Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    This is probably one of those topics that would be considered
    as not having any unique relevance to woman qua women. However,
    since it started as a converstation between a man and a woman in
    this conference I think it is reasonable to let it develop its own
    life.
    
    Enough speaking as a moderator!
    
    We have used guns several times since we moved to the county.
    1. to kill a fox, a racoon, and two skunks that were eating my
    chickens
    2. to end the life of a goat who had developed severe arthritis
    of the knees and could no longer stand through the last month of
    her pregnancy. By the time her babies were born her body was a mass
    of pressure sores (and I am amazed that she delivered - tho I had
    to help her - two normal kids).
    
    I would not want to have a gun in my house. However as an ecologist
    by training I understand that in the absence of predators we have
    to control the size of deer herds by hunting (for one example among
    many) or they will destroy crop lands, eat peoples bushes gardens
    and fruit trees, be chased and killed by dogs, and starve to death
    in the winter in large numbers. 
    
    So I find myself in the middle. Like Lorna I don't like guns. Like
    Steve I see the necessity of hunting, and like many others I'd like
    to see a greater degree of controll on who can buy a gun and how
    easy it is for them to buy it.
    
    Bonnie (as myself ;->).

    
    If the gun were nothing more than a farm/ecological tool I doubt anyone
    would worry about them. But guns are no longer pioneer tools for
    "survival," guns are weapons, and their proponents are adament that
    having a weapon is a right. They will argue responsibility, safety,
    constitutional rights, crime waves. but never the reason they need/want
    the weapon. I don't think the issue is guns so much as the arming
    of the common citizen, and the ambivilence we feel at facing the
    prospect of a future walking armed for safety, protection, security.
    Either we are a very paranoid society, or thoroughly hapless. 
    
    The law should be simple: you can keep a howitzer in your home if you
    like, but bring it out on the street & you do quality time. Mandatory
    sentances for armed anything should be high, automatic, and without
    parole or barganing, and this would include both professional criminals
    and first-time offenders. Our society accepts violent death by firearms
    as a matter of course, "bad luck" at worst and "bad times" by
    admission. It is a habit we can break if we make a concious decision to
    refuse to option violence for judicial efficiency. Since it would cost
    lots of money, I think most people would gamble their personal safety
    against the possibility of being hit as opposed to paying for jails,
    counselors, administrators, and programs to train offenders. Note that
    when a white middle class fellow like Goetz fires a weapon it is news
    because the majority relates to him, whereas many more victims come
    from low income, non-white groups. The pompous middle class protests
    gun control by pointing out that they may be the victim next, when in
    fact the sheer ease of obtaining a gun makes it easy to kill first and
    think later. Most of us still think of a murderer as a calculated
    killer, when in fact the gun makes murder as easy or easier than
    opening a door. Point and shoot. 

    How about someone adding a small point of clarity here. It seems
    from the past notes that most of the negative comment seem to be
    centered around handguns used in committing crimes. There is a big
    difference in restricting peoples rights to buy hand guns, and their
    rights to buy/own 'hunting' rifles. 
    
    Are people against all guns or those which are used to commit most
    crimes. ??? It's kind of hard to conceal a large hunting rifle on
    your way to rob the local liquor store isn't it? :-)
    
    I'm not trying to FLAME anybody, just clarify the issues being
    discussed.
    
    
    On another topic ---> I went hunting for the first time at the ripe
    age of 30, not for the 'thrill' of it .... but rather because I/we
    was trying to get by on a teacher's salary of 11k (1980), that deer
    meet got us through the whole winter. I hunted the 3 years I lived
    in Montana, and have not since I moved back east and  got a 
    'real' job.:-)
    
    Another important fact is that wild game has 'SIGNIFICANTLY' less
    cholestoral than hormone injected meat you get from the market.

        For anyone who thinks that hunting is cruelty to animals, I suggest
    a trip to a slaughter house before you have your next Whopper, BigMac,
    or steak dinner.

    
    	I'd also suggest the next time you are out in nature and
    	enjoy it you stop and think where the money came from to
    	manage the "great outdoors". In Massachusetts anyways, not
    	cent one for wildlife comes from the general taxpayers, it
    	all comes from the sportsman, course, some of the sportsmans
    	money does go back into the states general budget account.

    How about we keep this topic to one adressing women's feelings
    about guns and save the gun control/hunting issues for other
    notes files.
    Bonnie J 
    moderator

	RE: .6  Yeah, except that how I feel about guns implies gun control

	RE: .4 ? handguns vs. hunting guns

	Well, my mailbox got shot by a rifle in the middle of the day when
	kids were running up and down the street.  The bullets went into my
	neighbor across the street's front door (good thing he didn't come
	out the door right then).  The police attitude was less than
	impressive.  It took us days to even get them to come out and look,
	and then they mumbled something about it was just kids playing with
	their parents rifle, and *everyone* has rifles.  They weren't at
	all concerned with finding out who did it, or warning parents with
	guns (don't they have records of who owns what type of guns?) to
	keep their kids from them.

	Are shotguns for hunting?  One of my highschool friend's father
	shot some kids with buckshot on Halloween because they were soaping
	his windows.

	I doubt I could ever use a gun myself (but then you never know do
	you?)  I admire people who do hunt because they need the food,
	especially when they don't like hunting.  Once my father went
	hunting when he was out of work, and I know that he normally
	wouldn't.  I also have no objection to others who like to hunt as
	long as they eat what they kill.  But I don't think gun control
	will restrain them at all.

	...Karen

    re .6
    
    |How about we keep this topic to one addressing womens feelings
    |about guns and save the gun control/hunting issues for other notes
    |files.

    Do women not have positions on gun control/hunting issues?
    
    I'm not sure I understand what direction you would expect the note
    to take.
    
    

    On Friday there were several long notes added that were about
    gun control in general or gun laws in England. While they were
    interesting and informative notes they were getting into the
    relm of material already present in the gun notes file and in
    soap box. My request was meant as an attempt to focus the discussion.
    
    Bonnie J

    I don't agree that desiring adventure in your life should entitle
    you to possess or use guns...not just you, Eagle, but any of us.  Nor do
    I feel that men's personal space is limited by the *presence* of women
    ("Most men these days have so little personal space in a world where
    women seem to be everywhere to an increasing extent.").  The desire to
    "remember when there were woods to hunt in and life was simpler and
    closer to the soil" is by no means limited to men. 
    
    I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you.  Of course, I'm definitely
    a "city person"!
    
    Bob

    re .10:
    
    Well said, Eagle.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

           
    Eagle, you have long been one of my favorite noters and I understand
    and agree with a great deal of what you say - and I think from our
    off line mail you know that I share your ecological concerns and
    dismay at seeing much of the world turned into suburbs and shopping
    mall (or so it seems). 
    
    What I was trying to say is that this is *womannotes*, not mennotes,
    or gunnotes etc. and that I do feel there is value in trying to
    keep the notes in a conference relevant to the intent of the
    conference.
    
   ..and I think those who have read my writings in the past know that
    I have no patience with people who say that a particular topic is
    not appopriate to Womansnotes because it is not a 'womanns subject'
    but I do think it is relevant to remind those who read/write here
    that we should try and remember the intent behind a conference when
    we contribute to it.....
    
    However, this conference is ultimately the readers/writers not the
    moderators property - each person who reads this 'is the conference'
    as much or more than the moderators or even the active writers - this
    conference belongs to all of you who read my words, and it is up
    to each of you to help shape it. There really isn't any 'they'
    it is all 'we'.
    
    And I think that Eagle's note helped me understand better how
    the country man thinks and feels, and I am thankful that he took
    the time to write it.
    
    Bonnie J
    

    
    re: .10
    
    Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but this idea of some
    sort of innate relationship between 'maleness' and our glorious,
    nomadic, hunting 'heritage' is just plain ridiculous. File this
    wimp under, "Damn right I'm scared of guns and anyone who isn't
    is mentally deficient".
    

    .10 was removed by the author - 

Steve the eagle has sent me the text for .10 so as to keep the sense
    of the conversation intact.
    
                <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 341.10             Thinking and Talking about Guns                 10 of 14
PARSEC::THOMPSON "Steven Dana"                      117 lines  23-JUN-1987 16:59
                      -< Thinking_About_Guns_as_Symbols >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOW can we discuss "women's feelings about guns" ...  AND ...
    the seemingly inseparable issues of "gun control" and "hunting"?

	There is no point whatsoever in discussing "Guns" with women.
The issue goes far deeper.  The apparent problem seems to be the fear
of weapons of any kind.  And it isn't as clearly divided as it would
seem.  Women and "city" people in general seem to want some "system of
control" that protects all individuals without fear of criminals who
ignore the system when it suits them.  "Real Men" and "country" folks
in general seem to view guns and hunting as an individual choice issue.

	The real issues are probably more symbolic than real.  Men like
to think they still have some "nomadic" or "survival" instincts ...
Whether they do or not and whether or not that has any real value in
today's society ...  Many (most?) men like to think of themselves as
"free" and able to provide for and defend their families.  Sometimes
freedom expresses itself symbolically in keeping a shotgun in a closet
even when it's been 20 years without being fired even in practice.

	Often men like to have tools/toys and spend time doing semi-
dangerous things just because a safe and secure life-style lacks any
feeling of adventure.  Gun ownership and gun control and TV news shows
about guns are intended to get attention.  A man spends $500 on a gun
so he can show it off to his friends now and then.  News Shows play on
whatever improves their ratings and the stress between male gun-owners
and those who oppose them makes "good copy" because both sides feel a
direct threat.  "They" will confiscate our handguns!  "They" will shoot
us in the night for no reason!  Righteous Indignation Everywhere !!!

	Perhaps one real problem is the lack of opportunity to have
"selfish" time.  A man takes his gun and his dog and goes off "hunting"
with his male friends and their sons.  It's "guy" time to spit and let
your beard grow and swear if you wanna.  Most men these days have so
little personal space in a world where women seem to be everywhere to
an increasing extent.  Now maybe all the personal space left for a man
is to go to a shooting range and some nights to sit alone and oil his
trusty old deer-rifle and remember when there were woods to hunt in and
life was simpler and closer to the soil and a little more "manly".

	Guns are symbolic of all sorts of past evils but they often are
symbols of past freedom-space for us older sportsmen.  Women can't give
men back the "wide open spaces" that are now shopping centers or posted
property where once a boy with a BB-gun could wander at will and feel
part of his "manly" heritage in his fantasy.  But to have women seek so
actively to abolish even the symbolic reminders of when men were "real"
men and to brave the elements meant more than running to the car-port
during a heavy rain ...  That is one strong symbol of why men wish that
women would just "stick to their knitting" and let a man have his toys
and his dreams even if she doesn't share or even understand them.

	"Gun Control" starts with saying Bernard Goetz was wrong to 
shoot a handgun in a subway and ends with a "pistol permit" being 
required to shoot at paper targets in the back yard or basement!  And
as if that isn't bad enough, we see women saying "Not in MY house you
don't!"  "Don't teach MY son to be a Bambi-Killer!"  Is it any surprise
that a man walks away from such talk and wonders how to "relate" to
such a threat to his fantasy/symbolic masculinity?

? "Do men deserve to be shot to death by a woman who is of the opinion
   that he has date raped her?"

   YES !!!  Far better to be shot than to live a "meaningless existance"
in which our very desires and toys/tools are subject to the opinions of
the most vocal women in the community!  FAR Better to be shot than to be
emasculated by the whining of foolish women!  (Don't see that as FLAMES
as much as a plea for understanding of how difficult it is to be a man
in a changing world where old values now appear liability.)

! "I'll just try to keep out of dangerous dark alley ways and
   hope it [rape] doesn't happen, but I'm not going to carry a gun."

	Should men all just "wimp out" of danger and hide safely in
our safe little homes and neighborhoods and hope [pray] that the nature
of the human species [the original and successful WEAPON-MAKERS] will
just "mellow out" due [one assumes] to the pervasive influence of women
and their control of News, Television and the School System and the Legal
System.  Does anyone sense here a hostility towards "systems" that don't
seem to work all that well all of the time?  Is it wrong to believe in
personal self-reliance while The System is still imperfect?

     Justine makes it easy.  Date NO Gun-owner and No Guns in her house!
You can bet that's a place WE will sure avoid ever visiting !!!  No self-
respecting male gun-owner would ever date a female who will deny him his
hard-won 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms.

	We beg to differ with Ms. moderator.  This topic is perhaps
the focus for all the "security" women wish to have in The System!  If
men in the past have had a chance to be hunters and nomads and go off
on "hunting trips" to escape the influence of Women in their lives -
however briefly - those opportunities are rapidly disappearing.  Also
it seems that old men with the urge to seek the quite of the hills are
being replaced by boys whose toys bring noise with them wherever they
go.  Soon "roughing it" will be enduring a Black_&_White Video-screen
when away from home and one will never leave home alone ever as to go
off "hunting" will be a sign of serious mal-adjustment to society.

	Clearly we are down to "my" house!  Not "our" house!  Every
women has total control over "her" home and men have no place left
where they can be nomads, hunters, fishermen in peace away from the
total "security" women wish to provide everywhere and at all times.

	Soon men will have no places left to "remember" their heritage
or have the freedom of thought to even know what it was to be a man.
Already almost every space left is controlled and dominated by the city
thinking processes of women with "their" homes.  So what's left for a
man?  His hunting cabin off in the mountains?  Lack of money will take 
even THAT away too along with his guns and leave nothing to do but mow
the lawns and paint the house and watch TV/Cable/VCR and live lives of
quiet desperation without any more adventure fantasy or dreams.

     Why not go a step further and take away those d*mned automobiles?
Let's exterminate any opportunity for freedom among men to be nomads!
Let's keep 'em safe and home and tame and then after a few generations
they's grow to love civilized city life and hate the difficult choices
free men need to make in a temporary and nomadic existance !!!

	<sdt>	/~~e~~\  Eagles_Would_Rather_DIE_Than_Live_In_Cages_!

	Wow.

	Eagle, could you possibly be mixing up the need to have time separate
	from women, or time alone with nature with having guns?  I don't think
	that hunting is the only activity that could provide what your note
	seems (to me) to be requesting.  

        I can't attempt to address all the points you made, but I feel like
        you're making gun control a woman's issue.  People are not
        requesting gun control just because they don't like to have them in
        their house (ick, they're so dirty). It's the very real issue that
        people are *killed* by them because they are so easily available.
        Sure I have no sympathy if a rape victom kills the rapist, but what
        if the rapist kills her with her gun (or the rapist's gun).  What if
        some kid gets into their parents' closet that has the shotgun that
        hasn't been used for years and shoots a friend?  That's why I talk
        about gun control. 

    Re .19:
    
    Now, *that's* how to discuss something! An unexpected idea, beautifully
    expressed, which actually takes the extremely dead-horse topic of
    gun control into a new sphere entirely!
    
    How many marital conflicts have to do with that kind of symbolism?
    Person A says, "Please don't do X," but person B hears, "Don't be
    yourself anymore." A may only have meant to be helpful, but missed
    a critical connection.
    
    I know there are things that mean far more to me than the words
    would indicate, and I've scared people by reacting strongly to
    something they thought was trivial. It's the essence of communication,
    and extremely hard to do, even if you try...

    Unfortunately, when one person's symbol is also a dangerous weapon to
    someone else, there may be no easy compromise. Is it too far-fetched to
    see this same syndrome in motorcyclists who want to ride without
    helmets? Their symbolic freedom, the wind in their faces, is seen as
    injury or death by those who look at a motorcycle and see a twisted
    wreck instead of a powerful machine. 
    
    -b

    Kids CAN be TAUGHT to understand that guns are a ppotential
    danger.
    
    I sorta started this discussion here because I haven't seen
    a single solitary woman in ALIEN::FIREARMS. Of course, some of
    the hairy-chested BS in there is a bit much for anyone not
    familiar with redneck humor. I know many women have a fear
    or dislike of guns, often but not always because they have no
    exposure to them. I also know (and know of) many women 
    who are active shooters and hunters. One has only to watch
    someone like Sue Piccone (Mass. State womens' outdoor champion)
    or Joanne Hall or Christy Rogers (Practical shooting experts)
    to realize that women can learn to master these tools. Of 
    course, intelligent teachers make all the difference. 

From what I've read here...the general consensus is that women
(all women) hate guns and will not allow them in their homes.

I disagree..I am a woman and I do not have a hatred for guns.
I see them as a means of self-defense and also as a hobby. 
Perhaps my views are different from the other women in this
conference...but I really don't care. 

As to women not dating a man who has guns, I on the other hand
would not date a man (wimp) who was afraid of guns. 

This is my opinion, and I know many people would disagree with
me citing all of the reasons already discussed. Maturity and
responsiblity naturally play a major role in the owning and
handling of guns. Of course they should be kept locked and out
of hands reach of children. But.....knives are also deadly
weapons..and how many of you keep them in a drawer in the kitchen
within reach of a child, unlocked ?

 
    

    Each of is is free to express our own opinions and feelings -
    may we try to avoid name calling?
    Thankyou
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    
    	I made one reply earlier that may have came off a little
    	rough, for that I am sorry. Let me take a few line to try
    	to express why I do react so on this issue.
    
    	First of all, I come from a family of hunters and sports-people.
    	I was first taught by my dad and mom when I was eight on the
    	proper handeling and dangers of firearms. I have owned and used
    	them ever-since(going on 32 years) with not one single injury
    	to any person, unless you want to count the time I dropped a
    	full box of ammo on my toes and almost broke it. I have no
    	intent of ever using a gun in a crime or to harm anyone. I
    	don't own it for the reason of protection, I have my metal
    	baseball bat to take care of intruders anyways. I just simply
    	enjoy a nice quiet time alone on the taget range punching
    	paper targets, nothing more!! I am not anti-gun control, fine
    	I'll tell you I own a gun and use it, I don't even care if I
    	have to wait a few weeks after I buy it before I can take
    ownership.	What I do objet to (mildly put) it someone telling me
    	that "EVERYONE" who owns a gun is only a power crazy, murdering
    	nut just waiting for a reason or chance to run right out a kill
    	someone. I know of one person who got into a mix-up with another
    	guy over something stupid and knew he couldn't beat him without
    	the aid of somethin, so he waited for the guy and tried to run
    	him down with his car. Now, why don't we start saying "hey,
    	cars can kill, let's try to stop people from owning them cause
    	they are only used for killing others". I know it sounds crazy,
    	the point was this guy would have used a gun had he had one,
    	which everyone would have agreed to ban the gun for the crime.
    	I have been angry enough to chase another with my baseball bat,
    	but I never, NEVER, even had the thought to use my gun!! I am
    	just fed up with the attitude that all gun owners want to kill
    	everything in sight and always leave their guns fully loaded
    	and in easy reach of kids. I had two kids (which, btw both
    	know how to use guns, one male, one female(she's even a better
    	shot than my son)) and never left the gun(s) in reach. Even
    	if they had found them, they were always unloaded and the
    	firing pins removed and stored in a different place, as is
    	the ammo.
    
    	Nuff said, time to back out again...

    
    If I had my way, there would be no guns.  That's how I feel about
    it, but I also know that there's not practical (immediate) way to
    eliminate guns, and it would be unfair to take guns away from people
    who wish to own them and who exercise caution and good judgement.
    The way I deal with my personal feelings about guns is to simply 
    stay as far away from them as I can.  I was the one who said she 
    wouldn't date a person who owned guns, and I wouldn't want a gun
    in my home.  I think we *all* need to realize, however, that you
    are probably (I'll say probably because I don't have the statistical
    information in front of me) more likely to be killed by your own
    gun than protected by it.  I've also read that many domestic disputes
    end in the death of the victim or the assailant because a gun was
    present.  I reluctantly support the rights of others to own guns.  
    But I feel that it should be difficult to obtain guns, especially
    the concealable kind, and that their use, storage, etc. should be 
    subject to the most stringent of legal guide lines.
    
    Justine

    re .25
    
    Many domestic disputes resulted in death because of strangulation,
    beatings and stabbings, as well as guns. I agree that people
    who are emotionally unbalanced should not have guns in their
    possession....but these people can cause death without them.
    
    
    
    

    If it weren't for guns, we'd probably still wear swords. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    :-)
    
    P.S. I'd rather have NUKES (not necessarily Seabrook) than to cut
    down all the forests feeding wood smoke that puts more pollution
    in the air than just about any other form of combustion. :-|

Many of you ladies out there know me and know that I have guns.
I do not beleave that everone should have a gun, Only those that
Have the ability to prove that they arnt a criminal, and wish to
legaly own and use one. For those of you that would not date a gun
owner, you have my simpathies, for many of us are really nice people.
This is long and if you have no desire to hear of the logic and reason
for firearm ownership then hit next unseen......

There is a major problem in the world today..its called people.
There are all kinds of people both men and women. As much as we 
would all like it not all of the people in this world are good
and nice people.

Now with that in mind, there is nothing that you or I can do to 
change that. Nothing short of God is going to bring peace and 
good will to all of mankind. This is a horrible fact of life
and we all unfortunately are forced to contend with it to multiple
degrees. We attempt to place a sense of values on our society
by creating laws that all of us are expected to abide by for 
the common good of all.

Unfortunately, there are many amongst those of us as people,
that do not see those values, as you and I do. These are the
people that commit crimes, or utilize force to get their way.
A gun is not necessary to commit a crime or to implement force.
Multiple other means are used every day by those who perpetrate
evil in the world.

The fact here is that a gun is not necessarily a weapon, the human 
mind is. There has never been a case of any firearm going off on its
own to go kill living things. Every time there has been a person 
behind that gun using it. Even if you could eliminate every firearm
in the world, the criminals and terrorists would find alternate methods
to do what they do.

So the reality of it is that like it or not firearms are here in this
world as we know it to stay. What one needs to understand is that a 
gun is a tool, a dangerous tool, but no more dangerous than a knife,
an automobile, or multiple other things in this world. Any of these tools
in the hands of an improper person, being misused creates a hazard to
themselves and those around them.

For those of you that have expressed a fear of firearms, do you have
a fear of knives ???  You as an adult know that a knife , improperly
used or handled can have grave consequences. Yet you still use one, why ??
Because you have either a NEED or a DESIRE to use it. You have overcome
the fear of danger that it represents by applying reasonable sense in its
use. Yet, because you dont have a need nor a desire to use a gun, you 
still retain that dark fear that its something evil unto itself

And those that express a need or a desire to own and use one fall into 
that black hole of nonunderstanding also. Since we are all people, and
we all have different tastes in what appeals to ourselves, I really find
it a bit strange that Iam instantly categorized as some kind of freak
by you folk's because I own a gun. Do I chastise you because of your
hobbies or possessions are different from mine ????? Yet because you live 
in the darkness of not understanding or prejudice, I need to suffer it ??

Something I learned a long time ago is that education goes a long way 
into alleviating fear of the unknown. That is not to say that I expect
any of you to run right out and buy a gun to see how it feels. But 
under a more rational sense of turning that fear you have into a respect.
How you accomplish that is at your own discretion, but in all reality
I honestly believe that turning fear into a healthy respect would go a 
long way into helping resolve this 180 degree apart feelings between
gun and non gun people.   

I am a legal gun owner ,I intend to remain that way. I do not hunt,
But enjoy the multiple competition firearm sports I attend. I enjoy
the competition and the skill of the sports. But on the other side of 
the coin I do sometimes carry the guns for protection. I would if 
it became a necessity use the gun to protect my or someone elses life
from those who would cause harm. 

As stated before there are many people in this world that have serious 
intentions of causing their fellow human being harm. For those of you
that wish to run home at night and lock your doors to the world outside,
that is your choice. I for one do not wish to live like that. I wish to
come and go in freedom and peace, yet am prepared to deal with those 
that would denigh me that or cause me harm. To say there are no criminal,
or terrorists in the world is not living in reality. To say it will
never happen to me is to blind yourself to the fact that it is a
posibility. I beleave it was Jefferson Davis that said "To live in peace,
one must prepair for war."  
 
For those of you that are skeptics, I was accosted a few years back.
The dirt bag got a large surprise as he attempted to mug me, when I 
pulled a gun out. Since he had the good sense to see that the table
had turned and changed his mind about the mugging, he was allowed to 
hastily depart. Point and case is that I will not be a victim, yet
will not escalate the situation beyond that of my attacker.

All tighter gun control has done is made it harder for the LAW ABIDING
citizen to obtain a gun. The current statistics for those states and citys
that have enacted or enforce tight gun control laws is a RISE in crime.
And strange as it sounds those that have made it easier for a law abiding
citizen with NO criminal record to become licensed for a gun, have had
A decrease in the crime rate. One city actually had the rate go down 25 %
in one year. Yet the current headset out there is make tighter contorls
on legaling obtaining and owening a gun, why ??? It dosent work !!! 

Criminals dont worry about gun laws, there are too many black market sources 
both in this country and in the world. So even if you confiscated every gun in 
this country, they would still get them from somewhere. This is not to advocate
that all of you should go buy a gun, but just be a statement of fact. 
Gun control as it exists today is not working, the statistics prove that out.
What will work is tighter illegal gun USE laws that put criminals in jail,
rather than the law abiding citizen that wishes to own and use a gun for
legal uses and winds up being treated as a second class person. 
    
                                  Bob B

re: .31

>Criminals dont worry about gun laws, there are too many black market sources 
>both in this country and in the world. 

Criminals don't worry about taxes, there's no record of their illicit
income. But several have been caught on tax evasion when other charges
couldn't be proved. Perhaps some sort of registering/control of guns
could give the same chance of a conviction to violent crimes that tax
evasion laws give to financial crimes.
	Mez

    re .30:
    
    I did understand the NO_NUKES parody of an earlier reply. But even
    so, I feel compelled to object to the idea that Wood is the solution
    for our energy needs. I am scared of Seabrook for reasons OTHER
    than that it is nuclear. And if my objection forced you to write
    .30, then it was worth it. I've never seen you so eloquent as in
    this topic.
    
    re .32:
    
    Not a very good justification for the existence of the IRS.
    The IRS does far more harm to the rights of the normal, average,
    hard-working person, than any good it does by catching clever
    criminals. 
    
    And the same would be true of of gun control laws. The harm done
    to the honest would far outweigh the harm done to criminals.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    But Steve, if we register the 60 million guns out there,
    think of all the paperwork ! And all the new civil
    service jobs created. And all the political appointments
    for those jobs. Lotsa Kennedy neices and nephews soon
    entering the job market. :-)

    Getting back to Steve's point about guns being so heavily symbolic --
    it seems to me that he's right on at least four levels.  I imagine
    that for many people these categories overlap and conflict. 
    
    A gun can be a phallic symbol of dominance and power.  I suspect that
    many people who keep loaded guns in the house without proper training,
    respect, or safety considerations may be saying on some subconscious
    level, "Look at me, I'm big and strong and I can kill you if I want to.
    You're only here on my sufferance, so you better watch out."  This
    kind of attitude could easily explode into violence.
    
    A gun can represent territoriality and the urge to protect one's
    family.  In our society these duties are usually assigned to the male,
    so by extension a gun becomes a symbol of one's competence as a
    provider and protector.  Suggesting that such a man give up his gun
    tells him on the symbolic level that he is not capable of protecting
    his family, so the government is going to have to do it for him. 
    
    A gun can stand for all our old pioneer dreams of honesty, simplicty,
    and integrity, nostalgia for a simpler life style that is closer to
    nature, etc. etc. etc.  Steve expressed this very eloquently with his
    shotgun-in-the-closet description. 

    A gun can represent our killer instincts.  This is usually how people
    opposed to hunting perceive the guns owned and used by hunters, but it
    hasn't been my experience that the hunters themselves see their guns
    that way.  (An aside, with flame on moderate:  no one is entitled to be
    opposed to hunting on moral grounds if they eat or otherwise use any
    form of food or material that caused an animal to die.  This includes
    my hypocritical friend with her new Italian leather couch.  That
    amounts to saying that "It's wrong for you to kill an animal yourself,
    but it's okay to have somebody else kill it for you so you don't have
    to think about it." ) 
    
    --bonnie    

    
    
    When I was sixteen a friend showed me how to shot a rifle.
    Personally I found it uninteresting to shoot cans and bottles
    and such and I found it abhorrent to shoot at anything living.
    
    My first husband had a beebee gun to shoot dogs with, (against
    my wishes) one day when I was cleaning the house I found some
    of the beebees on the floor so I put them into the gun, (he
    always kept it loaded to be able to chase the dogs out of our
    yard).  That weekend a friend of ours came over and him and my
    husband were goofing off and my husband shot him with the beebee
    gun in the arm (range was three inches from end of barrel to beginning
    of skin).  My husband swore that he thought the gun was empty.  Our
    friend still has a small round scar on his upper arm.  I am
    thankful that I was adament about not having a "real" gun in the
    house.
    
    I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of "jerks" (like my ex-husband)
    who have them.
    
    BTW: Him and is present wife have guns and about 4 years ago a friend
    of hers threatened to "blow my face off" if I visited my children
    at their house again.
    
    MZB in her Darkover novels uses the concept that it is not killing
    that is not honorable but killing from a distance.  If the killer
    is not in the same danger as the victim then it is not a fair
    encounter.
    
    Guns give distance to a kill.  Come at me with a knife and I stand
    a chance, shoot me with a gun and I stand almost no chance.
    
    _peggy		(-)
    			 |	All life is to be valued
    					No death should be wasted
    

To the "woman" who called me on the phone, hissed "Gun loving bitch",
and hung up without indentifying herself....

Thank you

kathie
    

The following remarks are prompted by .36: however I do not disagree with
the overall sentiment of that note...

   The state of New Hampshire last year considered BANNING the sale of air
   weapons (remember the NH is one of the easiest places to get a firearm
   and a licence to carry). Reason: children play with BB guns.
   
�   I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of "jerks" (like my ex-husband)
�   who have them.

   I am afraid of jerks with any deadly weapon. A woman friend of mine lives
   in a fairly remote spot. She moved there from South Carolina after breaking
   up from her physically abusive husband. She now regularly carries a .44
   magnum revolver in a shoulder holster when away from home, and when on
   her property carries a 10 gauge shotgun (it is a little disconcerting
   to have her open the door with the Roadblocker pointed in the general
   direction of my lunch ...) However since her husband has threatened several 
   times to kill her on sight, should he ever find her, despite a court 
   restraining order the police have refused to act until AFTER HE BREAKS THE 
   ORDER. In the circumstances I approve of her carrying arms.    

    
�    Guns give distance to a kill.  Come at me with a knife and I stand
�    a chance, shoot me with a gun and I stand almost no chance.

   Well mostly the movement to control arms concentrates on hand guns. The
   typical range of a fatal handgun shooting is UNDER FIVE FEET. This is
   well within the distance I can throw a knife accurately enough to kill.

   It is also close enough to give me a fair chance of disarming the punk
   without being injured.
      
   Incidentally I have three scars on my hands from trying to take on knife
   fighters, and one from trying to take a broken bottle off a punk in a
   bar room brawl. I have faced firearms several times (both in civilian
   life and in the course of military duty) without ever being shot. Frankly
   the sight of a punk with a knife scares me far more than the sight of
   a punk with a gun.
          
   On a general level: the possibility of a child being injured/killed or
   injuring/killing somebody else has been mentioned several times, here
   and elsewhere. I believe that it is fair to comment that the number of
   children scalded to death by pulling boiling pans of a stove is several
   orders of magnitude higher than the number killed/seriously injured by
   finding a loaded gun in their home.
   
   /. Ian .\

re .37

There are ways to trace that.

I know.  Before I came back to DEC, I worked analyzing the data that came 
out of telephone switches INCLUDING the exact kind that DEC uses.

I suggest you talk to plant engineering and find out which group in here 
uses or handles the phone data.

ALL calls are recorded [not the conversation, just the start/stop times, 
number dialed, trunk used, etc.] Internal calls are the EASIEST to trace.  
If the right software is turned on, you can get a list, for your extension, 
of ALL calls in and out.  For incoming, if they came from the internal 
network [like another dtn station], you get the number, too.

That is, if you want to give this whole thing the time of day......

 As a point of reference all firearms either manufactured or imported
 into this country for legal sale, ARE REGISTERED with the Federal 
 bureau of tobacco, alcohol and firearms. Every time any firearm changes
 owner possession (IE from mfg to distb to retailer to customer to next
 owner ) that transfer MUST be recorded and the records forwarded to
 the BTAF by federal law. In many states ( Mass Inc ) that transfer is
 recorded on state records also. So all this outcry of registering guns
 is a bunch of hoopla....Its been happening since 1934 .....

 The black market I spoke to before are the guns that have been stolen
 or have been brought in the country illegallily.

 Steve (Eagle) brought up a number of good points, But its not fair
 to look upon all gun owners as people with a nostalgic or fantasy
 mind set. The reasons for firearm ownership and use are as varied as 
 the colors of the spectrum. The association of a firearm to machoism 
 is also an unfair assumption. I dont need a gun to prove that Iam a man.
 I own a gun to primary engage in shooting sports, because I enjoy it.
 Here again is a good example of a lack of understanding and education. 

I would say that the majority of owners  purchase a gun for home protection
 as in the case that Eagle brought up. The problem here is that a handgun or
 rifle is NOT the best choice of a home defense firearm, especially if theres 
 more than one person in the house. The reason for this is that any bullet type
 gun, even a 22 , the bullet will GO THROUGH the two layers of wall into the
 next room of your average house or apartment. What this means is that if you
 go to shot someone and you miss the bullet will go through the wall and has
 the  possibility of HITTING SOMEONE ELSE ON THE OTHER SIDE !!!!!

 The best choice for a defense gun is a pump shotgun (preferably a 12 gauge)
 loaded with #4 or #5 shot. The reasons are two fold. First and most important
 that load WILL NOT go through the wall yet is plenty powerful enough to 
 disable or kill an attacker. Second is that the sound of a pump shotgun
 being racked (slide moved back and then forward, loading a round into the 
 chamber) is the MOST distinguishable sound in the world. Anyone with half 
 an ounce of sense KNOWS that sound and would realize what they are about
 to confront, and will depart a very hasty exit rather than face someone
 with that gun.
                                Bob B

    
    
    I do not know of any child being killed by dumping boiling water
    on themselves but a high school senior killed himself with a gun
    last year in the town I live in.
    
    I thought about a knife thrown and decided that one would have to
    be really good at it to kill someone that way, and someone that
    good I would have no defences against.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	The Goddess is in every living thing
    				and every dead thing
    

    
     Re . 41     That individual could have just as easily committed
                suicide with a knife or hung himself for that matter.
                It docent take a whole lot of training to learn how
                to stick a knife in someone or top throw it for that
                matter.
    
                Aside from from that stand point one can be fairly quickly 
                trained to kill with their bare hands, or how to use
                a 101 different devices that are not firearms to cause
                bodily injury or death. In all cases the persons mind is 
                the decision maker, all the other implements are used to 
                carry that mind set out. 
    
                Too many people are still focusing on removing the tools 
                as the solution and ignoring the fact that its people that
                misuse them. Until that occurs, you will continue to
                have the problem. I congratulate the author of the note
                that stated that she was afraid of people and not guns.
                That person understands the real problem.  
    
                                            Bob B
               

    RE: .22, I think - anyway, the statemant was made that (paraphrasing)
    women can be as good shots as men. I believe the research shows
    that women have superior eye-hand co-ordination - they (we) actually
    make BETTER shots than men. It's the mental attitude that affects
    the perception of how welll women can shoot. (IF this is a rathole,
    I'm sorry, but I percieved the tone as slightly condescending, so
    far as the raw ability to shoot was concerned)
    
    Um, Peggy, loading agun without *telling* anybody..??? Yeah, HE
    should've checked the damn gun to see if it was loaded, but gee
    whiz, maybe the BB's would've better been put in a Dixie Cup til
    later.
    
    Dawn
    

    
     RE . 44   Eagles sense of humor actually translates to some reality.
    
      The other day I was in one of my favorite gun shops and a petite
      young lady came in the shop. The owner asked if he could help
      her, where upon she pulled a bright nickel plated 38 revolver
      from her pocketbook and asked if she could get the hand grip
      changed from the standard wood grips to a set of pearl type.
     
      As part of the conversation progressed she stated that the wood
     ones wernt nice enough and that she wished to "beautify" the gun.
     The other thing that was on the humorous side was that her favorite
     female line that equated to "Dirty Harrys Go ahead make my day"
     Was the one from the movie 9 - 5 by Dolly Pardon " Mess with me
     and Ill use this gun to turn you from a rooster to a hen"  

     Ther has been a number of special engraved and finished handguns
     made that have been marketed as ladies models by the manufactures.
    
                                      Bob B

Add another woman to those who are not against guns. My father and 
brothers have owned guns for as long as I can remember. My 
father collects them for whatever reason people have for collecting
things. It's a hobby with him. My SB (sweet baboo) also collects them.
I have known forever that guns are dangerous and must be handled 
with care. When I was young my father wouldn't let me use one
unless I he was there, and he made sure I was careful every single
time I came near one. He would yell at me if I so much as aimed even
a squirtgun at anyone. My father, brothers and sb are extremely careful,
they don't mess around. I don't hunt because I would probably cry if
I killed something and I have no desire to eat the yuck. But I enjoy
shooting up a target on occasion just for yucks and if people want to
hunt then that's fine with me. I guess I like the idea of having a gun
around for protection. Especially since I know that the person using it
knows exactly what he's doing. I don't personally know anyone who has 
ever had to use a gun for protecting him/herself. My father/SB/Bros
mostly like to clean their guns, make them shiney, show them off and put 
them away. It wouldn't occur to them to aim one at someone in anger, 
but should they NEED to use them they wouldn't hesitate. Yeah, I've heard
all the horror stories about guns. Two very good friends of mine shot
themselves to death and a man I used to work with was killed in a hunting
accident (mistook for a deer and all that). But the guns didn't kill those
people, people did.

Jenna

    I prolly shouldn't admit this, but I don't mind guns either.  When I
    worked for the Feds, one of our job requirements was to go out once or
    twice a year and make fools of ourselves in front of the uniformed
    folks on their firing range.  Since I wasn't a bad shot (high school
    rifle club), I generally managed to avoid the general run of snickers
    and snide remarks directed at my less capable (male) colleagues.  I
    just wish I could have also been spared the chauvinistic exclamations
    of amazement and disbelief. 
    
    						=maggie

     re: .10 (seen as .17). 

    I've come a long way in how I feel about guns and hunting. I no longer
    believe that all hunting is wrong. On the other hand, I don't buy any
    of the points raised in the note I'm responding to. I hope that it was
    another parody, but I can't figure out what it's parodying.

    Some of the replies in this not aren't what I'd think of as "topics of
    interest to women", but I'd say that reply 341.10 certainly is -- the
    views expressed in it reflect attitudes that I didn't expect to read in
    this conference.  Here are some comments.

>			 Many (most?) men like to think of themselves as
> "free" and able to provide for and defend their families.  

    I'm a little uncomfortable with this. It sounds like the kind of men
    that we hope don't exist anymore -- the kind who insist on being in
    charge of the little woman and the little kids. I would defend my home
    and family to the extent that I can, but then so would Margaret defend
    me (you would, wouldn't you?)  
    
> Sometimes
> freedom expresses itself symbolically in keeping a shotgun in a closet
> even when it's been 20 years without being fired even in practice.

    That symbolism is one thing, but too many accidents happen with weapons
    that just happen to be lying around. A picture is equally symbolic if
    the weapon isn't for any real use.
    
> Often men like to have tools/toys and spend time doing semi-
> dangerous things just because a safe and secure life-style lacks any
> feeling of adventure.  

    There's lots of adventure to be had in life. Guns are not required.

> Gun ownership and gun control and TV news shows
> about guns are intended to get attention.  

    No, gun control is intended to make guns harder to acquire. It's
    intended to make sure kids and suicidal adults don't have "accidents".
    It's intended to make sure that nuts have a harder time getting
    weapons. It's intended to regulate dangerous items. I don't see anyone
    seeking to abolish the Registry of Motor Vehicles because the state is
    infringing on the rights of any nut to drive any unsafe car in a
    drunken state.
    
    (See yesterday's Boston Globe, page 1, for the latest suicide helped
    along by a gun which happened to be lying around.) (Also, in response
    to another note, I'll bet that it's easier to commit suicide with a gun
    than with a knife if both are available -- the gun is cleaner, and
    cutting oneself has to be a very difficult thing).

>	   Perhaps one real problem is the lack of opportunity to have
> "selfish" time.  A man takes his gun and his dog and goes off "hunting"
> with his male friends and their sons.  It's "guy" time to spit and let
> your beard grow and swear if you wanna.  Most men these days have so
> little personal space in a world where women seem to be everywhere to
> an increasing extent.  

    I really don't understand why this "selfish" time has to be spent only
    with the boys. The men of the a generation earlier than mine (I'm 32)
    certainly felt this, and set up all kinds of clubs, from private
    men-only business clubs downtown to the Maynard Rod and Gun Club and
    the local Elks Club. Because they weren't on equal terms with their
    wives and they had nothing to do with raising the kids, they needed to
    be with people they could communicate with in that rare language of
    real men: grunts, swearing and spitting. [OK, that's a little
    oversimplified, but you get the picture. No flames please.]

    Aren't we trying to get away from all of this? Aren't we trying to make
    a new world where men and women are people, where men and women share
    in raising their kids? Wouldn't that world obviate the need to get away
    and swear with other sweaty men in a cabin in the woods?  If women are
    no longer girls, we should be able to spend time with them and not feel
    like we're missing something.

    What are you saying? Do you want women to stay home and care for the
    house and kids? Does it bother you that there are women in the
    workforce?  I'd say that any men who think this way have a serious
    adjustment problem.


>	   Guns are symbolic of all sorts of past evils but they often are
> symbols of past freedom-space for us older sportsmen.  

    I'm not a total geek. I understand that if you grew up a certain way,
    it's hard to learn new tricks. Unfortunately, the old tricks that
    you're talking about are dangerous.

> Women can't give
> men back the "wide open spaces" that are now shopping centers or posted
> property where once a boy with a BB-gun could wander at will and feel
> part of his "manly" heritage in his fantasy.  

    I think that this "manly heritage" stinks. Is it part of this manly
    heritage that to be a man means being one of Sylvester Stallone's
    characters? 
    
    By the way, women didn't take away the "wide open spaces". You'll
    probably find that the architects, business people and construction
    workers who built all of the malls where you could once shoot tin cans
    and squirrels were mostly men. Beyond that, if I owned a large wooded
    area, it'd be posted, too. Posting land isn't a feminine quality.

> But to have women seek so
> actively to abolish even the symbolic reminders of when men were "real"
> men ...

    Sorry, but it's not just women who want to do something about gun
    control.  There's me for instance.  Turns out, too, that there are real
    men now, and many of us don't need guns to prove it.

> as if that isn't bad enough, we see women saying "Not in MY house you
> don't!"  "Don't teach MY son to be a Bambi-Killer!"  Is it any surprise
> that a man walks away from such talk and wonders how to "relate" to
> such a threat to his fantasy/symbolic masculinity?

    Not in my house either, Steve. I think that you're talking about a
    macho fantasy as much as some men's reality, but that tough, violent
    image is very dangerous to people individually, and to society as a
    whole.

> No self-
> respecting male gun-owner would ever date a female who will deny him his
> hard-won 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms.

    I don't have a copy of it here, but as I understand the 2nd
    ammendment, it guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of
    the states each maintaining a militia. (There's no provision in the
    constitution for a national army, just for these militias.)  

>	   Soon men will have no places left to "remember" their heritage
> or have the freedom of thought to even know what it was to be a man.
> Already almost every space left is controlled and dominated by the city
> thinking processes of women with "their" homes.  So what's left for a
> man?  His hunting cabin off in the mountains?  Lack of money will take 
> even THAT away too along with his guns and leave nothing to do but mow
> the lawns and paint the house and watch TV/Cable/VCR and live lives of
> quiet desperation without any more adventure fantasy or dreams.

    Again, I think your division between men and women isn't accurate. I
    don't understand this "man" that you're talking about; you're not
    describing anyone that I know (but then I don't know anyone who voted
    for Reagan once, much less twice).  Why does your generic man need to
    do things that are so different from your generic woman? What happened
    to men and women as equals and as partners? 

>	Why not go a step further and take away those d*mned automobiles?

    Well, in fact, the government does regulate cars pretty closely. Both
    automobiles and drivers have to be tested and registered periodically
    to ensure some minimal level of safety. What's wrong with doing the
    same for equally (or more) dangerous items, namely firearms?  I'm not
    advocating that no one be allowed to have a gun, but let's not let
    everyone have one.


> Let's exterminate any opportunity for freedom among men to be nomads!
> Let's keep 'em safe and home and tame and then after a few generations
> they's grow to love civilized city life and hate the difficult choices
> free men need to make in a temporary and nomadic existance !!!

    Come on. No one's advocating this. I find your argument to be silly,
    unless it's a joke and I didn't get it.


    And speaking of gun control... Why does the NRA think it important that
    machine guns be available to the average person?  Is it important that
    any private citizen, anywhere, have a machine gun?

    re the 2nd Amendment and militia: this has been debated long and hard
    elsewhere. The second Amendment says (and I paraphrase) that since there
    may be a need to raise a militia (today's National Guard) it is desirable
    that people have access to firearms in order to minimize the training
    required when the militia is raised. It most specifically *does not*
    link gun ownership with actually belonging to a militia.         
    
    Re the NRA and machine guns (I presume you are talking about the American
    NRA :-) as far as I am aware this is also a canard. Class III weapons
    have been severely restricted for many years, and are (a) very hard
    to get, (b) highly regulated, and (c) expensive (even the licence costs
    $200). Recent problems revolve around fuzzy attempts at legislation
    that contain inadequate definitions of "machine gun" (one state for
    example defines it *solely* on magazine capacity, a pistol or rifle
    holding a magazine of 15 or more shots is, by their definition a "machine
    gun" - however the avarage lay person considers a machine gun to be
    a firearm that can fire sustained rapid automatic fire.)

    re linking firearm ownership to longings for the days when a boy could
    wander the open spaces with a BB gun: where I come from that has been
    illegal since before my Grandfather was born.
    
    re most firearms are bought for defense: ditto.
    
    Neither of the latter have served to dim my interest in firearms though.

    I sometimes get the feeling that one UNspoken reason for wishing
    to keep guns available is to keep the police in line....
    
    							Ann B.

    re .48:
    
    > I don't have a copy of it here, but as I understand the 2nd
    > ammendment, it guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of
    > the states each maintaining a militia.  
      
    The complete text of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
    
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed."
    
    Notice that the phrase "the right of the people..." is not dependant
    upon the previous phrase, "A well regulated Militia...".
    The Amendment does not say that the people only have the right to
    bear arms in a well regulated militia.   
    
    >(There's no provision in the
    > constitution for a national army, just for these militias.) 

    Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution:
    
    "The Congress shall have Power To ...  provide for the common Defence and
    general Welfare of the United States; 
    ...
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
    shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 
    To provide and maintain a Navy; 
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
    Forces; 
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
    Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
    for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
    the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
    Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
    according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."
    
    Notice that both ARMY and MILITIA are used, and not synonymously.
    Then in Article II section 2:
    
    "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
    United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
    into the actual Service of the United States; ..."
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .53:
    
    Oh, excuuuuse me, I didn't know that only the Supreme Court is allowed
    to read and quote the Constitution.
    
    I do not see how it is acting as the Supreme Court to correct someone
    who makes factual errors about the Constitution.
    
                                                    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    		

    This note is beginning to go the way of soap box....and there is
    a good long note in soap box on the topic with lots of flames that
    I would strongly recommend to all of you who feel you really want
    to 'duke' it out on this issue.....
    
    We've done a lot of good sharing on the differences between how
    men and women think/feel about guns....lets try to keep it that
    way and save the soapbox comments for soapbox (bethe::soapbox)
    
    Thanks
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    
    re: 48
    
    Well spoke! I'm with you, bucko!!
    

    

    .51> Fantasy.Note hunh?  What the heck is that?
    
    None of your business.  "Mr Manners, indeed!  It is because of your
    unprovoked attacks, like that in .53 against Steve Marshall that
    you shall NOT be asked to contribute to that forum.  Doink indeed!
    
    coMod this week only
    

    
     Bravo Mr Eagle .......couldnt have said it better myself.
    
     Hopefully between what you and I have placed in here we may
     have opened a few eyes to become aware of the case of tunnel 
     vision that they have had. If nothing else at least to generate
     thought about their attitudes.
    
                                     Bob B

    	What do these notes in response to the U.S. gun issue say to
    the state of civilization in the U.S.  Would we be better off if
    we all spoke and acted as southern cartoon characters?  Have we
    allowed our society to fail us to the point where personal gun
    ownership is so necessary for the protection of self and property?
    
    	I agree with a lot of what "eagle" has to say concerning male
    bonding.  There may come a day when the sexes are truly one in all
    ways save for reproduction but such is not so today.  I enjoy the
    company of women very much and I enjoy mixed company but I also
    enjoy the company of men.  Each group represents a different experience
    neither being better or worse than any other.
    
    	Posting land makes a great deal of sense to me.  I have earned
    my comforts and see no reason why that which I own must be shared
    with uninvited people (no trespassing).  I don't believe in hunting
    for sport and see no reason why I should allow sport hunting on
    land which I own (no hunting).  If people would use my land without
    causing damage they would be welcome.  If people needed to hunt
    on my land to feed themselves they would be welcome.  This is
    Acton, Massachusetts, U.S.A.  I have all of 1/2 an acre with 6 to
    8 trees.  No wildlife save for birds, squirrels and bugs.  The kids
    who roam through the neighborhood steal backyard furniture, rip
    down bird feeders and throw rocks at the domestic animals.  Is it
    incorrect to post the land against these children!  Absolutely.
    
    Douglas

�< Note 341.51 by CEODEV::FAULKNER "Mr Manners" >
    
�    And for giggles I have never met an Englishman such as my self that
�    liked guns. 

     Just for giggles I thought we met at the Human_relations_noters party?

     /. Ian .\

    re .62
    
    Dear Mr. Manners,
    
    It is reassuring to know that your rifle is in the closet and
    that your gun is holstered properly.
    
    Ms.Presto

    Kerry: in .63 I pointed out that we had met. As you so bluntly say this
    is not a particularly enlightening comment. However I was replying to
    your remark (in .51) that you had never met an Englishman such as your
    self that liked guns.
    
    Since we have met, and since my remarks herein indicate that I at least
    am a keen collector of firearms, it should be obvious even to a person
    of your apparently limited reasoning ability that your remark was, quite
    simply, factually inaccurate.
    
    My comments were not intended to extend this debate (i have already
    made direct contributions in that area), merely to highlight the inaccuracy
    of your remark.
    
    Satisfied?            

    Your note is best described in your own words: it was...
    
    �a classic note 
    �thank you we really needed that
           
    /. Ian .\
    

This is not a well-focussed reply so some readers may just want to
skip it.

I've been following this note for a while now and finally its got 
through to me enough to produce this reply. First of all I should say
that I don't like guns and I would prefer a slightly less
aggressive world. Secondly I should say I'm male.

So let me just throw out some random thoughts:

1. Guns are much harder to get hold of here in Europe. From here
it just seems clear that there are too many guns available in the US.

2. I've heard the possession of guns defended by the argument that they
are an equalising force - you don't need to be physically strong
to use a gun - so small, weak people don't need to be afraid of
big, strong ones. From this point of view women should welcome the
easy possession of guns.

3. How do you stop the strong people with evil intentions from
dominating the world? It seems you have to fight back. I wish
there was a different way, but I'm not strong enough to be a
Gandhi figure.

4. Isn't this note a disguised way of saying how can smaller weaker
people participate fairly in a world of bigger stronger people?

5. All that stuff about mens instincts and the american dream seems
like a load of rubbish from here - the american indians didn't have
guns and yet they managed to live a life very close to nature and in a
very 'free' way. But they were nearly totally wiped out by the gun-toting
invaders - bringing their freedom.

Well there's plenty more where that came from but I guess I'll sign off
just now. Sorry its so badly organised.

John.

    Well here goes I finally have to jump in. We have been discusing
    guns and hunters in the equestrian notes file also. But first some
    background on me. I was taught to shoot a rifle at age 12. I was
    a member of a trap and skeet league and know how to use a shotgun.
    My husband has been (and probably will be again) a hunter. I still
    don't like a lot of folks that have guns. 
    
    Those of us with horses and other livestock live in fear of hunting
    season. Those @#$%$^&%&**( city folks that think they are the "great
    white hunter" have a bad habit of shooting cows and horses and
    sometines the people near them. Posting property is a waste as they
    don't seem able to read and think the signs are for target practice.
    
    Now to be calm. There is no easy answer to this problem. How can
    you refuse someone a gun permit just because s/he is an a**hole?
    Probably 80% or higher of the gun owners in this country are not
    a**holes but the minority that are can be *very* dangerous. The
    problem is not guns (or knives or whatever) but who has them. I
    don't like handguns much at all yet if you live in the country a
    rifle or shotgun is very handy and helpfull. Like when the city
    folks drop their no longer wanted dogs in the country to form packs
    that attack livestock (oh, some kind farmer will feed them, we can
    just drop them off). 
    
    As usual I end up fence sitting on these issues cause I can't see
    a reasonable answer. Each side is right in it's own way. As far
    as protecting us from invasion, guns (enough of them) might stop
    the Hell's Angels but even a machine gun won't touch a tank. As
    for the rapist invading my house - I have three dogs that like me
    a lot. If the rapist wants to live he better have a gun cause I
    won't call my dogs off till he's dead. 
    
    I'm caught in the dichotomy of our times. I want to be a promoter of
    peace but I know that if I'm attacked and have the means to do it I'd
    kill my attacker. If I can't answer these questions with certainty
    about myself how can I expect the government to answer them for
    everybody? liesl 
    

        For so-called unfocussed thoughts, I found 341.70 quite clear.
        There is a real tension between being a peace-loving individual
        and knowing that you have within you the power and the will to
        fight to the extreme for that peace, your safety and that of
        others. Close association with and respect for guns and other
        weapons can leave you much more comfortable with them and much
        less comfortable with seeing them in the hands of those who
        don't understand and respect them.
        
        Then again, I feel a strong affection for the middle ground and
        those who defend it strongly in almost any argument of
        substance. Important issues are usually complex with much to be
        said on either side.
        
        JimB. 

    
    re: .67
    
    Anyone entertaining any ideas about using me as a missile or melee
    weapon should know beforehand that I'm very unwieldy and not really
    hard enough to impart the necessary kinetic energy.
    
    Of course, if you need someone to baffle them into not
    shooting/stabbing/clubbing/pummeling you...
    
    DFW

    Thank you Liesl and JimB. 
    
    I have made three attemps to verbalize my agreement with
    you both and have failed.  So will just add my voice and
    agree that people kill people, animals, plants, the earth...
    
    This fact looms large over the history of humankind.  If,
    magically, all the guns in the world disappeared, and that
    was *all* that changed, the career criminals and rapists and
    woman-haters, and robbers would just find another weapon to
    overpower their victim(s), and we would *still* have the 
    capability of nuking ourselves into oblivion.  
    
    <kick soap powder of feet>
    
    Liesl has been shooting since she was a young girl.  If she needs
    to defend her home against a pack of wild dogs, or against anything
    meaning to do her harm, she CAN.  
    
    I have only been shooting a year, and am DAMN careful with my
    weapon and ammunition.  I LIKE guns.  I want to learn all about
    them and try different kinds.  It is satisfying to me to become 
    a good shot.  
     
    If I need to defend myself against a mugger, or someone breaking
    into my home, or someone forcing me off a lonely road at night,
    I *CAN*.  (I KNOW a woman who was forced off a highway at night
    by two vans, she was *lucky* that her attackers decided not
    to stick around when she burst out of her car swinging a tire
    iron.  I also worked with a woman who's daughter had been terrorized
    on the road at night, and the daughter now carries a pistol.) 
    
    I'm trying to stay off the soapbox, but I REALLY take exception
    to the notion that women are (eeeek) squeamish about firearms. 
    And, c'mon dammit, if the big daddy government takes away all
    our firearms (which they'll never do), who really believes
    we'll be safer from the criminal and insane element....
    
    okay...enough said ... that was just a little bit of this 
    (gun loving b**ch) woman's opinion.
    
    Karen
    
    

    re .73
    
    bravo.....from another "Gun loving b**ch".....

    re 73 & 74
    
    I bought my first gun in January.  With it I accept the responsibility
    to master its use and understand the implications of its ownership.
    
    Nancy
    
    

>< Note 341.73 by SMEGIT::BALLAM >
>                       -< it's not easy to summarize... >-
>
    Karen, well said.
    
    Mark (a gun loving b**t*rd married to a gun loving b**ch)
         (both with permits)
    

    

    |Mark (a gun loving b**t*rd married to a gun loving b**ch)
    	  (both with permits)
    
    Marriage permits?
    :-)

>< Note 341.77 by HARRY::HIGGINS "radical humorist" >
>    
>    Marriage permits?
>    :-)
    
    We have a marriage "permit" too.  Ie., license  ....   ;-)

    	Guns are good for protection, or so many people believe.  But
    what does this say about our society?  Should people who live in
    a civilized society have to carry guns for protection?  And if the
    answer is yes, where will it end?  Will there come a day when all
    people are carrying guns all the time?  How big will the guns have
    to be?  Will we escalate to carrying rifles?  Is it a reality that
    we in certain sections of the U.S.A. must carry guns?  If the answer 
    is yes, I am truly sad.  I grew up with city gangs and zip guns
    and gang fights.  Believe me, it is not comforting to carry a gun
    because you believe you need one, it is a frightful way to live.
    
    	When we assume the need to protect ourselves to this degree
    then we admit defeat.  Let the people with the most firepower rule?
    NO!
    
    Douglas

    so what happens when someone breaks into your house? do you say,
    "excuse me, let me go get my gun so I can blow your head off."? Do you
    try to slip your hand into the nightstand (or glove compartment, or
    purse or knapsack, or under your coat)? Do you get *your* head blown
    off while doing that?


    Here are some real questions:
    
    1. What do people think gun control is? What do you want to see? I
       don't think that many people seriously want or expect to get rid of
       all guns; that's unrealistic.
    
    2. I don't know exactly what it takes to get a gun or gun permit
       now, but would it be bad to have strict[er] controls on who is
       allowed to buy weapons? Or strict[er] requirements for testing
       people before they get a permit? 

    

    Re 80. There are some things that make good sense in a gun law.
    In Colorado, in order to get a hunting license you must take and
    pass a hunter safety course. This does not mean you will use good
    sense when you finaly do go out but at least you had to pay attention
    and can't say you didn't know any better when an accident happens.
    
    liesl

    re: .79
    
    My feelings exactly.  Guns stink when applied towards people.  The
    problem isn't the machine, it's the way that machine is used.  Killing
    Bambi is fine by me; bambi and his bros fed my family for a long
    time.  Pretending a human being is a bambi is lousy.
    
    Lee

It is often instructive to look at problems from different
viewpoints. I've just been trying to imagine the world if
*only* women were allowed to carry guns. Try it.

John.

    Terrifying.    :-)/2

    Last year women in Vermont had a rough time.  Seems like there was
    a murder a month for a while, gave me an uneasy feeling.  A gun
    is not an absolute solution but it might equalize what would otherwise
    be an unequal confrontation.  I hope I never have to use it.
    
    Nancy
    

    RE .85   How does that compare, on a per_capita basis,
    with California, Mass., N.York, or other states with
    strict gun control ?  I'd bet that statistic would
    be interesting.

    I don't really know how the murder rate compares with other states
    but I know that it was higher than I've ever seen it in 8 years.
    Fortunately, things seem to have calmed down.  I'll bet that it
    isn't significantly different from other states.  Vermont has the least
    strict gun control laws in the country, and gun control is not an
    active issue.  Catching and prosecuting murderers is.
    
    Nancy
    

  RE . 86    The stats you would like to see are contained here    
    
         The statistics based on 1984 FBI uniform crime reports


 No gun law, in any city, or state has ever reduced violent crime or 
 slowed it's rate of growth, compared to similar jurisdictions without 
 such laws. With tough gun laws enforced with federal aid, violent 
 crime increased over twice as fast in Massachusetts ( 35 % in Mass vs
 17 % national between 1974 - 1984 ) and homicide fell less ( 18 % vs
 19 % nationally).

 In Washington DC ( 1976 - 1984 ) and Chicago (1982 - 1984 ) both with
 tough gun laws, homicide rates have risen more wile the national average 
 has dropped. Violent crime has also risen In Washington, wile dropping 
 nationally and in Chicago, violent crime has doubled.

 New York city (where the average citizen [only the "privileged] CANT get
 a handgun permit, ala Bernie Getz ), now boasts one sixth of the nations
 armed robberies. New York city alone HAS MORE HOMICIDES than the TOTAL of 
 23 states.  Robbery and murder rates are consistently higher in citys WITH
 RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS than those without, based on 1984 FBI stats compiled 
 over a ten year timeframe. 

                    CITYS WITH RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

  CITY                       HOMICIDES                     ROBBERY
                         (rates per 100,000)

 DETROIT                       45.3                        1618.0
 NEWARK                        26.8                        1434.0
 MIAMI                         42.4                        1423.9
 NEW YORK                      20.2                        1109.8
 WASHINGTON                    28.6                        1014.3
 CHICAGO                       24.6                         947.2
 LOS ANGELES                   24.1                         869.0

                   CITYS WITH LENIENT GUN LAWS

 INDIANAPOLIS                   10.4                         390.6
 ALBUQUERQUE                    7.9                         340.9
 PHOENIX                       11.6                         242.0
 TULSA                          7.8                         239.6
 EL PASO                        5.2                         225.4
 WICHITA                        4.1                         154.7
 OMAHA                          6.7                         148.1

          

 A few of our foreign readers have talked about their gun laws in 
 relation to ours (US). Some interesting comparisons, based on
 1984 FBI stats.

  Gun laws have no relationship with murder or suicide rates. England,
  with strict gun laws has a lower murder rate, yet Ireland, with even
  more restrictive gun BAN, has a murder rate HIGHER than the US.

  Switzerland and Israel, with most households armed have a murder rate 
  compared to England or Japan or lower.

  England annually had twice as many homicides with firearms before 
  adopting their tough firearms laws. Yet during the ten years time
  frame of 1974 - 1984, the handgun related robbery rate rose over 500 %
  in Britain compared to a 25 % increase in the US.

  Murder rates on Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms in this 
  country, is even lower to the murder rate in Japan, which has a virtual 
  gun ban. Yet Japans suicide rate is twice as high as the US.     
  
  Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes
  and punishing criminals than the US. In London approximately 20 % of 
  reported robberies end in a conviction. In New York city, less than 5 % 
  result in a conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is NOT imposed.
  As an example one sees the youths that went after Bernie Getz, ALL had 
  records, yet were still out on the streets.
    

    re: .88 (stats on guns/laws)

    1. I wouldn't count NY City as typical of much of anything. It's so
    densely populated, and poverty is such a problem in some places, that
    it can't be compared directly with many other places. 

    2. Similarly, your lists of cities with restrictive and lenient laws
    doesn't show anything about the cities themselves. More than just the
    number of guns per capita contribute to crime. Who lives there? How
    densely do they live? How well-educated are they? How poor are they? Do
    they have jobs? How easy is it to get guns? What kind of enforcement or
    education goes along with the laws? 

    3. Of the cities that have gun laws, but still have high armed crime
    rates, how long have they had the restrictive laws? Has there been
    enough time for the laws to have any effect on the people? Has there
    been sufficient enforcement of the laws? Have the courts done their
    parts to convict and lock up those involved? 

    I'm sure someone who's studied some criminal justice or sociology
    (instead of chemistry and computer science like me) could refine my
    lists of questions.

    re .90
    
    I agree that the issue extends beyond gun control.  Gun control
    attacks the symptom, not the root cause of violence.  Sorta like
    the anti-abortionists want to stop abortions, but how does society
    deal with unwanted pregnancy?  The brute force solutions, or moralistic
    (without being realistic) approaches don't seem to work anymore, if
    they ever did.  I guess we (queen's english) still have to keep
    looking...
    
    I believe that owning a gun is valid for me.  Living in the country,
    I do not want to be subject to fear and intimidation within my own
    home.  Besides, I am beginning to enjoy target shooting as a
    challenging hobby.
    
    Nancy
    

Reprinted with permission of author . Dana


            <<< BEING::DISK$DATA01:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 1276.19               THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE THIS                   19 of 24
FIDDLE::RENO "Ethics are for easy climbs"            64 lines   9-SEP-1987 09:34
                  -< OK -- Time for a female to check in... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There's a number of factors to take into consideration... 
    
    Obviously, there's plenty of men who don't like guns, either, though
    they probably won't admit to it as easily as most women (macho, you
    know!).  Most women I've met that don't *ever* want to have anything to
    do with guns feel that way either because they're against hunting (I
    am, too) or they've known people who've been injured or killed in
    accidents or acts of violence with a gun, the latter being the usual
    case.  What they fail to understand, or have never had it explained to
    them logically, is that many of these injuries were *accidents* and
    shouldn't be considered any differently than a car accident or an
    accident which happens with many other sports. 

    Secondly, there is an aura around this intimidating, male dominated
    "toy" called a gun that leaves the ignorant (I use this word not as an
    insult, BTW) simply dazzled and frightened.  In my case, I'd say I was
    definitely intimidated by them...there's something about the
    combination of the weight, the shape, and the potential damage that can
    be done that actually "spooked" me...until I held one.  Even then, it
    felt strange for the first few minutes.  I didn't know what they
    sounded like, I didn't know what they could actually do (i.e. "How big
    of a hole can this one make?"), etc.  I only tried shooting because I'm
    curious, by nature.  Chances are that, if I had ever actually seen
    anyone shot or be attacked by someone with a gun other than Clint
    Eastwood, I probably wouldn't have wanted to go within 10 ft. of one
    either.  And, by all means, don't come home with your torn up target
    bragging about the damage done by your new .45!  These holes in the
    paper translate real easy into holes in your gut!  If this is the case
    of your female SO's, then hang it up, guys! 

    BUT, if the women (or anyone else) are just plain scared of the unknown
    and their reason has nothing to do with hunting, then try buying a
    pellet gun and play around in the basement or somewhere safe near the
    home. Point out how cheap the kit is (well under $100 compared to well
    over $500 for the "real thing") and, somehow, relate it to darts (well,
    it's a target "game" that can still be dangerous, just like pellet
    guns...kinda).  Suggest that she doesn't have to shoot a real gun, but
    that target games can be fun.  If she seems interested, let her shoot
    it without the pellets, just to get used to the "type" of action and
    relationship between the hands, sight, control, etc.  Point out the
    safety points then, not when she gets the "real thing" -- that way,
    handling will come second-nature and concentration on the skill rather
    than the tool will become important. Emphasize the target and the skill
    needed, rather than the gun and "tough guy" attitude that may (or may
    not) flow when "the guys" get together.  Don't have an "I don't know
    why you hate them so much" attitude, but project an attitude of "This
    is something we can do together", etc.  Also, bring home a video tape
    that might show some of the finer aspects of target shooting, NOT
    hunting (that popular turnoff). 
    
    As for me, I'm still a "bambi-ite" and will always be (BTW, Witchey,
    what is the *real* story on hunting and conservation?).  But, when I
    realized how involved my SO was in firearms and target shooting, I
    figured I owed it to myself (and him) to try it...that was last Spring.
    Now, I'm hoping Santa sends me a long-barreled, .22 automatic for Xmas!
    ;-) 
    
    Meanwhile, for those who still have a problem, tell your women how much
    fun the other women had pistol shooting at Corky's Blastathon and that
    they'd better get in practice if they want to be any good by next year!
    ;-) 

    -d 
    

    	Interesting, but I don't think that holding/shooting a gun
    	is all that it takes to like them.
    
    	I shot a gun for target practice at the age of 9.  My parents
    	had a friend with a lot of property and a gun collection, and
    	somehow, before I knew what happened, they had me out back
    	shooting.  [This was not at *all* like my parents to do something
    	like asking their youngest child to shoot a gun, especially
    	since I had a teenaged brother who would have appreciated the
    	opportunity more than I did.]
    
    	Not that I refused.  I shot at targets all evening long.  It
    	was interesting, but not a big thrill.
    
    	When I went back into the house, I decided that as long as I
    	was into "new things" I would try something that I had *really*
    	been wanting to try.  I went to the gun owner's fireplace and
    	lit my first match.  :-)   [True story.]
    
    	Some like guns, some don't.  I'm fairly neutral on the subject
    	(unless the person with the gun is known -- to me -- to have
    	difficulty controlling his anger.  Even a little.)  In that
    	case, guns are completely out of the question.
    
    							Suzanne...

	This whole gun thing seems kind of strange to me. So many people
seem to have such definite opinions about it. I thought maybe injecting
some of my thoughts and experiences on the subject might be helpful to some.

	As a young boy growing up in a suburban setting, I suddenly realized
one day that I simply *had* to have a gun. I'm not even sure why this was so
but it was. I just had to have one of those things! They were *so* damn
fascinating! Maybe it came from watching too many John Wayne movies and
seeing the "good guys" come into town and shoot all the "bad guys". I don't
really know but the fascination was real. A real gun would have been great
but I knew there was no chance of that happening (and thank god it didn't!).
So, after much nagging, begging, pleading and crying my brother and I were
both awarded with BB guns. I think it is important to inject here that our
guns were used strictly for target shooting. That is to say we did not go
around shooting birds and squirrels and frogs and everything else that moved
with our guns. Neither myself nor my brother had that heart (or desire) to
kill helpless creatures with our guns. I was tempted many times to shoot
those idiots who did go around shooting small animals but that would have
landed us in a whole lot of trouble so we held back.

	Both my brother and myself went through a period of a few years
where we were inseparable from our BB guns. They were like an extra
appendage or something. We always felt safe and protected when we carried
our trusty BB guns on long walks through the woods with us. As a point of
interest the guns most probably *did* save our butts one day while on a
long outing deep in the woods. We were charged by a pack of rather large
and vicious looking dogs (4 or 5 Dobermans and Shepards) who appeared to
have every intention of having us for dinner! When we turned and opened fire
with our BB guns the dogs rapidly reversed their direction. From the speed
of their reaction to our guns, it looked as though they had some experience
in the area of firearms before meeting us.

	Fortunately for us, we survived the many years of BB gun toting
with no serious injuries to ourselves or others. No matter how careful a
kid tells you they will be with a BB gun, they will do some stupid things
with it. We were probably about as sensible as kids get in the area of guns
and we still did some dumb things once in a while. I guess a kid is a kid
is a kid on most cases. Looking back, I don't think I would trust any kid
of mine (providing I do have some some day) with any kind of gun until he
or she was at least 16 or older.

	Sorry if this seems to be rambling on too much but it seemed like a
good chance to give some of our readers an "inside view" of what makes one
of us crazy gun lovers tick. Even though I don't fully understand myself!

	Anyway, as we reached a more responsible age, my brother and I were
both allowed to have real guns. We both started out with .22 rifles and
again, used them for target shooting only. The burden of responsibility
associated with a "real" firearm did take some of the fun out of it. With
these we had to be *VERY* careful and we were. Again, no unfortunate
accidents or injuries to anyone.

	I am still rather fond of guns. I do own some including a couple
of handguns that I keep around primarily for protection. Even some of my
friends tell me that they think I am nuts for keeping hand guns in my
house but I know things *do* happen. I know the odds are against it but
I feel a lot better knowing I am prepared to deal with some deranged
criminal if he happens to pick my house to break into in the middle of
the night or whatever. Yes I know he may have a gun as well and may blow
my head off first but nothing would have changed that. At least I have a
fighting chance with my own gun if he is a lousy shot and misses me! :-)

	I do occasionally carry a handgun if I plan to be traveling to a
place I perceive as particularly dangerous; such as some of the neighborhoods
in Boston. As a former part-time police officer I have been trained in the
proper use of firearms and I am licensed to carry one in the state of Mass.
This also makes me feel better in certain situation. If I happen to encounter
a gang of "toughs" on a dark parking lot late at night down in Boston, I can
tell you that I feel a lot better knowing I have the means to defend myself
and my friends if the need arises.

	Lest some of you get the wrong idea, I am not the "typical" macho
type male you might be picturing. I am a peace-loving person who hates to
fight. I even hate to argue! But I do value my life and refuse to let some
low life on the street terrorize me. It is a sad situation. I wish I did
not feel that I had to carry a weapon in some situations. I wish we did
not have muggers and rapists roaming the streets but we do and I feel the
need to protect myself and my loved ones from those types of people. Some
of you might be shocked to realize just how many dangerous people there are
out there walking among us. As a police officer I had some exposure to those
types of people and it was somewhat shocking.

	In the area of gun control I agree with a lot of what has been said
here. I think there should be a lot more to getting a gun than there is now.
I certainly don't want to take guns away from everyone but those who are
granted a permit or license should be screened much better. I am in favor
of psychological testing and *extensive* background checks for those that
feel they need a firearm. There are too many crazies (that I personally
know) who own legal firearms. Some of those people I would not trust to own
a kitchen knife!

							Dale "the male"