trio@idis.UUCP (04/03/85)
This should be rather interesting. After an incident with some punks, er, troubled youth last week, I became curious as to what types of items people carry for personal defense. I have decided that it may be time to change my strategy. My question: what do YOU carry for personal defense? I'll start by revealing that I carry a can of tear-gas and a knife (swiss-army, not a dagger) for protection. I would prefer a handgun, but you know that graduate students aren't usually rich (I'm saving up for my personal computer). So, what do you have for personal defense (on the street)? Thanks, -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer, Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question- U. of Pittsburgh ...decvax!mcnc!idis!trio ---All of these views are mine and no one else's. So What?---
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/04/85)
Well, where I live the streets are kept clean by the local gangs. I just pay money to Doug, who comes by every week. I've even been moving up in their organization, to the point where I've been allowed to drive the tank when we take people out for a scrape when they don't pay. Alas, Dinsy, the leader of the gang, is back in jail for accidentally destroying Luton with a tactical nuclear weapon!
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (04/04/85)
Nick,
The best form of self defense on the streets is a glazed
look in the eye that might indicate that you're deranged ;-)
If you were serious I should be very very careful about the
legality of some weapons.
A very effective "instant weapon" is a copy of your local
newspaper . After folding it in half 4 or 5 times it no longer
feels soft like a newspaper but takes on the form of a solid
piece of wood.
"Glazed" eyes are more fun though !
Dave Peak
@ !hotel!dxp
"I am the God of Hellfire, and I bring you fire" - CWoA Brown45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (w.cambre) (04/05/85)
REFERENCES: <350@idis.UUCP>, <497@abnji.UUCP> The only 'weapon' I ever carry is my car keys. When I go into a public parking lot I carry them in my hand. I figure a quick swipe across the face of an assailant would be enough to let me get away. (I can run pretty fast!) I don't like the idea of everyone walking around with guns and knives on them. The probability of getting seriously injured in public increases each time another person 'ARMS' themself. - Bill Cambre ATTISL ahuta!45223wc (201) 834-3788
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/05/85)
> Well, where I live the streets are kept clean by the local gangs. I just pay > money to Doug, who comes by every week. I've even been moving up in their > organization, to the point where I've been allowed to drive the tank when > we take people out for a scrape when they don't pay. > > Alas, Dinsy, the leader of the gang, is back in jail for accidentally > destroying Luton with a tactical nuclear weapon! Uh, excuse me, I've got a message from Dinsdale. He likes the net very much. And he even posts to it occasionally using Rich Rosen's login. But he thinks the, uh, humorous impact of using his name might being wearing a bit thin, what with 'im bein' mistaken fer 'is brother Doug in another newsgroup and all. You misunderstand! 'E don't want to DEBATE about it... -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/05/85)
> I'll start by revealing that I carry a can of tear-gas and a knife > (swiss-army, not a dagger) for protection. I would prefer a handgun, > but you know that graduate students aren't usually rich (I'm saving > up for my personal computer). I suppose you could throw the screen at any troubled youth who happen to break in to your residence while you are computing.
trio@idis.UUCP (04/06/85)
In article <572@ahuta.UUCP>, 45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (Bill Cambre) writes: >The only 'weapon' I ever carry is my car keys. When I go into a >public parking lot I carry them in my hand. >I figure a quick swipe across the face of an assailant would be >enough to let me get away. (I can run pretty fast!) Also, in article <865@houxf.UUCP> 9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (Dave Peak) writes: >A very effective "instant weapon" is a copy of your local >newspaper . After folding it in half 4 or 5 times it no longer >feels soft like a newspaper but takes on the form of a solid >piece of wood. I have found that impromptu weapons are usually only sensible as a last resort (re: you have nothing else available). While car keys may be alright in an emergency, remember that most assailants will protect their eyes. The newspaper seems better for striking and abdominal jabs, but consider what the criminal(s) may be carrying (chains, knives, etc.) and the fact they probably know how to use their "tools" most efficiently. I still think that a firearm is the best way to go, as long as the person does so legally and knows how to use it. It is not only intimidating, but the only sensible way for handling multiple assailants. This is only in situations of self-defense when you feel your life is threatened. I am not condoning vigalantism. By the way, who has the right to tell me that I can or cannot defend myself under circumstances of possible loss of life or potential serious injury from one of these punks? Tactical Nuclear Devices are out of the question; how do you keep from injuring an innocent bystander? :-) :-) -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer, Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question- U. of Pittsburgh ...decvax!mcnc!idis!trio ---All of these views are mine and no one else's. So What?---
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/06/85)
> The only 'weapon' I ever carry is my car keys. When I go into a > public parking lot I carry them in my hand. > I figure a quick swipe across the face of an assailant would be > enough to let me get away. (I can run pretty fast!) > I don't like the idea of everyone walking around with guns and > knives on them. The probability of getting seriously injured > in public increases each time another person 'ARMS' themself. > > - Bill Cambre ATTISL ahuta!45223wc (201) 834-3788 I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater than hurting someone by accident. Scratch a mugger with car keys! You must be joking. I suggest that you avoid getting the mugger pissed and just run. Your chances will be better.
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/06/85)
> Nick, > The best form of self defense on the streets is a glazed > look in the eye that might indicate that you're deranged ;-) > > If you were serious I should be very very careful about the > legality of some weapons. > Readers carrying knives now or planning to in the future should keep in mind that any folding knife with a blade longer than 4 inches and any spring-loaded knife (ie. your favorite neighborhood switch) is illegal in every state in the union and means a heavy fine if you are caught. (So don't get caught ?) -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/06/85)
>So, what do you have for personal defense (on the street)? > >Thanks, > >Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer, >Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question- >U. of Pittsburgh A home in Canada is quite sufficient. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
zmk04@udenva.UUCP (zmk04) (04/07/85)
> Well, where I live the streets are kept clean by the local gangs. I just pay > money to Doug, who comes by every week. I've even been moving up in their > organization, to the point where I've been allowed to drive the tank when > we take people out for a scrape when they don't pay. > > Alas, Dinsy, the leader of the gang, is back in jail for accidentally > destroying Luton with a tactical nuclear weapon! *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** Was that the "other other operation?" Also, would that be the same Doug and Dinsy who nailed my head to a coffee table last month? --Cardinal Biggles, @ the Spanish Inquisition (Among our weaponry ARE such diverse elements AS: fear, surprise, a fanatical devotion to the Pope...)
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/08/85)
Martin, 3 people have been murdered within 2 blocks of my home since January. Guess again. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (04/08/85)
All lies. I have been following Dinsdale around for weeks and besides for stitching a few peoples legs together he has done none of the atrocious things you accuse him of. -Spiney Norman-
shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) (04/08/85)
For my personal defense, I live in Canada.
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (04/09/85)
> I'll start by revealing that I carry a can of tear-gas and a knife > (swiss-army, not a dagger) for protection. I carry a Swiss army knife too, but for more mundane uses. If my life depended on skill in using it defensively, I'd be dead. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (04/09/85)
From: jcp@osiris (Jody Patilla) > Readers carrying knives now or planning to in the future should >keep in mind that any folding knife with a blade longer than 4 inches and >any spring-loaded knife (ie. your favorite neighborhood switch) is illegal >in every state in the union and means a heavy fine if you are caught. (So >don't get caught ?) Anyone know what is legal in non-folding knives (i.e. daggers)? -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/09/85)
> > Anyone know what is legal in non-folding knives (i.e. daggers)? > > -Dragon > -- > UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon > ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg The laws vary from state to state and they are not necessarily what you would consider rational. Larger knives, like hunting knives or bowie knives, are legal if carried in a sheath on the belt, but illegal if concealed in a jacket pocket. A butterfly knife with a locking handle is illegal if concealed but may be carried in a visible belt-pouch, but the same knife with the handle lock removed is legal to carry concealed, ie. in your pocket or whatever. Best to check with the local John Law if you are really concerned. The problem with carrying an illegal concealed knife is that once you use it, you then have to explain it ! You can end up in more trouble than the bastard who jumped you in the first place. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/11/85)
Eugene D. Brooks III writes: >I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally >goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are >missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen >carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. >The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater >than hurting someone by accident. Hold it right there. Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or *anything* to back this up. My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are "saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue. All I ask for is *one* figure. (No, I don't know how you'd go about compiling it!) However, a look at the papers in cities small enough to still be reporting deaths should give an indication. How many criminals were shot compared to how many innocents (shot by innocents). Of course, if you *are* correct, this implies that without guns all over the place, the US crime rate would be even *higher*. I am not sure, but I have a feeling this *can't* be true. I mean, the US is not at war, is it? Tom West ihnp4!utcsri!west
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (04/11/85)
> Martin, > 3 people have been murdered within 2 blocks of my home since January. > Guess again. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura Laura, Martin is right! You have had 3 murders in your city of 2,000,000 in three months. We had 5 in the first ten DAYS of this year in our city of <300,000. And we have one, on average, EVERY WEEK. You Canadians don't know how lucky you are [:-/-)]. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
phoenix@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (04/12/85)
Keywords: In article <419@utai.UUCP> west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: >Eugene D. Brooks III writes: >>I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally >>goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are >>missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen >>carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. >>The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater >>than hurting someone by accident. > > Hold it right there. Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or >*anything* to back this up. My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees >out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are >"saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue. All I ask for >is *one* figure. (No, I don't know how you'd go about compiling it!) >However, a look at the papers in cities small enough to still be reporting >deaths should give an indication. How many criminals were shot compared >to how many innocents (shot by innocents). > Of course, if you *are* correct, this implies that without guns all over >the place, the US crime rate would be even *higher*. I am not sure, >but I have a feeling this *can't* be true. I mean, the US is not at >war, is it? > > Tom West >ihnp4!utcsri!west Tom is right. The last figures I read (*Warning*, almost a year dated) showed that private *handguns*, bought explicitly for protection, were fired 6 out of 7 times at family or friends, in anger or on accident - not at assailants for *protection*. Pretty startling, huh? The figure does not, of course, include rifles and other guns which are not as *commenly* used against loved ones. I am searching for the source, so I will get back to you, but I remember it as being rather reliable.... (Crises? .....What Crises?) John phoenix@ucbtopaz
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/12/85)
>All lies. I have been following Dinsdale around for weeks and >besides for stitching a few peoples legs together he has done >none of the atrocious things you accuse him of. > > -Spiney Norman- Your back! I thought we took care of you in Luton! Don't worry, we'll find you! --- Dinsdale Pirhana
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/14/85)
We have more murders than that -- I don't know how many. Just three within 2 blocks of where I live. Laura
mathnews2@watdcsu.UUCP (mathNOOS [editors]) (04/15/85)
In article <350@idis.UUCP> trio@idis.UUCP writes: >After an incident with some punks, er, troubled youth last week, I became >curious as to what types of items people carry for personal defense. I >have decided that it may be time to change my strategy. > >My question: what do YOU carry for personal defense? > >Thanks, > >Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer, >Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question- >U. of Pittsburgh > ...decvax!mcnc!idis!trio (Well, you asked for it:) I grew up about a kilometre (three-quarters of a mile) down the road from what was supposed to be Canada's highest security penitentiary. In a fifty mile radius, twenty per cent of Canada's prisons can be found. What do I CARRY for personal defense? Nothing. Well, that's not quite right, but I don't think that you were interested in a contraceptive. I know that you are saying that all of these people were behind the prison walls, but when the local television station spends five to ten minutes each night (and I do mean EACH night; I can only remember two or three nights over ten years when they didn't (which was in itself a major news story!)) saying who walked away from where, who was stabbed where, who had broken out from where, who was being held hostage where (I know a few people who have been held hostage in some institute, one of them six times now!) things aren't quite as safe as they seem, are they? I've seen many inmates being chased down the street in my hometown of one thousand. Two or three times a year, roadblocks are erected to try and capture someone who got out who was quite dangerous. It has become part of the normal way of life for me. That doesn't mean that I don't have a gun. My father gave me his old shotgun when I was eight. I'm reasonably accurate with it, and I will use it to defend my home, but I don't carry it with me everywhere I go (you aren't really allowed to here in Canada, though). I am just glad that I am not somewhere like the Big Apple (or the Big Commodore, or the Big Atari, or ...), where it is just as safe on the street as it is inside the penitentiary! BTW, I have had to deal with the inmates inside the "super-"maximum security penitentiary down the road from home. Even more important, my father, who is a volunteer fireman, got a call one day at the penitentiary. When the trucks got there, there wasn't a fire; the guards were afraid the inmates were going to riot and wanted someone to turn the hoses on them (the inmates). There are many guards that just happen to be on the fire department, and so they looked after the matter. -- Dirty Scooter! A Smith and Wesson beats five aces any day! -- mathNEWS--the math student newspaper at the University of Waterloo {allegra|clyde|linus|ihnp4|decvax}!watmath!watdcsu!mathnews2 UUCP mathnews2%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet CSNET mathnews2@watdcsu NETNORTH
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/16/85)
>Jeff, you've failed to illustrate how the threat of deadly force, in >any *general* way, is a civilizing influence. > -Ed Hall Ed, he may have neglected to do lots of things, but let me just pick on this one, o.k.? There are hundreds of examples that can be chosen on either side of the argument -- the expansion of the west during any period you care to name before, say, 1900 -- was the threat of deadly force (practiced by the marshalls) a civilizing influence, or was the threat of deadly force (practiced by the lawless gunslingers) a barbarous force? Our whole western history (and probably eastern, too, but I don't know anything about eastern history) is a study in threats of force. Have we become more civilized because of our past or in spite of it? You can't take any example and hold it up as empirical evidence. There is no other civilization that is exactly the same as the U.S. EXCEPT for the arms issues that would serve as a "control" group. (I just LOVE people who use Japan as some sort of parallel.) Somehow, _whether_ the citizens of a country have a right to bear arms doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with civilization. Better questions might be "what do they do with that right?" "how do they deal with situations that historically have been dealt with with arms?" "what made them retain or reject that right?" "are they still around?" "would I like to live there?" "do I agree with them?"
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (04/17/85)
In article <419@utai.UUCP> west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: >Eugene D. Brooks III writes: >>I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally >>goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are >>missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen >>carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. >>The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater >>than hurting someone by accident. > > Hold it right there. Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or >*anything* to back this up. My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees >out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are >"saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue. All I ask for > > Tom West >ihnp4!utcsri!west My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's self if one is UNTRAINED in using them. My personal experience is that most people ARE pretty inexperienced with the weapons they carry. *Especially* guns. ------- Joseph Arceneaux {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (04/17/85)
To summarize, I believe that personal responsibility for every element of my life is a pre-requisite for a truly civilized society. This includes being responsible for my own defense, should the need arise. Civic duty requires that I be willing & able to assist others to defend themselves should the need arise. (Originally, I put this summary at the end of the article. Then I realized that Ed's article was so far from being a response to mine, that my point was in danger of being lost in all the rebuttal.) In Ed's
wjr@utcs.UUCP (William Rucklidge) (04/18/85)
In article <767@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > > Martin, > > 3 people have been murdered within 2 blocks of my home since January. > > Guess again. > > > > Laura Creighton > > utzoo!laura > > Laura, Martin is right! You have had 3 murders in your city of 2,000,000 > in three months. We had 5 in the first ten DAYS of this year in our city > of <300,000. And we have one, on average, EVERY WEEK. You Canadians don't > know how lucky you are [:-/-)]. > Toronto averages about one murder a week. However, this is still about 1/6th as many per capita as in your city... there are areas of Toronto which I am not keen on walking through late at night, but in general I feel quite safe here (and I live very close to downtown...). -- William Rucklidge University of Toronto Computing Services {decvax,ihnp4,utcsrgv,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!wjr GISO - Garbage In, Serendipity Out. This message brought to you with the aid of the Poslfit Committee.
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (04/18/85)
> > Martin, > > 3 people have been murdered within 2 blocks of my home since January. > > Guess again. > > > > Laura Creighton > > utzoo!laura > > Laura, Martin is right! You have had 3 murders in your city of 2,000,000 > in three months. We had 5 in the first ten DAYS of this year in our city > of <300,000. And we have one, on average, EVERY WEEK. You Canadians don't > know how lucky you are [:-/-)]. > Boy, this guy reads SO carefully! And the things you can do with stats! ... unless, of course, he is joking... (what is a [:-/-)] anyway?!?)
fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (04/19/85)
In article <430@usl.UUCP> jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) writes: >... >My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial >arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's >self if one is UNTRAINED in using them ... In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous. Does that mean we should ban blenders ? Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ? Rick ...!cybvax0!fbp "A likely story. I don't believe a word of it."
br@duke.UUCP (Balu Raman) (04/20/85)
In article <478@cybvax0.UUCP> fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) writes: >In article <430@usl.UUCP> jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) writes: >>... >>My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial >>arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's >>self if one is UNTRAINED in using them ... > >In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous. >Does that mean we should ban blenders ? >Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ? > > >Rick > I have seen enough of such convoluted argument. Surely a blender's purpose is not to blend humans. I haven't yet seen or heard an incompetent kill someone while handling a blender. I only wish you can say the same thing for weapons, whose sole purpose is to destroy something or somebody. Balu
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/22/85)
> > In article <419@utai.UUCP> west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > > >Eugene D. Brooks III writes: > >>I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally > >>goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are > >>missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen > >>carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. > >>The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater > >>than hurting someone by accident. > > > > Hold it right there. Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or > >*anything* to back this up. My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees > >out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are > >"saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue. All I ask for > > > > Tom West > >ihnp4!utcsri!west > > My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial > arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's > self if one is UNTRAINED in using them. My personal experience is that > most people ARE pretty inexperienced with the weapons they carry. > *Especially* guns. > I have no data on good citizens rescuing others but there is data on the number of criminals that are justifibly killed during the the commision of a crime, such as armed robbery, breaking into a home at night etc. The ratio is something like 3 times as many are killed by armed citizens as by police. I can hunt down the exact figures and the nature of the survey if desired. It seems that the policeman is not waiting in your home at night for the criminal to break in. The armed robbers also do not bother to hold up a uniformed officer. There is some truth to the adage "There is never a policeman around when you need one." Society can not afford to put a policeman on every street corner. The police are an after the fact solution to the crime problem. They arrest the culprit AFTER he has done his deed. For the armed robber who likes to kill/rape his victims an after the fact solution to the problem is a little too late for the victim. The only cost effective solution to the problem is for citizens to have weapons that are needed to ensure their security. I strongly agree with the point made above concerning the level of training needed by a citizen carrying a pistol. Why not make the training required as a condition of having a concealed weapons permit? A permit holder could be required to take periodic training (perhaps every six months or year) which is organized and sponsored by the police. You can even have the permit holder foot the cost of this. I would certainly pay the cost of training in return for the right to carry a concealed weapon to ensure the protection of myself and my family.
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/22/85)
Rick Peralta writes: >In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous. >Does that mean we should ban blenders ? >Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ? Don't be stupid. People who are incompetent with blenders don't kill innocents. I would not be in the least suprised to find that more people are killed in family disputes with guns/accidents with guns/heated arguments with guns than are killed by criminals. THAT is what I find so pathetic. In the rush to protect yourselves from criminals, you are killing far more of the innocents than would have died if you had left well enough alone. But then Truth, Justice and Large-Calibre Handguns has long been the American Way. How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. Handguns, especially in criminals hands don't last too long, and deprived of the usual source (some good citizen's home...), and NO alternatives, only criminals far and few between would have them. Gee, it would mean that the only source for Canadian criminals getting handguns would dry up as well. Wow! Wouldn't that be nice? What is really depressing is that a lot of people are dying so that a few citizens who are hand-gun crazy can tote their's around. I don't particularily understand a country where a minority can condemn many thousands to death and injury. But hey, it's *your* country. I only get mad 'cause we get the tail end. i.e. Canadians die because of the stupid US policy. Maybe we should sue. Who knows, in the American courts of today, it might win! :-) (Actually I lie. I get mad because there are rational types getting knocked off in the US as well. Why must they die for others stupidity?) Tom West "Some men think..., and some don't" -A. Regard { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/22/85)
is the assumption that the family of someone who kills family with a handgun is innocent a good one? If you look at the statistics of wife beating you may conclude otherwise. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/23/85)
In article <1043@utcsri.UUCP> west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from >criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would >be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess >is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. WISHFUL THINKING! It has been illegal to import, sell, or own marijuana for a lot longer than 5 years, yet there's always plenty around. There is no way to completely seal off the borders of a country that isn't prohibitively expensive, like, say, an electric fence, which would have to be several miles high to stop airplanes. -- David Canzi Man: An animal [whose]... chief occupation is the extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada. Ambrose Bierce
jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) (04/23/85)
In article <> jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) writes: > >My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial >arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's >self if one is UNTRAINED in using them. My personal experience is that >most people ARE pretty inexperienced with the weapons they carry. >*Especially* guns. > >------- > Joseph Arceneaux > > {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla Hear hear! Lets face it, guns have been around a long time and will probably be here to stay a little longer (until we come up with something that kills more efficiently). Do we rant and rave? Do we hide our heads in the sand and hope that they will "go away"? I think not. I think the most salient point to Joseph's response is that guns are not so much the danger as the people using them. I don't have any of those magic statistics handy, but I'd bet money on the fact that less people are killed with guns (accidently or deliberately) in the midwestern states than the east or west coast (and I'd also bet that the ratio of guns to population is at least twice as high in the midwest). When I lived in Colorado as a young boy I had gun safety hammered into my head nine ways to tuesday (I lived in a very rural area). Woe betide the kid whose weapon accidently discharged! I never heard of any incidents, but I'm sure the kid would have been excommunicated. Anyway, what I'm trying to point out in my usual windy way is that the only REAL way to handle the firearms problem is to increase public awareness, rather than making such an awareness harder and harder to obtain. Many people even mildly fond of guns have usually learned not to discuss them in the face of increasingly hostile/fearful reactions. There are many people out there that could teach practical and safe usage of firearms to the public, but where are they? Usually in small cliques of gun lovers & survivalist types, only further enhancing the mistrust (I read "Solder of Fortune", you do? Auuuuugghhh! Get away from me!! Don't hurt me!). If we could only drop to T.V. image (which depends on guns to liven things up to an almost sickening degree) and get serious about firearms and their usage, I'm sure people would feel safer, not the other way around. Who knows? We may ending up HAVING to teach children the real facts about guns to dispel all the crap they've absorbed about them on T.V. And using the "Don't EVER touch one of these! They're dangerous!" approach won't be the right way. The forbidden fruit principle applys, especially when T.V. has made them so facinating. Let's de-mystify the subject, huh? Knowledge and a sober head beats four aces.. -- Jordan K. Hubbard @ Genstar Rental Electronics. Palo Alto, CA. {sun, decwrl, dual}!twg!greipa!jordan I'm your private hacker, hacking for money, any old keyboard will do.. - Tina Turing
fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (04/23/85)
In article <537@lll-crg.ARPA> brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes: > >I strongly agree with the point made above concerning the level of training >needed by a citizen carrying a pistol. Why not make the training required >as a condition of having a concealed weapons permit? ... It would also give the chief of police (issuer of weapon permits around here) an opportunity to see how individuals handle the weapons. This would help cull out the reckless individuals as well as educate the ignorant. Rick ...!cybvax0!fbp "A likely story. I don't believe a word of it."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/24/85)
> Keywords: > > > In article <419@utai.UUCP> west@utai.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > >Eugene D. Brooks III writes: > >>I agree that the probability of good citizens getting hurt accidentally > >>goes up by epsilon each time a good citizen carries a weapon. You are > >>missing an important factor that offsets this negative. A good citizen > >>carrying a weapon is in a position to help someone else being attacked. > >>The probability of a well trained individual helping another is far greater > >>than hurting someone by accident. > > > > Hold it right there. Do you have *any* facts, figures, articles or > >*anything* to back this up. My strong guess is that you are 180 degrees > >out, and that far more people are injured by "good citizens" than are > >"saved" by other "good citizens" coming to their rescue. All I ask for > >is *one* figure. (No, I don't know how you'd go about compiling it!) > >However, a look at the papers in cities small enough to still be reporting > >deaths should give an indication. How many criminals were shot compared > >to how many innocents (shot by innocents). > > Of course, if you *are* correct, this implies that without guns all over > >the place, the US crime rate would be even *higher*. I am not sure, > >but I have a feeling this *can't* be true. I mean, the US is not at > >war, is it? > > > > Tom West > >ihnp4!utcsri!west > > > Tom is right. The last figures I read (*Warning*, almost a year dated) showed > that private *handguns*, bought explicitly for protection, were fired 6 out > of 7 times at family or friends, in anger or on accident - not at assailants > for *protection*. Pretty startling, huh? The figure does not, of course, > include rifles and other guns which are not as *commenly* used against loved > ones. I am searching for the source, so I will get back to you, but I remember > it as being rather reliable.... > > (Crises? .....What Crises?) > > John > phoenix@ucbtopaz The "6 out of 7 uses" statistic is an example of a misleading statistic. *Most* confrontations between victim and criminal where the intended victim is armed do *not* result in a shooting. The criminal goes and looks for an easier victim. I have yet to see any statistics comparing the number of uses of a firearm to scare off a criminal vs. the number of uses of a firearm to frighten, injure, or kill an acquaintance. Several years ago, the State of California's Department of Justice polled Californians and found that 8% had used a weapon of some sort (which includes things besides firearms) to defend themselves or property against criminal attack. (In fact, I know one person who has done so.) I would be very surprised if 8% of the population has used a weapon against an acquaintance. If you can find some statistics on this, they might be interesting, but of questionable accuracy, since most domestic violence isn't reported.
brent@cadovax.UUCP (Brent Rector) (04/25/85)
In article <greipa.173> jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes: >but I'd bet money on the fact that less people are killed with guns >(accidently or deliberately) in the midwestern states than the east >or west coast (and I'd also bet that the ratio of guns to population is >at least twice as high in the midwest). When I lived in Colorado as a young >boy I had gun safety hammered into my head nine ways to tuesday (I lived >in a very rural area). Woe betide the kid whose weapon accidently discharged! >I never heard of any incidents, but I'm sure the kid would have been >excommunicated. As one who grew up on the Indiana/Kentucky border I have to agree with the above statement. Most of my relatives (who are mostly 'country folk') not only have multiple guns but also know how to use them. Rather than being off limits to the kids (of reasonable age, say 10 & older, more later) we were taught EXTREME respect for all weapons and how to safely handle them. To this day I cannot handle a gun without first checking whether or not it's loaded (no matter what the person handing it to me says), and leaving it open (for example in the case of a shotgun) until I'm ready to use it. As for as my above statement about kids 10 and older being able to responsibly handle a weapon, I'm not saying anyone 10+ can handle a gun safely. I know some adults who can't. Personally I can't recall when I first fired a gun so I would guess I was younger than 10 but always under adult supervision till about then. However to this day (I'm 30) I have never owned a gun personally. Mainly because I have no use for one. I could go on but basicly I support the philosophy that when it comes down to it, everyone must be responsible for their own life. This includes providing for shelter, food, safety, etc. While life may be easier if people team up to help each other, if I am not willing to provide for my own needs, why should I expect someone else to provide for mine when they have their own to take care of. The idea that since some people misuse guns, guns should be taken away from everyone leads to if X is harmful to some, X should be restricted in some way. I believe this could be carried out to dangerous extremes. Guns are dangerous, restrict guns. Cars are dangerous, restrict cars (speeds, composition, etc) People are dangerous, restrict people. :-) -------------------------------------------------------------- Brent E. Rector - CONTEL CADO, Torrance, CA { decvax, hplabs, ihnp4, ucbvax, sdcrdcf }!trwrb!cadovax!brent philabs!cadovax!brent
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/26/85)
Reply-To: jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) >Anyway, what I'm trying to point out in my usual windy >way is that the only REAL way to handle the firearms problem is to >increase public awareness, rather than making such an awareness harder >and harder to obtain. >Let's de-mystify the subject, huh? Knowledge and a sober head beats >four aces.. > Jordan K. Hubbard > {sun, decwrl, dual}!twg!greipa!jordan YAY!! YAY!! There speaks a sane man!! Adrienne Regard "Some men think . . . thank goodness!"
jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) (04/26/85)
What's this about "weapons" implying "uncivilized"? There have been quite a lot of societies in which it was normal for large numbers (typically of free adult males) to routinely carry a weapon. Some of these considered themselves "civilized". (And some were even so considered by their neighbors. :-) On the other hand, there are some very uncivilized parts of the world right now (Chicago :-) where weapons are restricted to a small class, usually only police and bodyguards for the very rich. How about another suggestion: In a truly civilized society, nobody would care whether or not you were carrying a weapon. How about working on the problem (violence) rather than just talking about suppressing the symptoms (weapons)? -- John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena] He who has made no mistakes has probably made nothing at all.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)
> Rick Peralta writes: > >In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous. > >Does that mean we should ban blenders ? > >Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ? > > Don't be stupid. People who are incompetent with blenders don't > kill innocents. I would not be in the least suprised to find that > more people are killed in family disputes with guns/accidents with > guns/heated arguments with guns than are killed by criminals. THAT > is what I find so pathetic. In the rush to protect yourselves from > criminals, you are killing far more of the innocents than would have died > if you had left well enough alone. But then Truth, Justice and > Large-Calibre Handguns has long been the American Way. > First: accidents with guns kill about 1800 - 2000 people a year in the U.S. Many of those "accidents" occur while cleaning guns. (This is in fact possible, but somewhat unlikely.) I have noticed in following press accounts of these cleaning "accidents" that they seem to occur dis- proportionately to white males above 60, with many years experience with firearms. White males above 60 are also far and away the most likely age group to commit suicide. I suspect a good many of the "cleaning accidents" are suicides covered up by either the suicide, or by the family. (Insurance companies have some restrictions about paying claims in suicide cases, for obvious reasons.) One of the more misleading statistics used in the jihad against handguns comes from an FBI study some years ago that showed that 3 out of 4 murder victims were killed by an acquaintance or friend. Their definition of acquaintance included business associates (which includes substantial numbers of drug dealers, pimps, and people "known by sight", but not necessarily people well-known to the victim. I'm sure that a lot of people are in fact killed with handguns during heated arguments. If you hang around drug addicts, or people with violent tempers, or spend a lot of time in bars, you stand a much better chance of becoming a victim than if you stay away from those sort of places. Every year in the U.S., about three times as many criminals are killed by private citizens as are killed by the police. Some studies done by the New York and Chicago police departments suggest that as much as 60% of the people murdered each year are criminals murdering other criminals. (If you think about the nature of criminals, this is not surprising.) Incidentally, you may find this statistic of interest. While it was difficult to find crime figures for Canada (even in a university library) down here, I was able to locate murder figures for most of the years between 1973 (when Canada's handgun laws took effect) and 1980. It appears that Canada experienced a 30% increase in murders during those years. Certainly the population of Canada didn't go 30%, or even close. This was at a time when our murder rate((and total murders) was slightly declining. I would suggest that the relative difficulty of obtaining handguns by the honest population of Canada may have played some role in this increase in murder rate, since the criminals obviously didn't suddenly decide to obey the law. > How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from > criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would > be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess > is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. > Handguns, especially in criminals hands don't last too long, and deprived of > the usual source (some good citizen's home...), and NO alternatives, only > criminals far and few between would have them. > Gee, it would mean that the only source for Canadian criminals getting > handguns would dry up as well. Wow! Wouldn't that be nice? > I hate to disappoint you, but a handgun is *almost* forever. In addition, it is quite easy to manufacture enough of a handgun to seriously threaten the lives of other people. Remember: the criminal needs far less effective of a weapon to threaten someone's life, than they need to realistic fight back, since the criminal is on the offensive. Converting .22 rifles into concealed weapons is almost trivial; I used to be slightly acquainted with the sheriff of Sonoma County, California. He told me they confiscated dozens of sawed-off rifles and shotguns every year, and Sonoma County is one of the more peaceful parts of California. There are so many handguns in this country (and probably in yours as well), that it might take 500 years for most of the handguns to disappear. Perhaps a better solution is to deal with the crime problem, instead of its most trivial component. > What is really depressing is that a lot of people are dying so that a > few citizens who are hand-gun crazy can tote their's around. I don't > particularily understand a country where a minority can condemn many thousands > to death and injury. > But hey, it's *your* country. I only get mad 'cause we get the tail > end. i.e. Canadians die because of the stupid US policy. Maybe we > should sue. Who knows, in the American courts of today, it might win! :-) > (Actually I lie. I get mad because there are rational types getting knocked > off in the US as well. Why must they die for others stupidity?) > I hate to disappoint you, but gun control ordinances in this country fail almost every time they are put to a vote of the people. That's why the gun control forces here work through the state legislatures. Even though most people are ambivalent about firearms, they recognize the danger of disarming the population. If the British had suceeded in disarming the American colonists, heck, we'd be like Canada today! :-) > Tom West "Some men think..., and some don't" > -A. Regard > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/28/85)
Me: >> How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from >>criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would >>be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess >>is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. Him (David Canzi): >WISHFUL THINKING! It has been illegal to import, sell, or own marijuana >for a lot longer than 5 years, yet there's always plenty around. There >is no way to completely seal off the borders of a country that isn't >prohibitively expensive, like, say, an electric fence, which would have >to be several miles high to stop airplanes. Me again: However the States is the major source of handguns. Assuming that they are no longer being made there, it's going to be a long hard haul to get a handgun. Remember that handguns don't grow on trees (or in hemp). They require a reasonably sized industrial element to produce. Something fairly easily spotted (remember the raw materials for handguns aren't invisible either.) Making handguns is a *lot* harder than making drugs. Also, while some handguns would leak in, the number would be so many times smaller that the entire crime situation would change. Maybe the organized crime types might have them, but since when have "good citizens" been fighting off mafia types with their handguns? The idea is not so much stopping them at the border (although remember that they're *metal* and thus can't really be imported on airlplanes to well.) but drying up the #1 supplier of freely accessible handguns in the world, the US. Tom West "Trust the computer, the computer is your friend." { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
guads@nmtvax.UUCP (04/28/85)
>In article <430@usl.UUCP> jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) writes: >>... >>My own feeling is that weapons, whatever they may be (including martial >>arts), are dangerous not only to other local citizens, but even to one's >>self if one is UNTRAINED in using them ... In article <> fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) writes back: >In the hands of an incompetent a blender can be dangerous. >Does that mean we should ban blenders ? >Impose outrageous penalties for their misuse ? Think of how often you've heard of people being killed by loaded blenders, compare this with the number of times you've heard of people being killed by guns, and then _t_h_i_n_k next time before you type. -- -Lautzy (Romulan) ...unmvax!nmtvax!guads
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/30/85)
>In article <> robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) writes: >>First the states in the US which enact tyrannical >>unconstitutional gun control laws blame neighboring states for the fact >>that the criminals still have guns, now Canadian citizens blame the US for >>the fact that their criminals still have weapons. > >DON'T GIVE ME THIS "unconstitutional" CRAP! > >Crap is what it is. It's not bad enough that Roberts can't put together a >sentence without violating laws of grammar and punctuation--he also fails >as an expert on constitutional law. > >Gun control is NOT unconstitutional. It never has been. FIVE SEPARATE >times the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies >only to civilian militias. This interpretation is backed both by English >common law, and the concerns of the founding fathers. > >Gun control is a legitimate attempt at solving a difficult problem--the >handgun war that kills 11,000 people annually in the US. Now, you may >disagree with this attempt... > >but DON'T CALL IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL unless you want to look like a fool. Or, unless you want to be closer to the truth. The interpretation of the "concerns of the founding fathers" is not reflected in the establishment of a National Guard, or whatever else you are using as == militia. According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem- porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry, as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally organized bodies of armed personnel. Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible with the direct "concerns of the founding fathers". Whether this is unconstitutional in ANY interpretation (or sophistic misinterpretation) causes the courts much wrangle. But it certainly isn't INCORRECT to state that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it is opposed to the original intent of the writers of the constitution. I see I'm just going to have to dig up the citations on this, lost in old filing boxes tho they may be. Expect it after finals, folks. See, I don't write out words completely, or punctuate with respect to complete sentances, either. You are free to comment upon this. What nasty small people we can all be at times. Adrienne Regard
shp@crystal.UUCP (04/30/85)
[Edited for re-transmission] > >Gun control is NOT unconstitutional. It never has been. FIVE SEPARATE > >times the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies > >only to civilian militias. This interpretation is backed both by English > >common law, and the concerns of the founding fathers. > > > > According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem- > porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry, > as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally > organized bodies of armed personnel. > > Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible with the > direct "concerns of the founding fathers". Whether this is unconstitutional > in ANY interpretation (or sophistic misinterpretation) causes the courts > much wrangle. But it certainly isn't INCORRECT to state that it is > UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it is opposed to the original intent of the > writers of the constitution. > I'm probably 'way off base here, BUT.... if memory serves (I only carry crayons with me, not books) the wording is: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the....". Well-regulated. Opinion: The NRA isn't well-regulated. Powerful, influential, etc., but not well-regulated. The National Guard is (supposed to be, anyway; I'm NOT commenting from personal experience). A lawyer told me that appellate and supreme courts DO take into account the intent of the authors when deciding cases. He wasn't a constitutional specialist, so this may not be the case. Makes sense to me, though. Anyway, it's the intent when writing that matters, NOT THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. My belief is that the author(s) of the Bill of Rights intended that there should always be some form of civil defense ("well-regulated militia"), not necessarily that the current band of gun-toting agrarians [:-)] qualified. Constitutionality is decided in the courts, not in the nets(oooohh, I can't believe I said that! My apologies to Arthur Ashe). > > I see I'm just going to have to dig up the citations on this, lost in old > filing boxes tho they may be. Expect it after finals, folks. > > Adrienne Regard PLEASE do. If you don't want to post them, mail me. I DO want to see. =shp P. S. I'll see you in net.flame.
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (05/01/85)
>> = Shallit >>Gun control is a legitimate attempt at solving a difficult problem--the >>handgun war that kills 11,000 people annually in the US. Now, you may >>disagree with this attempt... >> >>but DON'T CALL IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL unless you want to look like a fool. > = Regard >Or, unless you want to be closer to the truth. The interpretation of the >"concerns of the founding fathers" is not reflected in the establishment >of a National Guard, or whatever else you are using as == militia. >According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem- >porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry, >as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally >organized bodies of armed personnel. This is false. Let me quote from an "amicus curiae" brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, Quilici v. Morton Grove, October, 1982: "The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia vigorously debated the proper extent of federal control over state militias. They viewed permitting some degree of federal control as the principal practical alternative to maintaining a substantial standing national army, which at the time was anathema to many Americans. They rseolved the issue at the convention by dividing authority over the militia between federal and state governments. A number of Anti-Federalist delegates opposed this compromise, however, and it became a focal point for Anti-Federalist attacks during the ratification process. A major theme of these attacks was that the federal government might, by abuse or non-use of its power over state militias, disarm and destroy them. One result was that a number of states formally proposed that the integrity of those militias be constitutionally protected by recognizing a right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment responded to these fears and proposals by *safeguarding state militias against disarmament by the federal government*. (italics mine). Its historical purpose, expressly reflected in its initial clause, was not to guarantee individual citizens against disarmament by the states, *but to protect state militias* (italics mine)." Regard's interpretation of what a state militia was in the 1700's in INCORRECT. In fact, the terms "arms" and "bear arms" have always been associated with ORGANIZED military activity. Check the Oxford English dictionary if you don't believe me. The modifier "well-regulated" in the language of the 2nd amendment itselfs strongly suggests ORGANIZED activity, NOT the private ownership of guns. This interpretation is also supported by English common law of the 1700's. I can give citations at length. But why bother? Nobody seems to give a damn about FACTS on this network. Ignorance, as demonstrated in the inability to form sentences, is encouraged, even extolled--a sad commentary. Jeff Shallit
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (05/02/85)
>Regard's interpretation of what a state militia was in the 1700's in >INCORRECT. In fact, the terms "arms" and "bear arms" have always been >associated with ORGANIZED military activity. Check the Oxford >English dictionary if you don't believe me. >The modifier "well-regulated" in the language of the 2nd amendment >itselfs strongly suggests ORGANIZED activity, NOT the private ownership >of guns. > >This interpretation is also supported by English common law of the 1700's. >I can give citations at length. > >But why bother? Nobody seems to give a damn about FACTS on this network. >Ignorance, as demonstrated in the inability to form sentences, is >encouraged, even extolled--a sad commentary. > >Jeff Shallit militia 2. in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the *organized militia*; all others, the *unorgan- ized militia* WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 2nd College Edition, 1980 I've seen similar definitions in other American-English and English-English dictionaries with slight variations in the maximum and minimum ages. Some questions come to mind: 1. How could those who wrote the constitution have intended the second amendment to refer to only those people in organized reserve and guard units that did not exist at the time and would not come into existence until decades later? The early militiamen provided their own weapons. Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that the second amendment was in- tended to insure an armed population in the event that some of them might have to be pressed into duty on very short notice? 2. Isn't this another flagrant case of the court dictating legislation via judicial interpretation rather than allowing people to exercise their freedom to vote? Doesn't the Supreme Court regularly change its opinions to fit the political fads currently in vogue? 3. To what excesses does the government intend to go which causes it to con- clude that it must first dis-arm the decent law-abiding citizens? 4. Have we all forgotten the predicament of the English in 1939 when they had to appeal for donations from the American sportsmen in order to arm the Home Guard against the pending Nazi invasion? 5. How do dictionaries written in that period define "militia"? - Phil
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/02/85)
[Edited for re-transmission, re the constitutionality of guns & gun control: > I'm probably 'way off base here, BUT.... if memory serves (I only > carry crayons with me, not books) the wording is: "A well-regulated > militia being necessary to the....". Well-regulated. > Opinion: The NRA isn't well-regulated. Powerful, influential, > etc., but not well-regulated. The National Guard is (supposed to > be, anyway; I'm NOT commenting from personal experience). > to me, though. Anyway, it's the intent when writing that matters, > My belief is that the author(s) > of the Bill of Rights intended that there should always be some > form of civil defense ("well-regulated militia"), not necessarily > that the current band of gun-toting agrarians [:-)] qualified. > =shp True that the NRA isn't well regulated in any modern sense -- and, of course, one of the current controversies is over what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated (among all the other controversies). Since they did _not_ mean "government regulated", we are left trying to figure out who was/is to do the regulating. They had a greater experience with local (= community) "organization", so one may deduce that they were referring to township regulation of this militia. Of course, one might also be wrong. The NRA _is_, however, one of the few organizations that consistantly offers safety classes. Safety increases "personal" regulation, though does not provide the contextual requirements of the constitution. (I'm not at all sure that everyone, including gun-controllers, would be comfortable if the "regulation" were within the jurisdiction of the NRA, but it is nice to know that they focus strongly on safety.) I believe the article I'll be searching for after finals also contains some mention of a controversy that the founding fathers had over whether or not to REQUIRE that any male over the age of 16 own a gun and know how to use it. THAT would have changed the face of the nation, wouldn't it?!?! I'll find the article and mail/post it. It's interesting stuff.
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/03/85)
Some thoughts on the Second Amendment from another of the net's great constitutional scholars, Phil Lavette: >2. Isn't this another flagrant case of the court dictating legislation via > judicial interpretation rather than allowing people to exercise their > freedom to vote? How is it "dictating legislation" for a court to uphold as constitutional a law passed by an elected body and signed into law by an elected official? You tell me. > Doesn't the Supreme Court regularly change its opinions > to fit the political fads currently in vogue? No. Why should it? The justices are appointed for life. That's *why* the justices are appointed for life. But if the political beliefs of the justices reflect those of the president who appointed them, and the political beliefs of the president reflect those of the people who elected him, then a secular change in the views of the country as a whole will be reflected to some degree in changing interpretations of the Constitution by the SC. On the other hand, there could hardly be a clearer example of distorting the meaning of the Constitution to fit an ideology than the way the NRA has inscribed a carefully edited version of the 2nd Amendment on its national headquarters, as if the amendment had anything to do with the purposes of the NRA. >3. To what excesses does the government intend to go which causes it to con- > clude that it must first dis-arm the decent law-abiding citizens? Before becoming a regular reader of Usenet I wouldn't have believed that an educated person could be stupid enough to think that "the government" is plotting to commit excesses for which it must first disarm the populace. The government, not being a person, cannot have intentions, a faculty peculiar to persons, so I do not understand the meaning of the term "government" in the question quoted above. The ability to think is also restricted to persons, so the government cannot conclude that it must disarm the populace. The people who concluded that some form of gun control is desirable are the elected members of some legislative bodies, some elected chief executives, and many of their constituents. In fact the desire for various forms of gun control is probably stronger among constituents than among legislators, to judge by the intensity of NRA lobbying. So Lavette concludes that "the government" is trying to disarm the citizenry. >5. How do dictionaries written in that period define "militia"? Samuel Johnson's dictionary defines "militia" as "the trainbands; the standing force of a nation." He defines "trainbands" as "the militia; the part of a community trained for martial exercise." But the interpretation of the Constitution cannot be settled merely by reference to a dictionary, whether of the 18th or 20th century. BTW, the "militia" is also mentioned in Art. I Sect. 8 of the Constitution. Richard Carnes
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/03/85)
> Me: > >> How long would it take to see the disappearance of the handgun from > >>criminal's hands if handguns were totally outlawed today. That it would > >>be illegal to import, sell or own a handgun or handgun ammunition. My guess > >>is that the we'd see a dramatic decrease in one year, and none in five. > > Him (David Canzi): > >WISHFUL THINKING! It has been illegal to import, sell, or own marijuana > >for a lot longer than 5 years, yet there's always plenty around. There > >is no way to completely seal off the borders of a country that isn't > >prohibitively expensive, like, say, an electric fence, which would have > >to be several miles high to stop airplanes. > > Me again: > However the States is the major source of handguns. Assuming that they > are no longer being made there, it's going to be a long hard haul to get > a handgun. Remember that handguns don't grow on trees (or in hemp). They > require a reasonably sized industrial element to produce. Something fairly > easily spotted (remember the raw materials for handguns aren't invisible > either.) Making handguns is a *lot* harder than making drugs. Also, > while some handguns would leak in, the number would be so many times > smaller that the entire crime situation would change. Maybe the > organized crime types might have them, but since when have "good > citizens" been fighting off mafia types with their handguns? > Making handguns is a lot easier than growing marijuana. Handguns can be made in a legitimate machine shop. All the equipment and materials to make them are entirely legitimate for other activities. Unlike a field of marijuana, handgun manufacturing takes place entirely in doors, where it can't be spotted by satellites and airplanes. Also, unlike marijuana, handgun manufacturing can be moved around from time to time to reduce the risk of discovery. (Try moving a field of marijuana part way through the season.) Unlike marijuana, which requires continuous supplies to be imported, handguns have a substantial lifetime (hundreds of years). The sheer bulk of drugs imported into the U.S. (and presumably Canada) is thousands of times the bulk of handguns that would be smuggled. Incidentally, let me tell you how well the Canadian border guards keep out handguns. A friend of mine used to be a Canadian border guard. Americans heading north to Alaska through Canada are required to seal their handguns at the border, and at the Canada-Alaska border the seal is checked, and the numbers are supposedly matched. In fact, my friend told me that the paperwork was thrown away at his end --- there was no cross checking. Concerning organized crime: do you really think they aren't going to take advantage of the situation to sell handguns? It's probably already happening in Canada. It is certainly happening in Japan, where the Yakuza are already smuggling in handguns for sale. > The idea is not so much stopping them at the border (although remember > that they're *metal* and thus can't really be imported on airlplanes to > well.) but drying up the #1 supplier of freely accessible handguns in the > world, the US. > You are right that handguns couldn't be smuggled in by plane, since they are metal. Marijuana doesn't come in on commercial airliners anymore, since it is too easy for drug sniffing dogs to find it. > Tom West "Trust the computer, the computer is your friend." > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/06/85)
Tom West: > However the States is the major source of handguns. Assuming that they >are no longer being made there, it's going to be a long hard haul to get >a handgun. ... > The idea is not so much stopping them at the border ... > but drying up the #1 supplier of freely accessible handguns in the >world, the US. The point you originally made, that I disagreed with, was that banning guns would eventually disarm the criminals, not just the law-abiding. Even if guns are banned in the US and Canada, smuggling them from Mexico is not going to be all that hard. Even if the border with Mexico is perfectly sealed, guns can still be smuggled by boat. The authorities can't go around stopping and questioning all the fishermen. It's relatively easy to move the guns northward within the US; any moving van heading that way will contain some empty space. And I don't think it's much of a problem to get guns from the US to Canada across the Longest Undefended Border In The World. Just carry them across in any wooded area. All of this will, of course, make the guns more expensive to the "consumer", but in the hands of a competent armed robber, the gun will still pay for itself fairly quickly. Oh, and by the way, if possession of handguns is legal in St. Pierre, then getting guns to needy Canadian criminals may be easier still. Regarding another of your comments: > (although remember >that they're *metal* and thus can't really be imported on airlplanes to >well.) Assume the worst, ie. something like the Berlin Wall completely surrounding the country. Suppose that you have a Cessna 152 (the first in a series of deliberately pessimistic assumptions) and two nice grassy areas to take off and land approximately 20 miles (pessimistically) from the border on each side. The plane can carry two men and a limited amout of luggage. Take the copilot and his seat out, and replace with a crate of guns and ammunition weighing about the same. Say, 150 pounds. Put further guns and ammunition in the back, about 50 pounds. Assume, pessimistically, that this only allows 10 guns with a reasonable amount of ammunition. The round trip of 40 miles each way takes about an hour (assuming 70 knots, in a plane that cruises at 90 knots). At our local flying club, the cost of a plane and pilot for one hour is about 70 dollars (actually, a bit less). Assume a "reasonable" black-market markup to 700 dollars. The result is that smuggling this way adds 70 dollars to the cost of each gun. That's not too bad, and remember, it's based on *pessimistic* assumptions. Cropdusters living near the border would have a fine opportunity to supplement their incomes. -- David Canzi It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. Peter De Vries
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/09/85)
>> Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible >> with the direct "concerns of the founding fathers". > I think this statement raises an important question. To what >extent is it desirable to guide the conduct of a society accord- >ing to principles laid down two centuries ago? Very good question. Does not invalidate the constitutional questions, of course, because someone somewhere has to determine: if (a) is better for us, is it worth it to change (b)? because of the legal ramifications, but certainly a point worth considering. VE day was only 40 years ago. The Nazis thought the were the chosen people. How many civilizations in this world today are above that egoism? The U.S.? I doubt it. At least the consideration that everyone may be armed requires the intelligent person to consider the responsiblities and necessities of being armed. If we were unarmable, the question might not come up, which might equate to a nation of sheep. I've a certain amount of faith that one day we will have grown beyond weapons to the point where handguns will be as quaint a prospect as cross- bows. Still, one is wise to keep crossbows available if one is likely to be attacked with crossbows. Given that we will outgrow our need for handguns (my proposition), I'd rather not set the precedent of altering the constitution, since that precedent can be called up in any other context. For those of you out there who think the NRA is a nasty, grossly wealthy organization, consider what a nasty, grossly wealthy organization the United Press might become if freedom of the press were threatened. NRA is strong and wealthy because a lot of people support their second amendment freedoms and put their money where their principles are. We all have principles that we would stand up for, don't we? It's no more filthy, corrupt or manipulative than any other large organization striving for certain concepts of legality and freedom. Course, it's not cleaner, less corrupt or non-manipulative, either. That's what organizations are like *sigh*.
spaf@gt-stratus.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (06/13/85)
(This is over a month old, but I just ran across it and I couldn't resist...) In article <5445@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Martin, >3 people have been murdered within 2 blocks of my home since January. >Guess again. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura Uh, I'd guess that you're hearing voices again, Laura, and they're telling you to clean up your neighborhood? Were any of them carrying lifeboats, by any chance? -- Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf