Date sent: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:41:27 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Shooting of Japanese student did happen Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but these numbers for Florida are just not feasible. Looking at
> > today's paper, I find half a dozen crimes with legal handguns. There are
> > many more handgun crimes for which I can't tell the legal status of the gun,
> > or in some cases what kind of gun was used.
> > I don't see how the study can only find 18 crimes with licensed handguns,
> > when I can find eight such crimes in just one day, the first day I looked.
> > The cases are: Elderly mother shot daughter because she though she was
> > being put in a home, two kids shot dead in Orlando with their parents' guns
> > in two separate incidents, five kids arrested for bringing their parent's
> > handguns to school in separate incidents assumed to be a copycat of
> > Columbine. All of these were legal, licensed handguns.
> A kid taking a parent's gun without permission is a stolen gun.
> > The only conclusion I can reach is that this study is carefully wording
> > their statements to create misleading statistics. They say "but only 18
> > crimes involving firearms were committed by those with licenses". That
> > seems to count only those crimes committed by the licensed person themselves
> > with their own gun. It ignored licensed gun owners using other guns to
> > commit crimes, and it ignores licensed gun owners whose guns were taken away
> > from them and used by someone else in a crime. These types of cases are not
> > covered in either the pro or con discussions, but are merely ignored. The
> > statistic seems to support the idea that licensed handguns are rarely used
> > in crimes, but the facts they cite do not really support their case.
> Handguns themselves are not licensed. The owners are licensed to carry concealed
> weapons. Someone who is not licensed to carry concealed and does is committing
> an unlicensed act. If its not their gun and the owner did not give them
> permission to have it, it is theft, and is therefore criminally obtained. This
> is why gun trigger locks are not a bad idea to promote.
It is also a good idea to require their purchase whenever guns are bought, just to clear up the liability issue ("You mean to tell me, Mr. X, that you had trigger locks, but did not have them installed, so when your teenaged son stole your loaded gun from your unlocked drawer, he had no difficulty shooting five classmates? This court finds you guilty of criminal negligence with a firearm.").
> Any time a gun is not
> under the control of its owner or its legal user it should be locked up, but
> mandating any technology that makes it difficult for the owner or legal user to
> quickly employ it is not a good idea. Anyone experienced with guns will tell you
> that if you are not confident in using that gun in the clutch, you should not
> carry a gun. You should not draw it in a crime situation if you are not prepared
> to shoot someone with it, and you should be willing to die to prevent it from
> getting into the hands of criminals. End of story, anything less is negligence,
> and the owner should be held accountable, at least civilly. Suing the
> manufacturer for the stupidity, laziness, or cowardliness of the legal owner is
> Mike Lorrey
> Michael S. Lorrey
> Owner, Lorrey Systems
> Director, Grafton County Fish & Game Assoc.
> Member, Extropy Institute
> Member, National Rifle Association
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> - General John Stark