Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
>	Firearms are not what they were when the Bill of Rights was initially
>adopted.  They're more sophisticated, more powerful, and more deadly than
>they were 200 years ago.

    The same is true of the press. I do not believe there is a argument
    for gun control that is not as valid for printing presses as it is for 
    guns. I would oppose a 5 day waiting period before a news story is
    printed just as I do a 5 day waiting period for a gun purchase. And 
    for the same reason - the principle of prior restraint is the same. 

>	An article I read recently offered this proposal: Require gun owners
>to buy firearm insurance in the same way that motor vehicle owners are
>required to buy collision insurance.  This way, at least, the costs of
>damages resulting from firearms are born by insurance companies instead
>of taxpayers, as is frequently the case.

    You do realize that motor vehicle insurance is *not* required
    everywhere don't you? It's not in New Hampshire for example. And it's
    not required anywhere for vehicles not used on government owned roads. 
    BTW, I would love to see guns regulated the same as cars. Right now they 
    are regulated much more. For example no one is required to get a license
    to own a car. Unless you want to use government owned roads. Even if
    I don't plan to use government owned property for shooting I need a 
    license to buy a gun in many states. A car license in one state is
    good in all 50. A gun license in one state is good only in 1 state.
    A motorcycle requires a license to drive on government roads but I
    can transport it, openly or concealed, anywhere in the US without 
    permission or license. It would be a major loosening of restrictions
    if I could do the same with a gun.

    And of course far more people are killed by cars than with guns. Even
    though there are more guns than cars in the US. Car accidents are going
    up while gun accidents are going down. (And have been for 20 years.)
    And have you ever considered the number of cars used in criminal
    activity? People using cars to get to and from the scene of the crime.
    People using cars and trucks to transport illegal drugs and property.
    I'd be surprised to hear anyone say that guns are used in more crimes
    than cars. And of course we know that guns are used to prevent more
    crimes than they are used in every year. Is it reasonable that guns are
    more controlled than cars? I don't think so.

    As for morality. Most gun control laws have been racially motivated.
    The Crukshank decision was a Supreme Court ruling that the KKK should
    be permitted to get laws in place that put more restrictions on blacks
    than on whites in gun ownership. The Sullivan law in NY was designed to
    keep undesirables (read immigrants) from getting guns. In NYC, with a 
    majority of minorities, whites have 90% plus of all the gun permits. If
    that difference was in hiring it would be considered prima facie
    evidence of racial discrimination in any court in America. Roy Innes,
    head of the Congress On Racial Equality and current democratic primary
    candidate for mayor of NYC, has testified to the racial bias in
    enaction and enforcement of gun laws before Congress and on national
    TV. Note that in the most major cities there are minority areas that 
    are the high crime areas. Police will not enter them unless heavily
    armed. Yet the people who live there are denied tools for self
    protection. Sometimes those minority areas are singled out for *more*
    gun restrictions than more well off white areas.
    
    I have a friend who was turned down for a gun permit because "the 
    chief doesn't think girls need guns." It cost hundreds of dollars in 
    legal fees to get the permit she was legally entitled to. Police use 
    gun control laws to discriminate in a regular and systematic way around 
    the country.

    Yes, gun control is a moral issue. It's immoral.

    			Alfred

Re: .1 Alfred

>    I do not believe there is a argument
>    for gun control that is not as valid for printing presses as it is for 
>    guns. I would oppose a 5 day waiting period before a news story is
>    printed just as I do a 5 day waiting period for a gun purchase. And 
>    for the same reason - the principle of prior restraint is the same. 

A 5 day waiting period before a news story is printed is not unreasonable
if national security is at stake.

Since the 2nd Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia" I don't see
a constitutional problem with imposing a 5 day waiting period for
purchasing a gun.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about the press
being well regulated.

>    And of course far more people are killed by cars than with guns.

Yes, I risk death every time I drive my car, or even walk on the sidewalk,
but since cars are so useful I'm willing to make that tradeoff.  Since I
don't own a gun I'm less willing to make the tradeoff in the case of
guns; my risk of death is increased because of the increased availability
of guns, and I don't see a corresponding benefit.

Car deaths also tend to be random, while gun deaths are usually selective
(the gun was pointed at a particular person for a particular reason) and
hence more frightening.

I'm undecided about gun control.  I'm inclined to the libertarian
argument that people should be free to own guns, but I'm not at all happy
with the extremely high murder rate in this country.  Of course there is
fierce debate about whether gun control actually does reduce the murder
rate, and I'm not sure which side to believe.

My tentative approach is to try to balance the needs of gun owners with
the need for public safety.  Computer background checks should be used to
prevent guns from being purchased by convicted felons and mentally
disturbed people.  Ideally there should be a national database of such
people so that the background check shouldn't take any longer than it
takes to verify a credit limit.  The 5 day cooling off period should be
imposed if studies show that it actually reduces the murder rate.
Automatic weeapons, or semi-automatic weapons which can be easily
converted to automatic weapons, should not be available to the general
public.

>    As for morality. Most gun control laws have been racially motivated.
>    The Crukshank decision was a Supreme Court ruling that the KKK should
>    be permitted to get laws in place that put more restrictions on blacks
>    than on whites in gun ownership.

This would seem to violate the 14th Amendment.

>    I have a friend who was turned down for a gun permit because "the 
>    chief doesn't think girls need guns."

I agree that it's outrageous that police chiefs should have the authority
to make such arbitrary decisions.  At most, a police chief should be able
to deny a permit to someone who was clearly a danger to the community.

				-- Bob

    
>A 5 day waiting period before a news story is printed is not unreasonable
>if national security is at stake.

    No one is talking about national security. The equivalent to the Brady
    Bill for newspapers would be a five day wait between the printing of
    *any* news story and its purchase.

>Since the 2nd Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia" I don't see
>a constitutional problem with imposing a 5 day waiting period for
>purchasing a gun.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about the press
>being well regulated.

    Well, you lost me here. "[W]ell regulated" in this context means
    practiced and proficient. How does a 5 day wait contribute to that?
    And of course by Federal law you and I are both part of the militia.

> my risk of death is increased because of the increased availability
>of guns, and I don't see a corresponding benefit.

    I believe my safety is increased by my ownership of guns. I don't see
    any benefit to the gun laws commonly proposed today. Note that in a
    study comparing Vancouver Canada and Seattle Washington the amount of
    gun crime among whites was *higher* in Vancouver then in Seattle. The
    biggest difference is that Canada has stricter gun laws. Among
    minorities Seattle was worse but the two cities do not have the same
    minority populations.

>My tentative approach is to try to balance the needs of gun owners with
>the need for public safety.  Computer background checks should be used to
>prevent guns from being purchased by convicted felons and mentally
>disturbed people.  Ideally there should be a national database of such
>people so that the background check shouldn't take any longer than it
>takes to verify a credit limit.  

    Wow, support for the official NRA position!

>The 5 day cooling off period should be
>imposed if studies show that it actually reduces the murder rate.

    They don't. In fact evidence supports the idea that the waiting period
    is a detriment to public safety.

>Automatic weeapons, or semi-automatic weapons which can be easily
>converted to automatic weapons, should not be available to the general
>public.

    Currently this requires a Federal background check, a tax fee, and a
    letter of OK from your local Chief of Police. They're easier to get
    in Europe. 

>>    As for morality. Most gun control laws have been racially motivated.
>>    The Crukshank decision was a Supreme Court ruling that the KKK should
>>    be permitted to get laws in place that put more restrictions on blacks
>>    than on whites in gun ownership.
>
>This would seem to violate the 14th Amendment.

    Yes it would but the Supreme Court disagrees with us.

>I agree that it's outrageous that police chiefs should have the authority
>to make such arbitrary decisions.  At most, a police chief should be able
>to deny a permit to someone who was clearly a danger to the community.

    Are you aware that the Brady Bill explicitly protects police officials
    who arbitrarily and without justification reject gun purchases? Under
    the Brady Bill, a Police Chief who regularly rejected purchases by 
    women or minorities could not be punished. I don't understand
    Democratic support for such a bill. I just don't.

    			Alfred

re: Note 723.3 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

>   And of course by Federal law you and I are both part of the militia.

I'm curious, the second amendment states

	"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
	 a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
	 shall not be infringed."

Notice that the amendment specifically is talking about a free �State�, not 
the country.  During the formative process of the United States, there was 
much concern about the amount the Federal government would have over 
individual states, so it would appear that this amendment is to insure State 
rights.  Therefore I don't understand which militia you are talking about.

Peace,

Jim

    
>Notice that the amendment specifically is talking about a free �State�, not 
>the country.  
    
    It's not clear to me that "state" in this case referes to the
    individual states that make up the country or the country itself.
    However, if one assumes that, like other used of the word state this
    is talking about an individual state the same method makes it clear that 
    the word "people" includes me. It does in the 8 other times the word is 
    used. In any case Federal law refers to the orginized Militia and the 
    unorginized Militia. The unorginized Militia includes all able bodied men 
    (it was written in the 1700s). 
    
    What also appears to me is that if this was intended as a states right it
    would have said "the right of the state to maintain an armed militia"
    not "the right of the people." It appears to me that at the very least
    Federal gun control laws are prohibited by this amendment. 
    
	If I may quote from "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REPORT
		of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the
			COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
			UNITED STATES SENATE
			NINETYSEVENTH CONGRESS
			SECOND SESSION
			FEBRUARY 1982"

>They argue that the Second Amendment's words ``right of the people'' mean
> ``a right of the state''apparently overlooking the impact of those 
>same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The ``right of the 
>people'' to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is 
>not contested as an individual guarantee.  Still they ignore consistency and 
>claim that the right to ``bear arms'' relates only to military uses.  This not 
>only violates a consistent constitutional reading of ``right of the people'' 
>but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to ``keep'' arms.  
>These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the 
>necessity of a ``well regulated militia...to a free state'' means that the 
>right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard.  Such a reading 
>fails to note that the Framers used the term ``militia'' to relate to every 
>citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present 
>National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating 
>that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.


The same report states that:

>in Dred Scott, [the Supreme Court] indicated strongly that the right to keep 
    and bear arms was 
>an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold blacks to be 
>entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and 
>carry arms wherever they went.  
    
    So the Militia I am talking about is all free people. Am I not in that
    group?
    
    			Alfred

re: Note 723.5 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

>    So the Militia I am talking about is all free people. Am I not in that
>    group?
    
You certainly are, Alfred, and thank you for sating my curiosity.

Peace,

Jim

Re: .3 Alfred

>    No one is talking about national security. The equivalent to the Brady
>    Bill for newspapers would be a five day wait between the printing of
>    *any* news story and its purchase.

Not any news story, because most news stories don't have the potential to
kill people.  How about news stories disclosing the whereabouts of
witnesses, as an example.

>>Since the 2nd Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia" I don't see
>>a constitutional problem with imposing a 5 day waiting period for
>>purchasing a gun.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about the press
>>being well regulated.
>
>    Well, you lost me here. "[W]ell regulated" in this context means
>    practiced and proficient.

What's your source for that definition?  I would say that "regulated"
means being subject to rules, one of which might be a 5 day waiting period.

>    And of course by Federal law you and I are both part of the militia.

So I've heard.

>>The 5 day cooling off period should be
>>imposed if studies show that it actually reduces the murder rate.
>
>    They don't. In fact evidence supports the idea that the waiting period
>    is a detriment to public safety.

Why, because people aren't able to buy guns for protection when their lives
have been threatened?

>>Automatic weeapons, or semi-automatic weapons which can be easily
>>converted to automatic weapons, should not be available to the general
>>public.
>
>    Currently this requires a Federal background check, a tax fee, and a
>    letter of OK from your local Chief of Police. They're easier to get
>    in Europe. 

I'm glad to hear that it's at least difficult.

>    Are you aware that the Brady Bill explicitly protects police officials
>    who arbitrarily and without justification reject gun purchases?

No, I wasn't aware of this.  It sounds like a bad idea.

				-- Bob

    Personally, I have a problem with comparing the fifth estate with
    the right to bear arms.
    
    Any fool can shoot their mouth off, but a fool with a firearm is
    lethal.
    
    The primary purpose of a free press is not to inflict damage or death.
    Not so with a firearm.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 723.8 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Another way in which freedom of press and right to bear arms
        are not quite the same:

        A "shot" of erroneous information can be at least partially
        undone by a shot of truth, even more so by a volley of truth.

        Bob

    
>    The primary purpose of a free press is not to inflict damage or death.
>    Not so with a firearm.

    If the primary purpose of a firearm is to inflict damage or death than
    evidence would suggest they're not very good at it. Cars inflict much
    more damage and death in the US than guns even though there are more
    guns. This is a specious argument. And frankly I see the free press as
    as seriously open to abuse and damage.

    But fine, if not the press how about the car? 

    			Alfred

    			Alfred

    >>    No one is talking about national security. The equivalent to the Brady
>>    Bill for newspapers would be a five day wait between the printing of
>>    *any* news story and its purchase.
>
>Not any news story, because most news stories don't have the potential to
>kill people.  How about news stories disclosing the whereabouts of
>witnesses, as an example.

    Perhaps I'm not being clear. With the Brady Bill we are talking about
    to police hearing about *every* gun purchase and having the right of
    refusal. It doesn't matter what sort of "threat" the firearm has. It
    doesn't matter if the owner already owns lots of more powerful guns
    or a lethal assault automobile (sports car). There is no "threat
    analysis" involved. So an equivalent "Brady Bill" for newspapers would
    force a wait *and* law approval of all news stories. Now most
    responsible news people will sit on story items that are a threat to
    someones life. But even they would balk at the idea of the Police
    deciding which items fit that category.

>What's your source for that definition?  I would say that "regulated"
>means being subject to rules, one of which might be a 5 day waiting period.

    Every critical analysis of the Second Amendment I've ever read uses
    the meaning I do. Also "regulated" when referring to a firearm is a
    technical term meaning that it's pieces have been tuned and properly
    set up to work together. Language changes and commentary written by
    those who passed the Second Amendment suggests rather clearly the 
    definition I used.

>>>The 5 day cooling off period should be
>>>imposed if studies show that it actually reduces the murder rate.
>>
>>    They don't. In fact evidence supports the idea that the waiting period
>>    is a detriment to public safety.
>
>Why, because people aren't able to buy guns for protection when their lives
>have been threatened?

    In small part yes, but also because the crime rate is higher in areas with
    fewer legal guns in them. It seems that the possibility of a victim
    being armed discourages criminals. There's an article on the net on the
    subject that I can probably dig up if you're interested.

    			Alfred

    BTW: I Pointed out earlier that guns have far more restrictions on them
    than cars do even though cars are used with criminal intent more often
    and kill and injure people more often than guns do. Why is car usage
    not at least as much a moral issue? 

re: lethality of cars versus lethality of guns

I think there's something lacking in the comparison here.

Questions: 
  How many hours per day is the average person actively using their car?
  How many hours per day is the average person actively using their gun?

Can the question be broken down into comparing the number of fatalities per 
hour of use?

Also, what percentage of of total car usage hours is in support of a crime?
What percentage of of total gun usage hours is in support of a crime?

Again, simply curious.

Peace,

Jim

Re: .11 Alfred

>    So an equivalent "Brady Bill" for newspapers would
>    force a wait *and* law approval of all news stories. Now most
>    responsible news people will sit on story items that are a threat to
>    someones life. But even they would balk at the idea of the Police
>    deciding which items fit that category.

*Any* gun has the potential to kill someone, while by far most news stories
don't have that potential.  It's not worth arguing about, though.  I don't
think freedom of the press is comparable to the right to bear arms, and
I don't think you're going to gain many converts to your cause with that
analogy.

>>What's your source for that definition?  I would say that "regulated"
>>means being subject to rules, one of which might be a 5 day waiting period.
>
>    Every critical analysis of the Second Amendment I've ever read uses
>    the meaning I do.

Well, I haven't seen these critical analyses and I don't know whether
they're slanted to the pro-gun side of the debate, so for now I'll stick
with the dictionary definition.  Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with
me since they've allowed gun use to be restricted.

>    Also "regulated" when referring to a firearm is a
>    technical term meaning that it's pieces have been tuned and properly
>    set up to work together.

The 2nd Amendment used the word "regulated" when referring to a militia,
not a firearm.

>    Language changes and commentary written by
>    those who passed the Second Amendment suggests rather clearly the 
>    definition I used.

For example?

>    It seems that the possibility of a victim
>    being armed discourages criminals. There's an article on the net on the
>    subject that I can probably dig up if you're interested.

For the moment, at least, I'm willing to concede that point.  I know it's
been debated to death in other conferences.

>    BTW: I Pointed out earlier that guns have far more restrictions on them
>    than cars do even though cars are used with criminal intent more often
>    and kill and injure people more often than guns do. Why is car usage
>    not at least as much a moral issue? 

For most of us, car deaths are seen as being unavoidable although we favor
safety features to reduce the number of deaths.  Gun deaths are seen as
avoidable for those of us who don't use guns.

				-- Bob

    RE: .12 Define actively using a gun. BTW, one problem with gun laws
    is that for the most part they don't deal with activity. I mean can
    you name one harmful activity one can do with a gun that is not already
    illegal. Hunting aside - though of course there are some who want to
    outlaw that - what gun use hurts anyone or anything that is not illegal?

    			Alfred

re Note 723.14 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I mean can
>     you name one harmful activity one can do with a gun that is not already
>     illegal. 

        Agreed.  I think that this problem of adding laws upon laws
        is not restricted to guns.  Quite often one hears of some
        person, usually a government official after some notorious
        act, call for a new law to somehow deal with that kind of
        thing.  Typically the notorious act already involved some
        illegal activity.

        One example of this that recently has gained attention is the
        "hate crime" -- as far as I can tell, all "hate crimes"
        already involve some illegal activity.

        Bob

re: Note 723.14 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

> Define actively using a gun. 

Well, take a car; either I'm in it driving around, or it's parked 
somewhere locked with the brake on and the key out of the ignition.

A gun is either being carried around, at the ready for self-defense or 
"whatever", or it is locked up, unloaded.

So like actively using a car, I'd define actively using a gun as having it 
loaded and on my person.

Does that sound like a fair enough definition?  Is it a good start?  I figured 
that limiting it to "aiming it at a target" or "pulling the trigger" to be too 
narrow and would probably even be against the gun's favor.

As far as harmful activities one can do with a gun that is not already 
illegal, I can't think of any more than there are for cars.

So given those definition, (or some better one any one would care to suggest),
can we compare the number of deaths per hour of active use of cars and guns?

Peace,

Jim

One more thing, I'd be more interested in "civilian" usage of both cars and 
guns.

thanks,

Jim

Yet another one more thing...

The topic of this note is "Christianity and Gun Control".

I don't recall seeing much of anything relating to the Christianity part of 
this.  (And I've been as guilty as anyone.)

My personal view as a Christian...I don't particularly like guns.  I've used 
them, target shooting with rifles, never tried a hand gun.  I don't think 
they're particularly evil, but they do seem to make quite a difference in the 
destructive power of an individual.  We constantly read of "drive by" 
shootings, something that wouldn't be too practical with a knife.

There does seem to be something different about the United States, the 
statistics for murder (with just about any sort of weapon) seems to be 
radically out of line with the rest of the world.  I don't think guns cause 
that difference.  Perhaps it is a cultural remnant from the "wild west" days.

I really don't know, and I don't know what can be done about it in any large 
way.  Proper training in the use and safety of guns, (which the NRA, among 
other organizations, provides) would seem to help in many instances of 
accidental shootings.

Exams and licensing as we have for cars sounds good.  But almost every day I 
hear about some drunk driver who killed somebody with a car after having their 
license revoked.  Just as it is difficult to prevent a determined person to 
operate a car without a license (hey, maybe the license could BE the key?) it 
probably wouldn't work for guns either.

I really don't know.  So when I ask question in this string, please know that 
I am truly searching for answers that I don't yet have.

Peace,

Jim

    
>So like actively using a car, I'd define actively using a gun as having it 
>loaded and on my person.

    Fair enough. Accurate statistics are probably impossible to get though
    so we'll probably not be able to make a fair comparison. Many people 
    who carry guns are not about to broadcast the fact. I do wonder though
    if more police are hurt/killed by guns or by cars. I suspect by cars.
    And most police are required to carry a gun all the time so would spend
    more time actively using guns than cars. That's about as close a
    comparison as we're likely to get.

    			Alfred

    
>There does seem to be something different about the United States, the 
>statistics for murder (with just about any sort of weapon) seems to be 
>radically out of line with the rest of the world.  I don't think guns cause 
>that difference.  Perhaps it is a cultural remnant from the "wild west" days.

    I believe the big difference is culture. There are a lot of components
    of this culture that make it far different from most other. I say this
    as someone with a degree in Sociology and one with an active interest
    is cultural differences. Even within the US crime rates vary widely
    by cultural group. A fact not often admitted in polite society.

>I really don't know, and I don't know what can be done about it in any large 
>way.  Proper training in the use and safety of guns, (which the NRA, among 
>other organizations, provides) would seem to help in many instances of 
>accidental shootings.

    Quite correct. And in fact the gun accident rate has been dropping
    sharply and steadily for years. This, in spite of a sharp rise in gun
    ownership, is largely the result of training. Hunter training in
    particular but also general gun safety training. Lots of gun clubs and
    police departments are offering training these days.

    			Alfred

    Again, the primary purpose the motor vehicle serves is to provide
    transportation, not to inflict damage or death, or the threat thereof.
    The primary purpose the firearm serves is to inflict damage or death,
    or the threat thereof.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    RE: .21 Richard, you can say that as often as you wish but that will
    not make it true. 
    
    			Alfred

    My general view is I believe that the people should be allowed
    to possess firearms. 

    However, Richard's statement:
>    The primary purpose the firearm serves is to inflict damage or death,
>    or the threat thereof.

    I must agree with.  When firearms were first invented they weren't
    for the purpose of target shooting.  They are implements of 
    destruction.

    And I believe that not just the "authorities" should have such
    capability, because I don't trust the "authorities".

    Tom

    But on a Christian note....  What is a gun but a tool.  An object.

    Is it right for a Christian to shoot someone out of anger or
    hate?  No.  That violates Christ's main message. 

    Is it right to go out and shoot some poor animal so that you may
    be feed?  If it is done without malice I believe it is OK.  Isn't
    that what Jewish butchers do?

    Can a Christian use a firearm against another human being without
    malice?  Quakers seem to believe that they can't so they are wise
    to stay away from guns.

    If you were faced with an attacker could you shoot him and still
    love him at the same time?  If not, you need to learn more about
    your heart.  I know *I* have to.

    Tom

    .22
    
    Okay, Alfred.  What do you say is the primary purpose of firearms?
    
    Richard
    

>    Okay, Alfred.  What do you say is the primary purpose of firearms?

	The primary purpose of all but one of the ones I own is to put
	little holes in pieces of paper at a distance. The primary purpose
	of the other one is to break little clay discs at a distance.
	Very few guns in private hands are used or intended for other than
	target practice and/or hunting as their primary purpose.

			Alfred

    Alfred .26,
    
    	Sounds like your firearms are used to inflict damage; that damage
    being to non-human targets (pieces of paper, clay discs).  Game hunting,
    of course, is to inflict death with the firearm; though again,
    non-human.
    
    	Yes, motor vehicles are capable of inflicting damage and death,
    tragically.  But damage and death are not what motor vehicles were
    built for.
    
    Richard

    re: .27 Motor vehicles run by explosions. Every explosion does some
    damage to the environment. There are toxic fumes released at all times.

    A scalpel is used to do damage, to cut through human tissue. Using
    chalk is destructive, one wears away at it until it is totally
    consumed. 

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    		I wonder if what Richard isn't trying to get to is the
    orriginal purpose for the invention of a device that propels a small
    piece of metal at very high speed...a firearm...and I think you have to
    agree that it is used primarally for the purpose of killing.  The
    practice you do...target shooting...is even for honing the skills of
    hitting a "live" target.  Now I would agree and do agree that many
    people own firearms for nothing more than to shoot at a target range, 
    but I believe that far more people use it for its orriginal
    purpose...to kill.  Now cars weren't invented for the specific purpose
    of killing and the vast majority of them are not used to kill.
    
    
    		Nuts!   Lets ban both of them! :-)
    
    
    Dave

    .29 Dave,
    
    	Yes, you've a grasp of what I've been trying to communicate.
    
    Richard
    

    Actually, I don't have a problem with the ownership of hunting
    rifles, sporting guns (skeet), and the like, by responsible
    adults.
    
    High-powered handguns, automatic weapons, and assault weapons are a
    different matter.  Our society is a little too trigger happy, a little
    too dependant on the use of force for me to feel at ease with any
    widespread proliferation of such weapons.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I understood what Richard was trying to communicate. I just believe
    that it doesn't reflect current reality. I mean do you really believe
    that the majority of the 240,000,000 guns in America are being used
    to kill people? Let's be serious here. The fraction that are used
    for hunting is small. The fraction that are used to hurt people is
    tiny. Very tiny.

>    High-powered handguns, automatic weapons, and assault weapons are a
>    different matter.  Our society is a little too trigger happy, a little
>    too dependant on the use of force for me to feel at ease with any
>    widespread proliferation of such weapons.

    Richard, This paragraph indicates to me that you really don't know
    much about guns. For example "automatic weapons and assault weapons."
    Do you know what the difference between them is? There is none. The
    guns that the media all too often refers to as "assault weapons"
    are not assault weapons by the definitions used by any military in
    the world. They are in fact no different in use, function, and
    ammunition from the hunting and target rifles you don't have a problem
    with. They just look different. Are you really suggesting we base
    opinions on appearance and appearance alone?

    High powered handguns? Do you mean that guns used for hunting are
    bad? If not how are these hunting guns different from bad guns?
    Give me an example of a hand gun that should be banned. Please, to
    avoid nit picking, avoid any that are widely used in hunting and/or
    international competitions. I doubt you can do it. I know I can't.

    While we are at it, why is it that you have the most trouble with
    guns that cause the least about of damage and death when used for
    that purpose? Why would you allow shotguns and prohibit so called
    "assault weapons?" A double barreled shotgun is far more deadly
    a killing machine then an M-16. 

    				Alfred

re Note 723.23 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     And I believe that not just the "authorities" should have such
>     capability, because I don't trust the "authorities".
  
        I certainly agree with you that "the authorities" cannot
        always be trusted.  And this certainly brings up a Christian
        topic, e.g., how to square this with what Paul wrote in
        Romans 13:1-2:

        "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
        for there is no authority except that which God has
        established.  The authorities that exist have been
        established by God.
        "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
        rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do
        so will bring judgment on themselves."  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

        If all "governing authorities" are established by God, and
        everyone must submit to them, then keeping a firearm for the
        purpose of resisting "the authorities" would seem clearly to
        be un-biblical.  (Perhaps you meant that you don't always
        trust "the authorities" to protect you -- in many places
        these days, that would be a wise assumption!)


        To change the subject slightly:  whenever the second
        amendment is discussed, it is in the context of personal
        firearms.  However, it would seem these days that many other
        kinds of weapons could be in the hands of evil parties, and
        that effective defense, either at the personal or group
        level, might depend upon having a range of weapons far beyond
        personal firearms.

        In fact, some things that are in no way destructive are
        considered "munitions" by today's governments.  In
        particular, encryption technology is considered "munitions"
        by international agreement to which the US is a party.

        This is a hot button for me especially in the current context
        of a U.S. government proposal that may require all encrypted
        communication in the U.S. take place using a technology in
        which the government is given a key guaranteed to give access
        to the information.  Supposedly this would only be used under
        court order (and, I suppose, in "national security" cases) to
        replace the current access to wiretaps which the government
        now has (since wiretaps soon may become useless when
        information is digital and encrypted).

        I wonder if the NRA has taken any stand on the government
        confiscation of this kind of "munitions" from the people?

        Or must we, as Christians, simply submit our encryption keys
        to the authorities?

        Bob

>        "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
>        for there is no authority except that which God has
>        established.  The authorities that exist have been
>        established by God.
>        "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
>        rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do
>        so will bring judgment on themselves."  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

    My Goodness!  So "might" really *does* make "right"!

    Tom

re Note 723.34 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

> >        "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
> >        for there is no authority except that which God has
> >        established.  The authorities that exist have been
> >        established by God.
> >        "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
> >        rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do
> >        so will bring judgment on themselves."  (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)
> 
>     My Goodness!  So "might" really *does* make "right"!
  
        Actually, Tom, it seems to be saying that "right" (God's)
        makes "might" (government's).

        Bob

To me that's part of the problem with placing your faith in a 2,000 year
old book: outdated concepts like the divine right of kings are *still*
considered to be holy truth by many even in the 20th century.

I'd be more inclined to agree with Thomas Jefferson: governments are
instituted by men (humans), not by God.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
    But more about what Jefferson says is that governments are instituted
    by "men"  "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. 
    I.E. the authority of humans is in fact divine authority.  
    
    Jefferson really is a very spiritual man.  Bordering on the
    Transcendental in locating the divine within the human heart and soul.
    Comparing Paul and Jefferson therefore is not whether one is talking
    about divine authority and the other human authority but about how the
    divine works through humans to establish authority, one is the age of
    Kings and the other in the age of Democracy.
    
    Patricia

    Alfred,
    
    These may be inaccurate definitions.  I trust you'll correct me
    where I'm not entirely correct --
    
    Automatic weapons: A weapon capable of firing multiple projectiles
    at a single pull of the trigger. (Semi-automatic: Trigger must be
    pulled for each projectile fired)
    
    Assault weapons: A weapon built for military purposes.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: .37 Patricia

>    But more about what Jefferson says is that governments are instituted
>    by "men"  "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. 
>    I.E. the authority of humans is in fact divine authority.  
    
I realize that Jefferson was a deist - that's why I toned down my
endorsement of his views by saying that I was only "more inclined" to agree
with him.

>    Comparing Paul and Jefferson therefore is not whether one is talking
>    about divine authority and the other human authority but about how the
>    divine works through humans to establish authority, one is the age of
>    Kings and the other in the age of Democracy.
    
Did God work through some humans to establish George III as King of
England and then work through other humans to establish the American
Democracy?  Why the change in authority - did God change his mind?

This was a situation where two different groups of people established
different governments, and one side won through force of arms.  My
explanation is that the governments of both George III and the Continental
Congress derived their authority from men, not from God.

				-- Bob

    RE: .38 No you are not correct. An assault weapon is an automatic
    weapon, with a short (carbine length) barrel, and a medium caliber.
    In sort, it is a sub set of the automatic weapon category. A gun
    not capable of automatic fire is, by definition, *not* an assault
    weapon. Assault in this case is a particular type of combat.

    And of course, most semi automatic guns that look like true assault
    weapons are designed and built for the hunting and target market. So
    they wouldn't be assault weapons even by your definition.

    Actually by your definition a shotgun in an automatic weapon. An
    automatic weapon shots as long has the trigger is held down and there
    is ammo in the gun. Shot guns shoot multiple projectiles with each
    shot.

    			Alfred

    .40 Alfred,
    
    	Nits, all, if you ask me.  And I think you knew in my imprecise
    definitions that I wasn't refering to shotguns.
    
    	I can tell that this is not an area that you wish to enlighten me,
    but rather, to dismiss me.  Fine.
    
    Richard

    Bob,
    
    Your reply contains some great questions.
    
    What role (if any) does the Divine play in human history?
    
    Like many UU's however, I have many more questions than answers.
    
    
    Patricia

    
>    	Nits, all, if you ask me.  And I think you knew in my imprecise
>    definitions that I wasn't refering to shotguns.
 
	The shotgun bit was a nit of course. You must realize that such
	nits are being used to ban all sorts of hunting and target guns
	about the country. The rest of it, assualt weapons being a sub set
	of automatic weapons, is far from a nit. 

>    	I can tell that this is not an area that you wish to enlighten me,
>    but rather, to dismiss me.  Fine.

	No, I *do* want to enlighten you. I believe you are sharp enough to see
	through the media hype and understand the truth. I would not have
	entered the fuller explaination of assault weapons if I wanted to
	dismiss you.

			Alfred

    
>    	I can tell that this is not an area that you wish to enlighten me,
>    but rather, to dismiss me.  Fine.
    
    This line keeps coming back to me. I don't understand why you said it.
    
    			Alfred

    Christianity and gun control ?

    Is there a different way to hold a gun for Christians ?

     Gun control means holding with two hands for most people.;)

    Jim

    I apologize for not getting back to you, Alfred.
    
    My .38 and your .40 seem to me to be pretty much in agreement.
    The specifics of my definitions might not be as precise as yours,
    but then, neither were my definitions way off the mark (to use a
    marksman's expression).
    
    You may not agree that our definitions essentially agree.  You
    might think I'm naive or unlearned when it comes to firearms.
    
    I do not own a firearm.  We do not even allow BB guns in our home.
    But I'm not completely ignorant when it comes to firearms, either.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

>    My .38 and your .40 seem to me to be pretty much in agreement.
 
	Sigh. They agree about as much as one person saying that the Pauline
	letters are letters credited to Paul and an other person saying that
	Pauline letters are any religious writings agrees.

>    But I'm not completely ignorant when it comes to firearms, either.

	I never said that. But you do "know" a few things that aren't so. :-)

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    	I will concede that assault weapons may be a subcategory of
    automatic weapons.  This distinction appears to me to be more important
    to you than it is to me.
    
    	Regardless of the classification, I regard them as unsuitable for
    target practice and game hunting.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
>    	Regardless of the classification, I regard them as unsuitable for
>    target practice and game hunting.

    Competitors in the Nation Championship and other national and
    international matches will be surprised to hear this. Why do you
    regard them as unsuitable?

    			Alfred

    .49  For the same reason I regard nuclear weapons as unsuitable.
    
    Let's take the argument to its logical conclusion.
    If I have the right to bear arms, why should I not have the right
    to bear nuclear arms?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    >    .49  For the same reason I regard nuclear weapons as unsuitable.
    
    The logic behind this escapes me. What function oor attribute of an
    "assault weapon" makes it unsuitable for hunting and/or target
    shooting?
    
>    Let's take the argument to its logical conclusion.
>    If I have the right to bear arms, why should I not have the right
>    to bear nuclear arms?
    
    I don't know, why not? If you're not going to hurt anyone with it
    what's the problem? What arguement are you taking to its logical
    conclusion BTW?
    
    			Alfred

    Here is the argument:
    
    If I have the right to bear arms, then I have the right to bear *any*
    arms, including weapons of mass destruction and annihilation.
    
    What I think I hear you saying is that as long as I'm a good boy and
    don't shoot out the neighbor's window with it or point it a my little
    sister, I should be allowed to possess such a weapon.  Is that right?
    
    Richard
    

    So you see it as a binary issue? All or nothing? No shades of grey?
    An interesting argument but not the same issue as I thought we were
    discussing. It appeared to me that you saw hunting and/or target
    shooting as more or less OK. Just that you didn't see some specific
    firearms as being suitable for those purposes. I was trying to
    determine what you felt made them unsuitable.

    I think that people should be allowed to own firearms as long as they
    don't hurt anyone. Yes. As for more powerful weapons, I believe that
    a government should allow its citizens to own anything that the
    government would sell/loan/give to an other government. That's where I
    draw the line. But that's unrelated to the question I asked you which
    you seem to be avoiding. :-)

    			Alfred

Alfred, if you're saying that private citizens should be allowed to own
F-16 jets armed with heat seeking missiles then I think you've taken a
very extreme position.  Fortunately the Supreme Court has not interpreted
the Second Amendment in this way.

				-- Bob

    .53  Actually, I think it's very much related.
    
    You see, it appears I draw the line in a different place than you.
    You seem to draw the line after the weapon is already in someone's
    hands.  I draw the line at what a weapon is capable of doing.
    
    I would not sleep well at night knowing a neighbor of mine owned
    nuclear weapons, even if I knew she only used them for target practice
    or the occasional obliteration of some creature(s).
    
    Incidentally, I do believe in some absolutes and have said so in other
    topics.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 723.52 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     If I have the right to bear arms, then I have the right to bear *any*
>     arms, including weapons of mass destruction and annihilation.
  
        Advocates of gun possession seem to have three main scenarios
        for their use in defense:

        1) in the event that you are a victim of a crime,

        2) in the event of a breakdown of law-and-order (which some
        could easily argue is happening today in many places);  in
        this case, the gun is to protect you from another individual
        or perhaps a gang, NOT to defend yourself against an invading
        army,

        3) in the event of a breakdown of a free society, in which
        the gun is to protect you against the government.  In this
        case it doesn't seem that there is much you can do to protect
        yourself short of having your own army!

        Is it really the "right to bear arms" (yes, yes, I know that
        that's what the Constitution literally says) or is it the
        right to protect yourself?

        Bob

    .56  Good points, Bob.  And if the purpose of the right to bear arms
    is for self-protection, is an "assault weapon" a defensive weapon or
    is it an offensive weapon?  And if it is a defensive weapon, when will
    one know when one has enough firepower to defend oneself in a worst
    case scenario?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard, What function or attribute of an "assault weapon" makes 
    it unsuitable for hunting and/or target shooting?
    
    			Alfred

    
>        Is it really the "right to bear arms" (yes, yes, I know that
>        that's what the Constitution literally says) or is it the
>        right to protect yourself?

    Quotes from early Constitutional supporters, Madison, Jefferson,
    Washington, etc, seem to indicate a pretty wide interpretation.
    Many state Constitutions have similar amendments. Some spell things
    out clearer. The New Hampshire Constitution says:

    "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
    themselves, their families, their property and the state."
    
    It's a fairly recent addition but is similar to those found in a number
    of other state Constitutions. In this case, you can see that self
    protection is one of the reasons stated. But protection of the state
    is an other.

    In the case of the US Constitution it would be a mistake to view the
    Second Amendment as the only statement of weapon control BTW. There
    is in the list of powers of Congress the right to give letters of
    Marque and Reprisal. That is to say the giving of a "license" for a
    private operation to take military action against the shipping of
    an other country. This implies some level of private ownership of
    weapons capable of being used ship to ship. Weapons don't get too
    much bigger than that.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .59 Alfred

>    There is in the list of powers of Congress the right to give letters
>    of Marque and Reprisal. That is to say the giving of a "license" for a
>    private operation to take military action against the shipping of an
>    other country. This implies some level of private ownership of weapons
>    capable of being used ship to ship. Weapons don't get too much bigger
>    than that.

Even if you're right that the power of Congress to grant letters of Marque
and Reprisal implies the ability of private citizens to own and use
military-grade weapons, this only means that Congress *may* allow people
to own such weapons, not that Congress *must* allow people to own such
weapons.

				-- Bob

    Nukes in the hands of citizens?  Why not?

    It's the *delivery* system that should be outlawed.  :-)

    BTW: What does this have to do with Christianity?

    Tom

    (You folks are starting to sound *almost* as silly as I do :-)

re Note 723.61 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     BTW: What does this have to do with Christianity?
  
        The morality of self-defense has always been a topic of
        interest to Christians (and non-Christians, I might add).

        True, we haven't been discussing the morality of it per se of
        late, but we have to first decide whether the issue is
        defense, etc.

        Bob

just musing...

I wonder how much good meat would be left on a rabbit that had been downed 
with an automatic weapon?

Jim, who remembers having to watch out for buckshot at mealtime.  .-)

    
>I wonder how much good meat would be left on a rabbit that had been downed 
>with an automatic weapon?

    Probably as much as a shot gun would leave. Just because the weapon is 
    automatic doesn't promise you'll hit anything more than once. :-) It
    would also depend on the caliber of the automatic firearm. BTW, rifles
    that one would use for deer one would not use for rabbit. There would
    be too much damage. One would use something smaller and less powerful.
    Something in a .223 or other .22 caliber for example. 

    			Alfred

	... shorten the dressing process some! :>)

    Okay, okay, okay.
    
    Alfred,
    
    	It is my opinion that the feature of a continuous spray of
    bullets from an automatic weapon render it unsuitable for target
    practice and hunting.
    
    	Your next question is doubtlessly why, right?  The answer has
    been alluded to already.  The weapon is too devastating, too horrific,
    too unforgiving.
    
    	This, of course, is my opinion.  I know the NRA would take strong
    exception to it and back their position up with stats that show an
    automatic firearm to be no more dangerous or sinister than a slingshot,
    and far safer than a Volvo.
    
    Richard
    

    
>    	It is my opinion that the feature of a continuous spray of
>    bullets from an automatic weapon render it unsuitable for target
>    practice and hunting.

    Well you're mixing automatic and "assault" weapons again but that's
    ok. Automatic firearms are more regulated than prescription drugs
    and all the "assault weapon" laws I know being proposed do not further
    address automatic weapons.

    And it ignores the fact that automatic weapons can shoot in non
    continuous mode. But I was hoping for a reply that differentiated
    between semi automatic firearms that look like military guns from
    semi automatic firearms that don't look like military guns in a way
    that made them unsuitable for hunting and/or target shooting

    >Your next question is doubtlessly why, right?  The answer has

    Nope, my next question is why are you answering questions I don't ask
    and ignoring one I do ask?

>    	This, of course, is my opinion.  I know the NRA would take strong
>    exception to it and back their position up with stats that show an
>    automatic firearm to be no more dangerous or sinister than a slingshot,
>    and far safer than a Volvo.

    Well there is the fact that more people were killed by legally owned
    baseball bats last year then have been killed by legally owned
    automatic firearms in the US in the last 59 years. 

    Lets face it. You want to ban them because you don't want one and you
    just plain don't like them. Besides some of them don't fit your ideal
    of what a peaceful gun should look like so they must be bad. It's not
    because they are used in crime. There are thousands of things used in
    crime that I don't hear you looking to ban. High speed boats, private
    planes (who needs their own plane anyway?), fast cars, large quantities
    of sugar (used to make illegal moonshine or cut drugs), and on and on.
    No call for waiting periods or police checks on other things. It's not
    because they are used to hurt people. After all you would know, if
    you'd looked into it, that guns are used to stop at least as many
    crimes as they are used in. And you'd know that since Florida made it
    easier to get a concealed carry permit violent crime has gone steadily
    down. So no, I don't believe crime reduction is a valid argument for
    more gun control.

    			Alfred

    Well, Alfred,
    
    	I think I *did* answer your question.
    
    	I don't care what a firearm looks like.  And I never said gun
    control would reduce crime.
    
    	I did state that my answer was my opinion, which I admit is not the
    same thing as universal truth.  And I do realize that objects not intended
    as weapons can be used as weapons: baseball bats, ice picks, fire pokers,
    Volvos; the list is virtually boundless.
    
    Richard
    

    
    >                 -< You're sounding a bit like NRA literature >-
    
    And you're sounding a bit like HCI literature so I guess we're even.
    
    >    	I think I *did* answer your question.
    
    In notes? I'll go look again but if anyone can help me find where you
    answered it I'd welcome a pointer.
    
    			Alfred

    I'd prefer a 410ga shotgun for rabbit hunting. Less shot and less damage,
    but kills efficiently.

    Jim

    Alfred,
    
    	I answered your question in .66, unless you're asking a different
    question.
    
    	I know I'm probably letting myself in for a set up, but I've never
    heard of the HCI.
    
    Richard
    

    From my .58. Perhaps I should make it clear that the reason "assault
    weapon" is in quotes is because I am talking about semi automatic
    firearms rather then true assault weapons which are capable of 
    fully automatic fire and which are already heavily restricted.
    
>    Richard, What function or attribute of an "assault weapon" makes 
>    it unsuitable for hunting and/or target shooting?
    
    
.71>   	I know I'm probably letting myself in for a set up, but I've never
.71>    heard of the HCI.
    
    Handgun Control Inc. You may have heard of Sarah Brady who lies for
    them.
    			Alfred

    .72  Hmm.  Sarah Brady.  Was she "the youngest one in curls"?
    
    Richard
    

    
    >.72  Hmm.  Sarah Brady.  Was she "the youngest one in curls"?

    How very droll.

    			Alfred

re: Note 723.72 by Alfred "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

>    Handgun Control Inc. You may have heard of Sarah Brady who lies for
>    them.

My guess is Sarah Brady is the wife of the guy (James Brady? I forget his
first name) who was shot in an assasination attempt on Reagan?  

Alfred, what causes you to say she lies for this organization (which I've 
never heard of until now, incidently)?

Peace,

Jim

    
>My guess is Sarah Brady is the wife of the guy (James Brady? I forget his
>first name) who was shot in an assasination attempt on Reagan?  

    Correct.

>Alfred, what causes you to say she lies for this organization (which I've 
>never heard of until now, incidently)?

    She is their chief spokesperson and says untrue things for them on a 
    regular basis. For example, she regularly claims that the Brady Bill,
    which mandates a waiting period and has sometimes mandated a background
    check and sometimes has not, would have prevented her husband and
    President Reagan from being shot. As the gun was bought months in
    advance and there was nothing in Mr Hinkley's background that would
    have made him ineligible to buy that gun this is a falsehood. 

    She also has an interesting way with statistics. For example if a
    person is shot by a person they have never met but their name is known
    to them she counts that as a shooting by a friend.
    
    			Alfred

hmmmm...

Thank you, Alfred.

Peace,

Jim

    The following quotation is from "Preparing for the Twentyfirst Centry"
    by Paul Kennedy; HarperCollins;ISBN 0 00 215705 5. There were similar
    statistics in a recent issue of Time Magazine. I enter this material
    without comment or debate, other than pointing out that where the title
    "America" is used replace it with "USA".
    
    Quote from page 304:
    
    Drugs in turn feed crime, which is significantly higher in the United
    States than anywhere else in the developed world. Thanks to the
    political power of the National rifle Association, Americans have
    access to deadly weapons - and use them - to a degree that astounds
    observers abroad. Americans possess an estimated 60 million handguns
    and 120 millian long guns, and kill one another at a rate of around
    19,000 each year, chiefly with handguns. Homicide rates per capita are
    four to five times higher than in Western Europe (while rape rates are
    seven times higher, and forcible robbery rates some four to ten times
    higher). Experts suggest that this violence has cultural roots, and
    cannot simply be linked to poverty. New York's homicide rate is far
    larger than that in the slums of Calcutta, for example, and in
    prosperous Seattle - recently rated number one city in the United
    States for "livability" - the murder rate is seven times that in
    Birmingham, England. Nor is violence due to lack of police efforts and
    deterrents; at last count, American prisons were holding over a million
    convicted prisoners, a proportion of the population larger even than in
    South Africa or the former USSR *. Three thousand out of every 100,000
    black American males are in prison, whereas South Africa managed to
    preserve apartheid by imprisoning 729 black males per 100,000.
    
    * The United States imprisons criminals at a rate of 426 per 100,000 of
    its population. The rate in Australia is 72, in the Netherlands only
    40. The Soviet rate was 268 per 100,000. Blacks, who form 12 percent of
    America's population, supply nearly half of its prisoners.
    
    End of quote.
    
    The author provides an extensive bibliography to support his
    statistics.
    
    

re Note 723.78 by SNOFS2::MATTHEWS:

        Since the topic is "Christianity and Gun Control," it would be
        interesting to see how the U.S.' statistics for religion and
        Christianity in particular compare with the rest of the
        world.

        Bob

    Also see topic 270, "Christianity and self defense"
    
    Richard

    .75 & .76
    
    To be completely honest, I didn't know who Sarah Brady was until
    Alfred and Jim provided the details.  I'd never heard of HCI, either.
    
    I do know this much.  If I was the spouse of someone who was
    senselessly and irreversibly wounded with the use of a handgun, I'd
    probably favor gun control to a greater degree than I already do, also.
    
    Richard

    A fourteen year old girl, the daughter of a friend of mine, has said:
    "Guns don't kill people.  Bullets kill people.  Let people own all
    the guns they want!  Ban bullets!!"
    
    Were that it was so simple.
    
    Richard
    

        
>    I do know this much.  If I was the spouse of someone who was
>    senselessly and irreversibly wounded with the use of a handgun, I'd
>    probably favor gun control to a greater degree than I already do, also.

    You might. This is not so for others. The primary spokesperson in
    Texas for allowing people to legally carry a hand gun is a women who
    watched helplessly while both her parents were shot with a handgun.
    She has stated clearly and without doubt in her mind that they would
    be alive today if not for gun control laws that forced her to keep her
    handgun in the car while she ate with them. 

    			Alfred

re Note 723.83 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     She has stated clearly and without doubt in her mind that they would
>     be alive today if not for gun control laws that forced her to keep her
>     handgun in the car while she ate with them. 

        Just because there's no doubt in HER mind doesn't mean that
        it is true or even likely.

        Bob

    >>     She has stated clearly and without doubt in her mind that they would
>>     be alive today if not for gun control laws that forced her to keep her
>>     handgun in the car while she ate with them. 
>
>        Just because there's no doubt in HER mind doesn't mean that
>        it is true or even likely.

    She had a gun in the car and left it there because of the law. If not
    for the law she would have brought it in. She had several minutes that
    she could have used to take it out of her pocket and the gunman came
    within several feet (not yards, feet) of her. Why would anyone not
    believe it was likely that she could have shoot the guy?  Several
    expert witnesses, under oath, have supported her assertion in testimony
    before the Texas legislature. Objective or not, the only reasonable
    assumption is that she would have at least had a chance to protect
    herself and her parents. Gun laws took away that chance.

    			Alfred

    Had to step back into the file.............
    
    Alfred has done an excellent job of answering many gun questions.
    After reading the replies, I'm asking if any of the "gun control"
    folks have changed their opinions....or have they really bothered
    to read the replies.
    
    Guns and Christianity can easily exist together. There is no reason
    at all to assume that just because a person is interested in guns
    and enjoys shooting at targets *and* having the ability to
    defend their family...that somehow they are not living and
    breathing the life that Christ told us. 
    
    The media has done an excellent job in lumping gun owners as 
    "red neck..gun crazed..fanatics" that have guns to make up for a lack
    of manhood. 
    
    Gun owners are just people.
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 723.86 by Marc "I'm the NRA" 

First, glad to have you back, Marc!

Second, I agree that Alfred has done a good job, at least in answering my 
questions.  Thank you, Alfred.

To answer your question, Marc, while I've never had a terribly strong stance 
on gun control, I do now feel myself leaning more towards less government 
control.  (I think the answer might have something to do with SELF control.)

We have a lot of problems in the U.S., and while guns seem to be a major prop, 
I see little that controls can accomplish towards getting them out of the 
"wrong hands".  Laws already exist concerning acts of violence using guns (and 
myriad other objects as well).  Enforcement of those laws might help.  More 
laws that aren't enforced won't help.  Laws targetting the average law abiding 
citizen won't help.

I said before the U.S. seems to be very far from the norm compared to other 
Western societies regarding the level of violence we live in.  I still don't 
know what the cause or cure is, but I'm thinking that "gun control" won't 
help much at all.  This is not a position I feel very comfortable with, but 
it's the best I can do at present.

As far as a "Christian Response" to guns, I agree that guns and Christianity 
can easily exist together.  I believe that a Christian response is one aimed 
at people, comforting the victims and families of victims, and conselling to 
the insanity that causes people to express their rage in such lethal ways.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 723.85 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> Why would anyone not
>     believe it was likely that she could have shoot the guy?  

        Because of the little information you supplied originally!

        Also, I personally would feel VERY uncomfortable knowing that
        pistol-packing patrons might be at the next table in a
        restaurant unless they were highly trained in their use, and
        highly trained to make the judgment of when to use them (I
        mean at the law-enforcement level).

        Bob

    My 2 cents...
    
    			IMHO....Handguns need to be regulated much more 
    closely than they have been in the past.  Fully automatic weapons are
    not, IMHO, in the spirit of the law re: hunting.  Semi-automatic
    weapons of a caliber which pertains to hunting should be kept out
    of the loop as far as regulating goes. 
    
    Dave

    I agree with Dave Dawson completely.
    
    I am also glad to see Marc H. back!!
    
    I also think Alfred has done an outstanding job of defending his
    position on gun control.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    >I also think Alfred has done an outstanding job of defending his
    >position on gun control.
    
    I owe it all to good teachers.
    
    		Alfred

    On the news this morning (and here's another opportunity to criticize
    the media) was a report that the findings of some medical association
    was that in homes where a handgun was kept, it was three times more
    likely that someone would be killed than in homes without a handgun.
    They also concluded that homes with handguns afford no increased
    protection against intruders than homes without a handgun.
    
    Probably someone here is more familiar with this report than I am
    and will provide us with the arguement of why these findings are flawed.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 723.92 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     On the news this morning (and here's another opportunity to criticize
>     the media) was a report that the findings of some medical association
>     was that in homes where a handgun was kept, it was three times more
>     likely that someone would be killed than in homes without a handgun.

        This part, it would seem to me, is obvious.

        Guns, like cars, bath tubs, and any number of things, can
        injure and kill by accidental or careless misuse.

        It only makes sense to avoid any such things that you don't
        really need.

        In my home, and in my neighborhood, and in the places I
        typically go, I have experienced no compelling need to use a
        gun for protection and I have no interest in using guns for
        sport.

        So I avoid them and thus I avoid the risk of accidental use
        in my home.

        I can see that some neighborhoods may be so dangerous that
        some may feel a compelling need to have a defensive weapon in
        the home or even to carry one.

        (I suspect that keeping guns for sport should be relatively
        safe since such guns can be well locked up and stored
        unloaded.  Guns kept in the home for defense, on the other
        hand, would have to be kept accessible and ready to shoot.)

        What I am quite concerned about, however, is when I and my
        loved ones share the same public space with people who carry
        guns for defense but who are not very well trained both in
        their use and in making the split-second decision whether to
        use them.

        Bob

    It may seem obvious Bob, but gun control opponents will tell you
    that a handgun is no more likely to kill someone than a baseball
    bat or a Volvo.  This report would seem to fly in the face of that.
    
    Richard

    
    >They also concluded that homes with handguns afford no increased
    >protection against intruders than homes without a handgun.

    If you define safer as meaning that an intruder is killed than maybe
    they're right. If, however, scaring someone of without killing them is
    acceptable to you the numbers do not support this contention. Guns are
    used to prevent, usually without anyone getting hurt, more crimes than
    they are used to commit. And the statistics indicate that a person who
    resists violent crime with a gun is less likely to be hurt than a
    person who resists meekly. So the basis for their conclusion is a
    mystery to me.

    From the UPI article:

>	``Many people say they keep guns to protect themselves against
>intruders. But those types of cases happen only rarely,'' said
>Kellermann, whose report appeared in The New England Journal of
>Medicine.

    It's estimated that guns are used to prevent a violent crime between
    600,000 and 1,000,000 times a year in the US. By what stretch of the
    imagination is that "rarely?" Intruders are killed rarely but those
    are not the only case of a gun being used for self protection.

    The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine BTW.
    The NEJM has a very poor reputation for screening articles related to
    gun control. As someone trained is social science methodology I'm
    amazed at the sloppy scholarship they sometimes allow when it suits
    their political agenda.

    For example the report said that other factors in domestic homicide
    rates include alcohol and illicit drugs. What are the rates when those
    items are factored out? Do you know? Was it reported? If not, than the
    conclusions are highly suspect.

    		Alfred

	... and conducted by someone at Emory University, also in Atlanta,
and also right around the corner from the CDC!

	All in all, being fairly familiar with both parties, I would take
this tome with a large grain of salt!

    BTW, last week a researcher released a report that concluded that if
    it were not for gun availability the crime rate in the US would be
    significantly higher than it is. I'm sure it appeared in all the same
    newspapers that the NEJM article appeared in. Oh, it didn't? I wonder
    why? Could it be that news that contradicts editorial policy is
    ignored?

    I'll bring in more information on this report tomorrow. I left the
    article home this morning.
    
    			Alfred

re Note 723.97 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     BTW, last week a researcher released a report that concluded that if
>     it were not for gun availability the crime rate in the US would be
>     significantly higher than it is. I'm sure it appeared in all the same
>     newspapers that the NEJM article appeared in. Oh, it didn't? I wonder
>     why? Could it be that news that contradicts editorial policy is
>     ignored?
  
        This may be true.

        And if it were true, it would be all the more astounding how
        violent Americans are!

        It just may be that our American civilization passed the
        point, perhaps many years ago, where the kind of gun control
        practiced in the rest of the world would have any positive
        effect on crime.  We may already be saturated both with
        weapons and with an ethic that approves of their use (and
        other violence) as a right way to solve many problems.

        Would there then be any way out of this?

        Bob

    
>        It just may be that our American civilization passed the
>        point, perhaps many years ago, where the kind of gun control
>        practiced in the rest of the world would have any positive
>        effect on crime.  
    
    This study also showed that the crime rate in "old west" towns where
    guns were almost universially carried was much lower than it is today.
    
    			Alfre
    

    BTW, the NEJM study that said you were 3 times as likely to be killed
    if you owned a gun also said that you are 3.5 times as likely to be
    killed if you rent rather than own, 3.1 times as likely to be killed 
    if you live alone, 4 times as likely if anyone in your home had been
    hit, and 4.8 times as likely if anyone in the home had ever used drugs.

    Any calls for bans on things, like living alone or renting a home, that
    are *more* likely to get you killed than guns? Or is the report
    discredited enough for you? If you take this "study" seriously you
    obviously wouldn't allow someone you didn't want to have a gun to rent
    or live alone.

    			Alfred

    
    
    > it may just be that our american civilization
    
     It is exactly that which causes the need for guns. England is a
    nation rich in tradition. By far its people accept the norms for
    how each person must behave, or better yet, how they define proper
    behavior. The U.S.A. no longer has a common denominator(sp), in no
    small part thanks to liberalism and its self centered secular humanism
    philosophy..With each person operating from their default nature(self)
    we have the ineviteable conflicts which will continue to increase
    because the very nature of *self* demands more...
    
    David Dyben 

    "A gun cannot harm anyone unless there is a human being to
     pull the trigger.  Ten million guns would be harmless unless
     some human became stimulated by hate, greed or prejudice.
     So, the gun controversy becomes a spiritual problem.  While
     strict gun laws might have some effect in showing the world
     that we are concerned about the problem of violence, violence
     is really a thing of the human heart and conscience.  If men
     harbor the desire to kill and maim, they will find a way,
     gun or no guns."
                           --Rev. Billy Graham (November, 1968)

re Note 723.101 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     > it may just be that our american civilization
>     
>      It is exactly that which causes the need for guns. England is a
>     nation rich in tradition. By far its people accept the norms for
>     how each person must behave, or better yet, how they define proper
>     behavior. The U.S.A. no longer has a common denominator(sp), in no
>     small part thanks to liberalism and its self centered secular humanism
>     philosophy..

        I thought that it was due to radical conservatism, the myth
        of the American wild west, and the self-centered and
        materialistic philosophy of rugged individualism.

        Bob

fyi, fwiw

In a fairly recent magazine (Newsweek, I believe), they had a graph plotting 
the number of deaths by handguns versus the number of deaths due to 
automobiles in the US.  The number of gun deaths is going up, the number of 
car deaths is going down.

Based on the short term trend, there will be more gun deaths than car deaths 
within 2 years.  Based on the long term trend this will not happen until
about the year 2004.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .104 I've seen that but of course you are comparing apples and
    oranges. In one case you are looking at accidents (car deaths) as
    very few of such are intentional. In the other (guns) you are looking
    at intentional deaths. The accidental deaths of guns are falling
    dramatically and have been for 30 years. Even though there are more
    guns and more people the number (not just rate) of accidental deaths
    of guns is down. This is largely attributable to the NRA and their
    training programs. 

    What is the rate of car crime doing? Are more or fewer people using
    cars to speed, to deliver drugs, to get to the scene of the crime? When
    we know that we can start to compare. Are there fewer (in number) accidental
    car deaths today than there were 20 years ago? If not, well obviously
    we can't compare the two.


    			Alfred

Hi Alfred,

All good questions.  Alas, the blurb that went with the graph had little extra 
info, that's why I entered the note with the "fwiw" (for what it's worth) 
caveat.  If anyone has answers to your questions (I don't, off hand), that 
would certainly provide a more balanced picture.

Peace,

Jim

    Anybody see ABC's "Primetime"?
    
    If you have a loaded gun in the home, it is 43 times more likely
    to be used during a domestic dispute, suicide or accident.  48%
    of American homes have one or more firearms.
    
    On the positive side, the program did cite some instances where a
    gun made the crucial difference in thwarting an assailant's attempt.
    
    Richard
    

    
>    If you have a loaded gun in the home, it is 43 times more likely
>    to be used during a domestic dispute, suicide or accident.  

    More likely to be used during a domestic dispute, suicide or accident
    than how? To kill an intruder? Hard to believe that killing someone
    is the only approved way to stop a crime. 43 time more likely to
    kill someone than used safely for recreation? By that measure my
    whole family should have been dead 10 years ago.

    >On the positive side, the program did cite some instances where a
    >gun made the crucial difference in thwarting an assailant's attempt.

    *Some* instances?!?! A gun is twice as likely to be used to
    prevent a crime than to commit one. It is 20-40 (depending on whose
    numbers you use) times more likely to be used to prevent a crime than
    to kill someone. The overwhelming majority of the deaths in the 43-1
    statistic are suicides. If you want to talk about suicide rates, the
    US has one of the lowest. Japan and Britain, both countries with very
    strict gun control laws, have higher rates than the US. Japan *much*
    higher. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between suicide and
    handgun ownership in the international culture.

    Did "Primetime" explain that accidental deaths by guns has shown a
    steady decline for 30+ years? Not just in rate but in number during 
    a time when population and gun ownership have been climbing. Did they
    explain how the NRA was the primary reason for this decline because of
    its training programs? 

    Did they explain that someone you had never met but knew lived in the
    neighborhood would be counted in the "family & friends domestic dispute" 
    group and included in the 43-1 number? Did they explain that an
    unknown, to you, intruder who brought their own gun into your house
    would be counted as a "domestic dispute?" Did they explain that the two
    biggest parts of that statistic were suicide and killings committed in
    the act of a crime (mostly drug related)?

    Frankly, no honest person who knows how that statistic was fabricated
    would use it.

    			Alfred
    		Alfred

    
    > Fleischer
    > I thought
    
      ..well your wrong :-) Seriously tho' look at the past fifty years
    and see the decline of Christianity and the rise of secular humanism
    then look at the crime rate, see any interesting corralations(sp) ??
    
    
    David

    BTW, an estimated 400,000 Americans die every year as a result of
    smoking. If you are really serious about saving lives that would be
    a good place to start.
    
    			Alfred

re Note 723.109 by COMET::DYBEN:

>       ..well your wrong :-) Seriously tho' look at the past fifty years
>     and see the decline of Christianity and the rise of secular humanism
>     then look at the crime rate, see any interesting corralations(sp) ??
  
        I personally don't have the resources to look into this in a
        scientific way.  I suspect that anyone who looks at American
        history informally will come away with their prejudices
        confirmed, whatever they be -- myself included.

        I'm not sure that I see a "decline of Christianity" in the
        past 50 years, although the manifestations of Christianity in
        society have changed over the years.  "Secular humanism" does
        not appear, to me, to have yet risen to the status of a major
        force in American society (at least, not compared to the NRA,
        the Republican Right, and Rush Limbaugh!).

        Also, a lot of other things have changed in the past 50
        years.  In addition, I know I don't fully understand the
        dynamics of human civilization;  perhaps we have to look long
        before the past 50 years in order to see the causes of the
        events of the past 50.

        Bob

    
    
    > I tend to avoid quick and simple explanations
    
     So do I,and hence I restate my previous position. Liberalism a.k.a.
    secular humanism is destroying the quality of our nation.
    
    1.) School prayer no!                1.) Moment of meditation yes
    
    2.) One nation under God             2.) We are our own Gods.
    
    3.) No marriage no sex              3.) If it feels god do it( but be
                                        a pc kinda guy and wear the rascel
                                        wrappers.
    
    etc, etc,
    
    not exactly a tough study
    David

    
    
    -1
    
      Bad day for typos. Item three should read.
    
    
    3.) If it feels GOOD do it.. Thanks to a reader for pointing it out..
    
    
    Ddavid

    .110  I've heard a stat that says more doctors kill people than guns.
    And you know something?  I don't doubt it.  Yet I'm not going to stop
    seeing medical professionals if the situation calls for it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    >.110  I've heard a stat that says more doctors kill people than guns.
    >And you know something?  I don't doubt it.  Yet I'm not going to stop
    >seeing medical professionals if the situation calls for it.

    The difference is that not using a doctor is an even higher risk then
    using one. Are you suggesting that not smoking is more hazardous than
    smoking? No, what I brought out is not a smoke screen at all. It's an
    attempt to point out that things more dangerous than guns are treated
    more lightly than guns are for illogical and emotional reasons.

    I'll give you an other example. The year before I entered high school
    the school board shut down all the cities high school shooting teams
    because they were "too violent." Now there are more high school
    students killed every year playing football then have been killed in
    all organized shooting matches of any kind in this century. To say
    nothing of all the football players hurt and serious injured. Which is
    the more violent? Can you honestly and with a straight face say target
    shooting? I doubt it. This same school board that didn't allow students
    to punch holes in paper allowed and allows students to fight one an
    other with swords. Sword fighting is less violent than target shooting?
    I think not.

    			Alfred

Note 723.115

>    >.110  I've heard a stat that says more doctors kill people than guns.
>    >And you know something?  I don't doubt it.  Yet I'm not going to stop
>    >seeing medical professionals if the situation calls for it.

>    The difference is that not using a doctor is an even higher risk then
>    using one.

What I am suggesting is that if you keep a loaded gun in the house the odds
are 43 to 1 that it will be used for a purpose you did not intend, either
through domestic violence, suicide or accident.  What I am suggesting is
that, not unlike your reasoning about doctors, having a loaded gun on your
premises is an even higher risk than not having one.

You are apparently are willing to take that risk, and possibly endorse others
to take the same risk.

On the same program last evening (which I take it you did not see), they
gave the number of deaths as a result of gunshot wounds in 1992 in Canada,
Japan, war-wracked Northern Ireland, and the United States.  Guess who
was far and away the undisputed leader?

Richard

    RE: 43-1 What is the 1? What is the outcome that is 1/43 likely to
    happen? That's the missing piece.

>On the same program last evening (which I take it you did not see), they
>gave the number of deaths as a result of gunshot wounds in 1992 in Canada,
>Japan, war-wracked Northern Ireland, and the United States.  Guess who
>was far and away the undisputed leader?

    No I didn't see the program. Though it doesn't sound like it said 
    anything I haven't heard a bunch of times before. How many of those
    countries are as ethnically diverse as the US BTW. Also did they
    give gunshot deaths in Korea and Haiti? Guns are just about as totally
    outlawed in those countries as anywhere in the world. Guess who has
    a higher gun death rate - them or the US? By a lot. Did they give
    gun ownership and gun death rates in Switzerland? I wonder why not.
    Could it be because the gun ownership rate is much much higher there
    then in the US but the gun death rates are lower than even Japan?

    No, I'm sorry, the evidence does not support a good correlation between
    gun ownership/gun control laws and gun deaths. Now a correlation
    between lawyer population and gun deaths seems closer to likely. If
    you note in the US that places with a large lawyer population seem to
    have more gun deaths. New York, LA, DC, etc. Places with lots of legal
    gun ownership NH, ND, VT, etc but low lawyer populations seem to
    have fewer. Think about that and remember what you learned in Social
    Science Methodology - correlation does not always prove causality.

    			Alfred

          <<< SIETTG::DISK$OPS$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 5771.0                   A Nation of Cowards?                    No replies
LEDS::ACCIARDI "Save your brass"                    229 lines  13-NOV-1993 07:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Also posted in SOAPBOX)
	    
    I found this George F. Will essay in the latest Newsweek.  Although
    this is clearly 'yet another gun control' note, this is a little
    different.  For one thing, it represents something of a turnaround for
    Will, who, earlier this year, surprised me by advocating the repeal of
    the Second Ammendment to the Constitution.  Since I have great respect
    for Will as one of the foremost conservative minds, I am pleasantly
    surprised to see him reassessing his position.
    
    I am also trying to dig up the Jeffrey Snyder essay referred to below.
    
                            
    ARE WE A 'NATION OF COWARDS'?
    
    Jeffrey Snyder's timing is either just perfect or just awful.  Just as 
    there seems to be a coalescing consensus that the keys to controlling 
    violent crime are more police and fewer guns, along comes Snyder to 
    trouble the conscience of anyone who thinks so.  In his essay "A 
    Nation of Cowards" in The Public Interest quarterly, he argues, with a 
    potent blend of philosophy and fact, as follows: 
    
    "Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, 
    excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because 
    we do not fight back immediately, then and there, where it happens ... 
    The defect is there, in our character.  We are a nation of cowards and 
    shirkers." 
    
    Strong words, those, but not stronger than his argument, the gravamen 
    of which is that the crime problem cannot be addressed without 
    confronting the moral responsibility of the intended victim.  Taking 
    responsibility for one's life, family and community requires fighting 
    back when threatened with violence.  How?  By possessing and mastering 
    the means of resistance.  He means an "equalizer" - a handgun.  A 
    responsible citizen, he says, "will be trained in the use of his 
    weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence." 
    
    Before examining his argument for an armed citizenry, consider the
    freshest evidence of the nation's quickened concern about crime.
    
    On Election Day voters in liberal Washington state gave emphatic (76 
    percent) approval to the "three strikes and you're out" initiative 
    which mandates life imprisonment without parole for people convicted 
    of three major felonies.  California, although taxaphobic, 
    nevertheless voted to make permanent an existing tax to provide $1.5 
    billion for public safety - more police and firemen. (Arson has made 
    fire a facet of California's anxiety about crime.) Fiscally 
    conservative Texas endorsed a $l billion bond issue to build more 
    prisons and mental health facilities.
    
    The day after the elections the House of Representatives, with a 
    familiar mixture of posturing and false advertising, passed yet 
    another crime bill, this one purporting to subsidize the hiring of 
    50,000 police officers.  It probably would fund fewer.  The Senate 
    promptly pumped up the money.  For forty years Congress has passed a 
    crime bill in every two-year session, except the last one.  The 
    criminal class has not been impressed. 
    
    The day after the elections the president held a ceremony to push the 
    bill that would require a five day waiting period for the purchase of 
    a gun.  The attention given to this "Brady Bill" seems 
    disproportionate, given that 93 percent of the guns obtained by 
    violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that 
    are the focus of most gun control legislation.
    
    More interesting, the day after the elections Sen. Pat Moynihan 
    proposed whopping tax increases on various kinds of handgun 
    ammunition.  He even favors a 10,000 percent tax on the Winchester 9-
    mm hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridge. ("Penetrates soft tissue
    like a throwing star - very nasty," boasts am advertisement.)  That 
    tax would make 20 cartridges cost about $1,500.  In large
    portions of Moynihan's New York City people are slain by stray - 
    that's right, stray - bullets.  Moynihan says: Guns do not kill 
    people, bullets do.  We have a 20 year supply of guns and a four - 
    year supply of ammunition, so concentrate on the latter.
    
    Snyder, an attorney in Washington, where the mayor begs for military 
    help against crime, demurs, comprehensively.  America, he says, is 
    wrongly called an "armed society."  He thinks we would be                                     
    better off if it were.  Most of the guns owned by law - abiding 
    citizens are kept at home, but 87 percent of violent crimes occur 
    outside the home.  The constantly armed portion of the community 
    consists primarily of the police and violent criminals.  Multiplying 
    the former cannot make us safe from the latter.
    
    Self-respect:  It is, says Snyder, foolish and craven to expect police 
    to perform as personal bodyguards.  The existence of police does not 
    relieve individuals of the responsibility for self-protection.  That 
    judgment has both prudential and moral dimensions.  Gun owners like to 
    say, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance and call for a pizza: See 
    which comes first."  The Department of Justice reports that in 1991, 
    for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls to the police 
    were responded to within five minutes.  And it is now more likely that 
    an American will be injured by violent crime than he will be injured 
    in an auto accident.
    
    Feminists, says Snyder, rightly insist that rape is not about sex but 
    about domination.  What is at issue in crime is not just property but 
    dignity.  Crime, he says, always violates the victim's dignity, which 
    can hardly be said to exist if the victim does not deem it worth 
    fighting for.  Crime is "an act of enslavement" and a personal 
    readiness to resist it should be regarded as a prerequisite of self-
    respect, properly understood.  He notes that "self-respect," which 
    implies standards by which one judges oneself has been supplanted in 
    public discourse by the locution "self-esteem," which simply means 
    having warm feelings about oneself.  Repeating the shibboleths of the 
    gun control movement makes many people feel good about themselves.  
    Snyder's argument should disturb their peace.
    
    Much gun control advocacy is directed against normal citizens who are 
    depicted as at best benighted and at worst barbaric. Gun owners are 
    routinely characterized as uneducated, intolerant, possibly paranoid 
    rednecks - people urgently in need of re-education and "consciousness-
    raising" from the liberal agenda.  In Mario Cuomo's depiction, gun 
    owners are "hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives 
    about where they were all weekend." (Cuomo quickly recanted this. Gum 
    owners do vote.)  Actually, the gun-owning population is pretty much 
    like the general population because approximately one of every two 
    households has a gun.
    
    Now, Snyder is right that the gun control movement often radiates 
    distrust of average citizens, whose supposed mental and moral 
    deficiencies are such that "only lack of immediate access to guns 
    prevents the blood from flowing in the streets."  Nevertheless, it 
    reasonable to wonder whether a nation whose citizens cannot program 
    their VCRs and who increasingly will not respect stop-lights (surely 
    you have noticed the increasing lawlessness of drivers) is a nation 
    whose citizens are insufficiently dexterous and too  aggressive to be 
    safely armed.
    
    Snyder says the idea that only the police are qualified to use 
    firearms is akin to saying that "only concert pianists may play the 
    piano and only professional athletes may play sports."  The flaw in 
    Snyder's analogy is that if you play the piano unskillfully, you 
    neither kill nor wound anyone.  However, Snyder has evidence more 
    powerful than his analogy.
    
    In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met 
    certain requirements.  Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a 
    concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is 
    at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol 
    abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course.  Florida's 
    homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the 
    rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law.  Through June 
    1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida.  Only 530, or 
    0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits.  This 
    indicates that the law is serving the law abiding.  Only 16 permits, 
    less than 1/100 of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the 
    commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm.
    
    Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying 
    handguns.  This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a 
    potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a 
    would-be attacker.  In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense,  
    it is not fired.  Can the average citizen be trusted to judge 
    accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?  Snyder answers that "rape, 
    robbery and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with 
    ambiguity or subtlety."  Furthermore:
    
    "Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and 
    other data. has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or 
    property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times 
    a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely 
    brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot.  Only in 2 percent of 
    the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants.  In defending 
    themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 
    criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police.  A 
    nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and 
    criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shooting involved 
    an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal.  The 'error 
    rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as 
    high."
    
    Concerning what we may call tithe ramming of red lights syndrome in 
    contemporary America, I put the point to Snyder and he fired back a 
    fax:
    
    "Regarding your observation about our society's general level of 
    aggressiveness and disregard for rules, you may wish to consider 
    Robert Heinlein's famous dictum that 'An armed society is a polite 
    society.'  Knowing that one's fellow citizens are armed, greater care 
    is naturally taken not to give offense.  The proposition is, of 
    course, difficult to prove, but you can find some support for it in 
    English literature.  Observe the polite formality with which strangers 
    address each other in inns in, for example, Fielding's 'Tom Jones' or 
    (with comedic exaggeration) in Dickens's 'Pick wick Papers.'  While no   
    doubt attributable in part to England's class structure and the 
    education received by the aristocracy, I would hesitate to say that it 
    had nothing to do with the fact that gentlemen generally were armed."
    
    Or as is famously said in American literature by the hero of Owen   
    Wister's "The Virginian,"  "When you call me that, smile!"  Such was   
    politeness in the armed society of 19th-century Wyoming.
    
    Finally, there is the matter of the Second Amendment.  This Republic's 
    Founders constitutionalized, which means they made fundamental, the 
    right to possess firearms, and they did not do so unreflectively.  
    They placed that right second in the Bill of Rights, yielding 
    precedence only to rights pertaining to speech, worship and 
    association, and they did that for philosophically serious reasons.  
    The philosophy of classical republicanism recognizes a crucial 
    relationship between personal liberty and possession of arms by a 
    people prepared to use them.  Snyder believes that the Second 
    Amendment is as much a product of this philosophy as of the 
    Revolutionary War experience or the exigencies of frontier life: "To 
    own firearms is to affirm that freedom is not a gift from 
    government... As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that          
    does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the 
    means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust."
    
    Yes, and yet... no society can be called successful where violence is 
    so prevalent and random that lawful citizens must go about prepared to 
    dispense violence in self-defense.  No one wants to live, raise 
    children and grow old in such a society.  But government is 
    constituted to provide, first and foremost, domestic tranquillity 
    sufficient to make unnecessary the sort of personal measures that 
    Snyder recommends.  If such measures are becoming necessary, do not 
    blame Snyder.
    
    Snyder writes that "the association of personal disarmament with  
    civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined beliefs of our time"  
    Not anymore it isn't.  His searching examination of it may not compel  
    your assent - I remain unpersuaded - but it must shake some soothing 
    assumptions regarding crime and civic responsibilities.  I am among 
    those whom Snyder faults, civilly but finely, for insufficient rigor 
    in reasoning about these matters.  I find being reproved by him a  
    bracing experience because it enlarges my understanding while 
    subtracting from my certainties.  I salute him and thank him.
    

.117

>    RE: 43-1 What is the 1? What is the outcome that is 1/43 likely to
>    happen? That's the missing piece.

Of course, by now I've forgotten the exact verbiage that accompanied the
stat originally referenced in .107, which, as a student of sociology, I'm
certain you realize is crucial to understanding.

Nevertheless, the potential for the use of a gun in a domestic dispute,
suicide, and accident is increased more than marginally by the mere presence
of a loaded gun in the household.  Suicide, I heard on Fox's "Front Page"
last night, is the leading cause of death in the U.S. from a gunshot wound.

Perhaps, I'm foolish for listening to these shams pushed by dishonest people.
[Note 723.108  -< that stat is a sham pushed by dishonest people >- ]

All I know is that nobody used to worry about handguns in schools.  Did you?
We never heard of a drive-by shooting when I was a teenager.  Did you?
Granted, the headset of the one pulling the trigger is the most significant
factor in how a gun is used, but that doesn't mean we're stuck with making
it easy for just anyone to get their hands on one.

Peace,
Richard

    
>>    RE: 43-1 What is the 1? What is the outcome that is 1/43 likely to
>>    happen? That's the missing piece.
>
>Of course, by now I've forgotten the exact verbiage that accompanied the
>stat originally referenced in .107, which, as a student of sociology, I'm
>certain you realize is crucial to understanding.

    The usual verbiage for the one is kill an intruder. This is sort of like
    saying that a baseball bat is twice as likely to be used to kill a Cop
    as to kill an intruder. It's true but very misleading because killing
    an intruder is not the main use of a baseball bat. As I said before
    killing someone is not the only way guns are used.


>Perhaps, I'm foolish for listening to these shams pushed by dishonest people.
>[Note 723.108  -< that stat is a sham pushed by dishonest people >- ]

    Correct! Anyone who pushes that 43-1 number is not interested in being
    truthful with you.


>All I know is that nobody used to worry about handguns in schools.  Did you?

    Yes, actually I did. We had a teacher complaining about kids using
    spare round stock to make guns and flat stock to make knives. We also
    had a student bring a pipe bomb to school one day.

>We never heard of a drive-by shooting when I was a teenager.  Did you?

    Of course I did. And I was almost the victim of a drive by knifing.

    			Alfred

Note 723.120

>    The usual verbiage for the one is kill an intruder.

	No, this was not the verbiage used on the program I saw.  Forget I
mentioned it.

	I take it you see a greater risk to a household that keeps a loaded
gun on hand than one that doesn't.

>    We had a teacher complaining about kids using
>    spare round stock to make guns and flat stock to make knives. We also
>    had a student bring a pipe bomb to school one day.

>    Of course I did. And I was almost the victim of a drive by knifing.

	Your implication here is that there is no rise in the incidence of
violence involving firearms in the U.S., that there really is nothing to be
more concerned about now than there was (guessing now) 25-30 years ago.

Richard

>	I take it you see a greater risk to a household that keeps a loaded
>gun on hand than one that doesn't.

	I'm not sure how this parses. Let's just say that I do not see having
	a gun in the house as a serious risk as long as it's protected as well
	as the family car keys. I see the cost benifit factor as slanted in
	favor of gun ownership. A recent study showed that people who rent
	are three times as likely to be killed in ther home as people who
	own. People who live alone are 3.5 times as likely to be killed as
	those who do not live alone. There are all sorts of risks in the world.
	I do not believe that a gun in my house puts me at a statistically
	significant compared to say matches or cigarettes.


>	Your implication here is that there is no rise in the incidence of
>violence involving firearms in the U.S., that there really is nothing to be
>more concerned about now than there was (guessing now) 25-30 years ago.

	To be sure there are more risks than 25-30 years ago in many ways. 
	But you have to look at root causes. Is my son safer walking to
	his high school today than I was 20 years ago? No question. The
	neighborhood my high school was in was populated with a very very
	high percentage of drug users, protitutes, numbers runners , etc.
	A very high crime area. My son's school is in a middle class bedroom
	community. Such evidence proves little. My implication is that while
	some problems may be worse they are by no means new.

	Would gun control laws help? Ask your self this. What currently legal
	killing would these laws make illegal? When you come up with one you
	will have a case for passing that law. Until them the law punishes
	the innocent and protects the guilty.

			Alfred

Note 723.122

>	Would gun control laws help?

I would be willing to give it a chance.  The initial results of the efforts
in Colorado to take guns out of the hands of teenagers (who are not hunting
or target shooting) seem hopeful.

To be sure, all homicides have not ceased overnight in Colorado.  And I
have to say that it's not the new gun policy alone which has made the
difference.  Indeed, we do have to address the underlying causes.

Richard

    
>>	Would gun control laws help?
>
>I would be willing to give it a chance.  The initial results of the efforts
    
    Would you also be willing to try something that has proven to be
    effective in other states? Florida has seen an over all drop in
    violent crime since they made it easier for citizens to carry a gun.
    
    			Alfred

    
>>	Would gun control laws help?
>
>I would be willing to give it a chance.  The initial results of the efforts
    
    Remember that you have nothing to lose by these laws. Not a thing.
    Just as I have lose nothing if alcoholic beverages were banned. So
    it's very easy for you to give up something you neither have nor
    want. Just try and see the other side.
    
    			Alfred

Note 723.125

>    Remember that you have nothing to lose by these laws. Not a thing.

I'm not so sure.  One of your chief "selling points" is that by not having
a loaded gun in my house, I lose the ability to protect myself and my family
against assailants.

Richard

    
>>    Remember that you have nothing to lose by these laws. Not a thing.
>
>I'm not so sure.  One of your chief "selling points" is that by not having
>a loaded gun in my house, I lose the ability to protect myself and my family
>against assailants.

    You lose the choice (gun control is the anti choice position) but
    you have so far elected not to own a gun and I suspect that,
    philosophically, you are unlikely to opt to own one in the future.
    So unless and until you decide you want a gun you lose nothing.

    			Alfred

	Hi!

	I'm not sure if I should post this, since I do not remember which
	newspaper I clipped it from. It was in one of the Maryland papers
	a day or two after a TV "fight" programme (Square up, I think, in
	which the figure of "41 times more likely to be killed or injured
	at home if there is a gun in the house" was quoted.

	The intro cited the "41 times" figure and said that things were bad
	enough without having to descend to falsifications. This table for
	a 6-month period for Maryland* followed:
	* It may have been only for Baltimore, but I honestly can't remember.

	Death by shooting			With Gun	No Gun
						at home		at home
	---------------------------------------------------------------
	Suicide of a member of household	  213		  32
	Murder of spouse/partner		   84		  17
	Murder of one or more children		  331		  41
	Murder of guest 			   44		   6
	Murder of innocent caller		   36		   0
	---------------------------------------------------------------
		Totals				  708		  96

	Intruders				   23		   3
	Victims of intruders			   84		  11
	---------------------------------------------------------------
		Totals				  107	 	  14

	Now, I've seen arguments here about how responsible our fellow
	pro-gun noters are with their handguns. But I do not think that
	we can take noters as being representative of the whole. These
	figures would seem to support this. It does seem that, if you
	point a gun at an intruder, he is likely to be the first to shoot.
	I assume that the intruders who were shot in a gunless household
	either shot themselves (unlikely) or they lost the struggle for
	possession of the gun.

	I was intersted to see that the ratios were nearly the same (7.3
	for domestic shooting, 7.6 for crimebusters).

	Greetings Derek.

	PS: I had a wonderful holiday in the USA (Maryland, Virginia, West
	    Virginia and DC).  You have a beautiful land with room for
	    everyone and room for all shades of opinion. Please try to take
	    care of it: I hope to come again!

    
    RE: .128 Those numbers square with what I've heard before. It assumes
    that to stop a crime you have to kill someone. Now I know several
    people who have been threatened by armed (though not with guns)
    attackers but who chased the attacker away without shooting. In fact
    both did it without even removing the gun from the holster. This
    happens between 600,000 and 2,000,000 times a year in the US.


>	The intro cited the "41 times" figure and said that things were bad
>	enough without having to descend to falsifications. This table for

    The falsification in these numbers is in how they are used. The
    assumption that the only use of a gun is to kill is implied and
    incorrect. Compare guns used in crime with guns used to prevent
    crime. And guns used in crime with guns never used in crime. Those
    numbers paint a very different picture.

>	Now, I've seen arguments here about how responsible our fellow
>	pro-gun noters are with their handguns. But I do not think that
>	we can take noters as being representative of the whole. These

    I do. Though perhaps you know more gun owners than I. :-) The
    statistics of accidental shooting, dropping steadily for over 30 years,
    indicate to me that most people are responsible. 

    The fact that a very tiny percentage of guns are used for criminal
    activity at all <1% I believe supports my opinion as well.

    		Alfred

>	PS: I had a wonderful holiday in the USA (Maryland, Virginia, West
>	    Virginia and DC).  You have a beautiful land with room for
>	    everyone and room for all shades of opinion. Please try to take
>	    care of it: I hope to come again!

    Beautiful parts of the country to be sure. I hope you do come again.
    And when you do try and visit some of the less crowded sections in
    the mid and far west. Though we'd welcome you in the North East as
    well.

    A note regarding statistics and biased questions.

    One type of gun is used in more then 2 out of 3 shootings of Police.
    Would you favor banning that one type of gun?
    
    Did you answer yes?
    
    Congratulations! Your vote will be shown under the heading

    People who want to prohibit Police from carrying guns.

    That's right 2 out of 3 Police who are shot are shot with either
    their or their partners official side arm.
    
    		Alfred

>    That's right 2 out of 3 Police who are shot are shot with either
>    their or their partners official side arm.

    No no no!  That just means you need to give police a weapon that
    is not as prone to be used against them..     :-)

    Tom

I believe that at least until recently police in several countries don't carry 
firearms.  

Peace,

Jim

    
>I believe that at least until recently police in several countries don't carry 
>firearms.  

    Police in the UK didn't used to carry them. But as they've tightened
    the gun laws more and more restricting what honest citizens can own
    gun crimes keep climbing. So now, there is a louder and louder plea
    for Police to carry guns.

    Japanese police, I believe, don't generally carry guns. On the other
    hand they can enter a house without a warrant, lock one up without a
    charge, questions you for days before letting you talk to a lawyer,
    and a confession obtained by beating or torture is admissible in court.
    I think that helps account for their success in court. Anyone want to
    go that far in the US?

    			Alfred

re: Note 723.133 by Alfred "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" 

> Anyone want to go that far in the US?

Not I.  Despite all our problems, I think we've got about the best human 
devised system going.

And regardless of all the statistics, and how anyone tries to interpret them, 
Alfred has stated before--and it is quite true--there are already criminal 
laws against the uses of guns that I believe we ALL are against.  And if those 
laws are not or cannot be enforced, is there a good reason to believe that new 
laws will do any better?

Peace,

Jim

    We in the U.S. have the worst possible system ever devised, except,
    of course, for all the others.
    
    Richard
    

>                   -< Can't think of whom I'm paraphrasing >-

    Winston Churchill on Democracy as a form of government.

    .136 Thanks, Tom. :-)
    
    Richard

Ann Iverson, CEO of KayBee Toy Stores, has ordered removed from nation-
wide chain's shelves all realistic looking guns.

In the US, 15 deaths occur daily among young persons, 19 years and under,
due to firearms.  This does include accidents.

200 million firearms are owned by citizens in the US.

Shalom,
Richard

    That I believe is a good idea!!
    
    -Jack

 Excellent idea!

    Bob:
    
    Why's that?  Washington DC is riveted (No Pun Intended) with crime.  
    DC assumes the police can handle the crime; therefore, the vulnerable
    are without resource.  When the National Guard has to be called, you
    know current policy is abysmal!
    
    -Jack

re Note 723.141 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Why's that?  Washington DC is riveted (No Pun Intended) with crime.  
>     DC assumes the police can handle the crime; therefore, the vulnerable
>     are without resource.  When the National Guard has to be called, you
>     know current policy is abysmal!

        You seem to be arguing (by implication) that DC has high
        crime rates as a result of having gun control.

        Simply noting the two facts does nothing to prove a
        relationship (although it probably makes for a good talk show
        and might even help to get someone elected in this age of
        15-second sound bites).

        It is just as possible that gun control was introduced as a
        result of a perceived increase in crime -- what you're
        implying is the effect could in fact be the cause.

        I'm a bit surprised that anyone would have to explain this to
        an intelligent and educated person, but when you try to draw
        a comparison between two complex things (like cities), you
        have to deal with the fact that there will be hundreds of
        differences that could account in part for any other given
        difference -- and even when you have taken them into account,
        you still have the problem of determining their relationship
        -- is one the cause of the other, or are they both the
        effects of some third force?

        (Are you really against gun control, Jack?  Do you really
        believe that any person, regardless of criminal history or
        mental illness, has a right to own and carry a gun?)

        Bob

    No...I don't believe that...and I am a proponent of responsible gun
    control.  The DC analogy was only to prove not that gun control is the
    cause of crime...but that gun control does not deter crime...in fact,
    it handicaps the responsible people and invites the scorn of those who
    commit crime.  It is a failed experiment in Washington DC.  
    
    I do reject the interpretation of the second ammendment meaning only
    what we know as the military.  A well regulated militia was comprised
    of citizens who stored their guns right over the fireplace.  Our FFs
    very much supported the right of the citizenry to bear arms...if
    anything to deter the disease of tyranny.
    
    -Jack