Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>>       Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
>>       my life?
    
    Very probably yes.  I own a gun and I can choose to use it or not.

>>       Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
>>       the life of my child, a loved one, or a friend?

    Absolutely.
    
>>       Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
>>       the life of a random person on the street?

    Possibly not.  First, I don't carry a gun in public.  Second, getting
    involved in a conflict on the street can be complicated. Suppose you
    intervene in behalf of the wrong person, or the fight was staged as a
    joke.  There are a lot more factors to consider when confronting
    criminal violence on the street versus in your home. 
    
>>       In the event of violent criminal attact where the use of
>>       lethal force against me appears imminent, would I be willing
>>       to forfeit my life with the result being that a violent
>>       criminal maintains theirs?   Would my children and loved ones
>>       support my choice?
    
    No.  I believe my right to life is at least equal to that of a violent
    criminal.  I embrace the idea of giving up life for some causes
    but being a victim of violent crime is not one of them.  I don't
    have children so I don't have to answer for anyone but myself. 
    However, if I was a child I believe I might be angry or confused
    if I lost my parent(s) because they chose not defend him/herself.
    
    Nancy    

    
    	How do you ascertain whether the criminal is violent and whether
    you're in a life or death situation? I would expect by the time
    *that* happens, you wont have the opportunity to "go get the gun".
    I would expect that you'd want the gun in your hands when the criminal
    is merely at the stage of breaking and entering, if it's purchase
    is going to be effective at all. So the question becomes "would you 
    use lethal force against a criminal that is breaking and entering,
    stealing, or destroying your *property*?" (I suspect some people
    would) I'd recommend considering that *long* before things reach the 
    "Life or Death stage".              
    
    	I've heard in Colorado "cowboy country" it's still legal to
    use lethal force against anyone merely caught breaking into your
    property. In the "mega conservatist" state of Mass however, you
    have to be legally sure that you're defending your life. What a
    decision to have to make within concievably the most stressful
    moment that is possible for anyone to have to face. Please correct
    me if I'm wrong.
    	
    	Joe Jas 
    

    I asked myself a question that isn't on the list in the base
    note -- 
    
    If I respond to violence with violence, am I doing anything to
    make it less likely that others will be forced to make the same
    decision?  Or am I perpetuating a cycle of violence and revenge
    that has already gone too far?
    
    We've got to break the cycle somewhere.  We're capable of better.
    
    --bonnie

    I can't hold with the "cycle of violence" argument when someone
    attacks me without provocation. While one never knows what one will
    do in an unexpected situation, I hope I would not hesitate to defend
    myself or my family, using whatever was necessary. 
    
    Now, if I could knock out an attacker or chase him/her/them away,
    that would be fine, but if not I would give it all I had. And may
    I point out that "lethal force" needn't mean a gun; a kitchen knife
    would do very nicely, and of course it's possible to kill with one's
    bare hands. 
    
    OK, I realize that if _I_ (5'3", 110 lbs.) got into any kind of
    hand-to-hand struggle I would probably not have much chance of winning.
    Still, if the antagonist was not open to reason, I'd fight back rather
    than fold up quietly. 

    Or at least that's what I think I would do, sitting here safely
    at my terminal... In reality I might just stare in shocked disbelief
    until it was too late. 
    
    Let's hope we don't have to put this to the test any time soon.

    -b

    With all respect to your views, Bonnie (.3), I would have to argue that
    what we know of human psychology suggests that the will to be violent
    is genetically (or at least pre-natally) determined, and that we cannot
    eliminate it from other individuals by our personal passivity. Of
    course, we cannot eliminate it by a violent response, either, but with
    luck we may eliminate the violent individual instead, which is almost
    as beneficial.                                     
    
    That having been said, I'll respond personally:  I hold no brief for
    the creeps of the world, but would hope that I'm never confronted with
    the need to kill because I have the sneaking suspicion that while I
    could act homicidally in the heat of the moment (and would try to), I
    would not do well psychologically afterward if I were successful. 
    
    						=maggie

    Joe,
    
    I suspect that one scenario that people here are considering is
    you get your weapon when the intruder first intrudes, but you
    do not even consider killing until the intruder is demonstrated
    to be violent.
    
    (I mention this because you seem to have overlooked it.)
    
    						Ann B.

    I agree with Bonnie, .3.
    
    If somebody started to attack me, or my daughter, or one of my friends,
    and I had noticed that the butcher knife was right behind me on
    the counter, I'd grab it and go for the guy and I don't think I'd
    feel guilty if I won.  (Of course, I'd have to be very lucky since
    most people over the age of 12 are bigger than me.)
    
    I've been mad enough to kill people before.  I think if I had the
    ability I could kill.  But, that doesn't make it right.  I still
    believe it's wrong and I don't want to succumb to violence.
    
    Can you imagine what this country would be like if every person
    over the age of 18 carried a gun??  *Then* I'd be afraid to go out
    my door in the morning.  If every adult in this country carried
    a gun, I wonder what the average life expectancy would be?  25?
    
    If people are genetically predisposed to violence - does that mean
    just some people - while some people are not?  (Because all people
    are not violent.)  Maybe I am genetically predisposed to *non-violence*
    and I can't help but try to dissuade others from owning guns.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .9, Lorna-
    
    > Can you imagine what this country would be like if every person
    > over the age of 18 carried a gun??  *Then* I'd be afraid to go out
    > my door in the morning.  If every adult in this country carried
    > a gun, I wonder what the average life expectancy would be?  25?
      
    Picture that!  Now, if you're saying, they all woke up with those
    guns tmorrow, I'd be worried.
    
    But imagine if guns were a normal appendage, like your wallet or
    your purse.  Everyone had always known how to take care of themselves,
    everyone had grown up with responsibility for personal actions
    reinforced...I think this would be a far better world.  One would
    see civility as a matter of couse.  *Women* would have had significant
    personal power eons ago...
    
    DougO

    the "make my day" law as I understand it is, if someone is breaking
    into your house, you can be prosecuted if you shoot before they
    set foot inside.  so they are tellling us, you have to let them
    in your house, then get them.  they have no right to safety if they
    have violated your home by entering without permission.  
    
    my feelings on violence? If someone is threatening me, my child
    or a friend, I would fight back. If I saw some woman I don't know
    being raped and others were strolling by(happens in the east the
    news people tell us) I would pick up something, a rock, a garbage
    can, a 2X4 and knock the s**t out of them.  until violent people
    realize that there are repercussions for their violent actions they
    will continue to be violent.  being passive to a violent person
    allows them to be violent to someone else afterwards. If a man who
    is a rapist never gets punished or any resistance, he will continue
    to rape.  
    
    I have really strong feelings about people who wont help other humans
    but will cry and bemoan the treatment of animals.
    
    vivian
   

    
    re .9
    
    > Can you imagine what this country would be like if every person
    > ...carried a gun?
    
    Yes.
    
    Polite.

    There seems to be some confusion about the "MAKE MY DAY LAW" here
    in Colorado.  Colorado state law still says that citizens can only
    use deadly force to stop deadly force.  If the bad guy breaks off
    an attack and runs, you CANNOT shoot them in the back.
    
    If someone is breaking into your house, you don't know if that person
    is a junkie trying to rip you off or a rapist.  There has been too
    many cases of scumbags breaking into a home and then discovering
    that someone is there so they try to kill the people to get rid
    of witnesses.
    
    If someone breaks into your home in Colorado, you can use deadly
    force to stop them but you can count on it going to the Grand Jury.
    Chances are that you will get off unless you shoot them in the back,
    shoot them again after they go down, or after they break off the
    attack.

    The law states that you can stop deadly force with the use of deadly
    force.  The way the state laws reads, it is not a blanket permit
    to kill but to allow you to defend yourself against illegal force.
    Also as a side note, the law prohibits the criminal or criminal's
    family from sueing you for damages if you legally defend yourself
    and you kill or injure the criminal.
    
    B*B
    Pat

    Re .13, Harry, that's *not* funny.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Excuse me.  Humans ARE animals.
    
    Deb
    

    Excuse me too.  Some people don't think slaughtering animals is
    a cool thing.

       I have a book of letters written by pioneer women. It has a whole
       chapter of letters telling the tale of how many were killed
       accidentally by others who were not in adequate control of their
       guns. Granted the pioneers needed weapons and used them
       regularly. But that would also make you think they weren't so
       prone to ACCIDENTALLY kill each other. One real common death was
       from someone with a loaded gun across their lap while riding on
       the wagon seat. They hit a bump (of which there were millions)
       and the gun goes off and shoots someone else in the wagon train.

       liesl 

    � Sometimes I wonder what sort of mental block people have
    about "right" and "wrong" ...  There are real pieces of garbage
    out there who are not human even though they walk, they talk,
    they have driver's licenses ... "Right" and "Wrong" only apply
    between civilized human beings ... �
    
    Exactly!
    
    Which is why a civilized human being, who has a sense of "Right"
    and "Wrong", eschews the use of lethal force, as opposed to the
    "animal" who doesn't.
    
    --- jerry

    re .22 Jerry, you're making the same error as was made 
    elsewhere - failing to differentiate between *initiation*
    of force and *retaliation*. The first is immoral, the 
    second, moral. (No, I don't consider it to be a moral
    *imperative*, just an acceptable option. The option of
    passivity is open, but I question the self-esteem of
    one who will not defend themself.)
   

    <--(.18)
    
    I'm with you, Marty.                               
    
    						=maggie

    
    	Re -            
    
    I always thought that there was an unwritten rule about guns that
    says "If you have a gun in your hands - you're [by definition] planning
    on using it". I'm sure we all know the handgun's intended purpose...
    
    There is no longer any room for "deciding if the alleged criminal
    is going to be violent in a life or death manner" - it comes back
    down to "will you use deadly force to stop breaking and entering
    or stealing?" - when you *first* pick it up. 
    
    "Well, he seemed like a nice guy so I tried to reason with him"
    - Right.
    
    Point is, once you have the gun in your hands, you better be pretty
    damn sure you're also *willing* to pull the trigger - lest you get it
    taken away from you and it used against *you* - not the purpose
    of it's purchase. 
    
    And that's the catch of guns and having them! All the "Oh I have
    a gun" threats that are portrayed on TV is all bullsh*t! In real
    life, you dont fool around with "threats". There is no security in 
    "owning" a gun - there is only security in *your* willingness to use
    one. Now, the *necessity* of it's use is for the courts to decide
    after that fact. Apparently, you'd better be right in your choice
    of action!
                    
    Where's "the colonel" on this topic anyway? I'd listen to what he
    has to say on this, I have a feeling...
                     
    	Joe Jas

    This is such a complicated issue. I don't comsider myself a violent
    person, and I would be quite happy to believe that everyone respects
    everyone else. In fact I wish I *could* believe it. But if nothing
    else taught me that it ain't so, teaching in the public schools
    certainly did. 
    
    There are people who don't give 2 hoots about me, my life, my property,
    my safety, and the safety of my loved ones. They *would* steal from
    me, kill me, whatever... with no problem at all. [Now, what they're
    doing to their karma is another thing, BUT that doesn't help me
    at the moment they decide to infringe on my rights.]
    
    I look at the courts, law enforcement, and most authority figures,
    and I realize we have cut the underpinnings from our protection.
    As a teacher, I was supposed to "enforce" certain rules. But if
    somebody broke those rules, there were no enforceable penalties!
    The same thing has happened to the cops. Somebody steals your stuff,
    no only do you not get it back, they don't catch the guy. Or they
    catch the guy and he never serves a sentence. Maybe he comes back
    and beats you up. Maybe you don't prosecute because you're *afraid*
    he'll get off and come back and beat you up. 
    
    I looked at a vice-principal once, after a kid had gotten away with
    an absolutely *outrageous* act/statement. The guy shrugged his
    shoulders. The cops are shrugging their shoulders. The courts are
    shrugging their shoulders. And who's watching out for J. Random
    Citizen? 
    
    The thought of having to give my home over to a criminal who invades
    it could bother me a *lot*, if I let it. Why should I have to do
    that? Why can't I protect myself and my property with a weapon?
    No way is anyone *else* going to do it! 
    
    And yet, why should I *have* to wrestle with questions like: "Could
    you shoot someone?" I don't even want to *deal* with that question,
    and yet I feel I have to.
    
    And that bothers me more than the actual gun, or the actual shooting
    ever would. 
    
    
    --DE
    
    [Who would like to take up target shooting, but doesn't want to
    think about shooting Bambi, Thumper, or a Human Bean]
    

    re:.23
    
    And I would say that you're making the error of claiming that
    there is an absolute morality. Maybe *you* believe that lethal
    force used in retaliation is "moral", but that doesn't mean
    that other people believe it.
    
    I will accede that it is sometimes necessary, but not that it
    is ever moral.
    
    To quote the character of H.G. Wells from the film TIME AFTER
    TIME: "A man who picks up a gun is a man who has run out of
    ideas."
    
    --- jerry

       I find myself completely torn on this issue. There seems to be no
       right answer that covers all situations (is there ever?) and this
       sort of situation gives you precious little time to make a
       rational decison.

       I have to support the Colorado law as it still requires a court
       case after the fact so it's not a pure and simple right to kill.

       In response to the comment that burglers don't carry weapons, as
       a woman I must assume that any man who breaks into my home has a
       weapon he will use against me. It's his body. Many women are
       raped, beaten and killed with no weapon other than that. Although
       I can use a gun (though only a shotgun, not a hand gun) I don't
       own one and probably won't buy one. I would stick my dogs on
       someone who broke into my house though, and they could kill a
       person if they wanted to. I believe that to protect me they
       would. 

         �   Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
         � my life?
    
    Yes.

         � Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
         � the life of my child, a loved one, or a friend?
    
    Yes.

         � Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
         � the life of a random person on the street?
    
    Qualified yes; as someone (Dawn?) mentioned, the street scenario
    is somewhat more complicated.
    
         � In the event of violent criminal attact where the use of
         � lethal force against me appears imminent, would I be willing
         � to forfeit my life with the result being that a violent
         � criminal maintains theirs?   Would my children and loved ones
         � support my choice?
    
    No and yes.
    
    In all cases, however, I'd need to be convinced that there were
    no other options.
    
    re: Joe's replies
    
    In terms of using deadly force to protect property, I believe that
    the Mass. law is written to prevent such occurances.  The underlying
    assumption is that the individual perpetrating a b&e is *not* there
    to do violence� and therefore one may not use deadly force against
    such a person.  I believe our law requires that to use lethal force
    in one's home, one must have reason to believe that the intruder
    has violent intent and that all other options (e.g. escape) have been
    exhausted.
    
    Steve
    
    � This assumption appears warrented.  Professional burglars virtually
      never carry a weapon; to be caught doing so would make it armed
      robbery, a felony that carries much stiffer penalties.
    

    It is justifiable homicide to kill someone who is attempting
    to commit a violent felony.  It is excusable homicide to kill
    someone who you merely thought was attempting to commit a
    violent felony, but was not.
    
    The jury gets to decide.
    
    Another exciting factor in the equation is whether or not the
    perpetrator (that's you) could have stopped the felony with less
    than deadly force.
    
    The jury gets to decide that too.
    
    						Ann B.

    I'd be interested to hear some of the thoughts and feelings of
    those on the "no-guns" side of the issue.  Specifically, I'm
    wondering how they'd answer Nancy's original question:
    
      � Would I use lethal force against a violent criminal to save
      � the life of my child, a loved one, or a friend?
    
    One reason I ask this is because it was the one that put my
    philosophy (at the time) to the test.
    
    Steve
    

    re:.36
    
    I didn't answer Nancy's questions for the simple reason that
    I don't know the answer. I'm a very non-agressive (physically)
    person. I'm not even sure that I could bring myself to punch
    someone as hard as I could, let alone shoot that person with
    a gun.
    
    I'd like to think that I *could* do whatever was necessary to
    save a loved one (or even myself). And it's quite possible
    that I would pull a trigger to do so, but I'd probably be a
    basket case afterwards. I'd probably never be able to convince
    myself that there wasn't a better option.
    
    --- jerry

    Killing another human being is undoubtly one of the most difficult
    decisions a person has to make.  It's never an easy solution.  For me
    the decision to take another person's life must be justified beyond the
    letter of the law otherwise I could not live with the consequences.  If
    I saw any other way to avert the confrontation I would do so,
    regardless of my legal right to kill at that moment.  My questions were
    asked with the scenario in mind that, at the critical moment, there
    were *NO* alternate options and that violent death of myself or a loved
    one appeared to be the impending and immediate outcome of delay. 
    
    For instance, a criminal breaks into your house.  You become aware of
    his presence and arm yourself.  The apparently unarmed house breaker
    enters your bedroom where you were reading before going to sleep, and
    he advaces toward you.  You tell him to stop.  He continues to advance
    towards you even though you're pointing your gun right at him.  Are you
    going to let him take the gun away from you and hope he doesn't kill
    you with it?  
    
    In my opinion he's forced you to make the decision that you cannot
    decide in his favour.
    
    I know what I would do.
    
    Nancy

    And another question...

    In the unfortunate event that your are chosen to participate in a
    lethal force encounter:

    Who would society most likely support to survive the encounter, 

    Whose values and presence would contribute more to advance the
    quality of life,

    Yours or your assailant's?

    Is your contribution to your family and society of so little value
    that it's not worth defending?

    Actually, that's two, maybe three questions.

    I'm not advocating that everyone should go out and buy a gun. 
    I believe there are some people who should not own guns. 

    However, I do not believe that people who lawfully own or carry
    guns should be classified as paranoid or insecure simply because
    they own guns.

    Nancy
    

RE:   < Note 218.34 by HANDY::MALLETT "Foole" >

>>    In terms of using deadly force to protect property, I believe that
>>    the Mass. law ...
    
>>    requires that to use lethal force
>>    in one's home, one must have reason to believe that the intruder
>>    has violent intent and that all other options (e.g. escape) have been
>>    exhausted.         !!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!     

         Does this mean you are required run from your own home,
         rather than defend it, in the event your sanctuary is invaded
         by a burgler?  Is there no place in Mass. where a person can
         legally defend their ground?  Or, if you choose to stay, you
         cannot use lethal force to protect your home from invasion?
         
         That's scarry! 
         
         Nancy

    NY state has similiar lethal force laws, as do many other states,
    though some states do allow lethal force in the protection of property
    ("Make My Day" laws). The decision to use deadly force is a very
    personal one, and has been said before, if you keep a weapon around,you
    must be ready to use it, if necessary. If you don't think you could
    fire, then don't have the gun because it could be easily turned
    against you. My own feeling is that I am forced to escape rather
    than defend what's mine is bull, but some politicians see it
    differently and the laws reflect this. The only thing I can say
    is choose the state you live in carefully.
    
    Eric

         re: .40
    
    �	 Does this mean you are required run from your own home,
    �    rather than defend it, in the event your sanctuary is invaded
    �    by a burgler?  
    
    Yes, I believe so (again, I'm not certain that this is Mass. law)
    In point of fact, it was recalling just such a case that prompted
    my writing .34.  As I recall it, a woman was convicted on a murder
    charge (3rd degree/manslaughter, I think) because although she didn't
    try to get out of the house (sentence was (?) 10 yrs. probated.
    As I recall, the intruder allegedly had violent intent and the 
    woman did try to escape to the basement; going against her (again
    the recollection is shaky at best) was the fact that the intruder
    died of multiple gunshot wounds.
    
    Does anyone know of the case and have further details?  While it
    does sound like a travesty of justice on the surface, I've seen
    enough of the criminal law system at work to be fairly certain 
    that it was hardly a cut and dry case.  
    
    
    � 	 Is there no place in Mass. where a person can
    �    legally defend their ground?  Or, if you choose to stay, you
    �    cannot use lethal force to protect your home from invasion?
         
    Again, I'm simply not certain of the law in this instance.  Among
    other things, some sticky questions in this issue are:
    
    How does one determine if a person entering another's home is
    "an intruder"?
    
    How does one determine violent intent on the part of same?
    
    At what point does one's only option become the use of deadly force?
    
    At least one guiding principle has been the notion of "clear and
    present" danger.  To say the least, these are very difficult
    things to quantify into law.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: .40
    
    Yes, Nancy, that's what bothers me so much about some of these
    laws. I have to *run* from my *own home* if it's invaded by a
    badguy. 
    
    Heck, I don't want to shoot anyone, or even bash 'em over the
    head....but fer cryin' out loud - can't I even protect myself
    in my OWN HOME?!?!?!?
    
    Seem to me that's the legal system tipped just a wee bit too 
    far toward the badguys.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .43
    
    I'd agree that it does *seem* like the justice system has
    tipped too far, but I'd argue that, in this case, it 
    hasn't.  Here's why.
    
    The law in this instance is concerned, correctly, I think,
    with what is, in effect, a sanction for homocide.  The questions
    I posed in .42 are central to the problem and the reasoning
    is clear.  Yes, you aren't a "bad guy", but (editorial) "I"
    am.  Let's suppose a blanket sanction for lethal force in 
    defense of my home.  Let us suppose further that I want you
    dead.  In this case, all I need do is get you into my home,
    kill you, then make it appear as if you were trying to do
    me in and I responded in self-defense.
    
    The example is oversimply stated (else I might do another 200+
    line horror :-D ), but I think most people can flesh out the
    scenario enough to make it a "real life" possibility.  This
    then, is a major problem for those considering "deadly force in 
    defending the home" legislation.  I believe that the concern
    is well placed; where homocide is legally sanctioned the danger
    is of inadvertantly sanctioning murder.
    
    It's worth remembering that the issue is whether or not one may
    use *deadly* force (vs. any force) in home/self-defense.  Presumably
    Dawn, you *can* legally bash 'em over the head� as long as you don't
    kill them and can convince the D.A. that you were acting in self
    defense.  Your only worry then is a civil suit.
    
    Steve
    
    � using something that's softer than, say, a bowling ball but harder
      than Cardinal Biggles "comfy chair".
    

    re: .44
    
    No, eagles, it hasn't occured to me because it is, in fact, not
    the case (see .46).  One thing that does occur to me, however, is 
    that this is a damn tough state to please folks in: Gov. Dukakis
    is one of the first democrats in a while with a relatively strong
    sense of fiscal responsibility (balanced budgets, and all that
    stuff).  One of his rewards for this is to get wailed on by liberals
    as being "too friendly" to big business.  Sheesh!
    
    Steve
    

    I just finished a Litigation class - my teacher is a D.A. out of
    the Woburn District.
    
    According to him, Mass. Law is that you are not allowed to use any
    force greater than the what the intruder is using against you. 
    The courts also look at the "back against the wall" theory.  A person
    is not allowed to do anything until literally, their back is against
    the wall. 
    
    If the intruder does not have a gun, or any dangerous weapon that
    can kill, ha ha, you as the victim, are not allowed to use a gun
    or any lethal weapon to get the intruder out of your house.  If
    they do though, then you can use the gun - but, you'd better not
    kill the person, though - you'll be arrested for murder - and the
    courts will not necessarily look at the fact the the person was
    breaking into your house.
    
    Yes, the courts do protect the defendants more in this case - but
    I have found that in all of my Legal classes - this is the American
    way - which is really sad.
    

    Eagle,
    
    While I really do respect your right to have an opinion and
    express it (even where it doesn't agree with mine), I would
    rather not see this topic descend into another "Dukakis is/
    no he isn't" rathole. This has got nothing specifically to
    do with Dukakis, but we already have enough bashing of him
    (and Bush) in two other topics. There's no need to make this
    a third.
    
    --- jerry

    

         Well, a tip of the hat to the criminals and their supporters
         in the legislature for getting laws passed to protect
         themselves on the job at the expense of the innocent. 
         
         To the best of my knowledge this kind of law does not exist
         in New Hampshire or Vermont.  Have Mass gun owners been
         neglegent in their use of lethal force so that this kind of
         law was deemed necessary? 
                  
         I agree that a blanket legal endorsement of lethal force
         against a house breaker is morally wrong.  Still, after the
         stabbing murders of two Nashua women last week I find their
         attitude towards house breakers to be incredible.  I guess
         it's up to the individual to decide whether it's in their
         best interest to be judged by twelve or carried by six. 
         
         Every citizen who uses a gun outside the parameters of the
         law should be prosecuted.  Two recent examples, Carl Rowan
         and Benard Goetz, come to mind.  In my opinion both of these
         people, as a minimum, violated gun control ordininaces and
         yet they were acquitted.  
         
         I'm glad I live in NH and I hope I'll never have to use
         my guns for anything other than target practice.
         
         Nancy

    Re .52, gee, Eagle, is the election reduced to a choice between
    handguns and abortions? !
    
    (Well, in that case, since I hope to be involved in more sex than
    violence I'm still voting for Dukakis.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .54, you're not right in imagining that people who are against
    killing "animals" (I'm also against killing *real* animals) are
    also against abortion.  I'm against killing babies, yes, as I hope
    everyone is, but I don't consider abortion to be killing babies.
     That's the difference.  But, it's been said a million times before
    so I don't know why I bother repeating it now.
    
    I think that if someone breaks into your home and you think they
    act like they mean you harm, that you have a right to do what you
    have to do to stop them (and if they wind up dead it's their tough
    luck, they shouldn't have been in your house anyway).  HOWEVER,
    I'm still against handguns because I believe that if handguns were
    outlawed then that would eliminate the overall amount of crime.
    
    Lorna
    

Re .57,
>    gun laws.  But a few points were made - one being that in Canada the
>    rate of burglaries of OCCUPIED residences is 50% and 58% in England
>    while in the USofA they are around 10% ... 

What is the "rate of burglaries of OCCUPIED residences", and what is it
a percentage of?

    Re .58, what was funnier the first time, Mike?
    
    (.56 is missing. What gem of noters' humor did I miss this time?)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    RE; .0   64 replies so far, and about 10% of them have valid text.
    
         You sound like a very smart person. However, I see no-place
    for handguns in public. I have a licence to carry, but would never
    do so outside the home. There are situations such as being stuck
    in a traffic jam, having an arguement at a bar, etc....that if I
    were a carrier, I might be in prison now.
         For the rest of you that are considering buying a gun to protect
    your home, Don't make the mistake of getting a HANDgun. In the hands
    of the well trained or a marksman or soldier, YOU; Joe and Sally
    average are wasting your time. Get a SHOTGUN; A huge pump or semi-auto
    model that will probably cost less than a fancy .357 chrome magnum
    that needs to be fired with *precision* accuracy. You may take a
    line from a Clint Eastwood movie and brag that you have the worlds
    most powerful handgun....But BFD, it shoots an itty bitty high velosity
    projectile that needs to *HIT* a target. A shotgun need only be
    pointed in the general area of the target and you will still hit
    it. Don't want to kill them? Fine. Load it with rock-salt.
         I live in a rotten swines-den of a neighborhood, and all of
    the houses have been broken into except mine. I have a better primary
    weapon. A stealth dog. She has been trained never to make a sound
    if there is unwanted entry, and she wears no stupid crap around
    her neck and can sneak up on a badguy with the stealth of a ninja.
    Then she gets him by a sensitive area (trained purposely so) and
    the screams of the badguy will wake up either the wife or I, and
    by that time things are pretty much wrapped up by the time the cops
    get there.
    
    -john
    
    P.S. My handguns are antique collectors items, and I have lots of
         other type guns including a cannon. But handguns and their
         main purpose in life (crime) are stupid reasons for their
         existance.

    re: .65
    
    ". . .and about 10% of them have valid text."
    
    I hope I'm correct in assuming you mean valid *for you*.
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE; .66  NO...it SHOULD be valid for most. I never understand why
    
    like in the example of this note, a real simple question is asked;
    the author gets a lot of political hot air.
         If you own a red car, and I ask you what color it is, Do you
    say pink? And is that because you are voting for dukakis?
    
    The crap that rambles on is beyond beleif.
    Oh....and I will mention that I am not for a ban on handguns; I
    just think that if you don't work for the police, NATO, FBI, KGB,
    CIA, THE SEX PISTOLS, having a handgun that you claim is for protection
    is a bunch of B.S. I WANT YOU to be able to buy a handgun for as
    long as The U.S.A. flag is still here waving overhead.
    
          But NOBODY can convince me that they *NEED* one.
    -john

    re. 'valid text' go out and pattern your shotgun at 'house-clearing'
    distances. It doesn't spread as wide as you may think. Also,
    a long barrel is difficult to maneuver in close quarter, and 
    makes it easier to disarm you. See "In the Gravest Extreme" by
    Massad Ayoob for the reasons why a short-barrelled pistol is
    superior for home defense. 
    
    Dana

    hmmm...so to get an adequate spread from your rocksalt (or birdshot)
    would probably mean cutting down the barrel to oh 2 inches or so...
    which would improve manoeverability too, right? 
    
    						=maggie 

    What would it do to my wallpaper?

    I've heard, re: shotguns , that if confronted with an intruder,
    you can always shoot the thing into the wall (if the guy needs
    convincing), figuring he'll think you're A)really nuts or B) mean
    business.
    
    You then have to buy some wall-board and stuff, but atleast you
    A)Got rid of the guy and B)Aren't in jail or haven't been sued.
    
    Interesting thought...
    
    

    re: .70
    
    It's called a "sawed-off shotgun."  It used to be popular among
    stagecoach robbers and bootleggers.
    
    re: .72
    
    Didn't you always want a nice dotted wall?
    
    --bonnie

    You can go down to 18" barrel length legally, plus a short or folding
    stock, or even some shotguns with pistol stocks. I believe as long
    as the overall length is 26" or over, you're ok. As far as the wall
    goes, spackle compound can to wonders.
    
    Eric

    
    Well, if you use rocksalt, at least your wall won't ice up in the
    winter . . .
    
    
    Sharon (who is going on vacation for 5 days, and can't be held 
    	    accountable for anything she says today)

    
    	I've just returned from a business trip, and missed the most
    active time of this topic, but I figured I'd put in my 2 cents worth.
    	If I were to find and intruder in my house I would without a
    doubt use deadly force to eliminate him, if my family were threatened,
    I would do the same. As for a stranger, that's really none of my
    business, but I would concider the circumstances, I.E. if children
    were involved I would most definatly help.(stupid, but it's my nature)
       	I live in Mass, in a very small town of 2400 well west of the 
    cities and their inhabitants. There is very little crime, we have
    left the kids bikes on the front porch, 20 feet from the road for
    10 years and never had them touched, the car is always unlocked, we
    don't even worry if the house is locked up when we go out.    
    	It is my opinion that an intruder is in my house specifically 
    to do harm to me, or my family, why else would he be there?? to
    say goodnight? to ask for a glass of water before bed?  NO.......
    TO DO HARM.... and if I take the time to confront him in any way, 
    that's time enough for him to kill me, and he doesn't deserve 
    that chance, I know I couldn't get my 3 children from upstairs, and 
    my wife out without confronting him, so I wouldn't even try, Since
    he wants to violate the safey of my home, I'm obligated to violate his 
    entire being, because he has asked for it.    
    	I both hunt and target shoot with a pistol, along with other
    weapons, I.E. shotgun, rifle, bow. I don't kill for the sake of
    killing, but rather hunt for the pleasure of providing food, because
    who knows, someday in the future those of us who survive may have
    too. The thought of killing another human being for my families
    safety doesn't bother me at all, but killing for no reason does.
	I keep my guns locked in one place, and my ammo locked in another,
    for the safety of my children, but I have also hidden a home defence
    weapon and ammo that they have never seen, so concequently will
    never look for, of an 18" barreled, pistol gripped, pump 20 guage
    with nearby a full clip of #4 steel shot shells just in case it's
    ever needed. I don't believe the kids could ever find them both, since
    one is in a hidden compartment that only my wife and I know about.
    	I'm not sure I could load and be armed quickly enough to do
    any good, but I'll not have a loaded weapon around the house either.
    In any case I'll protect my family to the best of my ability for
    the worst animals alive, thinking rational man !!!!!!!!!!!
    						Just my way 
    								Jeff

    Re: .77 - Jeff, You've described my feelings and thoughts about
    an unwanted intruder exactly. I have a 45 semi-auto pistol
    close where I can use it. All my other guns are locked. My wife,
    and 15 year old son know exactly where the 45 is and know exactly
    how to use it.    They have instructions to stay upstairs if an
    intruder is downstairs and if the person comes up to the second
    floor to shoot to kill. If the person is downstairs, let him/her
    take what they want but if the person comes upstairs where they
    are, it's all over.  I mean shoot to kill. If the first bullet only
    wounds the person then they better finish him/her off.  My wife
    has taken a handgun course and my son and I have taken many firearms
    courses, target practice often and he is a marksman in Boyscouts.
       Walso live in a low crime area but you never know.
            
                                                            Bill
                                                     

    re: .77 
    
>    	It is my opinion that an intruder is in my house specifically 
>    to do harm to me, or my family, why else would he be there?? to
>    say goodnight? to ask for a glass of water before bed?  NO.......
>    TO DO HARM.... 
    
    Not necessarily physical harm -- he might only be trying to steal
    your stereo or your antique coins or whatever else can be hocked.
    Or he may even mistakenly think your house is empty and he can
    sneak in and spend the night in the basement instead of having to
    sleep under a tree on a cold night. 
    
    You're saying that breaking and entering deserves the death penalty,
    and you are the arresting officer, the trial lawyer, the judge and
    the jury.  
    
    Why even bother with police and the courts and a system of
    agreed-on penalties and protections?  Why not go back to the
    system of weregild and blood fueds, in which each of us determines

    re: .65 & .67

    While I happen to agree with you, John, that handguns are not 
    generally the best weapons for self-defense, I nontheless take
    exception to the notion that:
    
    ". . .about 10% of [the first 64 replies] have valid text." (.65) 
    and that "like in the example of this note, a real simple question is 
    asked; the author gets a lot of hot air. . .The crap that rambles on 
    is beyond  beleif (sic)." (.67).
    
    In the first place, the base note author entered several questions,
    none of them "simple" and none of them asking "What is the best
    home/self-defense weapon?"  In that context, *your* replies are
    "invalid" (i.e. not pertaining to the original questions).  Nancy's
    original questions deal with people's viewpoints on using lethal
    force and it seems to me that there are political implications.
    I would also suggest that there is little to be gained by labelling
    other's views as "crap".
    
    Steve
    

    re .79

>    Not necessarily physical harm -- he might only be trying to steal
>    your stereo or your antique coins or whatever else can be hocked.
>    Or he may even mistakenly think your house is empty and he can
>    sneak in and spend the night in the basement instead of having to
>    sleep under a tree on a cold night. 
       
>    You're saying that breaking and entering deserves the death penalty,
>    and you are the arresting officer, the trial lawyer, the judge and
>    the jury.  
 
    Bonnie;
    	
    	In our town we are fortunate enough to have no know homeless,
    to get there from anywhere that has homeless is at least a 10 to
    20 mile walk, so the odds of a homeless individual are extreemly 
    slim.
    
    As for the theif, I still contend that he has made a conscious decision
    to do evil and is willing to do harm and/or voilate my rights in his
    attempt to rob a house that he knows is occupied. He knows the laws,
    and since there are people home, he realizes he may have to confront
    them, consequently he apparently feels he is either above the law, or
    is well armed enough to kill/mame/threaten before escape. 
    
    	He in my mind is extreemely dangerous, he is not a professional 
    theif who carefully plans a robbery, knowing when no one is home, by 
    surveying a house for weeks, looking for an opertune time when it's empty,
    phoning to be sure, then quickly getting in and out taking his chance.
    He is a dangerous law defying individual who is willing to do whatever
    is necessary to get money, or prove himself to himself, and in my
    mind, is probably better off dead.
   	
    	As for being the Trial lawyer, Arresting Officer, Judge, Jury
    etc, the law premits me to defend myself in my house from intruders
    if we can't escape, I doubt I could wake 4 people quietly and get
    them out safely, I certainly am not going to wait and see if he
    plans to do harm, because then it's too late. This individual has
    no right being there, it's my house and my belongings, and he's
    a dead man if he thinks he's welcome to them. I could live with
    myself a lot easier knowing I defended my family from an intruder,
    then having a family member hurt/killed by an intruder and watching
    him get off in court because they didn't read him his rigths in
    some foreign language, or put on his handcuffs too tight.
    
    							Jeff
    re: .78
    	Bill;
    	Thanks for the support, at least I'm not the only one with the
    feeling that whats mine is mine, not yours.
    							Jeff  

    re: .81
    
    I'm going to digress here.  I'm sorry, but this heartless
    judgemental attitude of yours drives me up the wall.  Yes, it's
    your property, but is your property more sacred than a human life? 
    
    I only hope that after you've executed this robber -- have you
    considered that if he turns out to be unarmed, you'll be in deep
    shit? -- you receive more mercy and understanding than you're
    willing to show here. 
    
    I hope they do read you your rights and don't put your handcuffs
    too tight.  I hope they don't shove your face into the pavement
    and beat you with a nightstick.  They probably won't; usually
    that's reserved for colored members of the lower classes,
    especially in the city. I hope your jail cell's clean and
    comfortable and not too overcrowded, the food's good, and you
    don't get involved in too many prison fights.  Not that that's a
    real problem.  You sound like you can take care of yourself. 
    
    And while you're in jail, I hope your family comes to visit you
    often.  I hope your wife has a job to support the kids, and can
    afford the visits -- most inmates' families can't.  I hope you get
    enough exercize and adequate medical care. 
    
    And when you get out, I hope your family is still there for you.
    Of course after several years your kids may have a tough time
    recognizing you, but I'm sure they'll respect you more now that
    you've proven you live by your beliefs.  They might even help out
    when you can't find a job.  It's amazing how many people think
    that just because you've been in jail, you can't be trusted. They
    don't care about the hows or the whys -- obviously since you're a
    jailbird, you intend to harm others, and we don't want to give you
    a chance to hurt us, now do we?  Remember that we who haven't
    broken any laws [the radar detector?  Oh, that doesn't count.] can
    tell your criminal intentions.  And if there's another shooting in
    the neighborhood, we know who must have done it.  It had to be
    you, because you've shown you don't mind shooting people.  And
    this time they won't be so nice when they arrest you, because they
    know you're guilty. Otherwise you wouldn't be there. 

    On the other hand, maybe you should shoot the robber.  You
    could almost consider it a mercy killing.
    
    --bonnie    

    Jeff,
          I hate to sound like a broken record but I still agree 100%
    with all of your statements. If someone is desperate and must get
    into my house becouse of the weather, cold etc., they better make
    damn sure that they knock on the door good and loud and wake up
    the family. I would be more than willing to help out. However if
    I wake up and find out there is someone in my house, They're dead
    plain and simple. Not wounded but dead. I'm a peaceful family man
    but have no problem putting someone away who may pose a threat to
    my family in my house. I can't take the chance to find out his
    intentions. It might be too late. 
                                                Bill

    RE: .82
    
        Bonnie,
                I wonder how you would feel if you woke up to be confronted
    with an unwanted viisitor coming thru the kitchen window. You are
    in bed, and your loved ones are in their bedrooms asleep .  You
    feel that persons life is worth more than the tv and sterio you
    think he wants to steal.  But what if he wants more and his intentions
    are different than you thought they were.  I can't begin to list
    the numerous ways he can do harm to you or your family. Is waiting
    to find out worth the risk.  Can you live with the thought that
    you did nothing to protect your family and everything to protect
    this persons rights?  I would rather give me and my family the benefit
    of doubt and possibly save the life of my family than a perfect
    stranger. How about you? Who is more important?
    
                                                      Bill

    Re .85, "Who is more important?"  In your eyes, obviously your family
    is more important.  But, who is more important in the eyes of God?
     Maybe we all deserve an equal chance to live in the eyes of God.
     If you kill somebody who didn't mean you or your family physical
    harm then you're the criminal in my opinion.
    
    I agree with Bonnie.
    
    The way I see it if somebody is coming at you with a knife, and
    you have a gun in your hand (even tho I hate guns), then you have
    a right to shoot to kill.  But, if you see or hear somebody stumbling
    around in your kitchen in the middle of the night you have no right
    to start shooting and ask questions later.  *That's* murder in my
    opinion!!
    
    People with this attitude will be lucky if they get through their
    lives without shooting a relative or friend (maybe teenage child)
    who is coming home late at night drunk and making a lot of noise
    in the house.
    
    (May I never wind up living next door to such a person!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: several of the last
    
    In the interest of helping clarify some of the issues here, I'd
    like to point out a couple of things.  First, robbery and burglary
    are two separate felonies.  The principal legal distinction is that
    robbery (armed or otherwise) is that the felon is taking possesions
    from person(s) present at the time.  The burglar intention is to 
    never see the victim and, except in the case of extreme stupidity,
    a person intending to commit burglary will *not* carry a weapon
    and will look to escape rather than confront in the instance that
    (s)he has broken into an occupied dwelling.
    
    A recent incident of a friend of mine illustrates the point.  Cathy
    was asleep in her Cambridge (triple-decker) apartment.  She awoke
    hearing a sound in the room.  To her terror, she realized someone
    was trying to steal her bicycle.  She yelled at the would-be
    burglar and he dove for the window; in my opinion, her yelling
    was an ill-advised move, but, pushed to the point, I had to admit
    that the "odds" (burglar vs. robber) were in her favor.  Also, she
    keeps a baseball bat by her bed and I'm quite sure she knows how
    to use it.  In any case, she was wise not to use the bat both from
    a legal standpoint and for her own peace of mind.  As the individual
    wriggled through the window, she recognized one of the neighborhood
    kids - a 12 year old.
    
    Again, my intent here is not to make ultimate judgment about the
    use of deadly force, but to point out that 1) sometimes the
    real-life incident is not so-clean cut (i.e. murder-minded evil
    person coming in to rob/assault the victim) and 2) that caution
    in the use of force is a wiser path.  My personal advice is that
    should you (as in Bill's example .85) hear someone coming in
    through the kitchen window (assuming you don't sleep in the
    kitchen):
    
      o	If you can do so undetected, get out and call the police.
    
      o	If escape is unlikely, call the police as quietly as possible.
    
      o If it can be avoided, do *not* confront the intruder; the odds
    	*may* be in you/your family's favor, but is it a worthwile gamble?
    
      o If confrontation becomes a necessity, remember the tactics and
    	training you learned in the formal self-defense and/or weapons
    	classes you took (you know, the ones you took when you decided
    	that the risk of break-in to your home was high enough to
    	warrant the possible use of lethal force).
    
    Steve   

    It seems to me that there is a great deal of regard for the intruder
    here.  Granted that few people make killing strangers a hobby but
    there is such a thing as personal space and I don't want anybody
    in my personal space uninvited.  Some of the replies to this topic
    imply that invasion is condoned when the alternative is for the
    invaded to take action against the invader.  The police aren't
    allowed in my home without a warrent, why should I allow someone
    in to steal or hurt?  I woke up one night in my house to find a
    crowbar prying open the window over my bed.  I can assure you that
    the man breaking in was greatly surprised to find me waiting in
    the dark with a pool cue as he tried to mantle through the window.
    
    Dondi  

  re. < Note 218.87 by HANDY::MALLETT "Foole" >


>      o If you can do so undetected, get out and call the police.
    
>      o If escape is unlikely, call the police as quietly as possible.
    
>      o If it can be avoided, do *not* confront the intruder; the odds
    	*may* be in you/your family's favor, but is it a worthwile gamble?
    
>      o If confrontation becomes a necessity, remember the tactics and
    	training you learned in the formal self-defense and/or weapons
    	classes you took (you know, the ones you took when you decided
    	that the risk of break-in to your home was high enough to
    	warrant the possible use of lethal force).
  ______________________________________________________________________

	All this is very nice to discuss these things calmly in our
 nice safe environment. But in the actual situation can u expect everyone
 can act so rational and deliberate? Hell, it may be my life on the line.
 If I make an error in judgement in trying to figure out the criminal's
 intent, it may be all over.  One may not KNOW if the guy is unarmed. How 
 are you going to figure that out in the dark? Maybe the guy is on drugs
 so may do anything. The person maybe very strong or expert in Karate so
 is in a sense armed. I dont believe in just killing someone. But someone
 who breaks into my house cannot not have the odds on HIS/HER side.
 It is almost analagous to war; him or me.  The truble is that the
 damn laws like Mass gives the odds to the criminal and they know it.
 If one of the lawbreakers or judges had such an experience, the
 law would change. Let's not forget the one who didn't believe in
 handgun ownership used his.

    re:  All you noters against lethal force in your home
    
    If (God forbid) someone ever breaks in to your home and does you
    and/or your family harm, and you failed to do *anything* to try
    and prevent him/her from doing so, THEN I'd like to see how you
    would reply to this question!
    

    My wife and I own a home in an area that has rising gang activity.
    We have security doors on the house and the windows have special
    security locks.  Does this make us feel safe?  Not really.
    
    Since I been hunting for years and I have been a competitive shooter
    for several years, we have firearms around the house.  My wife and
    I talked alot about what we would do if an intruder was in the house.
    Our conclusion is that after making sure it is not a family member,
    that intruder is dead.
    
    When we first moved into the neighborhood, we received several threats
    from the local gang members (we moved into an area with a large
    minority population).  If someone thinks that I am going to ask
    an intruder if he is only stealing before I shoot, they are crazy.
    
    To get into our house, they would have to go through steel doors
    with double key deadbolts or bust out a window frame (all this after
    climbing a six foot fence and going through two dogs).
    
    Sorry about rambling on but the the point is, if they get into our
    house, they go out in a body bag.

    Pat

    To all of the people who are against the use of lethal force on
    an intruder please answer the question.   
    How would you feel if that person caused injury or death to someone
    in your family and you didn't do anything to stop it? No long drawn
    out stories about what is right or wrong, just answer the question.
    
                                                   Bill

    Your question is biased.  It assumes there is no alternative
    between gunning down an intruder without stopping to see if
    he's even armed and being injured or killed by that intruder.

    I'm 5'4" with poor eyesight, and if I pulled a gun on an intruder,
    the odds are that the intruder would take it away from me and do
    something worse to me than if I had quietly slipped into the study
    and called the police. Believe me, I will do my best to protect my
    family, but if the person breaking in is a 17-year-old high on
    drugs, I'm not going to outfight him, I'll have to outsmart him. 
    
    --bonnie

    re: .89
    
    The recommendations I gave follow the guidelines that most
    law enforcement agencies would give; in point of fact, that's
    where I first learned of these recommendations.  To say the
    least, the police are far more concerned with your well-being
    than the intruder's.  For exactly the reasons you cited,
    it is recommended that you avoid confrontation.  Indeed, what
    if the intruder is high, say on PCP?  Even a bone-breaking
    blow may not be enough to stop the person.  The point is
    simply that unless you're well trained in techniques of 
    criminal restraint, you're better advised to avoid confrontation
    where possible.  
    
    Also, as you've indicated, such an incident is one of extreme 
    tension/stress; there is little chance for carfully thinking things 
    through and making a plan.  Therefore, it seems to me that if
    one feels strongly that one is at risk from such an intrusion,
    the thinking and planning had better be done beforehand.  Some
    things that might factor into that planning might be consulting
    police and/or legal counsel; like them or not, it's wise to be
    aware of what your legal options are.  Another thing I'd strongly
    recommend is to get weapons and/or self-defense training *now*.
    In the words of your analogy, if one must enter into a state of 
    war with another, one might do well to plan and train ahead of
    time.
    
    Hopefully, nobody has interpretted my words as being more concerned
    about the intruder than the victim.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .88, so, did you actually fight somebody off with a pool cue?
    
    Re .91, with all the dogs, fences and locks, I can't understand
    why you still feel you need guns.  I can't help but wonder who you
    are expecting.  It might have been cheaper to sell and live in a
    "better" neighborhood.
    
    Re .92, if anybody injured or killed a member of my family I would
    feel terrible.  What do you expect, that I'd be jumping for joy?
     If somebody attacked me or my family I would *try* my best to defend
    myself, I think, unless I froze with fear, and if I/we couldn't
    escape instead.  I believe people should try to defend themselves
    but I believe this should stop short of having guns in their home.
     
    Who is to say what trying to defend yourself is?  Physical violence
    is very alien to my world.  I have never held a gun and never want
    to.  I have never hit another human being, and I have never been
    hit by another human being.  It would make me miserable to have
    to spend so much of my time planning for attack as some of you people
    appear to do.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .96
    So, until she experiences it her comments are irrelevant?  Then
    I take it *you* have "EXPERIENCED" it (ie: had a family member killed
    or maimed by an attacker in your/their home or have yourself killed
    an intruder), or are your comments irrelevant also?
    
    Not trying to dig or flame, but rather make a point.  Her comments
    are most certainly relevant, to her and others in this conference,
    they simply are different from yours.
    
    I have only one problem with guns in the home, that is the effect
    they may have on my children should an accident happen.  ALL THE
    PROTECTION IN THE WORLD IS NOT WORTH ***ONE*** ACCIDENT involving
    my children, when *that* accident can be 'eliminated' by removing
    the gun and protection can be had in other ways.
    
    I am not anti gun.  My neighbor has a gun.  My son is friends with
    his kids.  My son wasn't allowed in that house until I saw *firsthand*
    how my neighbor treated and stored his gun.  I will not own a gun
    because I do not trust myself to be confident and cool should I
    feel the need to use it in defense, and one must be confident and
    cool to use one.  (I do feel quite confident with my ball bat though
    :-)
    
    and no, I have not lived a sheltered life.  I have been mugged,
    attacked by a street gang, robed at knife point and stabbed.  I
    HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, so my comments are not irrelevant, even to
    you.  I also follow the belief that a person found in my house in
    the middle of the night does not deserve the death penalty, especially
    at my hands.  Should the worst happen and my son be killed, it will
    not have been "ME" that took a life and to say that I could have
    prevented my sons death by having a gun is foolish.  If I should shoot
    and kill an intruder *then* I would have taken a life.  And it is
    not for me to say which life is worth taking or leaving, nor is
    it yours, in my opinion (and belief).
    
    (And I swore I wouldn't get involved in this one... ;-)
    
    jim
    

    Re: .96
    
       Jim,
                I'm getting mixed messages from your note. First you
    stated that you weren't comfortable with a gun in your house but
    made a statement about your baseball bat being around. A bat can
    be just as lethal a weapon as a gun. Second you said you don't feel
    that you should make the choice on who should live or die, Your
    son or the intruder. It wasn't you who would be killing the child.
     What were you going to do with the bat? One blow could kill the
    intruder. I agree a gun is more dangerous than a bat in a house
    with children, but I think the issue was lethal force against an
    intruder and not whether you liked guns or not.
    
                                              Bill   

    I was robbed by a young man that was holding a gun.  I talked my
    way into safety.
    
    I know that was my best defense...I was not capable at that moment
    of doing anything else.
    
    Having a weapon in the house is not an alternative for me.  The
    odds are more inclined for an accident involving a friend or family
    then they are toward the need to protect myself from bodily harm.
    

    re: .97 
    
    That was very well put, Jim.  It expresses a lot of the ideas
    I was trying to explain and not getting out very well.  
    
    --bonnie

    Re .96, well, Eagle, you weren't fast enough!  I read .96 before
    you deleted it, wherein you stated that if I had never been the
    victim of violent crime then my opinion on it was irrelevant.
    
    The first thing I thought of was that if a person has to have
    experienced something in order for their opinion to be relevant
    then I guess all the opinions that men have stated in =wn= about
    abortion are irrelevant!!  Maybe you think they are, Eagle, but
    I don't.  I think my opinion on this issue is relevant and that
    the opinion of men on abortion is relevant.
    
    We all live in the world today.  We can all read, we all have TV,
    and go to movies, listen to the radio, talk with friends, and read
    notesfiles.  We know what's going on even if we haven't experienced
    it first hand, we know these things could happen to us, and we are
    intelligent enough to form opinions on all sorts of subjects.  (Well,
    men really can't have abortions, but their wives, SO's, friends
    and relatives can, so they can be involved in one.)
    
    I don't think my life has been quite as "cotton candy" like as you
    desribe, Eagle.  Even though I haven't been the victim of violent
    crime, physical domestic abuse, or involved in a barroom brawl,
    there are still a few areas in which I could ask to be luckier than
    I have been.  I'm divorced, I have a low paying job, I haven't been
    to college, my daughter doesn't live with me, I don't own my own
    home, I *have* been the victim of *verbal* domestic abuse, I've
    been lied to and cheated on, I've been dumped by somebody I loved,
    and I'd like to have more friends, more physical energy and more
    brains!!!  (I've also never been to Europe!)  It hasn't all been
    a bowl of cherries :-)!  So there, Eagle!!
    
    Besides, I'm sure there are many people writing in this file who
    also have not been shot, robbed, knifed, rapped, or beaten up. 
    It's a combination of luck and common sense.  I don't exactly go
    roaming around dangerous neighborhoods alone in the middle of the
    night, or frequent sleazy bars.  I've also been fortunate to have
    lived in neighborhoods that were not high crime areas, yet not wealthy
    so that they would attract burglars.  But, I have been threatened
    by men with domestic violence, and I've been threatened by a couple
    of other people with being beat up. (Once I just turned and ran!!
     She didn't catch me!  Luckily I don't have to worry about a macho
    John Wayne male ego!)
    
    Well, the above was for Eagle.
    
    As far as this note goes I thought it was about both guns and the
    use of lethal force.  I liked what both Jim Flis and Joyce had to
    say.  I don't like guns in the home.
    
    I think a baseball bat is a lot safer to keep around than a gun.
    
    Lorna
    

re: .101
    
>    I think a baseball bat is a lot safer to keep around than a gun. 
    
    Yeah, Lorna, you're right.  It doesn't go off by accident when you
    drop it, it doesn't matter if the kids get into it by accident, it
    doesn't need a permit, and it comes in handy when the time comes
    around to go to the annual departmental softball game . . . 

    --bonnie

    re:" .98
    
    Sorry for any apparant mixed message.  Yes, a bat can be lethal,
    but is a lot safer than a gun.  It won't discharge by itself, I
    never have to unload it and I don't even have to put the safety
    on ;-)  It also doubles as 'toy' when my son and daughter want to
    bat a few around (balls, not intruders).  As for my using it, I
    may I may not.  I know I feel comfortable with it.  Frankly I am
    afraid that if I had a gun that I *would* use it.  I don't seem
    to have that fear with a bat.
    
    I also note that a bat could be lethal, but doesn't have to be.
     I know many are thinking that the same holds true for a gun.  Bull.
     While the statement may hold some truth, the majority of folks
    supporting guns in this topic have made comments like: "If he comes
    into my house they'll take him out in a body bag", etc.  Not "if
    he attacks me", the intruder only needs to be present to die.  Use
    of my bat would be to give the intruder the chance to leave and
    avoid the bat, the chance for me to leave or the chance for him
    to attack.  If he attacks I'll knock his head off in self defense.
    
    Some may think that that's not a very smart thing to do "wait for
    him to attack" and your right, but I have to live with my actions.
    I also point out that this is the way I *think* I would act.  Until
    it happens, I really don't know, and nether do you.
    
    In closing, I think that, seeing as a few replies have been directed
    to the -eagles- note that he at least explain why he deleted it,
    as a common curtisy.  And I would like the -eagle- to answer the
    question that I asked:  Has he been *personally* involved in such
    a situation or are his comments irrelevant also...  ...eagle?
    
    jim
    

         It seems to me that the answers to the questions on the use
         of lethal force depend on the individual.  There are no
         absolute right or wrong answers.  Just like owning a gun
         doesn't give one absolute protection from the bad guys. 

         Folks brought up good points about gun ownership:  the need
         for competent combat training, safe storage and handling, and
         a clear understanding of the lawful use of lethal force. I
         heard thought provoking discussion on the victim's rights to
         protect themselves and their property, the legal implications
         of lethal force, and the criminal's right to life. 
                           
         One view I heard, here and from articles in magazines (often
         written by police), is to avoid the lethal force
         confrontation if possible.  On the street I would avoid an
         encounter if I *thought* I could escape without harm. 
         
         If an intruder enters my home I would consider avoiding an
         encounter if I *knew* I could do so safely.  I would rather
         let insurance cover the damage than to suffer the stress of
         shooting someone or hassling with the legal system over the
         use of lethal force.  I believe that the reality of shooting
         someone is a traumatic experience, no matter how justified
         the action was in the eyes of the law.  My decision to own a
         gun was for the occasion if I was threatened with lethal
         force. Hopefully that occasion will never happen; however, I
         won't rely on luck or hope to save me if it does. 
         
         I didn't write the base note to try and convice people to own
         guns or to justify my ownership of guns.  I wanted to hear
         people's viewpoints pro and con, and to discuss the
         implictions and options in lethal force encounters.  I
         respect the view from folks who choose not to own firearms,
         and I appreciate hearing how they made their decision. 
         
         Nancy
         
         

    Re: .103 Thanks for the clarification.
    
    Re: .104 Great note, Well said.
                                            Bill

    	RE:  .104
    
    	>  I believe that the reality of shooting someone is a traumatic
    	>  experience, no matter how justified it is in the eyes of
   	>  the law.
    
    	Absolutely right!  It is even considered traumatic for police
    	who shoot/hurt people in the course of doing their jobs upholding
    	the law (no matter how clear cut and necessary their actions
    	are known to be.)
    
    	An old friend of mine is a police detective in the Denver area
    	and he told me that when an officer shoots a suspect in the
    	line of duty, the officer is suspended temporarily (with pay)
    	while an investigation is held (and is ALSO given MUCH counseling
    	by the police psychiatrist.)

    	Police departments keep a psychiatrist 'on retainer' (or whatever)
    	because police are thought to be in need of counseling in so
   	many different violent types of situations (and departments,
    	like the one my friend works in, do not hesitate to provide
    	counseling every time one of their officers is involved in some
    	kind of violence, even if s/he wasn't actually the one to pull
    	the trigger.)
    
    	My friend is a "hostage negotiator" (as part of his field of
    	expertise as a detective,) and is sometimes involved in very
    	tense hostage situations where he talks to the suspect over
    	the phone (or whatever) for long periods of time.  In one situation,
	the suspect was starting to go over the edge and was threatening
    	to kill his hostages (a couple of which were his own children
    	whom he had barracaded in his house.)  My friend talked
    	him into coming outside to aim his violent intentions at himself
    	(my friend) instead of the hostages -- hostage negotiators have
    	to play the situation by ear and say whatever it takes to get
    	the threat away from the hostages sometimes. 
    
    	Well, the suspect came out with a raised knife and ran directly
    	toward a nearby line of uniformed police (and came at them so
    	quickly that they had no choice but to shoot him.)  My friend
    	felt directly responsible for the man's death (even though he
    	didn't pull the trigger.)  He saved the hostages, but after
    	talking to the man for hours, he caused him to take a step that
    	ended his life.  My friend went to counseling for that for some
    	time as a matter of course for the department (and he told me
    	that he needed it.)  He's been a cop for almost 15 years, and
    	he's very well respected in his area.  But he's also human.
    
    	Shooting/killing people is not an easy business (not even when
    	you have been trained for it and it's part of your job.)

 
    re .82
    
    Bonnie, I'm sorry my "heartless judgemental attitude" doesn't fit
    in with your values, but then letting someone do violence as they 
    please to my family doesn't fit in with mine. One of the problems
    with responding to a topic this contraversial is that all aspects
    of a situation aren't discussed in enough detail to tell all. In
    my case, we are a family of 5, no way can I get them all out. Others
    may be single, or only a couple, they have a better chance to run.
    
    It is true that my life could possibly be ruined by my actions,
    but I believe life in jail with a clear conscience is better then 
    the eternal, internal struggle of day after day, nightmare after 
    nightmare, constantly wondering about what if I had done something.
    
    re .87, .95, .101, .103 etc
    
    For those of you with bats, just remember that the intruder will
    view you as an attacker when you come walking up to him with it,
    and he will defend himself. A bat is no weapon against a gun.

    This months news covers the trial of someone brutally disposing
    of an entire family, last months was about 2 teenagers stabbing,
    and burning an old homeless man, we also have cases where people 
    are going into schools and randomly killing kids, guys in towers
    killing people, a guy in McDonalds killing, killing, Killing, KILLING
    We have guys riding around looking for rape victims, and guys trying
    to snatch kids from the street. A bigger hive of scum and villainy 
    you'll never find!!!!! you know it.
    
    Which brings me to my final statement/question which is this, I
    view an intruder as an individual who is intent on doing harm
    to me or my family. I assume he is armed, because if I were in his
    shoes I would be. I believe he is desperate enough to do whatever
    is necessary to gain what he wants, be it money, or fulfilling some
    sick psychological need. If this individual doesn't run to get out
    the instant he's confronted, I have to assume he's their for evil,
    not theivery, and I must act quickly. My question is this... How do you 
    view your intruder????

    RE: 107
    BRAVO!

    Re .108, .107, there's no nut like a nut with a gun.
    

    Re: .109  And there is no fool like a fool who won't protect themself.
    
    Let's stop the name calling and respect each others views.
    
                                                  Bill
    

    re: .107

    First of all, I didn't disagree with protecting your family, I
    disagreed with your statement that your property was worth more
    than a human life.  I was trying to point out that there are a lot
    of ways to become a criminal besides a desire to shoot children in
    their beds, and that we as individuals don't have the right to
    decide whose life is forfeit unless it's a matter of survival --
    and even then we're on thin ground.  
        
    But since you view housebreakers as desperate criminals directly
    threatening your survival as soon as they break your kitchen
    window, your question about how I view the intruder in my house
    deserves to be answered. 
     
    Statistics tell me that if I'm going to be murdered, raped, and/or
    beaten up, it's most likely to be by a: 
    
    1.  Family member (60-80% of murders depending on where you live,
        number of rapes unknown, high percentage of assaults)

    2.  Neighbor, coworker, or acquaintance (15-25% of murders,
        almost 90% of reported rapes [source: Ms.])
    
    3.  Stranger (whatever's left)
    
    Interestingly, this proportion holds up even in high-crime areas.
    The percentage of violent crime committed by someone the victim
    doesn't know is surprisingly low even in ghettos and drug haunts.

    Only a tiny percentage of people are injured by someone who is in
    the act of committing another crime.  
    
    I imagine that an intruder in my house, while potentially as
    violent and desperate as you say, is much more likely to be more
    interested in getting out without getting arrested than he is in
    killing the witnesses.  And while I don't think that person has
    the right to take my property, and I'm going to do my best to see
    that he's caught and punished, I don't think my property is more
    valuable than someone else's life. Nor am I going to retreat
    behind barred doors because there are lunatics in the world
    sniping at normal people from towers.  I'm not turning my world
    over to the killers and violence-prone without a fight.
    
    --bonnie

    An intruder in my home would be looking down the barrel of a
    gun.
    
    When I picture myself trying to apprehend an intruder in my home
    with a bat, I see myself in great danger. I'm not a strong person,
    and it would be obvious to an intruder that I would be no threat.
    
    If someone breaks into my home, I view that person as someone
    who is endangering my life. That person is committing a crime,
    has no right to be in home, and I have the right to protect myself
    with whatever weapon that I feel gives me the most protection.
    In my case that is a gun.  
    
    
    kath

    RE: 218.95   APEHUB::STHILAIRE "FOOD, SHELTER & DIAMONDS"
    
      >Re .91, with all the dogs, fences and locks, I can't understand
      >why you still feel you need guns.  I can't help but wonder who
      >you are expecting.  It might have been cheaper to sell and live
      >in a "better" neighborhood.
    
    I live in Denver.  We are getting gang members from the LA area
    moving in and taking over the drug business.  These are the CRIPS
    and the BLOODS.  No neighborhood is safe anymore.  We live in a
    middleclass area. The local police busted a "crack" three blocks
    over from us.  The CRIPS moved into another house two blocks from
    there.  And to top it off, the housing market is depressed in Denver.
    For us to sell, we would take a loss if we could even sell. 

    I'm tired of running.  That is our house!  It does not belong to
    the scum who may break in.
    
    I agree that owning firearms is not for everyone.  If you feel that
    you could not shoot someone then don't own a firearm.  BUT DON'T
    DENY ME THE MEANS TO DEFEND MY FAMILY AND HOME.

    
    PAT

    re: 106
    
    Might it be possible, Suzanne, for you to ask your detective
    friend what his views and/or recommendations would be?
    
    
    re: .107
    
    �             . . .I assume he is armed, because if I were in his
    � shoes I would be. I believe he is desperate enough to do whatever
    � is necessary to gain what he wants. . .
    
    If you were in his shoes, the odds are that you *wouldn't* be carrying
    a weapon.  By this I only mean that most of us are trying to picture
    ourselves (generally law-abiding) citizens going through that window;
    our view is what *we* think it would be like.  My experience is that
    the intruder's view of the world is significantly different.  I've
    known a fair number of professional burglars, all of whom would
    consider it the height of folly to carry a weapon and risk the
    additional prison time.
    
    Which is not to say that all intruders are professional burglars;
    the headlines tell us with disheartening frequency that such is
    not the case.  Therefore, to answer your question of how I would
    view an intruder, I would say that I'd look upon the person as 
    an unknown that is potentially dangerous.  And, despite the fact
    that I was a cop once, I'd still follow the recommendations I 
    mentioned earlier.  I would also be armed in the event that
    confrontation is unavoidable; if absolutely necessary, I would
    use whatever means at my disposal to defend myself and my
    loved ones in the face of a clear and present threat.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .114
    
    I didn't think anybody wanted to deny you the right to have and
    use guns; I thought we were discussing when it was right to use
    lethal force and whether it was right for us in our circumstances.

    I feel very vehemently that it isn't right for anyone to plan to
    blow away somebody only for breaking and entering, but that
    doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the gun.  And in your
    neighborhood it's a lot more reasonable to assume that an intruder
    intends harm than it is in my neighborhood or in a rural NE
    neighborhood.  In your shoes I would almost certainly own guns and
    dogs and whatever else I thought I could use.  Have you thought of
    boiling oil? 
    
    --bonnie

	Whether one wants to have arms or not is their chose, ok.
	I would not to say use a bat unless I could sneak up from
	behind. Facing a thief with a bat may not be wise; you
	could have it taken away. You get most likely ONE chance.
	If you dont hit a home run, you better say your prayers.

	  As to wether to you to quietly call the police or
	escape okay. BUT I dont want to be REQUIRED by law
	to do so. Thus if I waste a thief, I dont want some
	prosecuter trying to get me convicted of murder
	or manslaughter because I didn't try to escape first
	or finding out if unarmed etc.

    	At our house, we don't keep guns or other kinds of weapons,
    	but we *do* make it clear to anyone who might be looking at
    	the house that:
    
    		1)  Someone *does* live here (as evidenced by cats in
    			the windows, lights that turn on and off in
    			various rooms, cars that come and go from the
    			garage)
    
    		2)  Someone *is* probably home right now and awake
    			(we make the house look alive at all hours of
    			the night and ALWAYS use the garage so that
    			the house looks the same whether we are there
    			or not)
    
    	I don't know if these tactics help, but we haven't ever been
    	robbed.  The idea is that our house is never completely dark,
    	so if someone decides to break in, they will most likely have
    	to worry about being heard EARLY and having police called.
    
    	The one clear *hint* of how well this technique works 
    	happened to us up in Denver about 5 years ago.  I had to go
    	to Massachusetts for 6 weeks of training, so Ryan moved in
    	with some friends of mine while I was gone.  However, after
    	school he would go to our own townhouse to wait to be picked
    	up (and was instructed to change the lights, etc., to give
    	the illusion of someone living there.)
    
    	When I came back from school 6 weeks later, I bumped into my
    	closest nextdoor neighbor and it turned out that he had almost
    	started to believe that our townhouse was HAUNTED (because he
    	would sometimes hear TV or other noise, and lights would change
    	almost every day, but he didn't see a live human being come or go
    	from the house for 6 whole weeks.)  He had me laughing hysterically
	when he told me about how he thought about dropping by to pay
    	a neighborly visit to find out what was going on, but thought
    	for sure that some monster or ghost would get him!  (He was
    	kidding, of course.)  :-)
    
    	Isn't it true that burglars tend to pick houses that they think
    	will be the easiest prey (such as ones that have door/windows
    	hidden from the street by foliage, OR houses that look like
    	no one is either home or awake?)  Or am I being naive here?

    re: .118
    
        � Isn't it true that burglars tend to pick houses that they think
    	� will be the easiest prey (such as ones that have door/windows
    	� hidden from the street by foliage, OR houses that look like
    	� no one is either home or awake?)  Or am I being naive here?
    
    Far from being naive, it sounds as if you've been reading police
    reports.  My parent's house was hit twice.  Both times they
    were away for several days and took none of the precautions you 
    describe, Suzanne.  Both times it was the work of professionals - 
    they took only the sterling and valuable jewelery leaving any number
    of other fenceable items.  I have no doubt that the local police
    were correct in guessing that the place had been cased for a few
    days before the hit was made.
    
    Steve
    

    What surprises me is why many of those replies in this note are so
    concerned with the criminals rights. It wasn't that long ago that
    when you broke in, you lost your rights and suffered the consequences.
    I really couldn't give a damn about the criminal and what he will
    suffer when he breaks into my home. He freely chose his act and
    will have to pay for those actions. If you want to take the chance
    that all he's after is property, that's your business, but I'm not
    willing to take that risk. Once the criminal act has occurred, his
    life is worthless to me. Its no fun to have to take a life, but
    neither am I going to run or hide while he cleans me out. After
    he's finished at my place, who is next? Most criminals are repeat
    offenders, so they will strike again. I won't give them the benefit
    of the doubt, once they get past the locks and security system.
    Once, people felt responsible for their own defense and protection,
    but now they are more willing the delegate this to a third party,
    who may or may not really care about it (I live in a good area,
    but it still takes 10-15 min. to get a police car). My home is my
    castle and I will protect it by any means necessary, including deadly
    force. To me, those that break in have lost any rights they have!
    
    Eric

    re: .120
    
    Questions: 
    
    Since you've indicated that your house is securely locked, it
    seems at least reasonable to think that, if you were home, you
    would hear a break-in attempt before the individual was actually
    in the premises.  What would be your step-by-step course of
    action?  For example, would you call the police?  If so would
    you follow their instructions?
    

    Also, in terms of "criminals' rights", the only thing some people
    have raised as a question is whether it is "right" (good/ethical/
    moral) to impose the death penalty without due process of law for
    a crime such as breaking and entering.
    
    
    Steve
                                                                  

    RE: .120
    
    Eric, I'm curious. 
    
    What would your response be if, say, you came home and found that 
    your house had been broken into, and items had been taken.
    
    While you were trying to determine just what had been stolen, you
    looked out your window and noticed someone running away from your
    house, with one of the stolen articles clearly visible under his
    arm.
    
    Would you pursue him, and if he refused to halt, would you shoot
    him?
    
      Alan 

    RE: .121, As to your question, assuming I heard the breaking glass
    (or the alarm went off), I would have my wife call the police (and
    have inform them that I am armed and in the house), while I got a 
    firearm. I would probably confront the burglar (from a safe position)
    and hold him for the police. If he came at me, I would probably
    shoot with my goal being to stop him as effectively as possibly.
    If he took off emply handed, I wouldn't shoot him in the back though.
    
    RE: .122, if I caught him carrying off my property OUTSIDE, I'd
    try to detain him in some way short of deadly force (possibly shoot
    out his tires to disable the car). I don't know of any state law
    where the use of deadly force in this case is legal.
                                                 
    If I felt my I or my family's safety was threatened in any way by
    the breakin, I would bring him down! There is no question in my
    mind on THIS senario.
    
    From my own experience, I've had carry licenses since 1975 (and
    long arms for many years before that). In that time, I've had to
    use a gun for defense once, and did not have to fire, although I
    would have if necessary (attempted mugging by 4 teenagers, they took 
    off when I pulled a .45). 
    
    I'm have no desire to blow someone away unnecessarily, but there
    are many opinions on what is "necessary". If the burglar takes off
    empty handed, to me, shooting him is unnecessary. If a full
    confrontation occurs and I feel threatened, then shooting may be
    necessary because I'm not going to run out the back door and let
    him have the house. If he surrenders, I'll hold him for the police,
    but as I said earlier, if he comes at me, I WILL SHOOT.
    
    Eric

    re .123, but what if he runs off carrying something that belongs
    to you, would you shoot him in the back then?  You said you wouldn't
    shoot him in the back if he ran off empty handed, but what if he
    wasn't empty handed?
    
    I don't see what's so wrong about running out of the house and leaving
    the criminal in it.  It's not like he gets to live there the rest
    of his life.  You can call the police and they'll try to get him,
    and you have insurance to cover replacing valuables.
    
    You say you've had a license to carry a gun since 1975, and you've
    only had to "use" it once.  That's only one instance of violence
    in 13 years.  I am not in any way condoning that one instance of
    violence but the way some people have talked about needing guns
    for protection in this topic would make me think it was an everyday
    occurence.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .124, when I lived in Long Island, there was a small apt. house
    across the street. The owner had two sons, one of which had already
    served time. Both the boys knew I was armed and often carried. Often
    there were runs of vandalism in the neighborhood, but in 5 years
    I lived there, my house was never touched, while the houses on either
    side of me were hit multiple times. I feel that the implied threat
    to defend myself was enough to prevent trouble.
    
    To directly answer your question, I would not shoot him in the back
    in either case. To continue, its my home, and there is no reason
    I'll abandon it in favor of a CRIMINAL. In my home, he'll have 3
    options: leave, surrender, or attack. With the first two, no one
    is hurt, but if he chooses the third, he'll probably leave
    horizontally.
    
    Eric
    
    

    Re .124:
    
    Of course, if what they had wanted to steal was a gun...
    

    re: .123
    
    Thanks for the clarifications, Eric.  In my view, there is a 
    world of difference between the actions you describe in .123
    and the feelings described in .120.  I would only take issue
    with your quote (.120) in which you said, "I really couldn't
    give a damn about the criminal and what he will suffer when
    he breaks into my home."  It seems to me that the steps you'd
    follow in .123 indicate that, at the least, you care enough about
    the intruder not to waste him/her without the clear and present
    threat of harm.  It seems to me that if you *really* "didn't give
    a damn", then it would be easy enough to kill the intruder, place
    a knife in her/his hand and claim that the threat was there. 
    
    Steve
    

    Steve, I dont think anyone that is a LEGAL Firearms owner would
    ever consider doing something like that.  I think that scenerio
    is right up there with "If the intruder is entering your window,
    you shoot him OR HER, they fall out of the window....DARG THE SUCKER
    BACK IN!"...
    
    I cary a Firearm **almost** everywhere I go, so does my wife.  We
    feel that it is our right to protect ourselves/children AND PROPERTY.
    We work damn hard for what we have, why should we allow anoyone
    that feels like waltzing in, take what he OR SHE wants?
    
    Now, One might ask, why the hell does someone that is 238 (yes I
    lost 20 +- pnds) and 6-2 want to carry a .357 magnum?  Sure, it
    makes sense that Mel (my wife) should seeings she is only 5-1 at
    10o lbs (wet) but YOU!?!?
    
    The answer?  Size dont mean poop!  I have been taken down (groan)
    by a man that was Mels size.  It doesnt matter.  A person should
    have the right to protect the ones they love...be it wife, children
    OR property.
    
    The topic:  Would I ever use it?  Most deffinately YES! I have had
    to draw only twice but IF i hadn't...I wouldnt be here now.
    
    Take a look at the women that are signing up for the Kung fu or
    Karate or whatever it is...HERE in this file.  Last I heard, Martial
    arts are a form of (groan I hate to use this word fellow
    armsPEOPLE) WEAPON. 
    
    Now, if an intruder were to enter your house WITH a knife, you probably
    could disarm that person with ease using Karate tactics, NO?
    BUT, what if that person has a firearm?  Your not Bruce lee, sorry.
    
    Ill take my Mod 19 thank you.
    
    Oh, yeah, leaving the house and allowing them to take what they
    want.  
    If our forces are so dependable, why are there so many BE's and
    so little arrests?  Why are there so many assaults on the streets,
    and so little arrests?  Because there aren't enough officers to
    go around, ANYWHERE. By the time the police arrive, the perp is
    usually gone.  So much for that theory.  Sure your insured, have
    any of you ever tried to collect from an insurance co?  Forget it.
     
      
      If you happen to get lucky enought to have
    an assalent (sp) or intruder that has ANY brain cells left, they
    will not try to do anything while you hold a firearm on them.
    
    Ges a "right winger's" 2 c'sss.

    re .129, you say you carry a firearm *almost* everywhere you go.
     I'm just curious do you carry a firearm at work, at Digital?

    Is it legal for Digital employees who have a license to carry guns,
    to have guns with them at work?  (Now I find *that* a scary thought.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .130, the answer to that is a solid no (P & P, Sect. 6.24).
    This is common of most computer companies besides Digital.
    
    Eric

re: a few back

Thanx for adding the 'or she's. I was wondering if I'd feel differently about
the topic then (or about intruders, or men, or women). I must admit, it felt
silly at first (we all know women aren't violent :-}).
	Mez

>    how many times have you heard of somebody pulling a gun on a
>    co-worker during a moment of anger ?  I just doesn't happen !

Quite a few, I'm sorry to say.

Martin.

    Thats where the **ALMOST** comes in Lorna.
    Even if I were stupid enough to put my job on the line by carrying,
    do ou honestly think I would say it here???????
    
    133  I put the OR SHE in because everyone here is assuming that
    all intruders are male...NOT SO!  I KNOW differently.
    
    Martin...I find that a little hard to believe.. Could you elaborate?
    Are you saying that it has happend many times or a couple isolated
    incedents?
                 

    Some time ago, a friend informed me of some things he had learned
    from reading a handbook for assassins.  (Don't ask.)  One piece
    of advice the author gave was that, before pulling the job, the
    assassin should find a spot in which to throw up afterwards.  The
    author found that all assassins required such after their first
    killing, and many continued to require it after every one.
    
    Combining this with some other bits of information I have, I would
    like to offer the not-lethal-force people in this note the `comfort'
    that those who claim that they would blow away an intruder without
    compunction would not actually do it without a qualm, and not all
    of them would necessarily be able to do it at all.
    
    							Ann B.

    wow....
    
    i was enjoying the discussion here, but a question popped up in
    my mind and i just can't get it out, so i shall exorcise it by asking
    you all.....
    
    what do noters think about lethal force in the form of traps on
    one's own property?
    
    a while ago i saw a segment on 60 Minutes in which a store owner
    in Florida electrified a grating leading into his store after several
    burgalers broke in through it.  he left a warning sign, but another
    thief ignored it, and died of shock, and the owner went on trial
    (i forget what the verdict was, can anybody help me?)
    
    last night, i had a dream where my car was trapped such that anybody
    who started the car without first fastening the seat-belt (a habit
    of mine) would recieve a dose of poisonous gas, then a warning to
    turn oneself into to the police to recieve the antidote after the
    police managed to find me (in my dream, i held out until all the
    pieces of my car were put back together, the thief lived)
    
    so tell me, what do you all think of this?  it is deadly force in
    that i could have refused the antidote (in fact i did for a while).
    but not in the immediate sense of guns or knives or karate.
    
    just wonderin'................................jonathan

    Um, I think there must be a little mental blocking/selective memory
    going on with those gun advocates who can't remember incidents like
    the financial wizard (in Boston, no?) who shot his boss, or the Post
    Office where a worker shot anyone in sight. Both incidents are
    relatively recent, and are just the ones that come to mind without
    trying.
    
    Relying on NRA newsletters for all the news, maybe?
    
    Chuck

    umm without seeming crass..I thought we were talking about WITHIN
    DEC??  Before you go inadvertantly calling LAW ABIDING citizens
    ignorant, check the facts.
    
    Also, I believe that the firearm used in that situation was NOT
    legal.  Someone help me here....

    
    Well, there was the incident at CX0 a few years back.
    
    I wasn't going to bring it up but since you seem insistent..

    <--(.144)
    
    That wasn't in Colorado, Eagle, that was here at LJO2 three years
    ago. 
    						=maggie

    If it was that serious, please tell me(us) about it.  I have never
    heard of this happening, that doesnt mean it doesnt happen though.

I guess you can consider it fairly serious... but the details probably don't
belong here.

At least no one but the person with the rifle and several disk drives were
hurt in CXO -- it could have been a lot worse.

/john

    	RE:  .148
    
    	>  At least no one but the person with the rifle and several
    	>  disk drives were hurt in CXO -- it could have been a lot
    	>  worse.
    
    	While it's true that no one else was hurt inside the CXO
    	facility (except for the suicide victim himself,) he did kill
    	another Digital employee elsewhere (earlier in the evening.)

    	

    There was an incident last year in a Sanders Associates facility
    in the Nashua area in which a man pulled a gun on a woman who
    reportedly rejected a romantic overture.  No one was injured
    there, either, though the man did put three bullets into the
    lighting fixtures. . .
    
    Apparently this guy kept the gun in his desk.   
    
    --bonnie

    Sorry Bonnie, My cousin works in that facility and that  is not
    what happpened.  He went outside and got it from his car.
    Hense, the firearm WAS NOT in the facility.  Also, the guy was a
    "nutcase" from what she told me.  
    
    BTW: EVEN IF IT was in his desk, how did he get it in??
    They have quaint little detectors at the door along with random
    searches. (purses AND cases)

    re: .151
    
    I suppose we'd have to go to the police records to find out what
    actually happened.  The neighbor who told me about it said she had
    seen the gun in his desk in the past, and that he pulled it out
    and started shooting.  I presume you are as aware as I am of the
    unreliability of eyewitness accounts, so I'm not going to
    strenuously argue that my neighbor's right and your cousin's
    wrong!  The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

    However, the point is that coworkers do shoot each other, so a gun
    at work would be a risk.  And the difference between pulling a gun
    out of your desk to take a potshot at a coworker and going out to
    your car to get it doesn't seem to be terribly deep from the point
    of view of the people being shot at.  In fact, carrying a gun in
    one's car might be more dangerous than keeping one at work.  One
    then has the tempation to blow away the driver who cuts off one's
    car, and if a thief steals a car, he's stolen a weapon, too. 
    
    It's easy to dismiss the man in question as a nut case [as
    far as I know, an accurate assessment....] but the question
    is, how do you tell a nut case ahead of time and keep them
    from killing people?
    
    It seems like the 7-day waiting period would be a sensible
    way to at least reduce if not totally eliminate this problem;
    you could make it harder for known criminals and lunatics to
    get weapons of destruction.
    
    --bonnie

       Even the Air Force Academy here had an instance where a fired
       worker came back and blew away the boss and few co-workers. Then
       of course there's the California freeway shooters. That seems to
       have died down (pardon the pun). liesl

    
    to say nothing of the ESL (Sunnyvale, Calif) shooting last year...

   re: .153
    
    No, none of them were illegal guns as far as I know.  That was my
    point -- that apparently normal people who carry perfectly legal
    guns blow up and use them in situations that would probably not
    degenerate to fatal violence if those guns were not readily
    available.  
    
    When somebody cuts off your car, you can't pull out your gun and
    shoot them if you don't have a gun in the car.  The most you can
    do is ram the other car, which might produce fatal consequences
    but most likely produces only glass on the road and a rise in your
    insurance rates. 
    
    And before somebody jumps me for it, no, I'm not going to come in
    and take your guns away, dears, I'm only explaining why I don't
    carry one and why I think it's not a good idea for you to do it.
    But that's not the same as advocating confiscation. 
    
    --bonnie

    I respect your argument Bonnie.  I may not agree, but I respect
    it.  
    
    If one wants to get real loony, one could start running around town
    with a pickax.  After a while people see that it is as dangerous
    as a gun and want to outlaw that also.  The seven day is nothing
    but a start. ... Where will they go from there??  I think Ca was
    one for a good example. They started with the seven and now are
    at fifteen.  When does it stop?  
    
    What I am trying to say is that no matter what you do, you'll find
    loonies.  By regulating the Firearms in this matter, your restricting the
    honest and legal (although they could be loonies also) persons.      
    
    Who's to say that they don't decide that there should be a manditory
    psych check for all gun purchasers?  It may sound silly now, but
    give it time and people will like the idea.  With all the press
    (usually bad) on guns, we are doing nothing but showing our own
    wants of control. " As long as we can control who, what, where and
    why we're happy".  Well, I for one will not allow it without a fight.
    
    We could, as you said, argue forever(somthing like that)..... It
    wont prove a thing.  You have your views and I have mine.  I respect
    that.
                    Al

    excerpts from "The armed criminal in America"
                    By Dr. Paul H. Blackman
    
    the interviews were conducted with 1874 imprisoned convicted felons
    79% inteviewed said they were not or would not go armed where laws
    involving severe penitilies for commiting a crime while armed were
    in place.
    in Massachusetts 29% were in fact unarmed at the time of their crime.
    The places where it is most likley that a criminal will be unarmed
    are thoes which allow easy access to firearms by the public coupled
    with stiff penitilies for commiting a crime while armed.
    The respondents said that if handguns were somehow completly banned
    they would carry sawed off shotguns or sawed off rifles. this in
    fact would result in much more severe injuries to the victim then
    would a handgun attack.
    Where does a criminal get his guns
     50% purchase thru unregulated channels such as a friend
     fences, on the street or from drug dealers
     25% borrow the gun from friend or family
     12% steal a gun
     6% buy from pawnbrokers
     handguns are used for portection 350,000 times each year in America.
     For you Colorado residents
     The text of the Colorado "Make my day" law
     Colorado Criminal code section 18-1-704.5
    Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
    (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of
        Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety withen their
        own homes.
    (2) Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree
        of physical force, including deadly physical force, against
        another person when that other person has made an unlwful
        entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable  
        belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling
        in addition to the uninvited entry, or is commiting or intends
        to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
        the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes
        that such other person might use any physical force, no matter
        how slight, against any occupant.
    (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly
        physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection
        (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution
        for the use of such force.
    (4)  Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including
         deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of
         subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any cival
         liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such
         force.
     
       
    

    I've been gone for a while, and slowly catching up on =wn=.  I can't
    help throwing in my $.02 worth, late as it is.

    We have an alarm system which is connected to every door and window in
    our house.  There is a panic button by the bed that will set off the
    alarm system if it is pushed. The doors have deadbolt locks.  We have
    loaded handguns in our home. There is a loaded shotgun at the back of
    one of our closets. 

    We have no children. There are only two people who have any business
    coming and going freely into and out of our house.  A drunk next door
    neighbor who mistook our house for his own would have to pick a lock
    and bypass an alarm system to get in.  Not too likely. 

    When I'm alone in the house I sleep with the loaded shotgun by the bed.
    It's an Ithaca 12-gauge pump, and I know how to use it.  In fact, I've
    spent many hours shooting skeet with that shotgun, so I'm totally
    comfortable using it.  Steve does not come into the house unexpectedly
    without calling my name first until I answer, because he knows I will
    shoot first and ask questions later. 

    In doing the above things, our theory was this:  We have done
    everything reasonable to make it hard for someone to break into our
    house.  We have made it nigh onto impossible for someone to get in
    without waking us up. And if they get that far, they will be faced with
    the very identifiable sound of a shell being loaded into the chamber of
    a 12-gauge shotgun.  At any point if the person turned and ran, or
    tried in any way to get out, I wouldn't shoot.  But if they've gotten
    past the deadbolts and the alarm system, and the sound of the shotgun
    doesn't make them run, then as far as I'm concerned it's open season.
    And I don't believe in shooting to try and injure someone, though with
    a shotgun at close range that isn't really too much of an option
    anyway. 

    I guess you never know till you're faced with a situation, but I
    believe with all my heart that I'd shoot first and think about it
    later.  I certainly hope I would. 

    As far as the housebreaker's rights, I feel he relinquishes any and all
    rights he may have when he invades my home without my knowledge or
    permission. 

							Pat
    

    
    	   You might say lethal force is a hobby of mine.  I live alone,
    	and I have guns everywhere.  Guns, guns, and more guns.  All 
    	kinds of guns from a scoped elephant gun, to a riot gun, to 
    	an AR15 (laser sights), to a series of handguns.
    
    	   I keep about 2000 rounds of ammunition in the apartment too.
    	Most of it is for the AR15 (it goes through ammo pretty fast
    	on shooting expeditions).
    
    	   I also have some specialty weapons, including a compound
    	bow, a crossbow, a sword, and a selection of knives.  Again,
    	the equipment is hidden throughout the apartment so that I
    	always have access to something.
    
    	   It should be pretty obvious what my plan it.  If someone
    	breaks into my home, they will regret it.  If they do a 
    	sufficient amount of groveling, I have a pair of handcuffs
    	with which to restrain them while the police take their
    	time about arriving.  Otherwise, the police can take their
    	time anyway... no point in rushing to save a corpse.
    
    	  You see, that's the crux of my home defense plan:  Not 
    	counting on the police for anything except after-the-fact
    	cleanup.  In large cities you cannot count on timely arrival
    	of an officer of the law, so you must make your plans around
    	that reality.
    
    	- Greg

    -.1  You might be able to get some Silkworm missiles from China, just
    in case reality uses an armored personnel vehicle to break into your
    apartment.

    re: .160
    
    	   Nah... missiles are too bulky.  They can't be hidden
    	easily unless they are painted to resemble columns, and
    	my apartment has no obvious places for columns.  But 
    	thanks for the concern.  I think I'll invest in LAWS rockets
    	for my anti-tank work.
    
    	- Greg

    I just can't imagine what it must be like to live in a mindset
    like several people have been describing.  Maybe someday I'll
    regret my casualness, but I doubt it.

    I live in the country in an old farm house.  We have no locks
    on our doors.  We leave the car keys in the ignition when parked
    out on the road.  I have a .22 for shooting dogs that attack
    my sheep, but it would take me a while to get it out and load
    it.  Its VERY hiden from my kids.  I'm not sure what I would do
    if someone broke into my house while I was home.  I guess I prefer
    not to expect it to happen.  there are certainly more present
    dangers to deal with.

    We are having quite a situation in our town right now....you may be
    hearing about it on the nightly news.  In the next town, a 'satanic
    cult' leader stabbed a young girl to death.  She was found by her
    twin sister (who some say was the intended victim).  He then
    abandoned his car in the woods several miles from my house and hasn't
    been found yet.  He's been sighted everywhere from Connecticut to
    Colorado.  Yesterday someone broke into a neighbor's house (empty)
    and stole camping equipment, winter down parkas, food, and a big
    hunting knife (and left some guns alone).  The police are going
    crazy.  Some program like 'unsolved mysteries' is bidding for a show.
    The schools are really a mess...the police have asked that the kids
    be kept in for recess and all the kids are petrefied.  Most town
    Halloween activiteis were cancelled or moved to the day time.  (He
    was born on Halloween, is obsessed with 'friday 13th' movies and
    its character Jason).

    So.....are my family and I in danger?  I think yes, but not from this
    crazy maniac.  Every gun in town has been taken out of storage and 
    loaded and is 'ready'.  A friend's daughter described her 15 year old
    boyfriend babysitting for his younger siblings:  They all sat on the
    couch in the living room while he guarded them with the family
    gun.  You better believe that no teen-agers were out smashing
    pumpkins or whatever on the night before Halloween!  They would have
    been killed by their friendly neighbor.

    I prefer the situation in England where almost no one has a gun and
    almost no one EVER gets shot.  Any crime with a gun is national news.
    bob

RE: .-1

  > So.....are my family and I in danger?  I think yes, but not from this
  > crazy maniac.      
    
    Given the scenario you described, I'd like to know how you figure
    you and your family are NOT in danger from this crazy maniac.  Just
    curious...
    
    							Pat

    Maybe we differ on how you term 'being in danger'.  Do I think
    he will break into my house at all?  No.  Do I think he will
    break into my house while I'm in it?  Even more, no.  Actually,
    I really doubt he is still out in the woods or that the recent
    break in was him.  But it could have been.

    He didn't kill some random person but a young woman somehow involved
    with his cult.  He may kill again.  I hope they catch him.  If the
    police wanted civilian volunteers to help with a 'man hunt', I would
    go (that's the last thing they want right now).  But I don't think
    I'm in any danger.

    re: .164
    
    >He may kill again.  I hope they catch him.  If the
    >police wanted civilian volunteers to help with a 'man hunt', I would
    >go (that's the last thing they want right now).  But I don't think
    >I'm in any danger.
    
       This seems inconsistant with your attitude regarding gun control
    (a la Great Britain).
    
    	- Greg

    I don't see the inconsistancy....he killed someone and is
    dangerous,  sounds quite insane.  but that has nothing to do with guns.
    If there was a way that I and my neighbors could help catch him,
    many of us would.  there are phone chains and neighborhood watches
    now.  but the only guns involved are being held by scared people
    guarding their homes.

    re: .166
    
>    now.  but the only guns involved are being held by scared people
>    guarding their homes.
    
    	   This statement seems like an obvious oversimplification
    	to me.  Because your neighbors own guns and are ready to 
    	use them against this vicious killer hardly disqualifies them
    	as being helpful in apprehending or stopping this killer.
    	Yes, they may well be scared, but that does not imply that
    	they'll shoot anything that moves any mor than it implies
    	they are all contemplating mass murder with their weapons.
    
    	   One thing about gun ownership (at least from my perspective)
    	is that it ptovides a certain degree of peace of mind.  If
    	a gun is readily available, I worry less about possible attacks
    	because I know I am prepared to handle them.  unarmed, I would 
    	not have the same sense of security, and would in fact become
    	dependant on the police force (woefully inadequate in most urban
    	areas, and probably in the rural/suburban areas as well).
    
    	   I like the feeling of self-sufficiency that owning weapons
    	buys me (but then I've already stated that opinion).
    
    	- Greg

    re: .167    
>    	   I like the feeling of self-sufficiency that owning weapons
>    	buys me.

    I can understand this feeling.  But I think it is exactly the
    wrong justification for doing almost anything.  Would you feel
    saver if everyone strong enough to carry a gun did so.  (and
    I don't mean everyone who has passed some test).  Perhaps
    you would, but again we disagree.

    Unless the value of something works equally well or better when
    'everyone' has it, I disagree that its a good thing for the few
    to have it.  Perhaps good for them....

    I view nuclear weapons exactly the same way...we felt real safe
    when only we had them.  suddenly virtually anyone can have them
    and that safety doesn't exist anymore.  Better that no one did.
    But we probably disagree there also.

    I like the feeling of self-sufficiency that being literate
    buys me.....but gun ownership?  how about a good guard dog?
    bob

    
    >But I think it is exactly the
    >wrong justification for doing almost anything.  
    
    	   Can you explain a little further, please, why the
    	desire for self-sufficiency is an incorrect motivation
    	for anything?  Is it not the reason we take jobs?  It
    	it not the reason we buy cars rather than relying on
    	public transportation? 
    
    >Would you feel
    >saver if everyone strong enough to carry a gun did so.  (and
    >I don't mean everyone who has passed some test).  Perhaps
    >you would, but again we disagree.
    
    	   Indeed, I would feel safer.  But that's quite another
    	topic, and one which doesn't really belong here.
    
    	   You see, I'm a sort of closet anarchist.  That's not a
    	very popular viewpoint, however, so I don't rant about it
    	too often.  I honestly believe that criminals would be a
    	lot less bold (and active) if everyone was allowed to carry
    	a weapon openly.
    
    	- Greg

. -1
    Self-sufficiency is great.....and I completely
    agree with all your examples.  I think the world would
    be a better place if everyone had jobs, had a car, maybe
    a garden to grow some veggies, or space for some sheep or whatever.
    If everyone were really self-sufficient, we would have very little
    crime.

    The motivation I disagree with is the feeling that 'its good for
    me to have this', when underneath that I hear 'and better if you dont'.

    In the long run, I don't think it works for eveyrone to try to be
    bigger and stronger than everyone else.  I don't want the world to
    be a place where everyone is trying to make sure they have a bigger
    gun than those around them.

    re: .170 (Armstrong)
    
>    The motivation I disagree with is the feeling that 'its good for
>    me to have this', when underneath that I hear 'and better if you dont'.
    
    	Yes, I disagree with this motivation as well.  That's why I
    	oppose gun control laws.  In New York only the rich and the
    	criminals have guns.  Very much a case of 'better if I do and
    	you don't', wouldn't you agree?
    
    	   Allow me to repeat what I said in the previous note to
    	underline this point.
    
.169>    	too often.  I honestly believe that criminals would be a
.169>    	lot less bold (and active) if everyone was allowed to carry
.169>    	a weapon openly.              ^^^^^^^^
        
    	   Quite a sharp contrast from the "Better if I have it and
    	you don't" philosophy, I'm sure you'll agree.  By everyone,
    	I do mean everyone.
    
    	   IMHO, it is far better to allow people to defend themselves
    	than it is to turn them into sheep ready for the slaughter.
    	The more we rely on the police (or any other branch of the 
    	government) for protection, the more we resemble sheep at the
    	mercy of the shepherds and the wolves.  Ultimately. we encourage
    	the wolves to attack and the shepherds to lead us to slaughter
    	when we deny ourselves the right to defend ourselves.
     
    - Greg

     If you are going to make generalizations that "only the rich and
    criminals" have guns, please give some substantial evidence to back
    up your claim.  My older brother (lives in Queens) has a .44 pistol.  I
    wouldn't put him in either the rich or criminal category.

    The only shepherds I see around, in your portrayal, are the
    police and the government itself.  I'ld rather depend on our
    system of laws and elections than guns to keep them from 'leading
    me to slaughter'.  I guess if it came to violent overthrow, I'ld
    join the people's army, gun in hand.

    Wolves are a different story....so I've got a big guard dog who
    protects my flock from the wolves.  Actually there are coyotes
    all around out here, but they're smart enough to find dinner
    elsewhere.

    I wish people would begin to defind themselves by paying attention
    to the election issues.  something like guns should be only the
    last resort.
    bob

    re: .172
    
    	   Does your brother have a permit for the gun?  If not, then 
    	he is a criminal (albeit an unapprehended criminal).  Handguns 
    	are illegal in NYC without a permit and permits are not easily 
    	acquired by John Q. Average.
    
    re: .173
    
    	   The shepherds were indeed the government/police.  The wolves
    	are the criminals.  The sheep are the innocent law-abiding
    	citizens who freely give away their ability to defend 
    	themselves in the name of 'security' provided by the 'shepherds'.
    	Currently, the wolves outnumber the shepherds (in this case,
    	the police) by a wide margin.  I see no reason to entrust
    	my welfare and security to a band of shepherds with too 
    	much to do already.
    
    	   I am often amazed by the blind trust the American public
    	puts in its law enforcement system, especially considering
    	how poorly that system works today.  
    
    - Greg

    ]Yes, he does have a permit.  But its from Pennsylvania, not N.Y.
    
    And if I believe him, there are lots of "criminals" in this
    neighborhood then -- people owning pistols but (I'm assuming)
    not having them licensed.
    
    I have to admire your comeback; I hadn't thought of the licensing
    issue as causing some gun owners to be criminals.

    re: .174
    
    Greg, you're talking about the law enforcement system as if
    it were something outside of all of us ordinary everyday people.
    
    I think of the legal system as a system of rules and laws that
    we've all agreed to as the necessary underpinning of society. Some
    of these rules are merely arbitrary; we could as easily drive on
    the left side of the road as on the right, but smooth safe traffic
    flow depends on everyone agreeing on one or the other.  Others,
    like rules against murder and robbery, are intended to free our
    collective energies from the need to stand watch at night and
    allow us to worry about new ways to improve our lives or live them
    more fully instead.  Yes, these laws do limit our freedoms.  But
    society came about because we felt that going along with these
    reasonable limits bought us more than we were gaining from
    absolute freedom to kill and to die. 

    These rules are enforced not by police-shepherds but by collective
    behavior, collective belief that they are the right way for all of
    us to deal with each other.  The judicial system, including the
    police, is only a means of dealing with those who either cannot or
    will not go along with the rules we all agreed to. 

    When you see a judicial and police system overloaded the way ours
    is, it indicates a problem a hell of a lot more serious than
    whether each of us owns guns -- we're seeing symptoms of a whole
    society not buying into the values of peace and cooperation. We're
    seeing a lot of people who are opting out of responsibility for
    maintaining society, obeying only the rules they feel are
    advantageous for them and ignoring the laws that restrict their
    behavior.  I'll drive on the right side of the road, but at any
    speed I damn well please, and the police don't have any right to
    ticket me for it!

    For someone who's strong, the condition of anarchy may be
    preferable.  You can go out and beat up on people and defend
    yourself.  But the weak of society have nowhere to go.  Unless
    someone strong defends them, they're going to be the sheep
    preyed upon by an ever-larger horde of wolves.
    
    --bonnie

I'm really getting sick of the argument, "If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws
Will Have Guns".  The fact remains that the U.S. is the only industrialised
country that doesn't have gun control, and has by far the highest rate of
violent crime of the major industrialised nations.

The argument is that outlaws can get guns through underground channels.  True,
but that takes work and connexions.  One would think that over 50% of all
violent crime is committed by the Mafia!  When guns are easy to get, more
criminals will have them.  Most criminals are amateurs, at least until they
get in prison for the first time.

If heroin was sold at supermarket check-out counters, I don't think it would
be very easy to argue that there would be fewer users of the drug (at least
initially, before they start dropping off).

A large percentage of violence by handguns takes place in the good old
American home, between family members.  The young eight-year old knows where
the parents keep the gun and goes for it after an argument.  The drunk husband
sees it lying on the table by the bed, and doesn't have to think things
through before it's already too late for thought.  Is handgun control really
all that different from enforcing drunk driving laws?  The person endangers
not only themselves, but others.

Should we also all have the right to have our own nuclear bombs, just in case
the Russians invade us?

The fact remains that most murders are not premeditated.  Most people,
criminals included, own guns that they think or hope they'll never use.
Handgun control gives a way of tracing those guns to their owners when a death
or accident occurs.  Of course there will be outlaws who will have ways of
disposing of the gun or otherwise disguising the identity of either themselves
or the gun.  But these aren't the 1930's!  The percentage of violence that is
related to organised, professional crime, is not all that significant.

Personal handguns have not been very effective in incidents of home break-ins.
I know a couple who came home one day to an ambush.  They were bound and
gagged for days until relatives paid the ransom money.  They never had a
chance to go for their gun.  One of my previous residences was "invaded" once.
If I'd had a gun, I might have shot an innocent person.  The guy was all
bloody from a car wreck, and wasn't in any situation to knock and wait for an
answer so he just walked right in.

I've always seen gun ownership as reflecting the qualities of male-dominated
society.  And everyone I know who owns one says they'd shoot to kill first and
ask questions later (if it's still possible).

One thing that really bothers me is all these security personnel with guns.
They don't have to go through forensics training, and are no more qualified
to use a gun than the average citizen.  Their numbers are growing fast!  I get
very nervous when I walk into a mall and there's some young kid with sweaty
palms and a gun on his side.  In spite of all the corruption and the
relatively rare incidents of mistaken identity and shooting before warning,
policemen don't make me nervous the way private security personnel do.


				Mark

    re: .177 (Mark)
    
>I'm really getting sick of the argument, "If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws
>Will Have Guns".  
    
    	   We gun owners are equally tired of the ridiculous analogies
    	from the anti-gun crowd equating handguns and nuclear weapons.
    	We are also exceedingly weary of their feeble attempts to 
    	redefine the meaning of the second amendment by harping on
    	the phrase 'well-regulated militia', while ignoring the 
    	subsequent statement that militia implies all 'able-bodied
    	men (wherein 'men' is now defined as 'adults' to remove
    	any racial/sexual slurs).  And if you want to know what 
    	we're REALLY tire of, it's the persitent flailing of the
    	'plastic gun' straw man and the 'cop-killer bullet' dead
    	horse.
    
    	
>The argument is that outlaws can get guns through underground channels.  True,
>but that takes work and connexions.  One would think that over 50% of all
>violent crime is committed by the Mafia!  When guns are easy to get, more
>criminals will have them.  Most criminals are amateurs, at least until they
>get in prison for the first time.
    
    	   Do you really believe one has to go to prison to develop
    	connections?  How hard do you think it is for the average
    	American to get a gram of cocaine?  Do you think only ex-convicts
    	snort?  What about all those rich people in California?  Are
    	they all ex-convicts.
    
    	   Developing connections with the black market is not as tough
    	as you make it out to be.  Have you never been accosted by
    	someone trying to sell you 'hot goods'?  I have, on several
    	occasions (in NYC as well as Houston).  If guns become illegal,
    	that's the way they'll be sold.  Out of trunks of cars, out
    	of briefcases, and out of the homes of those who, by vitue of
    	the restrictions, are now criminals for dealing in handguns.
    	The law creates a black market, and encourages criminal
    	activity.
    
>A large percentage of violence by handguns takes place in the good old
>American home, between family members.  The young eight-year old knows where
>the parents keep the gun and goes for it after an argument.  The drunk husband
>sees it lying on the table by the bed, and doesn't have to think things
>through before it's already too late for thought.  Is handgun control really
>all that different from enforcing drunk driving laws?  The person endangers
>not only themselves, but others.
    
    	   Indeed, this is a problem, though one of education rather than
    	restriction.  If people were given gun safety training in schools,
    	then there would be fewer accidents and incidents of spontaneous
    	violence.  Measures such as placing the gun in a secure location
    	(rather than a night stand or a kitchen cabinet) would keep the
    	kiddies away from the weapons, without necessarily reducing their
    	readiness.  You see, there are more ways to solve a problem than
    	just throwing laws at it, and in this case the laws are an ill-
    	conceived solution at best, and a direct affront to our liberties
    	at worst.
    
>Personal handguns have not been very effective in incidents of home break-ins.
>I know a couple who came home one day to an ambush.  They were bound and
>gagged for days until relatives paid the ransom money.  They never had a
>chance to go for their gun.  One of my previous residences was "invaded" once.
>If I'd had a gun, I might have shot an innocent person.  The guy was all
>bloody from a car wreck, and wasn't in any situation to knock and wait for an
>answer so he just walked right in.
    
    	   And I can tell you the story of my brother who stopped a 
    	robbery of a Seven Eleven store because he had my Colt .45
    	in the car with him.  The would-be thief was restrained and
    	the police were called.  The store manager's life was at risk
    	during the robbery, but because my brother had a gun nobody
    	was hurt and a criminal was apprehended.  Now tell me how
    	inneffective handguns are!
    
>I've always seen gun ownership as reflecting the qualities of male-dominated
>society.  And everyone I know who owns one says they'd shoot to kill first and
>ask questions later (if it's still possible).
    
    	   Actually, the rules read as follow:
    
    		1) Never aim a gun unless you mean to shoot
    		2) Never shoot a gun unless you mean to kill
    
    	   Surely the difference is obvious.  The rules restrain one
    	from using the gun, rather than encourage reckless use (such
    	as your rule does).  It causes one to think about what one is
    	doing, rather than becoming wantonly savage and flailing a
    	gun about when they don't intend to shoot.
    
>One thing that really bothers me is all these security personnel with guns.
    
    	   These ARE security officers we're talking about here.  That
    	means they are expected to run into criminals now and again.
    	What would you have them use as weapons against criminals
    	armed with guns?
    
>palms and a gun on his side.  In spite of all the corruption and the
>relatively rare incidents of mistaken identity and shooting before warning,
>policemen don't make me nervous the way private security personnel do.
    
    	   I think this statement marks the width of the abyss between
    	our minds.  You choose to ignore the evidence and put your
    	faith in the police to handle the crime problem.  I know they
    	are incapable of that Herculean task, and offer to help whenever
    	I can (or MUST).  I take responsibility, you seek to give it
    	away.
    
    	- Greg

RE: .179

I am not going to make any response to specifics in your note, because it is
clear it was a very emotional reaction.  You managed to miss most of my points
by taking them all to their logical extremes and reacting to those extremes
instead of to what I actually said.  Not that I agree with your points anyway,
but they were made relative to things that I did not say.


				Mark

    re: .180
    
    
>I am not going to make any response to specifics in your note, because it is
>clear it was a very emotional reaction.  
    
    	   Was this an attempt at humor?  I view your refusal to
    	address my points as a lack of conviction on your part.
    	I have raised specific issues in response to your statements
    	(and in anticipation of the argument, if it follows the
    	line of all gun control enthusiasts), and you have chosen
    	to ignore them.  What does that tell YOU about the strength
    	of your convictions?  By the way, your statement shows that
    	you don't know me very well, because I am not an emotional
    	person by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    
>You managed to miss most of my points
>by taking them all to their logical extremes and reacting to those extremes
>instead of to what I actually said.  
    
    	   This statement baffles me.  I have not even APPROACHED
    	the extremes.  I have countered your example of why guns
    	are not effective with an equally valid example of why 
    	they are.  I have responded to your statement regarding
    	your weariness with the "When guns are outlawed, only 
    	outlaws will have guns argument" by saying that we gun
    	owners are tired of the counter-arguments from your side
    	as well.  Now tell me, how do either of these represent
    	taking anything to extremes?  
    
>Not that I agree with your points anyway,
>but they were made relative to things that I did not say.
    
    	   Are kou saying that you disagree with my assertions
    	(in which case you are admitting that my anticipation
    	of your responses was correct), or are you saying that
    	my assumptions about your responses were incorrect (in
    	which case you agree with the points I was making)?
    
    	   My apologies if I seem a bit agressive in this 
    	discussion, but I have been involved in VERY similar
    	discussion in other conferences (FIREARMS and SOAPBOX),
    	and have perhaps gotten to the point when I feel I know
    	what's coming before it comes.  If my assumptions are
    	incorrect, then feel free to correct me.  Simply ignoring
    	them does not invalidate them in any way.  To invalidate
    	them you will have to respond to them  
    
    	   Are you up to it?
    
    	- Greg

    re: .181 
    
    Greg, I have to agree that your response was very emotional.  Not
    irrational, and not necessarily wrong (though I disagree with
    several points of it) but very emotional. I hope this doesn't
    cause you to have to go through a major crisis in reassessing your
    personality!  Maybe I should add that emotional is not a negative
    assessment.  Caring passionately about one's beliefs is a strong
    and fine thing. 
    
    One thing that you did in .179, that gun owners in general often
    do, is assume that everyone who wants to outlaw plastic guns that
    are good only for military or criminal purposes also wants to take
    away target pistols and hunting rifles, or that people like me who
    think that keeping a gun in an ordinary middle-class suburban home
    is more danger than it is safety and that it's wrong to kill
    someone for stealing one's TV want to have the government enforce
    our particular beliefs. 
    
    True, there are people who want to do both, and they've been
    yelling at you so long and so loud that you, as you admit, think
    you know what we're going to say before they say it.  Probably
    you're right more often than not, but in this note, gun advocates
    have attributed beliefs to some of us that we just believe.
    
    This note started out to discuss the rights and wrongs of using
    lethal force, not necessarily guns, to protect one's home. The
    issues were things like Does it work? Are there alternatives? When
    is lethal force necessary? When is it acceptable?  Is it ok in
    some situations and not in others?  Are there more effective
    tactics than using a gun?  Gun control is one aspect of the
    problem, and of the solution, but it's only one part of the issues
    under consideration. 
    
    Are you sure that the clerk of the 7-11 survived unhurt BECAUSE of
    the gun, or IN SPITE of it?  In Nashua, with a good police force
    and not all that much crime, it would have done more good to call
    the cops right away than by running in with the gun to play John
    Wayne.  In another place, another time, perhaps running in with
    the gun is the right thing to do.  But only if the person running
    in with the gun knows what he or she is doing. 
    
    You're the first person in this string to quote the "never aim
    unless you mean to shoot and never shoot unless you mean to kill"
    rules that I learned by heart probably before I could read. Other
    people in this string have said they think they can just wave it
    to scare a criminal away -- they're the people who are likely to
    hurt themselves or provoke an incident in which they're hurt worse
    than they would have been if they capitulated.  A desperate person
    cornered in a 7-11 with a .45 held by someone who doesn't know
    whether he's going to shoot or not is likely to take the chance
    that he won't, or if he does shoot, he'll miss.  
    
    Let's not varnish facts here -- when guns come out, someone can
    die.  YOU can die.  Yes, you can die from being bashed by a pool
    cue, but the odds with guns go way way up. 

    --bonnie

    re: .182 (Bonnie)
    
    	   Well, I'll tell you what I'll do.  I'll step down from
    	my gun-owners soapbox and allow this conversation to get
    	back on track again.  Since you are NOT really trying to
    	attack my second amendment rights, there's really no
    	reason for me to go on a tirade anyway, is there?
    
    	   However, I do get weary of people telling me how dangerous
    	guns are.  It's not the guns themselves (inanimate objects
    	that they are) that are dangerous, it's the uneducated morons
    	who think that they can wave them around like John Wayne 
    	and not get hurt.  They give gun ownership a bad name, and
    	are generally the least effective when a fire fight becomes
    	necessary.  I maintain that education is the solution to this
    	problem.
    
    	   As for the manager of the 7-11, any speculation on my part
    	as to whether he would have survived with or without the
    	intervention of the weapon would obviously be of little import.
    	Speculation is, after all, based on assumption, and you know
    	what they say about assuming.  Suffice it to say that the 
    	guy survived and the criminal was apprehended. 
    
    	- Greg

I find the statement "It's not the gun; it's the person" funny. I belong to
CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility). They explicitly
discourage the idea that "any technology is just technology; technologists
don't need to worry about the social implications of their artifacts". Perhaps
this is why some folks run around comparing nuclear weapons to guns; at least
one of the traditionally pro-gun arguments sounds a lot like the argument that
absolves the originators of 'the bomb' from any 'responsibility'.
	Mez

    re: .183
    
    You're right that in general the gun itself isn't dangerous, it's
    the person who is using the gun, or who left it in a place where
    the kids could find it, or who forgot to unload it before s/he
    started to clean it. 

    But we haven't even managed to teach everyone to drive a car
    safely, and that's a lethal weapon almost every one of us owns and
    has to own to survive.  How are we going to teach them to use a
    gun safely? 
    
    In Montana, where I grew up, you couldn't get your first hunting
    license without showing a certificate that you'd passed a hunter
    safety course.  Still there wasn't a year that went by without
    somebody shooting another hunter thinking he was a deer, or when
    somebody sighting in a rifle in a gravel pit didn't accidentally
    hit either a partner or somebody out of sight but not out of
    reach, or an anxious hunter with a gun at the ready trips, drops
    rifle, which discharges . . . et cetera.

    And the worst thing about it is that the people who are careless
    are the most likely to be the ones insisting that they know what
    they're doing, they aren't going to make a mistake, they don't
    need any more education or practice, and anybody who breaks into
    their house had better watch out.  No, the gun's not under lock
    and key, but that's all right, it's hidden where the kids could
    never find it and of course they've never spied to see what
    fascinating forbidden toy Daddy or Mommy keeps in that hidden
    place . . . 

    I'm not blaming the guns, I'm blaming the fools who own them. But
    I'd be a lot happier if more fools could be kept out of contact
    with guns. 
        
    --bonnie

    re: .185 (Bonnie)
    
>    I'd be a lot happier if more fools could be kept out of contact
>    with guns. 
    
    	   Amen.  However, there does not seem to be a fair way
    	to discriminate based on foolishness. 
    
    - Greg

    re .183, "when a fire fight becomes necessary" - Sounds like you're
    writing from the middle of a war somewhere - I can picture you at
    your terminal in a little tent with the war raging around you.
    

      Fuel to the fire...
    
    The following arrived in my mailbox.  Although I am pro-ownership,
    I thought it would be of some interest here.  I've reproduced all
    "headers", so you can contact the original author if you like.
    
    Bill
    
    
<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 1704             Thursday 24-Nov-1988            Circulation :  6414 

VNS MAIN NEWS:                            [Richard De Morgan, Chief Editor, VNS]
==============                            [Basingstoke, England                ]

From:	SHIRE::COPCLU::GEOFFREY "Geoff Rummel, The Forgotten American  23-Nov-1988 1537" 23-NOV-1988 14:38
To:	SHIRE::COMICS::DEMORGAN
Subj:	An interesting news item...


Hi Richard,

   I send you the following which I have compiled based upon a
study in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
I hope you can include it in the news section, as it is relevant
to recent VNS discussion. I found the article very thought
provoking, but far too long to send to you in it's entirety. (As 
my wife subscribes to the NEJM I still have the study at hand.)


Regards,

Geoff



Gun control has always been a very emotional issue. Until now 
there has never been a valid scientific study of the effects of 
gun control on homicide and violent assault rates. Is it really 
true that guns don't kill people, that only people kill people
(ie. that the easy access to guns is not the deciding factor)?
Previous studies were flawed in that they compared different
countries (U.S. versus Japan, Ohio versus Denmark) where
cultural and other factors play too big a role. 

Now, for the first time there exists a comprehensive study of 
two very similar cities, one with strict control of handguns and
one with virtually no controls. Seattle, U.S.A., with no gun
control, and Vancouver, Canada, with strict handgun control were
studied over a period of 6 years ('80 to '86) by a team of
Doctors. The results have just been published in the New England
Journal of Medicine. These two cities are close, both in
proximity as well as culture. They have similar ethnic mixes,
almost identical average incomes, and nearly identical
unemployment rates. They have similar crime rates for robbery,
burglary, simple assault, and aggravated assault with all
weapons other than firearms. Now comes the interesting part:
Seattle's rate of aggravated assault involving a firearm was 7.7
times greater than Vancouver's. 

The two cities had almost identical murder rates for homicides 
involving all weapons other than firearms. Murders rates
involving guns were 5 times higher in Seattle.

The following quotes come directly from the study's authors: 

"Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, 
the relative risk of death from homicide...was significantly 
higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Virtually all of this 
excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being 
murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver."

"We conclude that restricted access to handguns may reduce the 
rate of homicide in a community."

Clearly, more studies of this nature need to be made, but the 
empirical evidence appears to refute the much touted statement 
that guns don't kill people, only people kill people. The study 
appears to show that people kill people more frequently when 
they have easy access to handguns.

re:218.188
    
    You rufute your own statement.
    "People kill people with handguns more readily accessible."
    
    It sorta makes sense doesn't it. If more guns are availble, more
    murders will occur with that weapon. BUT you don't say HOW MANY
    murders were committed in EACH community with handguns. If there
    is a gun law and 1 person is shot in that community, then a 4.8x
    higher rating would mean that 5 people were killed where guns are
    legal. 
    
    The problem is that those people who want to kill will find a weapon
    to do the job. If a handgun is more accessible that's the weapon
    they'll use. If not, then something else will be used. The mental
    state of the people who kill determines what they use. It's hard
    for a sniper to fulfill his desire without a rifle, but a slasher
    can always get a knife or some other sharp object. A terrorist can
    easily wipe out hundreds by fashioning explosives around himself
    and becoming a bomb....etc.
    
    The article has some merit, but without knowing all of the numbers,
    the time of year, heat wave, family arguments, drugs/alcohol, etc.
    I have to discount the conclusion.
    
    Ken

    <--(.188)
    
    I dunno, Ken, from the information given the study sounds pretty good
    to me.  Look at the sample size, the duration, and the factors that
    were matched; pretty impressive.  And it seems significant to me
    that all the other crime statistics match, too.
    
    I do feel uneasy about some of the things implied but not actually
    specified:  
    
    1. Are the cities the same size?  I thought Seattle was much larger (on
    the order of 3:1). 
    
    2. The "average" incomes are the same, but does "average" in this case
    refer to mean, median, or modal incomes?  And what of the distribution?
    It's quite possible to have two means (e.g.) that are the same, but
    have one population normally distributed (bell curve) and another be a
    poisson (fish-shaped, bigger at one end) distribution. 
                                                   
    3. How does Seattle compare with other US cities of similar size in
    respect of violence with firearms.  As you point out, Ken, it's easy
    for small changes in small absolute numbers to translate into large
    percentage changes, and I'd feel less suspicious if we knew what the
    5:1 ratio represents in absolute magnitude.
                       
    						=maggie

    re: .189
    
    � The problem is that those people who want to kill will find a weapon
    � to do the job. If a handgun is more accessible that's the weapon
    � they'll use. If not, then something else will be used. 
    
    While I agree that people bent on killing will do so with whatever
    means are available, I don't believe that's the entire problem.
    Moreover, most homicide is committed in the "heat of the moment"
    so it's not generally a question of premeditation.  The problem
    with handguns is that they are far more effective at killing than 
    weapons such as knives, particularly in a "passion" killing (i.e. 
    not an act of a professional or a psychotic).  
    
    I disagree that "The mental state of the people who kill determines 
    what they use."  In that moment of anger, when the mental state is 
    highly agitated, the perpetrator goes for the weapon that's available 
    and if that happens to be a handgun, I'm convinced that the chances 
    of homicide increase.  It's simply easier to kill someone with a
    handgun than lesser weapons.
    
    And although I'm also feeling cautious about the study, I would
    nonetheless expect that homicide increases with the availability
    of handguns.
    
    Steve       
    

Re:  .190 by RAINBO::TARBET "Set ----- hidden"

>    1. Are the cities the same size?  I thought Seattle was much larger (on
>    the order of 3:1).

Seattle and Vancouver are of comparable sizes.  The 1984 Rand McNally Road
Atlas that I keep at my desk lists 410,188 as the Vancouver population and
493,846 as that of Seattle.  It may well be that the Seattle metropolitan
area is larger (particularly if you reach down as far Tacoma (about 150,000)
which is only 30 miles away), but the core cities are indeed similar.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

    I wonder if there are other considerations that would affect the
    homicide rate in each city.  For instance, does Canada have laws
    that specifically address the issue of using a weapon while committing
    a crime?  Maybe the penalties are real and enforced there, where
    I sometimes think they aren't in the USA.  
    
    Nancy
    

    Please, people, please!
    
    The report on the study explicitly stated that the statistics
    involving all non-gun weapons were the same in both cities.
    
    I.e., if guns didn't exist, the homicide rates in both cities
    would have been the same.
    
    Thus it can be assumed that (given that guns do exist) the homicide
    rates in both cities would remain the same even with guns EXCEPT
    for the fact that the laws governing them are different between
    the two.
    
    							Ann B.

    I had originally entered this note under Human Relations and was
    subsequently write locked since the moderator felt that the forum
    was innapropriate.  He then directed me to this note file.
    
    
    
        <<< QUARK::DISK$QUARK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HUMAN_RELATIONS.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? >-
================================================================================
Note 636.0             Guns and my good friends new baby               3 replies
BRADOR::HATASHITA                                    41 lines  12-DEC-1988 16:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last weekend I crossed the border into the US to visit friends
    who were celebrating the birth of their first born, a beautiful
    girl named Olivia.  While I was down there (Pontiac, Michigan) the
    new father took me into his basement and, with as much pride as
    he had in presenting me with his daughter, he presented me with
    his latest addition to a rather extensive hand-gun collection.
    
    He ran through the stats on the gun, hefting it with confidence,
    clicking and cocking it around like a kid playing with a Transformer,
    as pieces came out of it while other pieces slid back and forth. I
    wasn't listening to a word he was saying as I was busy being totally
    dumbstruck.
    
    In Canada hand-guns are a major contraband.  To buy one, you need
    special licenses which means you have to be a police officer or a sport
    shooter.  If you are of the latter category, you must inform the local
    police if you move the gun, this includes moving it from your house to
    the shooting club, and you must transport it unloaded and in the trunk
    of your car.  Illegal posession of firearms almost always means prison.
    
    I had never seen a hand-gun before in real life and I wasn't sure that
    they didn't only exist on cop shows and in police holsters. And my
    immediate thought was that my friend, whom I have known for the
    majority of my life, had flipped and become a neurotic paranoid. This
    was until I started to talk to him and found out that both his
    brothers, their wives, his sister, her husband, his father and mother
    and almost all our mutual friends on the US side of the border owned
    hand-guns.  Judging by his reaction to my reaction this is an emotional
    issue in the US. 
    
    I drove back over the border thinking that under the same roof where
    people were joyfully celebrating the arrival of new life, there
    was enough firepower to kill at least one hundred people.  I don't
    know if I can ever think of my friend the same way after watching
    him carress his handgun as if it were a faithful dog.
    
    Can anyone enlighten a naive Canuck on the attitudes towards hand-guns
    in the US?  Why does there appear to be a love affair with these
    rather dangerous pieces of hardware?
    
    Kris 
    
    

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Since writing this bit I have received mail messages which have
    enlightened me a little.  However they have done nothing to explain
    why a country which provides moral and ethical leadership to half
    the population on the planet can justify the unchecked distribution
    of something as lethal as handguns to the general population. 
    
    Through the correspondence I have received I have discovered that all a
    person needs to purchase a handgun in some states is a drivers license
    and that a license (which to me means 'the government's okay') to
    carry a handgun is not much more difficult to obtain.  As a Canadian
    living all my life with major restrictions on the use of handguns
    all I can say is, "WOW".
    
    Having travelled abroad quite frequently and having talked to friends
    in Canada and in Europe, most people's image of the US is one of a
    country where its citizens settle things with firepower.  Many people I
    know wouldn't travel into the US for fear of being shot. I used to
    think that this was just ignorance.  I now discover that all you have
    to be able to do is follow road signs and operate a car and you can own
    a handgun.  I'm not sure who's ignorant now.
    
    I'm still a fan of the US.  Any Canadian who says that Canada can get
    by just fine without the US is either a lumberjack or an idiot. I
    believe that freedom and the unalienable rights for which the US stands
    are the envy of the world.  Free enterprise, democracy, freedom
    of the press, freedom of speech, right to legal council, right to
    privacy, separation of church and state, all make the US a unique
    and wonderful place.  So why guns?  To an outsider it's like looking
    at a beautiful person with a bad case of cold sores. 
    
    Forgive my naivete, but I'd really like to know.  I need to know
    that somehow the actions of my friend with his new baby have some
    root in reality, sanity, truth and rationality.
    
    Seasons Best,
    
    Kris 

    Hi, Kris-
    
    you say that you
    
    > believe that freedom and the unalienable rights for which the US stands
    > are the envy of the world.  Free enterprise, democracy, freedom
    > of the press, freedom of speech, right to legal council, right to
    > privacy, separation of church and state, all make the US a unique
    > and wonderful place.  So why guns?
    
    I personally agree with your enthusiasm for our freedoms and rights.
    I also personally don't trust any system of government to be perfect.
    I feel that our best defense against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is an armed
    citizenry, just to make sure that the despots hidden in our government
    never get the idea that they can suppress our freedoms.  Paranoid?
    I prefer to call myself a cynic on the nature of people who willingly
    go into government.
    
    DougO  

    RE: .195
    
    Excuse me for picking one sentence out of the note, but it fairly
    jumped out at me.
    
    If the US is providing "moral and ethical leadership" for any part
    of the world, the planet is in big trouble. 
    
    IMHO, of course.
    
    
    (That always looks like "In my HMO"...)
    
    --DE
    

    Hi Kris-
    
     There are two major factions in the US. One calls for the following
    of the constitutional "right to bear arms." This includes a great
    many people. Having had the right for so long, they have come to
    see it as unalienable. Unfortunately, they are seen by many to be
    represented solely by the NRA, since the NRA does the most to insure
    that we continue to have this right. The other faction is called
    the "antis," as they wish to interpret the 2nd constitutional amendment
    such that only the militia (army) can own firearms. The antis wish
    to see strict gun control legislation, similar to that in Canada.
    
     Evidently, the gist of the antis' argument is that by decreasing
    the availability of handguns to the general public, crime rates
    will also decrease. In reality, this does not seem to be the case.
    A couple of antis named Wright and Rossi who were working for the
    department of justice set out to prove that increased handgun
    legislation would lead to lower crime rates. What they found out
    was that crime rates did not go down as expected. In some cases
    they found that crime rates went up. In some cases they stayed about
    the same (statistically speaking). While the Wright and Rossi report
    is not entirely pro-gun, it found that in general strict gun control
    legislation does not work in the US.
    
     Why doesn't gun control work down here, you may ask. Well, that's
    because the criminals continue to have access to guns when gun control
    legislation goes into effect. The net effect is that the average
    citizen has no means of defending his person and/or home from attack.
    I suppose he could use a shotgun in his home, but he would be at
    a decided disadvantage to an intruder with an autoloading pistol
    from a mobility and quickness standpoint.
    
     In reality, very few people pack a gun down here. It is not really
    that easy to get a license to carry. It is much easier to get a
    license to own a handgun. This license gives you certain limited
    rights.
    
     I am not advocating or suggesting that everyone go out and buy
    a handgun to defend themselves. Not everyone needs one. In addition,
    an unskilled person with a gun is generally more apt to injure
    himself/herself and/or his or her family. If you wish to own a gun
    for protection or just to do some target shooting with, I think
    you should be able to. In general, you can in this country. The
    anti's wish to disable the average citizen from owning a handgun.
    Unfortunately, the problem isn't with people who own guns, it is
    with those who use them for criminal purposes. Instead of outlawing
    handguns, penalties for their criminal use should be increased and
    ENFORCED.
    
     The reason that your friend found this to be such a hot button
    issue is that there are people who wish to take away the right for
    people to own certain types of firearms. It is widely thought that
    in giving up one of our rights (that our forefathers gave their
    lives for) we will be setting ourselves up to further abridgement
    of our rights. Some of us do not wish to see this happen.
    
    Mark
    

    
    Doug (.196),
    
    Will arming the general public with hand-guns really be of signifigant
    deterant to an army which has M1 Abrahms tanks, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s,
    F-18s, B1-Bs, RPGs, Sidewinders, Cruises, Sikorsky-Bell helicopters,
    LLAD missile launchers, FLIR Misslies, IR scopes, heavy assault rifles,
    mortars, and nuclear weapons?  At best it will give a false sense
    of security to a general public, like a tight-rope walker feeling
    secure about falling into a spider's web.
    
    
    
    Without straying too far out of the bounds of this topic:
    
    DE (.197) 
    
    Guns aside: On a planet where certain governments routinely starve
    their citizens while government officials get fat from misdirected
    funds; where people with majority numbers are brutally repressed by
    in-power minorities; where the victorious in war often victimize the
    vanquished with inhumane treatment; where government-sponsored
    terrorism is an acceptable method of rule; where foreign aid is unheard
    of in most countries; where the right to worship as the individual sees
    fit and where public criticism of the government generally means
    imprisonment or death; the US does provide moral and ethical
    leadership. 
    
    The US gives far more in foreign aid and provides far more disaster
    relief to foreign countries than any other country in the world.
    
    After Germany and Japan's defeat in WWII the US poured more money into
    these countries and provided more post-war reconstruction assistance to
    rebuild their societies than all other allied countries combined.
    As it says in the book, "The Mouse That Roared" , if you're going
    to get beaten in a war, get beaten by America.
    
    I'm not saying that the US is perfect, but as an outsider looking in
    (and around) you're doing okay.  (Also not to say that Canadian's don't
    have it better.  There's alot to be said about not being a Superpower.)
    
    
    Mark (.198) 
    
    First of all what is the NRA?
    
    Secondly, your note was the most intelligent explanation of the the gun
    issue I have read so far, however, if I may paraphrase one of your
    points for clarification; the emotion around the gun issue is generated
    by the threat to the right to bear arms. It seemed to me that the
    people with whom I spoke were more in love with the hardware rather
    than their right to bear it.
    
    
    Just some opinions from the cold north.
    
    Kris 
    
    

    Kris, the road to tyranny is long but well traveled.  Regulation
    of "handguns" appears to many (myself included) to be a step along 
    that road.  Read my note again: I wasn't worried about the "army".
    Should a despot arise who attempts to misuse the services against
    the citizenry, I expect the individuals of those services to desert
    to the resistance (with all of those weapons you're concerned about).
    But if the citizenry has already been disarmed, there won't be a
    resistance movement to join.  And by the way, your 2nd note didn't
    seem to be at all so disinterested as your first, rather, somewhat
    vituperative.  I didn't appreciate it.
    
    DougO

    I've read over my second reply and Doug is right.  Its tone is way
    off what I had intended it to be.  I wasn't intending to discredit
    anybody nor was it my intent to force down any argument for the
    right to bear arms.  The concept of lay-persons having hand-guns
    is still foreign to me.
    
    I appologize to those people who were taking the time to explain
    things to me and to whom my second reply unintentionally criticized
    or belittled.  I have kicked by butt soundly.
    
    Kris

    Kris,
    
    Thanks for the graciousness of your last note and of your private 
    email to me, it is *much* more appreciated.  I recognize that your
    own equilibrium may have been assaulted by the vocal vehemence you
    described as arising in your own mailbox and by the phone; that
    such rudeness arises from noting bothers me, but then, we can't
    pick and choose who notes; I regret that some bozos have bothered
    you.  Stop kicking, its ok now.  Pax;
    
    DougO

Re:  < Note 218.199 by BRADOR::HATASHITA >

    
>    Guns aside: On a planet where certain governments routinely starve
>    their citizens while government officials get fat from misdirected
>    funds; where people with majority numbers are brutally repressed by
>    in-power minorities; where the victorious in war often victimize the
>    vanquished with inhumane treatment; where government-sponsored
>    terrorism is an acceptable method of rule; where foreign aid is unheard
>    of in most countries; where the right to worship as the individual sees
>    fit and where public criticism of the government generally means
>    imprisonment or death; the US does provide moral and ethical
>    leadership. 

This is a pretty good description of how Native Americans have been
treated by the United States Goverment and Citizens since the Pilgrims
arrived and it is still going on today...

john
    

    re Kris-
    
     The NRA is the National Rifle Association. To the antis they are
    seen as a bunch of good 'ole boy yahoos that drive around in pick-up
    trucks (with their guns in the rear windows) drinkin' beer, and
    shooting anything that moves. In reality, while there may be a few
    yahoos in that group (aren't there anywhere?), most of the people
    in the group are just guys that like to shoot. There are alot of
    ex-servicemen that still like to shoot and want a social as well
    as politically active group to belong to. And not every person that
    likes to shoot is a part of the NRA. Some people find their views
    to be a little hard line. Personally, I don't belong to the NRA,
    but I still like to shoot. For further information, contact anyone
    with the personal name "I'm the NRA."
    
     There is alot of emotion generated by this debate. Victims of violent
    crime react quite naturally in wanting this sort of violence stopped.
    Unfortunately, they often feel that disarming the upstanding citizen
    is the way to do it. As it turns out, 99.7% of gunowners commit
    no crimes involving their firearms. The .3% that do are the ones
    that should be punished; not the 99.7.
    
     Having lived in Canada, I'm sure much of this sounds strange to
    you. Canada has different problems than does the US. The socio-economic
    situation does not parallel that of the US in as many ways as we
    often think. The crime situation is very different. Given these
    differences, it is not surprising that different solutions to the
    gun ownership problem have been found. Like they say...Whatever
    works for you.
    
     The question of how well our system works is bound to surface.
    Perhaps it is deserving of another note. In any case, the correlation
    between gun ownership by the citizenry and violent crime has yet
    to be proven.
    
    Mark

    re .195  >enough firepower to kill 100 people
    
    That is an attitude based on lack of familiarity (IMHO)
    
    I think of it as enough firepower to *defend* several people-
    myself and my family. 
    
    You trust the government to defend you. In the US, the courts 
    have ruled that the police are obliged to defend 'the general
    public' (whatever the hell that is) but not any one individual.
    This was in response to a lawsuit against a police department
    whose slow response to a housebreaking resulted in harm to 
    people. If the government abdicates it's responsibility to
    defend it's citizens, those citizens had damn well better be
    prepared to defend themselves. 
    
    Dana Charbonneau

re .204

>       most of the people in the group are just guys that like to shoot.
                                                 ^^^^

	I could'a swore that the NRA also had female members.

						:-)

							Tom_K

    re .206
    
    True enough. people that like to shoot.
    
    To be honest, I didn't think I was excluding women when I said that
    the (demonstrable) majority of NRA members is composed of guys.
    The fact is that shooters in general and the NRA in particular are
    very interested in getting more women interested in shooting sports.
    The selfish reason for this is that if more women are well acquainted
    with shooting sports, they will be more likely to oppose restrictive
    gun legislation (that which hits home hits hardest). A better reason
    is that guys enjoy shooting and they want their wives/girlfriends/women
    in general to also enjoy it.
    
     I certainly am not trying to get every woman on the range. Shooting
    may or may not be for you. The same (obviously) goes for men. You
    may find it useful to give it a try to see if you like it. Have
    an open mind. I have known people (both men and women) who started
    off uninterested but once they started shooting, they really developed
    a strong interest.
    
    Mark

re:< Note 218.199 by BRADOR::HATASHITA >
                   -< Santa Delivers to Canada First but... >-


�    					     It seemed to me that the
�    people with whom I spoke were more in love with the hardware rather
�    than their right to bear it.
    
For many people collecting guns is a hobby like anything else. I don't
know why people collect things. I collect maps, I don't know why, and I have
no use for most of them, I just like them. Some of the handguns collected are 
antiques and some are just worth lots of money. So yeah, collectors love their
hardware and they love to shoot and they don't want to lose that right. I'm 
not a collector, and I don't hunt, but I love to shoot. I don't know why, I 
just do. It also  makes me a little more comfortable knowing that if I ever 
*need* to use a gun to protect myself, I'll know what I'm doing.

Jenna (future wife of one whose process name is "I'm the NRA")

    I don't see the connection between heavy regulation of handguns
    (e.g. careful safeguards which allow strict sport shooting and
    serious collecting) and the errosion of 2nd (?) Amendment rights.
    While I believe job-related work carries some people into high-risk
    neighborhoods, I'm not crazy about permitting handguns for deterrance.
    On this point, I'm still undecided, but it occurs to me that the
    (mortal) danger level in such places will sink drastically if hand
    guns were to be mostly eliminated.
    
    One main argument I give for strict regulation is that to be a "well-
    armed citizenry", I don't need a handgun; if push comes to shove,
    I'd much rather have an M-16, a grenade launcher and a few other
    bits of hardware (and a fast horse. . .).  The earlier point is
    well-taken:  in a firefight with those serving a potential despot,
    I suggest that in a close situation (the only kind where a handgun
    is effective), and one is up against organized armed forces, the
    time it takes to draw and pull the trigger might as well be spent
    bending over, looking up, and kissing it good-bye.
    
    The other major argument I'd make is the fact that handgun are
    *designed* for concealment; it's almost as if someone had asked 
    an armed robber way back when to cook up the best possible weapon 
    for the crime.
    
    "Uh lessee. . .it'd be portable, lethal, and I could hide it easily
    to surprise my, uh, clients."
    
    Steve
    

    I have a problem with heavy regulation of handguns.  
    
    In NYC it's virtually impossible for the average person to get a
    concealed carry permit, and I've heard stories that it's who you know
    that gets you a permit.  Also, in NYC if you shoot a criminal in your
    home with an unregistered handgun, you are charged with a felony and
    risk going to jail. 
    
    On the other hand, Washington, DC also has some of the strictest
    handgun laws.  Carl Rowan, famous _anit-gun_ columnist, shoots an
    unarmed intruder with an unregistered pistol and gets off scott free. 
    
    Massachussetts has some very strict gun control regulations. I've heard
    that it's the town police chief who decides whether you get a permit.
    If he doesn't like you or like citizens who own guns, then you will
    probably have a hard time getting a permit. 
    
    The voters of Maryland recently voted to keep their gun control
    regulations.  Those regulations give the state government the power
    to decide what kinds of guns can be bought or sold in the state.
    It'll be interesting to see how fairly the state handles its
    responsibility.
    
    So I haven't seen *any* examples of heavy handed gun control that work.
    For all the rhetoric to the contrary, I beleive gun control seems to be
    aimed directed at the honest, law abiding citizen. 
    
    Nancy    

    re:.206
    
    You may not have noticed, but the word "guys" has been slowly,
    through usage, turning into a gender-neutral term. I've seen any
    number of occasions in which a woman will refer to a group of
    other women as "you guys".
    
    --- jerry

    I have been talking to several people on both sides of the border
    regarding this topic, and have been reading the replies in this note
    file over the past few days.  My thanks to DougO, Mark L. et al for
    answering or correcting my rather basic questions or misconceptions
    regarding gun legislation, the NRA and the attitude toward guns in the
    US. 
    
    It has all been of great help in allowing me to come to terms with
    what I had initially regarded as "loose screws" in the minds of
    some of my closest friends.  I find I now respect a concept which
    I once thought of as grand scale idiocy and I've unpacked my kevlar
    suit for my next trip south of the border.
    
    And Olivia is doing just fine.
    
    Kris

    One thing to think about is that had it not been for the possession
    of firearms by the general citizenry, the U.S. would still be a
    crown colony. This is why the right to bear arms is guarranteed
    as the *Second* Amendment. After the abuses of the colonists by
    the British Crown and the Parliement, the only protection from such
    tyrrany is the possession of firearms by the citizens.
    
    As for the question, can handguns really protect us from F-16's
    etc. Well, it worked pretty well in Vietnam. And at the time of
    the American Revolution, the relative strength of the British Army
    was somewhat equivalent.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .213
    
    	   Well, look at it this way.  If they take away my guns
    	(fat chance), then I'll still have a sword, several knives,
    	a crossbow and a compound bow with which to offer lethal
    	force to unwanted intruders.  I've gotten very good with 
    	that bow in the last couple of years, and the crossboz would
    	be deadly at indoor distances.
    
    	   The sword is just for lopping off the heads of my fresh
    	kills, obviously. ;^)
    
    - Greg

    re: .213
    
    I disagree with the notion that handguns succeeded against F-16s
    in the 'Nam.  In the first place, handguns were not the principal
    combat weapon - rifles were although they were also of no real value
    against much heavier weaponry (tanks, aircraft).  Even in terms
    of a firefight, a handgun would have been mostly useless.
    
    What I believe your reply is suggesting is that guerilla warfare 
    can successfully combat "conventional" or "traditional" warfare 
    methods; history has shown that this is true.  And I have no
    essential disagreement with the notion of a well-armed citizenry
    as a protection against tyranny.  However, I disagree that 
    "well-armed" necessarily has to include easy access to handguns.
    Come to think of it in a *combat* situation, the ideas of "well-
    armed" and "handgun" strike me as mutually exclusive.
    
    Steve
    

    The January 1989 issue of American Rifleman contains an analysis of the
    NEJM anti-gun article that "proves" that restrictive gun legislation
    such as those enforced in Vancouver, BC, worked to reduce the amount
    of homicide.  I found the following information to be most interesting:
        
    "In the three years prior to the gun law taking effect in 1978,
    Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, 1/8 involving handguns.� 
    In the seven years (80-86) of the NEJM article there were 29 homicides
    per year, 1/8 involving handguns." 
    

    1. (Scarff E. "Evaluation of the Canadian gun control legislation"
    final report.  Ottawa:  Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada,
    1983, p. 87.)