black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6) (07/19/85)
>In article <228@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (Bill Swan) writes: >>He lives in the United States. What fairy-tale land are you living in? > >I live in Cambridge, in the country of Massachusetts. People die when >they're shot by muggers, here. Luckily, my country enacted gun control >legislation a while back and not as many people get shot any more. (More properly, it's Cambridge, in the PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of Massachusetts.) I sure would like to see some statistics about how many muggers have SHOT people in Cambridge over the past couple of years. More than likely, a Cambridge mugger will use a knife over a handgun. The people who use handguns are usually from Boston, who drive to Cambridge (typically in a stolen car) and hold up a liquor store or pharmacy. Several years ago, there was a pharmacy on Massachusetts Ave. in East Arlington, right over the line from Cambridge, the Maida Pharmacy, as I recall. At least once a year, somebody would walk in, pull a gun, and demand various drugs. Now, Old Man Maida had little patience about such things. He kept a very large Horse Pistol behind his counter and in his safe. At least once a year, the Arlington police would carry an ex-criminal out of the pharmacy in a body bag. Regarding the number of people shot in Massachusetts, the decline is because of an overall drop in crime nation-wide. It has little, if anything, to do with the Bartley-Fox Act. If we look closely at this Act, we find that it was pushed through the legislature under pressure from the Hero of Chappaquiddick. By comparison, in New Hampshire where 50-80% of the households have a firearm in them, the crime statistics are extremely low. Children learn to handle weapons properly almost as soon as they can walk. Pistol permits are routinely issued within 24 hours of application, if the applicant is not a convicted felon. For further comparison, check out the crime rate in New York City, where the Sullivan Act rules supreme. >Summary: > >In article <406@ttidcb.UUCP> bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Quicks' Draw) writes: >>gone about a normal life (there is no way the police could protect >>you in this situation). >>Think before you label handguns as only used for crime, there are >>many legitimate uses. >> >> -Pete- In many sections of Maine and New Hampshire, a prudent blueberry picker carries the largest pistol he can find. Most bears have no sense of humor when it comes to humans raiding their berry supply. (Not to mention that we get a lot of tourists up here, and they bring all their obnoxious habits with them.) Over the past couple of years, the courts have ruled that a) the INDIVIDUAL PERSON has primary responsibility for protecting himself, and b) the police have no legal obligation to protect the individual, rather, their obligation is to the community in general. Therefore, the prudent person has the right to do whatever is necessary to protect himself. Martial arts are not for everybody. One cannot logically expect a 60- year-old woman to properly perform a Side-Kick-to-the-Groin. And nobody in their right mind goes blade-to-blade with a knife-wielding street fighter. In most states, it is a violation of Fish & Game laws to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle. Such weapons are also very unwieldy at close quarters. It follows, then, that the most logical personal defense weapon is a handgun. >>I often carry my handgun when out trailriding >>to dispatch rattlesnakes where again a long gun would be impractical. >I'm sure that in a gun-control situation, the authorities would be happy >to license your use. Just for your own education, why don't you try applying for a handgun permit with the Cambridge police. Tell them you want a permit for the purpose of protection of life and property, while travelling and camping in wilderness areas. I'll bet money they reject the application. >As for handguns used for crime... there are no rattlesnakes in Cambridge >Massachusetts The rattlesnakes in Cambridge walk on two legs. (Somehow I have a complex about walking around Central and Kendall Square alone after dark.) >and lots of police. I'll say! The following departments have jurisdiction in Cambridge: Cambridge City Police Metropolitan (MDC) Police Massachusetts State Police Registry of Motor Vehicles Police Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Police Boston & Maine Railroad Police Harvard University Campus Police M.I.T. Campus Police Under the BayPErN agreement, mutual aid, including the right of hot pursuit, is authorized with Boston, Somerville, Revere, Everette, Winthrop, Arlington, Watertown, Belmont, Medford, etc., etc. Not to mention the Federal officers that guard the D.O.T. building. But the last time I needed a cop in Cambridge, it took thirty minutes to find one. And that was in the middle of Harvard Square! >If somebody is carrying a .357, they >are more than likely up to no good. [Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX] 1) That's YOUR opinion. 2) They have a right to carry under most circumstances. 3) In America, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, in case you've forgotten. 4) Only free men own guns. By the way, Charles....Do you recall the incident in Boston a week or so ago, where a person called 911 to report a rape in progress? The person was put on hold twice, and hung up on. It was only by chance that a cruiser was in the area, and the subject was apprehended. (This story has been all over the Boston Globe for a week.) Remember that if the witness to the rape had been carrying a handgun, one round would have prevented the crime. And the taxpayers of Massachusetts would be spared the expense of warehousing another scumbag. >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack...." > -Rev. Wang Zeep It would seem that the Church of Fred doesn't have a steeple to stand on. --Don Black
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (07/24/85)
> Lots of arguments for/against handguns.... > > > By the way, Charles....Do you recall the incident in Boston a week or so > ago, where a person called 911 to report a rape in progress? The person was > put on hold twice, and hung up on. It was only by chance that a cruiser was > in the area, and the subject was apprehended. (This story has been all over > the Boston Globe for a week.) Remember that if the witness to the rape had > been carrying a handgun, one round would have prevented the crime. And the > taxpayers of Massachusetts would be spared the expense of warehousing > another scumbag. Unfortunately, another crime would have occurred, the shooting of the alleged rapist. Depending on the locale, the charge could range from manslaughter to murder. It really seems like the vigilantes of America are on this net. Does anyone know about due process, etc.? Suppose you are walking down the street and you see what appears to be trouble. Who among you would take the responsibility to determine: 1) that a crime is being committed 2) that deadly force is required 3) that you have the right to take another life Probably a lot of the netters would answer affirmatively. So, how do you differ from the criminal? Most criminals probably feel they have reasons to violate the rights and lives of their victims. If you would shoot someone in cold blood as in the description above, you are no different. If this country wants to become a shooting gallery ala Beirut, El Salvador, or Nicaragua, so be it. I'll acquire lots of guns and live the survivalist's life. Somehow, though, it would seem flawed. Laws, due process, the Constitution, etc. are what makes even NYC different from, say, San Salvador. > >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack...." > > -Rev. Wang Zeep > > It would seem that the Church of Fred doesn't have a steeple to stand on. > > --Don Black -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/27/85)
In article <239@SCIRTP.UUCP> jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: (quoting Don Black I believe) >> By the way, Charles....Do you recall the incident in Boston a week or so >>ago, where a person called 911 to report a rape in progress? The person was >>put on hold twice, and hung up on. ... > >Unfortunately, another crime would have occurred, the shooting of the >alleged rapist. Depending on the locale, the charge could range from >manslaughter to murder. > >It really seems like the vigilantes of America are on this net. Does >anyone know about due process, etc.? >... >Jim Ingram You don"t seem to understand due process yourself. One of the major points of due process is to make sure that the person to be punished is in fact the guilty one, and that a crime has actually been committed, when in a courtroom situation weeks or months after the event. Usually the accused was arrested far in time and space from the actual event, on the basis of descriptions and other second-hand evidence. None of these considerations apply in the case of a victim defending herself *during the progress of the assault*, now do they? There is a considerable difference between self-defense and vigilantism, and your labelling of one as the other is an ingenuous distortion. --JoSH
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/28/85)
>(quoting Don Black I believe) >>> By the way, Charles....Do you recall the incident in Boston a week or so >>>ago, where a person called 911 to report a rape in progress? The person was >>>put on hold twice, and hung up on. ... > >> >>Unfortunately, another crime would have occurred, the shooting of the >>alleged rapist. Depending on the locale, the charge could range from >>manslaughter to murder. >> >>It really seems like the vigilantes of America are on this net. Does >>anyone know about due process, etc.? >>... >>Jim Ingram > >You don"t seem to understand due process yourself. One of the major >points of due process is to make sure that the person to be punished >is in fact the guilty one, and that a crime has actually been committed, >when in a courtroom situation weeks or months after the event. Usually >the accused was arrested far in time and space from the actual event, >on the basis of descriptions and other second-hand evidence. >None of these considerations apply in the case of a victim defending herself >*during the progress of the assault*, now do they? There is a considerable >difference between self-defense and vigilantism, and your labelling >of one as the other is an ingenuous distortion. > >--JoSH Not for the first time, JoSH is guilty of a DISingenuous distortion. It was quite clear in the part of the posting that he omitted to quote, that the shooting would have been done by a WITNESS to the rape, not by the victim. By no stretch of the imagination could it have been called self-defence, but it could easily have been vigilantism. On-the-spot "justice" has a certain appeal of simplicity, but circumstances occasionally are not what they seem at first. I remember once running with my wife on a very cold day from a movie to where we parked our car. My hands were over her ears and she was sort-of screaming from the cold. Someone across the street thought I was attacking her and shouted out, and started across to help. If he had a gun, I might not be here now, given the situation described in the original posting. (Perhaps JoSH would prefer it that way?) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/30/85)
>Laws, due process, the Constitution, etc. are what makes even NYC different >from, say, San Salvador. Yes. Laws, the Constitution, etc., (and the investigation that occurs as a part of due process) is what protects the rights of all of us -- those who choose to carry weapons and those who don't. You ask how the "vigilanties" of the net could presume otherwise. I ask how the persons-who-would-use- such-inflamatory-and-biased-terms-as-vigilanties could presume otherwise. You assume a lot in your probable answer to the "what if" set up. The fact that certain people support the right to bear arms does not mean that they are irresponsible or incredibly stupid. If the problem were really that simple, wouldn't it have been solved long ago? The situation that exists is that many intelligent, responsible, civic-minded, fair, and just people stand on both sides of the issue. And I _don't_ think that the reasonable people, on either side of the issue, are interested in subverting the established laws. Why imply otherwise? What is served by that paranoia? Adrienne Regard
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/01/85)
> >Unfortunately, another crime would have occurred, the shooting of the > >alleged rapist. Depending on the locale, the charge could range from > >manslaughter to murder. > >... > >Jim Ingram > > You don"t seem to understand due process yourself. > None of these considerations apply in the case of a victim defending herself > *during the progress of the assault*, now do they? There is a considerable > difference between self-defense and vigilantism, and your labelling > of one as the other is an ingenuous distortion. > > --JoSH Josh- For the sake of brievity, Mr. Ingram didn't include the whole posting he responded to. The original posting advocated third party vigilanteism as acceptable in the case of rape. I know Mr. Ingram well enough to believe he would advocate in favor of a woman's right to defend herself against rape using handguns. -todd jones
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (08/03/85)
> >Laws, due process, the Constitution, etc. are what makes even NYC different > >from, say, San Salvador. > Yes. Laws, the Constitution, etc., (and the investigation that occurs as a > part of due process) is what protects the rights of all of us -- those who > choose to carry weapons and those who don't. You ask how the "vigilanties" > of the net could presume otherwise. I ask how the persons-who-would-use- > such-inflamatory-and-biased-terms-as-vigilanties could presume otherwise. > > You assume a lot in your probable answer to the "what if" set up. The fact > that certain people support the right to bear arms does not mean that they > are irresponsible or incredibly stupid. If the problem were really that > simple, wouldn't it have been solved long ago? The situation that exists > is that many intelligent, responsible, civic-minded, fair, and just people > stand on both sides of the issue. > > And I _don't_ think that the reasonable people, on either side of the issue, > are interested in subverting the established laws. Why imply otherwise? > What is served by that paranoia? > > Adrienne Regard I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't feel that my posting advocated any limitations on the right to bear arms. What I don't believe in is the rights of people, whether police or private citizens, to shoot someone who is allegedly committing a crime. (It is a rare case when police cannot muster enough support to contain a situation. In general I don't think that police are justified in most of the shootings they do.) I looked up vigilante in the dictionary (Webster) and found: A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the process of law appear inadequate). The person who posted what I responded to certainly is a vigilante in the sense of this definition. He or she implied that since the police were not available (apparent inadequacy of the law) that someone would be justified in becoming policeman, prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner. I disagreed. Whenever I read the news there are articles advocating the elimination of this group or that individual or this or that country, etc. I am justified in assuming that people who fit the dictionary def- inition of vigilante are readers of this net, and based on their own words, justified in believing a lot of people out there in netland are ready to pull triggers at a range of provocations. I didn't mean to use "vigilante" in an inflammatory, biased way, and I don't believe it was. I called someone what he or she has stated he or she is. Perhaps you are sensitive to points of view that appear to limit the right to bear arms and tend to read meanings into the words of people who you think disagree with you. "Guns don't kill people - bullets kill people." -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/05/85)
>Perhaps you are sensitive to points of view >that appear to limit the right to bear arms and tend to read meanings >into the words of people who you think disagree with you. >Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi Jim, perhaps, but more likely I was responding to your (certainly-looked- inflammatory-and-unnecessary-to-me) comment in your little "what-if" set- up that you suspected that "most netters" would blow the rapist away. (or was it just most "pro-gun" netters? I don't quite recall.) Kinda silly to determine for me what I'm responding to, isn't it? Kinda silly to determine what "most netters" would do, too, isn't it? Isn't it smarter to ask than to decide all on your own what lots of individuals would do? Oh, yeh, that wouldn't support your argument. . . >I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't feel that my >posting advocated any limitations on the right to bear arms. Your posting directly implied that "most netters" in your "what-if" scenario don't know diddly-squat about due-process, constitutionality, and the laws of the land. My response and question: >> And I _don't_ think that the reasonable people, on either side of the issue, >> are interested in subverting the established laws. Why imply otherwise? >> What is served by that paranoia? also doesn't have anything to do with limitations on the right to bear arms, but directly relates to your "due-process" and "laws of the land" comments. This is English, isn't it? Adrienne Regard