Date sent: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 02:52:18 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net> Organization: http://www.lorrey.com http://www.artlocate.com To: extropians@extropy.com Subject: Re: Take ten paces and then turn and fire!! Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> john grigg wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I was just kidding on the idea of Mike and Joe duelling at ten paces! In
> > relation to the gun control debate between Mike Lorrey and Joe Dees I just
> > want to say both men have the right to discuss the matter but it does seem
> > to have been beaten to death here on the list.
> >
> > I realize both men feel they MUST counter any arguments brought forth by the
> > other no matter how many times it has been discussed before. I think this
> > is not so much for them but for any impressionable minds out there that are
> > not set yet in one way of looking at things at least in some matters(like
> > me).
> >
> > I wish we could have a formal debate between them moderated on this very
> > list by Greg Burch our legal eagle. Each man would have his turn and then a
> > chance for rebuttal would be given. It would go on for so many times and
> > then Mr. Burch would ask for closing statements.
>
> I would be happy to be involved in such a debate, but I personally would
> like to debate with someone who can actually bring information to the
> debate, not curses and personal attacks.
>
> >
> > Even if this did not end the debate we would have at least held a "formal"
> > debate of the matter. Kept relatively short I would read each post with
> > interest. I hope my idea is actually done.
> >
> > I consider banning the topic of gun control to be wrong along with banning
> > any topic on the list. I think it goes against extropian ideals.
> >
> > But at the same time I can remember countless times scrolling over numerous
> > long posts when you two debated in a desire to find topics that appealled to
> > me more. I feel like Captain Kirk on the bridge when the two powerful
> > aliens with black and white coloring on differing sides got into a
> > never-ending power struggle.
> >
> > I personally believe in the right of common citizens to bear arms when they
> > have gotten a concealment permit. There are those who would say the
> > information the government gets on a citizen is too much when the permit is
> > obtained but I am more worried about people packing heat who do not FULLY
> > understand the legal and real life ramifications of this.
>
> It is quite possible to have a system that both ensures that a person is
> a law abiding citizen, and prevents the government from being able to
> use this information to compile an ad hoc enemies list. It is currently
> in existence, it is called NICS, the National Instant Check System. The
> way it works (as specified under the Brady Bill) is that a person's
> name, SSN, etc are entered into the system, which replies with a go
> ahead, hold, or denied response. A Go Ahead response is supposed to
> immediately flush the evidence of the query on that individuals ID
> information, so there is not a longer term record that a specific law
> abiding individual bought a gun. Hold responses occur when there is iffy
> information, like a record of a temporary restraining order, on the
> database, that needs to be checked on to see if it is still in force.
> Denied responses are flagged and the ID information goes into a federal
> felony violation database.
>
> This system, which the Clinton's and the gun controllers fought tooth
> and nail against, was only added to the Brady Bill at the instistence of
> one party, the NRA. When the 5-day waitng period and the unfunded
> mandate on local law enforcement to perform background checks were
> tossed out by the Supreme Court, the administration belatedly
> institutded the NICS system, that they had originally promised would be
> in place within one year of the Brady Bill passage. However they
> instituted one illegal change in the system, the FBI keeps records of
> ALL individuals who are queried on in the database for 6 to 18 months.
> The FBI ostensibly claims that this is for 'auditing' purposes, but they
> have done only one audit, at the insistence of the Republican congress,
> they have illegally disseminated information about law abiding
> individuals to local law enforcement from the system, and they have only
> prosecuted ONE of the alleged tens of thousands of 'criminals' that were
> denied by the system, which is a gross case of capricious enforcement.
>
> >
> > I realize there are those who interpret the right to bear arms as very
> > different and think only police and soldiers should be issued guns. I
> > vehemently oppose this view. I honestly believe in the saying that "if you
> > take away all the guns in the end only criminals will have guns!"
>
> What they think is irrelevant. When Prof. Lawrence Tribe, arguably the
> most liberal recognised constitutional law professor in the country,
> agrees that the Cummins decision in the case US v. Emerson correctly
> interprets the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is an
> individual right, and that it should not be infringed at all, then only
> a pure Stalinist could continue to insist on any other interpretation.
>
And this is not a pre-emptive ad hominem curse and generic
personal attack?
> >
> > At the same time I find the idea of an America where everyone has a
> > concealed handgun to be a very sad and frightening place. But I feel the
> > option of being armed should be available to the public. Were I beaten and
> > mugged I would definitely get a concealed weapons permit and a pistol to go
> > with it.
>
> I personally place more trust in myself, and my fellow citizens, than in
> local, state, or federal police. Those citizens I am wrong in trusting
> will find out the error of their ways if they wish to test things.
> Considering that any given police officer is five times more likely to
> kill an innocent person at a crime scene than any given armed law
> abiding private citizen at a crime scene, it just a matter of public
> health to ban the police and arm the people. ;)
>
Including violent felons, the clinically insane and children? After all,
if there is no law enforcement whatsoever, guns cannot be kept out
of their hands (and neither will rape, theft, assault or murder be
punished, if the victims don't have kinfolks to exact revenge or
retribution from the perpetrators). In fact, In the absence of law
enforcement, there really cannot even be said to be such a thing as
laws, only official wishes.
> >
> > The NRA lost my support when they opposed mandatory trigger locks on all
> > guns. I realize this law would slow down access to a weapon in a home
> > robbery situation but how many children must die to please the NRA??
> > Perhaps mandatory cases with electronic locks would work best though it
> > would be expensive by comparison.
>
> The NRA has always been the greatest proponent of gun safety. Indeed the
> first nationally used fire arms safety courses insituted outside the
> military were established by the NRA. The state of New York asked the
> NRA to formulate a standard safety course which was required of all gun
> permit applicants there. Massachusetts used to use the same course,
> until this year when they decided to copy the NRA course, and charge
> $200.00 to applicants to take the course, administered by state
> employees (union members, paid nice salaries w/ benefits rather than the
> usual free or almost free NRA volunteer), in addition to the permit fees
> and taxes.
>
One of the Jonesboro boys must've learned a lot from his course
(his father, an NRA member, took him), because he shot real
straight from that ridge above the middle school.
>
> Trigger locks are indeed a hindrance to the safety of life and limb for
> any weapon to be used for self defense purposes. Keep in mind that prior
> to the industry agreement to include trigger locks (there as yet is no
> national trigger lock law), the rate of death and injury from accidental
> firearms discharges (in any age group) was at the lowest level of any
> time since such stats were first taken, in 1903. (National Safety Board
> stats). Since I don't have any kids, I don't keep my defense gun locked
> up, as I carry it most everywhere, but my other guns are locked in their
> cases, and I am awaiting the arrival of a much more secure safe, since
> my collection is growing.
>
> I am concerned bout my guns falling into the wrong hands, as is any gun
> owner, but I am more concerned about my life falling into the wrong
> hands. The stats say I have the proper priorities...
>
If your guns fall into the wrong hands, your life is more likely to
follow, especially if you run into a thief who has already found one
of them. Try burglar bars, Mike, and nobody gets hurt in your
house.
> >
> > Here in Alaska we view ourselves as living in the "last frontier" and I
> > suppose compared to other states have fairly open views on gun control. And
> > also we are a republican state rather then democratic. Actually I think
> > human predators are much more threatening here then the ones with claws and
> > antlers.
> >
> > Well, here I am contributing to the volume of gun control debate posts! But
> > I admit it is a very important topic with in my view no easy answers. And
> > it ties in at a core level I think with how government desires to hoarde
> > power for itself.
> >
>
> Considering that government repression kills more people around the
> world every year than any other non-natural factor, by large magnitudes,
> I agree with you. Considering that twenty to fifty times more people
> have been killed in the industrialized world alone this century by
> repressive governments on unarmed popultions than have been killed by
> violent crime between individuals, I say you are right on the money.
>
And I'll just bet that the vast majority of these people have been
shot, right? BTW, what is the breakdown for the last half of the
20th century in the US for fatal gov't repression vs. crime between
individuals, hmmmm?
> Mike Lorrey
>