and I thought I wouldn't be sucked into this conversation...  *sigh*



But Lorna, how would you know whether your jewelry thief was a homeless tramp
or not ?

Maybe it would sound like this:


Lorna:	Excuse me, where do you live ?
Thief:	Uh, nowhere right now.
Lorna:	Sorry to hear it, just go ahead, help yourself.  Would you like some
	tea ?

or

Lorna:	Excuse me, where do you live ?
Thief:	32 Hazelton Terrace, Abbingsford
Lorna:	KAPOW!

    Re .173: Oh, come now, those aren't the questions one would ask in such
    circumstances. The questions are, "Oh, Mr. [or Ms.] Burglar, were you
    planning to rob me and leave, or were you planning to kill me?" If the
    latter, <BLAM!>. If the former, "_Dear_ Mr./Ms. Burglar, since I have a
    gun, if I ask you to put the jewelry/TV-set/whatever down and leave
    quietly, will you do so?" Some may opt for <BLAM!> if the answer to
    this question is "no"; others may opt for it even if the burglar drops
    the goods and sprints for the door. (Chasing the burglar out onto the
    street and <BLAM>ing him/her there is probably excessive, though one
    might argue that anything short of a bullet wound wouldn't teach the
    burglar the value of private property.)
    
    O'course, if the burglar doesn't seem inclined to engage in meaningful
    dialogue, the homeowner may well feel justified in taking steps.
    (Whether society considers those steps justified is another matter, to
    be pursued later on in court, if necessary.)
    
    -b

    re .173, Eric, let me clarify.  When I said that I wouldn't kill
    homeless tramps, I meant I wouldn't kill anyone simply for *being* a
    homeless tramp.  HOWEVER, once that homeless tramp enters my home, and
    attempts to take something of mine, then, it's a different story.
    
    However, I don't know what you people are worried about.  First of all,
    at this writing I don't even own a gun, and, second of all, as long as
    you stay the heck out of my house, and keep your hands my jewelry, you
    have nothing to worry about!!!   (at least from me!!)    :-)
    
    Just behave yourselves, and be nice, and treat me nice, and I won't
    shoot you.  Deal?   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
                
    RE .153 et al
    
    Regarding my original reply:
    
    Well, if anyone wants, I can look up the actual General Article
    pertaining to the use of lethal force. In my town, it was part of the
    application for a License to Carry Firearms (along with background
    check, three letters of recommendation from unrelated people who knew
    me for over 5 years, two additional references, and a certificate that
    I have completed a satisfactory course in firearms safety and
    marksmanship (equivalent of an NRA course)).
    
    In any case that is what the law says...I cannot use lethal force
    unless my life is threatened (or under threat of grave bodily
    harm...fists do not usually count, but baseball bats and edged weapons
    sometimes do. The threat must be immediate and imminent. If someone
    merely says he is going to kill you...that is NOT an imminent and
    immediate threat. If he pulls a weapon and attacks you with it, it is.
    However, since if you wait until he pulls a gun and points it at you,
    it is probably too late to react in time to save yourself, there is
    some leeway in the interpretation, and is up to the courts to decide.
    
    You may not want to hesitate too much, because if you get killed,
    nothing will bring you back. If it goes to the courts, you can be found
    not guilty, or appeal, or even if you end up in jail, you will be
    alive, your children will not be orphaned, your spouse will not be
    widowed etc.
    
    RE .154 et al
    
    In almost ALL cases of a civilian using lethal force to defend him or
    herself, that person can expect to spend at least one night in jail. As
    far as the police know, you shot someone and are holding a smoking gun.
    It often must go before a jury to decide whether or not it was
    self-defense. It can only be self defense if it can be established that
    at the time the shooter truly believed he or she was about to be
    killed/raped/maimed near death. An unarmed attacker going for your gun
    is often considered a threat to your life, depending on the
    circumstances.
    
    What I wrote in .153 is about what the law in Massachusetts is.
    However, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not it was
    justifiable as self defense.
    
    Re: .156
    
    Lethal Force as applied by a civilian must NEVER be for
    punishment...only for defense. When lethal force is used as punishment
    that is murder. If an intruder breaks into someone's house, murders
    his/her wife/husband, then brutally rapes and murders the children, and
    the surviving family member shoots the suspect as he is leaving, it is
    technically murder, not self defense. However, you would be hard
    pressed to find a jury that would convict this person.

    re: .159
    
    >Whats wrong with calling the police or better still not spending the
    >money on a gun and buying a decent home security system instead!
    
    There's nothing wrong with that, in fact all of the experts who
    recommend using firearms for self defense recommend first good security
    (Try the Personal Security column by Jim Grover in Guns and Ammo (the
    last year covered home security, now he's talking about firearms) or
    "The Truth About Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob ($7.99 Bantam Books
    printed exclusively for The Police Bookshelf (Moderator...am I allowed
    to include the phone number to order it? or is that considered
    advertising?)).
    
    Your layered security (neighborhood watch, outdoor lighting, good
    locks, alarm system, dog, safe room, call to the police) reduces your
    chances of being intruded upon, but if these measures fail, then you
    may need a firearm as a last resort.
    
    Calling the police if you have time or are able to (a common trick used
    by burglers, home invaders, rapists etc, is to take the downstairs
    phone off the hook when they come in, so you can't call out...try it
    (on yourself, I mean :-) ) is always a good thing to do. However,
    remember that the highest courts in the land have decided that the
    police are under NO obligation whatsoever to protect you directly. If
    you call the police and they don't come and something bad happens to
    you, they have done nothing wrong. I believe the average response time
    for a call to police is something on the order of 20 minutes in the US.
    (during the LA riots it was days!!!)
    
    The police are hard working, but they are plagued by budget cuts,
    understaffing, high crime rates, etc. There was a case of a woman who
    called the police because her ex husband said he was going to come and
    kill her. She was told to call back when he got there. She never called
    back because she was murdered. Her family tried to sue the police for
    not protecting her, but the courts decided that there was no obligation
    for the police to do so. There are several other cases just like this.
    
    When I was a grad student in Pittsburgh, a woman called the police
    because someone was trying to break into her front door. A car was sent
    there, saw that the lights were off and the front door closed, so they
    waited outside to wait and see. The whole time the police were parked
    in front of her house, she was brutally beaten and raped. Calling the
    police is a smart thing to do, but it won't always protect you.
    
    My house has a security alarm, good locks, a safe room, a cellular
    phone (so the phone off the hook trick will not prevent me from calling
    the police) and other security measures as well. But I also keep a .45
    semiautomatic pistol in case all my other measures fail. I rest easy
    knowing that most likely my security will keep me from ever having to
    use it on a human being, but that it is there just in case. That way I
    can use the gun for much more pleasant purposes, which for me is target
    shooting at the range.
    
    A firearm is no substitute for good security measures. But security
    measures can fail, and will not stop anyone who has defeated or ignored
    them from harming you.
    
    Remember, good security will reduce your chances of being victimized. A
    firearm could save your life if you are.
    
    

    Re .174
    Referring to the statement about nothing short of a bullet will teach
    the burglar a lesson.
    
    Lethal force should never be used to teach someone a lesson. That is
    taking the law into your own hands. The lesson should be left to the
    courts. It is also illegal for you to do (its usually called murder).
    The only time lethal force should be used is to stop a direct and
    imminent deadly or severely injuring (rape dismemberment etc) attack on
    an innocent.
    
    In a few states it is also allowed for one to protect property with
    deadly force, but as I have said before, I wouldn't do it even if it
    were legal where I live. No object is worth taking a human life...but
    that is just my own humble opinion. I will use my firearm as a last
    resort to save my own life or that of a loved one if it ever came to
    that...I just hope and pray it never does.
    
    -Eric
    

    I am no expert in home security, but here are some of the tips from
    people who are. These are mainly garnered from magazine articles
    (especially the Personal Security column by Jim Grover (a pseudonym to
    protect the identity of the author, who is in Guns and
    Ammo as well as from American Rifleman) as well as books (especially
    "The Truth About Self Protection" and "In the Gravest Extreme" by
    Massad F. Ayoob, a 14 year veteran Police Captain, as well as firearms
    trainer and consultant for various law enforcement agencies). "The
    Truth About Self Protection" is aimed at people who may not have or may
    not intend to have a firearm (it includes excellent advice on security
    measures at home, on the street, and in the car; it also discusses
    non-lethal self defense as well as guns). "In the Gravest Extreme" is for 
    people who already own firearms.

    HOME SECURITY

    Exterior:

    You should walk around your house at night and see where a criminal
    could see into your house and be hidden or inconspicuous. Put shades or
    blinds up, and consider moving any cover from which someone could case
    your house unobserved. A bus stop or phone booth on the street near
    your house or apartment is a convenient place for a criminal to observe
    you or your house (and your schedule important whether he/she is after
    you or your property) from. Some police departments may be able to give
    you help or advice in doing this kind of check. Use motion detector
    lights to illuminate any blind spots or cover that you can't move or
    get rid of. Also use them to illuminate possible paths to a point of
    entry. Don't let your bushes or hedges cover your windows (allowing a
    home invader to break in through the window while concealed from the
    street).

    Entry Points:

    Keep good locks on your doors. A springbolt lock (the kind which you
    can simply close the door while it is in the locked position) can easily 
    be defeated by a credit card, but is useful in case you are being
    followed or chased home because you can simply kick or slam in shut and
    locked behind you. A deadbolt lock is required equipment since the lock
    must be picked or the door smashed to be defeated. The deeper into the
    frame it goes the better (a door frame can be bent with a crowbar until
    the bolt comes free). If you have glass panes near your deadbolt, you
    may wish to consider using a double cylinder lock so no one can simply
    break the glass, reach in and open the door. However, be advised that
    double cylinder locks MAY BE ILLEGAL where you live because they are a
    FIRE HAZARD. If you choose to keep a double cylinder lock, wear the key
    around your neck when you go to sleep, or always keep it in an obvious
    and constant place and keep it brightly and clearly marked, so you
    won't get trapped in a burning house!!!!!!

    There are also window locks available, including one model designed by
    NY Firemen that is quick and easy to open from inside and is impossible
    to unlock from the outside. Windows are often ignored, but offer easy
    alternate entry points. Be advised that the same cautions regarding
    double cylinder locks pertain to window locks--they can trap you in
    your home in case of a fire.

    Alarms:

    Get a good system. One tied to a central station is very good. Remember
    that there are easy ways to defeat some cheaper systems. The alarm
    should cover your doors and windows. A motion detector is useful as
    well.

    Put stickers in the windows warning of the alarm so that there will be
    a deterrent factor. Try not to use stickers that tell what system you
    have (this helps identify what you have, making it easier to defeat).
    Getting stickers with another system listed is not a bad idea. Stickers
    that say "protected by silent alarm" are best, even if you don't have a
    silent alarm--a home invader will not know if the system was off, or if
    he successfully defeated it or if the police are already on the
    way...that will limit his time in your house.

    Dogs:

    Dogs should be medium or large size. Talk to an expert to determine
    what breed is best for you (factors include children, your personality,
    size of apartment or house etc.). NEVER protection train or attack
    train a dog yourself. Levels of dogs follow

    Pet: No special training

    Watchdog: Knows to bark when someone approaches the house, will go to
    where the person has approached the house (i.e. back door, front door)

    Protection Dog: Trained to snarl and look menacing on command. Not
    trained to attack. Is trained to function as a watch dog. If you are
    attacked the dog may counterattack on natural instinct and loyalty
    alone. This is the highest level of security dog recommended for most
    civilians.

    Attack Dog: as Protection Dog, but will also attack on command. It is
    trained on how to attack efficiently and trained to resist pain.
    Attack command should not be a common word so it is not given by
    accident, and should not be given to the children. Attack dogs can be
    dangerous depending on breed. Trained to cease attack on command.

    Guard Dog: Trained to attack any human being that enters its guard
    area except for its trainer. Will attack until intruder is dead. Used 
    only for high security areas like nuclear facilities or sensitive
    military bases. Their trainers are armed so they can shoot the dog if
    it turns on them.

    Final note on Dogs: Any dog trained to attack people was hurt by its
    trainers in order to get them to do an unnatural thing: attack people.
    Any dog that is attack trained is considered a lethal weapon. It is
    more dangerous than a gun, because it has a mind of its own (but is
    only at the intelligence of a five year old or less)--would you give a
    loaded gun to a five year old and leave him/her alone with it.

    A gun will never jump off the shelf and shoot someone, but an attack
    trained dog (with some dislike of people from its training) can turn
    and kill someone.

    And never ever attempt to protection or attack train a dog yourself.

    Phones:

    Your phone line is your only link to outside help. It can be easily
    disabled (by cutting the line, or by simply taking another phone on you
    line off the hook). Keep a second line or a cellular phone to prevent
    this.

    When you call for help, give your address FIRST, repeat it, then what is
    happening, then your name. Repeat the address again (if you call 911,
    include your town and state as some 911 systems cover several towns and
    even crosses state lines...I believe this is rare these days). Give
    your address first, so if you get cut off, the police can still respond
    to "an unknown disturbance at [your address]". The can't help you if
    all they hear is "hello this is Mr/Mrs Jones, I'm being
    ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!"

    If your local police has its own emergency number keep it. There have
    been some recorded instances of problems with 911. Most recently, I
    believe some residents in Boston have a Brookline phone exchange.
    Someone in that part of Boston tried to call 911 when they heard 
    screaming, but they got the Brookline police (because they have a
    Brookline phone exchange) who couldn't help because it was out of their
    area.

    Whatever emergency number you choose, program it into your phone's
    memory so you can one touch dial it.

    Safe Rooms:

    You should designate a room as a safe room. It is your refuge where you
    hopefully can hold out until help arrives. Your family should know to
    go to it in the event of a break in. The safe room should have a heavy
    door (hard to break through) and have a strong lock. The safe room
    should have a phone, preferably its own phone line or a cellular phone
    so you won't be cut off. If you choose to own a firearm (MAKE SURE YOU
    GET PROPER TRAINING AND PRACTICE), it should be kept here. If someone
    is simply in your house to steal stuff and leave you alone, you will be
    safe here and you can call the police and wait for them to arrive. If
    they are there to harm you, they will try to break in...hopefully the
    police will get there first. If you have a gun and they break into the
    ssfe room before the police arrive, you may be forced to shoot, but you 
    have done everything you can to keep from having to shoot someone.

    Safe room procedure is if you are convinced you have an intruder in the
    house, gather everyone in the safe room, lock the door, call the
    police (let them know you are armed if you are!),(get your firearm if 
    you choose to keep one...you may wish to do this first in case you are 
    attacked before you get everyone to the safe room) stay on the line and 
    stay in the safe room until the police arrive. Don't have your gun out
    when the police show up--you don't want to get shot. Use your firearm
    only if the home invaders break in and attack you in the safe room
    (they usually mean to harm you if they go through all that trouble to get 
    to you).

    GUNS

    I have made this part separate from home security because the gun is
    the last resort. Unlike other security measures it does not reduce the
    chances of your home being victimized. They are important, because they
    could save your life if you are victimized despite your security. They
    are only useful in this regard if you are mentally, and morally
    prepared to use them if necessary.

    Guns are NOT for everybody. If you have had fits of violent temper,
    drinking or drug abuse problems (drug use is grounds for denial or
    revocation of a firearms permit), or if you have a child with emotional
    disturbances, guns are probably not for you. If you are not willing to
    make the commitment to train, and teach safety to your family, and to
    keep the guns in a safe manner, don't get them either. If you don't
    think you could shoot another person even if they were going to kill
    you or a loved one, don't get a gun....if the moment comes, the
    cirminal will sense your hesitation, take the gun from you and possibly
    use it on you.

    Training:

    In some places, like Massachusetts, it is required before you can get a
    pistol permit (License to Carry). Nonetheless you and everyone who is
    going to use it should take a safety and marksmanship course. Local gun
    ranges usually offer courses. The NRA offers the best structured
    courses for the beginner. They also have the Eddie Eagle program for
    young children (teaches "if you see a gun STOP! DON'T TOUCH, LEAVE THE
    AREA, TELL AN ADULT").

    Once you have a gun, practice regularly so you can operate it under
    stress, and so you will hit what you are aiming at rather than
    something or someone else.

    Their are also specialized courses available specifically for self and
    home protection. They teach you to shoot under stress and under home
    defense conditions (different than shooting for a target in a bullseye
    competition). They often talk about when to shoot and when not to
    shoot. Some of these require that you get a letter of recommendation
    from you Police Chief or DA stating that you are a good citizen and
    have no criminal record.

    What kind of gun to get?

    A lot has been written on this. In general, handguns are the best for
    home defense. Properly chosen and used they balance good stopping power
    (but not necessarily killing power) with low recoil and low penetration
    with the correct ammunition (so your shot doesn't go through the 
    perpetrator or through walls possibly hitting an innocent). Also,
    unlike shotguns or rifles, it is almost impossible for an intruder to
    take away a pistol from your hands, and can be operated one handed, so
    you can keep a surrendered intruder covered while on the phone with the
    police.

    Rifles are almost never recommended as they are too powerful
    (penetrative) and deafening to use indoors.

    Shotguns are sometimes recommended and even preferred, though more
    often they are too bulky (can't be used one handed) and are easy to
    take away. They are also more likely to kill a person in the act of
    stopping them. If your jurisdiction doesn't allow you to own a handgun,
    a shotgun is the next best alternative. Use a medium to light buckshot
    load (the heavier loads will penetrate walls easier).

    Handguns:

    A double action revolver is usually recommended for someone who may not 
    practice as often, as they are easier to use (just squeeze the trigger).

    Automatic pistols (really semi-automatic) are more complex (you have to 
    worry about chambering a round clearing a jam etc.). However, automatics
    have less recoil than the same cartrdge in a revolver since some of the
    recoil energy is used to eject the casing and load a new round. Also,
    an automatic is more complicated to use if it falls into the wrong
    hands (some automatics have stiff enough slides that children can't
    load them--DON"T DEPEND ON THIS!!!). An automatic can even be kept
    unloaded (with a loaded magazine nearby) and be made ready to shoot
    quickly in the event of an emergency (a revolver kept for protection
    will take too long to load under stress, and must be kept loaded).

    Ammunition:

    You should use the most powerful round you can fire comfortably and
    accurately (a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44). You
    need a round that can reliably stop an attacker (shock and stun him so
    he/she will cease the deadly attack) with only one or two shots. Too
    weak of a round will require more shots to stop an attack (and may not
    stop it in time to save you), and will also decrease the chances of
    your attacker surviving the experience (less shots means less bleeding
    fewer damaged organs). You should also use hollowpoint ammunition if
    they are legal where you live (they are not legal in New Jersey), as
    they provide maximum shock effect (more stopping power, less shots
    required, greater chance of survival), do not pass through the body and
    less penetrative in building to reduce risk to bystanders.

    Usually, the minimum acceptable defense caliber is the .380 ACP. Above
    this, there is .38 Special, 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum,
    10mm Auto, and .44 Magnum (there are others but these are the common
    ones). 10mm and .44 Mag are probably too much for most people to handle
    (and may be overpenetrative even with hollowpoints).

    Safe Storage:

    Keep the gun locked up when you are not there. Preferably leave it
    unloaded too, and store the ammunition separately. A trigger lock is
    also a good investment (prevents the gun from being fired). Some quick
    release models (2 digit combination) are also equipped with an alarm.
    A safe is best for when you are not there.

    When you are at home, keep the gun loaded (if it is a revolver) (You
    never load a firearm until you are ready to use it...a defense gun is
    always in use (like a smoke detector or fire extinguisher)). At your
    option, you may wish to keep an automatic unloaded with a loaded
    magazine nearby or loaded with no round in the chamber (this will
    require a series of actions to make the gun live, and also reduces the
    chances of your picking up a loaded gun while half asleep...since you
    have to perform those actions). The gun should not be out in the open
    (since an intruder or child could get it while you are asleep).
    Holsters under a nightstand, or better yet a quick opening lockbox
    (with a simple five button combination lock) have been suggested.

    However, do not rely on childproofing your guns...gun proof your
    children. Teach them not to touch guns. When they are old enough, teach
    them to handle them safely and to shoot them. This demystifies this
    icon in our society that is constantly shown on moview and TV. Offer to
    take them shooting whenever they want to minimize the desire to use
    them without supervision. But don't listen to me on this...go to an
    expert. There are classes offered in gun safety for children and other
    youth programs. There is a book called "GUN Proof your Children" by
    MAssad Ayoob too.

    The most important thing about storing firearms is to keep them out of
    unauthorized hands.

    CLOSING

    Home security measures are the first layers of your defense. These
    reduce the chances that you will be victimized. They will not protect
    you if they are breached. The role of the firearm (if you choose to
    keep one) is that of a last resort, if your other defenses have been
    penetrated and the lives of you and your loved ones are in immediate
    and imminent danger.

    If you do not own a firearm and decide to get one, talk to an expert.
    The tips I have given here are not complete and are only for very basic
    informational purposes. Go take a class or talk to someone at your
    local gun range or gun store...the class is best. The NRA has a
    Personal Protection Course. There are other groups, such as AWARE
    (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment) which also provide
    referral and training. I cannot begin to stress how important training
    and safety are. 
    

    .163
    
    I sure hope I never have to live in a world without guns, because I
    really enjoy target shooting, but it would be nice to live in a world 
    where no one had to keep a gun for defense.
    
    -Eric

>    Final note on Dogs: Any dog trained to attack people was hurt by its
>    trainers in order to get them to do an unnatural thing: attack people.





That is the line that will stick with me.  It hurts me when I think about
what people do like this

    But, some dogs seem to just naturally attack strangers who enter their
    homes or start to touch their people.  When I was a kid we had a chow
    dog that would attempt to attack any stranger who tried to touch me or
    my brother, and we had never hurt him, or treated him mean.  We had him
    since he was a small puppy, too.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    While a family dog will be extremely protective of its territory and
    family members and may attack strangers, they are not trained to never
    back off until "called off", have not be "dewnsensitized" to pain, and
    generally go for legs.  
    
    Attack dogs will go for hands if they are taught to hold someone, or
    will go for progressively more lethal areas, depending on their
    training...  I have a friend who has a retired attack-trained belgian
    mellois, I feel much safer with freind who have loaded guns in their
    home, let me tell you.  Murdoch has a tendancy to interpret any
    gestures towards his people as a threat, and I have small, enthusiastic
    children.  
    
    Meg, who has a protective chow, and has seen the difference.

    re .183, I see the difference.  I think I'd feel safer with a loaded
    gun, too.  The idea of trained attack dogs really scares me.
    
    Don't you just love chow dogs, though?  If I could ever have another
    dog, that's what I'd go for.   
    
    Lorna
    

      <<< Note 77.156 by NEWOA::DALLISON "I don't know what to believe" >>>

>Thats what the LAW is
>    for. If a person breaks into your home that DOES NOT justify you blowing 
>    his damn head off.
 
	Actually the LAW in Colorado is that you can use deadly force
	against any "univited intruder" in your home.

	A burglar that breaks into an occupied dwelling is fairly unusual.
	Burglars, generally, do not want to confront homeowners. Those
	that DO break into a house while the residents are home can be assumed
	to be particularly dangerous, because they do not regard the
	possibility of confrontation to be a detterent. They are prepared
	for the confrontation and it is likely that they are not there
	just to steal.

Jim

      <<< Note 77.159 by NEWOA::DALLISON "I don't know what to believe" >>>

    
>You're taking the law into your own hands.

	In Colorado I would be working within the framework of the law.

>    Whats wrong with calling the Police 

	What's wrong, at least in my case, is that reponse time to our
	neighborhood (unincorporated county) is 20 minutes. Too much
	can go wrong in that time.

	911 is the first action we will take, but that does not mean that
	will allow ourselves to be attacked while waiting for the Deputy
	to arrive.

>or better still not spending the 
>    money on a gun and buying a decent home security system instead!
 
	We have two, rather large, organic alarms. The older is a 120lb
	Lab/Dane mix, the younger is a 95lb Dane. Both are female and 
	extremely protective. Anyone that get's by these two can be 
	considered a SERIOUS threat.
   
Jim

I've heard that in certain middle-east countries (Iran?  Saudi Arabia?), the
typical penalty for caught stealing is your hand is cut off.

Is this really true ?  Or is it just gossip.  I guess by "true", I mean, does
the official law enforcement group really do this ?  Or is it that certain
private citizens take things into their own "hands".

/Eric

    >I've heard that in certain middle-east countries (Iran?  Saudi Arabia?), the
>typical penalty for caught stealing is your hand is cut off.
>
>Is this really true ?  Or is it just gossip.  I guess by "true", I mean, does
>the official law enforcement group really do this ?  Or is it that certain
>private citizens take things into their own "hands".

    It's true. And yes, government employees do remove the hands.

    		Alfred

    >> re .166, no, of course,  I wouldn't kill homeless tramps.  What do
    >> homeless tramps have to do with anything here?  The discussion is about
    >> breaking and entering, not about homeless people.
    
       You still don't get it do you Lorna ? My point in this argument is
    that a large percentage (forgive me for not having statistical evidence
    but I have a life) of intruders are homless, hungry and frightened
    people stealing out of NEED and not WANT. If your government recognised
    this then you would be stepping in the right direction but killiong
    them, as you have said that you would do, will not solve thr porblem.
    
    Its somewhat saddening to realise what a greedy, selfish and money
    orientated world we live in Lorna but I think your comments have
    demonstrated this quite admirably.
    
    -Tony.

    I have heard from friends that work there that many Gold merchants
    leave there wares on the stalls when they go to lunch.The risk in
    minimal.If you are caught stealing its off with your hand.
    They have also seen public Beheadings,mostly for drug smuggling.
                      
    
    
         

.154> Most of that is pretty much full of holes and allows the average gun
.154> totting nutter in the home to literally get away with murder.
    
    That's right, it does.  If I catch a burglar in my house at 2am, and
    he's unarmed and not threatening me at all, I can blow him away and
    never see the inside of a jail, maybe not even a court room or a grand
    jury.
    
    Fact is, if a burglar chooses my house at 2am, and he wakes me, and I
    will assume he wants to do more than sweep my kitchen floor for me.

    
   >> Fact is, if a burglar chooses my house at 2am, and he wakes me, and I
   >> will assume he wants to do more than sweep my kitchen floor for me.

	Mike, have him vacuum the whole downstairs.  Then maybe do
	a little laundry.  THEN blow him away.  It's hard to get
	good help.

	re: 189
  JMO But without "having statistical evidence" aren't you just making an
  assumption on spurious info that you don't even know the what perspective
  the presenter is giving it from. What is your idea of "a large percentage"
  ,even thought I would agree that if 1% of the world is going hungry is too	
  large a number? "If your government " and what is your government doing
  to improve life for the people that are homeless? When is the last time you 
  talked to a government official bending their ear for a social cause?	
  
  "Its somewhat saddening to realise what a greedy, selfish and money
   orientated world we live in Lorna but I think your comments have
   demonstrated this quite admirably." 

   Okay! What ever you have two of give the duplicate to the needy.

   I'll stop here because this could turn into a short story.

	j.b.
   

    re .189, Tony, I think you are making quite a few assumptions about me,
    as a person, just by reading a couple of notes that I have written on
    one particular subject.
    
    You called me greedy and materialistic.  Well, I don't know what your
    circumstances are at the moment, but I am currently living in a
    friend's basement because the house I own, with my ex-husband, is
    currently in the process of being repossessed by the bank, because he
    ws laid-off his job at DEC, after 19 yrs. of employment, and we can no
    longer afford the mortgage, and the real estate market in Massachusetts
    is such that the best offer we have received is less than we owe the
    bank.  I drive the cheapest car on the market, and am a divorced,
    mother working as a secretary.  Even if I were inclined to be
    materialistic and greedy, I'm afraid my current life-style is not very
    conducive to it.
    
    I feel quite confident in saying that I am, indeed, much closer to
    being a street person than you will ever be.  If I lost my job
    tomorrow, and my unemployment were to run out, I have *no* family to
    help me out.  I figure I'm probably about a year from being a homeless
    street person, and, yet, were that to happen, I still wouldn't break
    into anybody's house and steal their material possessions.  
    
    You know what I would?  I'd ask *you* for food because I know you have
    so much compassion for those less fortunate than yourself.  So, you
    better hope that I don't ever lose my job, or you could find me on your
    doorstep asking for a handout.  I'm sure you wouldn't turn me away.
    
    Lorna
    

 <applause>

    Re .189
    
    Bandying about words like "a large percentage" and then conveniently
    excusing your lack of support with "I have a life" is the way to start
    an urban legend.  It smacks of assertions fabricated from whole cloth
    to support one's otherwise unsupportable position.  
    
    You have an agenda, and you are using your verbal skills, such as they
    are, to push it.  Others do the same thing.  But the only remarks that
    are admissible as evidence, regardless of which side of the argument
    they espouse, are those with documentation.  So far, where the US is
    concerned, there is a significant body of hard evidence that refutes
    your statements and virtually no documentation whatever that supports
    them.  Britain's mileage may differ.
    
    In my city, for instance, published police reports indicate that a
    small fraction of the intruders are homeless and starving.  We have a
    good system of missions and soup kitchens, and the homeless actually
    eat probably as well as some Digital employees.  Most intruders around
    here are young men after drug money or out skylarking.

    re .189, and, another thing, Tony, I don't believe that most people who
    break and enter are homeless people.  I see homeless people all the
    time in Boston, and they aren't breaking and entering.  They're sitting
    around on the sidewalks with cups asking for money, or standing by the
    roadside with signs that say, "Will work for food."
    
    I honestly believe that most of the people who break and enter and
    steal jewelry, or stereo equipment are drug addicts, who at some point
    in their past could have chosen to lead normal lives, and work regular
    jobs, and not be addicted to drugs, but they didn't.  They let
    themselves become drug addicts and they don't give a damn about
    regular people.   What right do these parasites have to prey on people
    who are willing to work for a living and have managed to steer clear of
    the seductiveness of drugs.
    
    I think *you're* the one who doesn't get it, Tony.  The fact is nobody
    has a right to steal from anybody else.  It's one the 10 commandments,
    remember?  Thou shalt not steal!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
   >> I think *you're* the one who doesn't get it, Tony.  The fact is nobody
   >> has a right to steal from anybody else.  It's one the 10 commandments,
   >> remember?  Thou shalt not steal!!!


    Wasn't there a "Thou shalt not kill." in there somewhere too?

    

    re .198, yeah, but it means being the aggressor, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

>    Wasn't there a "Thou shalt not kill." in there somewhere too?

 I thought that the proper translation was "thou shalt not murder."
God fully expected us to kill animals; he gave us dominion over the earth and
her creatures.

re .197, .198:

You're both wrong.  "Thou shalt not steal" refers to kidnapping.  And it's
murder, not killing in general, that's prohibited.

    re .201, oh, baloney.  Don't give me that crap about kidnapping.  When
    I was in Methodist Sunday school, as a kid, it was made very clear to
    us that Thou shalt not steal refers to taking stuff that doesn't belong
    to you.  
    
    So, are you trying to say that Christianity considers stealing property
    to be okay?
    
    Lorna
    

The proof is very simple.  The Ten Commandments are pretty much capital
offenses.  Stealing (sheep, etc.) is treated elsewhere, and the penalties
are explicit.

	To move us a bit more back on track.......

	A situation involving the use of deadly force just occurred
	here in the Springs.

	At 4:30 AM a woman was awakened by a man pounding on her door
	demanding entry. She got up, found that the man had torn her
	back screen door from it's hinges. She warned him that she was
	armed and that he should leave. He proceded to kick in the door
	and entered the home. She fired twice, one round struck the intruder
	in the head. He is currently in critical condition at a local
	hospital.

	The District Attorney has ruled that, under Colorado law, the shooting
	was justified and that no charges will be filed against the woman.

	Comments?

Jim

>    Wasn't there a "Thou shalt not kill." in there somewhere too?

>> I thought that the proper translation was "thou shalt not murder."
>>God fully expected us to kill animals; he gave us dominion over the earth and
>>her creatures.

	The animals that break into your house you mean, Mark?  

	But anyways, that's what I get for leaving off the smiley face.
	Sigh.
	Citing the ten commandments is pretty ludicrous, IMHO.

    Story about a man named Cruz on the front page of last night's
    Providence Journal.
    
    He woke up to find a man with a gun in his bedroom, robber demanded
    money, Cruz pointed to the drawer where he keeps it, robber pistol-
    whipped him then pointed the gun at his head.  Click.  Click.  Click.
    
    Cruz jumped off the bed, robber pulled knife, struggle ensued, robber
    was stabbed to death.
    
    Excuse me if I don't shed even a single tear for the poor burglar who
    died.
    
    Cruz would be in the morgue right now if the gun hadn't misfired.  A
    faulty round was found chambered by the police.  The primer cap had
    been struck by the pin.
    
    The gun was sold, bought and used illegally.  At least 3 major laws
    were broken.  Senator Chaffee used this event to restate how his
    proposal to ban guns would eliminate these sorts of situations.
    
    As if they don't exist in DC or NYC ...  only difference is, when the
    homeowner shoots the crook in self-defense, the gun gets confiscated
    and sometimes the homeonwer is prosecuted on illegal pistol charges.
    Nice system.
    

 In Manchester NH some clown tried to break into a guy's house. The guy
(old) went downstairs with his .22 and told the burglar to get lost.
The burglar proceeded to try to enter anyway, so the guy issued a warning
shot. The burglar fled.

 No deaths, no crimes, so you won't see this incident in the stats HCI
will distort for you. But I'll tell you what, if the guy didn;t have
a gun, there'd have been a statistic for you. Or maybe more.

    Ah, but, Doctah, there was a crime, even if only a misdemeanor.  It is
    illegal for anyone other than a police officer or a duly charged member
    of the militia to discharge a firearm within the city limits of
    Manchester.  Great system.  :-)

    "Competing harms" could certainly be applied to that situation.
    
    - M

    It's a sad but true fact that many public sources of information
    selectively pick and chose what to print.  Some selectivity is im-
    portant, newspapers don't have unlimited space for example, but many
    do so along prejudicial lines.
    
    I wrote a letter to the Providence Journal last year.  There were two
    paragraphs, one about the Providence Police chief's decision to stop
    police pursuit of car thieves (because of public danger), one about
    Senator Chaffee's proposed handgun ban (I was not in favor).
    
    They printed only the first paragraph.
    
    They give lots of press to positive talk on the proposed ban.

    Yup, there is nothing like being quoted out of context, OR having your
    letter edited/shortened which completely changes the overall meaning of
    the letter.  Newspapers do it routinely to 'save space'.  The point is
    that if your hoping to have your letter printed keep it SHORT so there
    is so little to edit out that they don't edit anything out.
    
    Back to the topic.
    
    Jeff

    RE: .210, .211
    
    Well how's this for prejudicial  journalism:
    
    Case 1. Recently, the NRA filmed a TV ad. All the networks refused to
    sell them air time.
    
    Case 2. I've seen several news segments talking about semiautomatic
    "assault" weapons bans accompanied by video footage of *fully*
    automatic weapons being fired and of politicians talking about banning
    "these terrible machine guns". The fact is that fully automatic weapons
    have been strictly controlled (virtually banned) since the late 20's or 
    early 30's and that the weapons that people are calling assault weapons 
    are functionally identical to semiautomatic hunting weapons except for 
    their appearance. The term semiautomatic assault weapon used by the media 
    is a misleading, since the definition of an assault weapon is one that is 
    capable of fully automatic fire (already virtually banned), which is
    not what the proposed bans are about.
    
    The media also talks about these weapons as being designed "only for
    killing people" yet never seem to mention the fact that less than 1% 
    (.5% to 1% every year) of all homicides are committed with these
    weapons (according to the 1991 FBI Uniform Crime Report).
    
    Case 3. There was recently a segment on one of the close-up hour long
    news shows about crooked gun dealers at gun shows. They had hidden
    camera footage of a person selling them a gun without the BATF form and
    claimed this was an illegal sale. What they didn't bother telling you
    was that that sale was completely legal. The BATF form is only required
    when a federally licensed dealer sells a gun. The person selling the
    gun was not a federally licensed dealer and was merely selling his
    personal property (called a transfer and may or may not require a state
    form...in Massachusetts, the form is called a blue card and registers
    the transfer of the firearm (so they can come confiscate it if they
    ever ban it)).
    
    And that is just in cases concerning gun control. I know people have
    complained about other issues which get very unfair coverage. Ask any
    private pilot (watching the news totally stresses out the ones I know).
    
    -Eric
    

    RE .212
    
    oh yeah I forgot, what about the recent scandal where a news show tried
    to do a story on how a certain brand of truck allegedly explodes when
    hit from a certain direction. They showed footage of this happening,
    and it later turned up that they rigged the truck with explosives in
    order to get the footage.
    
    

    RE .213 -

    A minor point, perhaps - the truck was rigged with a flare, to simulate
    a spark that might occur during a collision. The explosion was the
    gasoline which *did* escape from the tank ruptured in the collision,
    ignited by the flare. They unfairly rigged the test, but not with
    explosives - the explosion happened because the truck was so poorly
    designed that the gas tank ruptured in a side collision.

I don't think newspapers should air everybody's opinion.  Let the newspaper
staff have their own opinion.

BUT, we can have multiple newspapers.  Then the readers can choose which
paper to buy.

So what if this newspaper speaks out in favor of using guns to promote peace.
This other newspaper will speak out in favor of using peace to promote peace.

The Globe and Herald might be good examples of differing papers.

/Eric

    re:.214

    NBC admitted the test of the GM truck on DateLine was rigged with
    "incendiary devices" that the gas tank was overfilled and that the
    filler neck had been fitted with the wrong gas cap.

    Nothing like stacking the deck, eh?

    .215
    
    I agree. Newspapers and TV networks have a right to decide who to sell
    air time to; I don't believe they should be forced to do this or that.
    However, it still is an illustration of how the media and their news
    have their own agenda and often present only one side of the story or
    mislead their audiences. Unfortunately for gun owners, the major
    networks are very anti-gun, and this is where most of America gets
    their (mis)information.
    
    BTW: The Boston Globe has sometimes run neutral articles, in addition
    to anti gun articles. They had one on
    storekeepers keeping and using guns for self defense that looked at
    both the pro and anti gun points of view. They ran another one on
    illegal street sales of guns (April 11th, 1993) which included
    statistics from a Department of Justice study in 1989 and by the Bureau
    of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1990 which showed that only 6-7% of
    armed criminals obtained their firearms from a federal firearms
    licensee (basically, a gun store or other licensed dealer) or from a
    "straw" (someone with a gun permit who buys the gun for the criminal) and 
    that 64% got their guns on the street without permits or ID, or by
    exchange for drugs, or by theft or other illicit means. 
    
    They even went on to state that the most recent national studies suggest
    that only by striking at *illegal* (emphasis mine) street sales of guns
    will police be able to keep weapons from being used in everyday
    violence.
    
    -Eric

    RE .208
    
    In Massachusetts, there are laws prohibiting the discharge of firearms
    within 500 feet of a dwelling or within 150 feet of a road or paved
    surface. However, in all of these laws there are exceptions for 1. the
    discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer in the line of
    duty 2. the discharge of a firearm in lawful self defense 3. the use of
    blanks at theatrical, athletic or ceremonial events.
    
    So if you lawfully shoot in self defense, you won't be charged with
    discharging a firearm within XXX feet of XXX. I would think that the
    Manchester ordinance probably has some kind of exception for lawful
    self-defense as well.
    
    -Eric

    RE .204,.206,.207
    
    There are many more stories like that as well. The magazine, American
    Rifleman takes newspaper clippings of self defense shootings that
    people send in and reprint them, since most major newspapers and news
    stations do not give coverage to anything that would suggest that
    lawfully armed citizens deter crime. The column in AR is called The
    Armed Citizen. Permission is granted to reprint anything in their
    column, so if anyone wants to read about any of these incidents, give a
    holler and I can type in one or two short ones. There are too many for
    me to put them all in. Better yet, you can always subscribe to American
    Rifleman.
    
    Of course the fact of the matter is that armed citizens do deter crime.
    Criminology professor Gary Kleck recently confirmed that law abiding
    citizens use firearms for self defense about 1.3 million times a year.
    Most of the time, of course, the gun is never fired, since the mere
    showing of the gun often ends the threat. However, armed citizens
    do lawfully kill twice as many criminals as police.
    
    The Orlando police department once trained 2500 women to use firearms
    for self defense. Rape declined by 88 percent the following
    year--making Orlando the only place in the US where rape declined that
    year.
    
    When Kennesaw, GA required every household to keep a gun and be trained
    in its use, burglary declined by 89 percent over the next 7 months, ten
    times the amount by which burglary declined in the US that year (8.9
    %).
    
    Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi did a study of federal
    prisoners. 57% agreed that they feared armed victims more than the
    police. 40% admitted they had not committed a crime against a person at
    some time merely because they believed their victim might be armed.

    RE:218

    From Mass. Abstracts of 1993 Fish & Wildlife Laws.

    Prohibited:
                 Discharge of any firearm or release of any arrow, upon
    or across any state or hard-surfaced highway, or within 150 feet of
    any such highway, or possession of a loaded firearm, discharge of a 
    firearm or hunting on the land of another within 500 feet of any dwelling
    in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof.

    So, you can give yourself authorization to shoot an intruder coming
    into your own home.

     Jim

 That's not the applicable law in urban areas. There are separate ordinances,
typically enacted within each municipality, which prohibit the general discharge
of weapons. In most if not all cases exceptions are provided in the ordinances
for law enforcement officials and citizens exerting their right to self defense
to discharge weapons.