Re: GUNS: Why here?

From: Chuck Kuecker (
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 06:41:13 MDT

At 09:47 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Joe Dees wrote:

>Driver's license (or in it's absence state ID) and Social Security number
>should be sufficient (the 'two pieces of ID' rule). Some will still be
>able to circumvent it, but some will be stopped or deterred. There is no
>perfect, or even perfectable, solution; we just have to do the best we can
>with the options available to us to keep guns out of the wrong hands while
>allowing the into the right ones.

I could live with this - just let's check on the buyer, and not register
the gun.

I know somebody's gonna come up with "we register cars!" - but there is no
comparison.Auto registration is primarily a tax function. If all they want
to do is trace a hit and run driver, a permanently mounted number plate
would do - one that does not require yearly payment.

Registering guns does little to solve crime, even if the weapon used is
found. It only ties the gun to the last legal owner.

If I could trust the govt. to never pull a California confiscation, I would
have no trouble with a registry - at least it would help return stolen guns
to their rightful owners. History warns us NOT to put such trust in the feds.

I quote from:
>Handgun Control works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the
>United State but does not seek to ban guns.

Still - Sarah Brady has been quoted, numerous times, as have many other
"concerned" types like Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer.
Interesting, but long read for you - "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

> > To kill 2 CIA employees and wound three others
> >outside Langley, VA headquarters in 1993
> >
> >This was a former CIA type, was it not? A falling out amongst thieves!
> >
>No, it was a middle eastern terrorist type, I believe.

I suppose no "middle eastern" types were ever CIA operatives or moles?

> >It's funny how it becomes a "cult" because HCI needs to make their point,
> >isn't it?
> >
>Well, David Koresh WAS forbidding couples to have sex, and arrogating
>mating privileges, complete with beer and rock guitar, to himself for the
>pretty wives and nubile girls (13 and up). That kinda sexual control
>isn't a result of a democratic system, and it most definitely constitutes
>child abuse. However, they should've arrested him outside the compound
>when they had the chance.

I could never understand how anyones, no matter how weird, religious
beliefs were any business of the federal govt. - let alone a taxing body
like the BATF. THe highest got. agency that should have been interested was
maybe the state child welfare people. Besides, the US is NOT a democracy -
it's a constitutional republic. Small difference, mostly lost on our
present "leaders".

>It's still a good point; it's better to have the police better armed than
>the criminals, rather than the other way around. We Floridians saw way
>too much of the other way during the Cocaine Cowboy '80's.

Back then, how many regular people were doing the shooting? And how many of
the shooters bought their guns at Wal-Mart?

> I'd rather that school guards (and bank guards, as well) be fit and well
trained instead of obese or frail geezers supplementing their
retirement. I do NOT want teachers armed in class, > any more than I want
school guards teaching english composition, physics or chemistry; I'd much
rather leave each profession to its respective professionals.

Reasonable point. Teachers should not be acting as armed guards. We need a
paradigm shift in teaching, anyway. Maybe take the whole business away from
govt. and put it in the hands of private businesses who would be answerable
to their customers - the students and parents?

Still, if a teacher carries protection for personal use, why should they be
disarmed just because of the present location? The bad guys won't play by
the rules - so there is NO truly safe place where such restrictions would
make sense.

We've had metal detectors and airport style wand frisks at Chicago schools
for quite a while - the little angels still manage to bring in guns.
There's no solution past totally nude education that can stop all the
contraband at the door. Hey - now there's a new paradigm - but, thinking
back on some of my teachers, maybe not - wouldn't want to scare the kids!

> >
> >| There is one I've heard of; I think it was the Pearl, Mississippi
> >shooting, where an assistant principal had a gun. Here in Pensacola, we
> >had a teacher's car broken into in the school |parking lot and her gun
> >stolen. Walking around 180 days a year arould a thousand little hands with
> >your piece on your hip is not a good idea for most teachers either.
> >
> >Yep, that's one. Another was a hall owner who stopped a student with a gun
> >from shooting a group of kids at the hall. He had a shotgun behind the
> >counter. Ohio, if I am not mistaken.
> >
>Hadn't heard about that one. know any more about it?
> >
> >Metal lockboxes are available for auto use - they bolt through the floor,
> >and are virtually theftproof unless the thief has a torch or cutoff saw.
> >Responsible gun owners don't leave weapons unsecured in a vehicle.
> >
> >Admittedly, carrying a gun is not for everyone. But what about the "Officer
> >Friendly" who comes in armed and ready? Perhaps we should teach the kids
> >from kindergarten on about gun safety. Namely - NRA's Eddie Eagle - "Don't
> >Touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!". Give them a fighting chance. As
> >long as there are guns, there's a risk. We teach them about STDs...
> >

>Eddie Eagle's message tends to glamorize gun ownership as a badge of
>adulthood and coolness, with a cartoon character to hook the message, much
>as Joe Camel did for tobacco. Kids should know not to touch guns, and to
>tell a responsible adult about guns they find, but a child safety program
>cannot substitute for adult responsibility, only supplement it, and I have
>concerns about a propagandized 'NRA Youth".

Have you actually seen the materials? There's not much glory there. It's a
safety message - not a "how to" book. NRA has programs for kids, too, but
their parents have to seek them out.

Eddie Eagle does not carry a gun - quite unlike Joe Camel, who was almost
never without a coffin nail.

Check out an NRA affiliated rifle range some time. They tend to be pretty
anal about gun safety - to the point where it gets irritating sometimes.

How did the NRA get to be such a devil, anyway? NRA was founded to provide
a pool of marksmen for our country in time of need, similar to Amateur
Radio's goal of a pool of trained radio operators. Hunting and other uses
are just ways of keeping up the skill a people's militia needs. It wasn't
until Congress started overstepping its' powers with the NFA and GCA of
1968 that the NRA, quite correctly, started to lobby against these stupid laws.

> 5,285 kids (under 19) are a lot to lose in a year. That's just the US,
and the combined totals of great britain, france, germany, canada and japan
for that year is 338. And for every >child killed four are
wounded. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm
death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S.
than in 25 other >industrialized nations combined. Over 6,000 students
were expelled in 1996-97 for bringing guns to school. The Journal of the
American Medical Association reports that between
>36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe they could easily get a gun
>if they wanted one. Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by
>children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns
>shot by children under the age of 19. In 1996, more than 1300 children
>aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using
>other methods, suicide attempts with gun are nearly always fatal, meaning
>a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at
>life. Two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a
>firearm. The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is
>ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this
>century. As the rate of American gun violence dramatically increased over
>the last fifteen years, American children paid the price. From 1984 to
>1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the
>non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. Within fi!
>ve years, firearms are expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the
>leading cause of death among American children.

Are the '!'s the email server's way of telling us to limit paragraph size?
They crop up in lots of posts from this server...

Most of the kids killed or hurt by guns have no training past TV and
movies. The easy availability is due to the war on drugs and the associated
black market. I was pointing out that you rarely hear of "gun violence" in
rural areas, the few high school incidents aside. It's primarily an urban

The numbers for drowning are still higher than for guns, especially with
the younger kids. Pools and toilets are not necessary for the defense of a
free society, but no one is agitating for more laws concerning them!

Personally, I believe a suicide should be allowed to do his or her own
thing, if they are in that much pain. It's horrible for the friends and
family, but probably a good thing for the species.

Gun injuries have been dropping through the last decade. The antis use this
to point out how well their laws work, and then point out the "increases"
to prove the need for more laws.

> >Stupid, well-meaning laws.
> >
>They'll most likely save a lot more lives than they lose; if people are
>gonna sue either way, there will be many more suits for many more deaths
>without such laws.

The problem is that a locked-up gun is totally useless for defense. If the
kids are educated, they don't touch. I lived with my Dad's Colt service
revolver for my entire life at home - and I NEVER touched the gun. I was
taught from age three on that real guns are not toys. I DID have toy guns -
and I well knew the difference, as my Dad took me to the police range to
watch practice a number of times.

To save bandwidth, I am going to address a few points from another of your

> >The term "assault weapon" was coined by the HCI types. It has no legal
> >definition, and no military rifle is ever called an "assault weapon" by the
> >military. Any weapon - gun, knife, or club - can be an "assault weapon" if
> >it is used in an attack.
> >
>It has an official definition in California state law. See:
>at the end of the issue brief.

HCI wrote the definition, softheads like Feinstein accepted it. The
ignorant leading the stupid. Whenever I hear of "law" like this, I just
remember "The law is an ass".

>Actually, handguns and shotguns are better for close range home
>protection. Rifles are intended for medium to long-range fire, or for
>rapid firefight spray if they are semiauto or auto.

The very weapons HCI wants to eliminate first.

>The 2nd amendment was meant to keep 'well-regulated militias' armed, to
>protect the states charged with regulating them against the encroachment
>of federal power, a protection that was proven useless by the Civil war.
>Today's national guards (the heirs to state-regulated militias) store
>their weapons in armories. The NRA has never challenged a gun law on 2nd
>amendment grounds, as they know that it wouldn't fly; the appeal to it is
>a device to inflame emotions.

The National Guard is under the control of the very people that the
original militia's creators wanted to be able to guard against. Having
weapons meant to defend the people against the govt. locked up in the
govt's storehouse seems pretty silly to me, not to mention dangerous for
the people.

One of my biggest problems with the NRA is their unwillingness to go
head-to-head with a 2AM court challenge. I have written them a number of
times requesting less rhetoric and more action, to no avail. That's why I
have joined a number of other organizations such as Gun Owners of America
and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

> >
> >>In 1994, a leading law enforcement executive characterized semi-automatic
> >>assault weapons as nothing more than "cop-killer guns," and at that time
> >>assault weapons accounted for more than 17% of fatal shootings of police.)

The Uzis and such are pretty useless against standard police body armor.
Rifles of any caliber over .22 can take out a vested person easily, unless
the vest is an inch thick.

>Semiautos can kill a lot more people dead a lot quicker. No real hunter
>sprays game.
> Tec-9's, Uzis and Mac-11's are definitely less suited for hunting
> purposes than AR-15's, AK's and SKS's, but accurate hunting rifles do not
> need a rapid fire capacity if the hunter is good enough to be out there.
> If he isn't, rapid-fire spray is a danger to other hunters.

True. But hunting rifles sometimes are semiauto - if, for instance, you are
hunting boar, and are charged after firing your one shot, you are in
trouble. Ditto for moose and elk. If you are good, a bolt action can be
fired almost as quickly as a true autoloader.

> >
> >Stupid laws like the "assault weapon" ban are just incremental gun
> >prohibition - especially if the definition of "assault weapon" continues to
> >mutate, like in California.
> >
>Actually, what mutated were the guns. The manufacturers produced
>cosmetically altered copycat versions specifically designed to circumvent
>the ban while retaining the desired rapid-fire characteristics, and the
>law was amended to cover them.

Not really. California continuously changes the rules, and has no
compunction about confiscation. Many people who registered their SKSs found
out the hard way.

> >
> >It's not much of a stretch to include all
> >weapons with barrels shorter than 16" as "assault weapons" - then ALL
> >handguns are gone, and with them the possibility that women, invalids, and
> >handicapped persons just might be able to defend themselves against
> predation.
> >
>I do not subscribe to the slippery slope domino theory, and would not
>support such action. I do believe that we should all be willing to take
>responsible measures to keep military-style semiautomatic rifles from
>flooding the civilian market, while preserving the right of sane and
>law-abiding adults to purchase shotguns, long guns designed for hunting,
>and handguns designed for home protection.

Unfortunately, states like California, Maryland, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts are actively building ramps and greasing them. Illinois is
not far behind, at least in C(r)ook County.

>I also do not advocate gun registration, but rather people registration;
>the maintainence of a purchase-prohibited list that must be referenced by
>background check prior to a sale. I CAN see the point in a short waiting
>period, until all the records that need to be accessed are made instantly
>accessible. There are also such things as 'crimes of passion' and 'jealous
>rages'; but I cannot see preventing a sane and law-abiding adult from
>immediately buying a means of personal protection, although I would also
>hope that they would call the police.

Now we are in agreement almost totally.

An interesting note:
Right at this moment - the radio is quoting how Cook County Sheriff Sheahan
is recalling 5000 free gun locks he was handing out - they can be opened by
a hard blow. When he issued the locks a week ago, the antis hailed this
"sensible" move - now they are claiming it was all a publicity stunt by the
wacko gun nuts.

Chuck Kuecker

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT