From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 13:37:25 MDT
David Lubkin wrote:
>
> The incidence of crimes committed by legal gun-owners is pretty low. The
> incidence of crimes committed by those legally carrying concealed is vanishingly
> small, and I think is mostly cops. And, last I heard, only one violent crime
> is known to have been committed by a legal owner of a fully automatic weapon.
And that one person was an off duty police officer who shot a crack dealer, so
even that is questionable.
>
> In high school, in Israel, I rode the public bus to school each day. I would
> routinely sit next to soldiers with shopping bags and Uzis. Whenever we went on
> field trips, our teachers were armed.
I've often found the situation in Isreal rather interesting, in relation to Jews
in the US. What are your impressions of any encounters you've had with the gun
control positions that American Jews have, and what do they think of your
opinions?
> I once ran an event for the Libertarian Party. I carried the proceeds for the
> evening on me, a few thousand dollars. I belatedly wondered if we should have
> made arrangements for security. The vice chair of the state party pointed out
> to me that we were in a room of New Hampshire libertarians -- there were
> probably 200 people there carrying concealed. Who would be foolish enough to
> try to rob us?
>
> (Modestly related) I rank gun owners -- your (and Mike's) mileage may vary --
> in terms of safety as follows:
>
> Safest: target shooters. Gun safety is inviolate.>
> Then: military and police.
I would separate these two by a large margin. David may be including his
experience with Isreali police, which are a far cry from your average US
policeman. Your typical US policeman today is a) 5 times more likely to kill an
innnocent person at a crime scene than an armed civilian, and b) rarely, if
ever, maintains his proficiency any more than the once a year manditory shoot,
where civilians are typically banned because cops score so badly. This is not
just my opinion, but that of several retired firearms instructors, including
Massad Ayoob. At the shoot that was run at my club for the NH police convention
this year, in the shotgun event, less than half the solid slugs shot even hit
the target (regulation target that is 2' x 2' or more) at 50 yards. On rifle,
pistol, and shotgun events, less than a few percent would have qualified under
military standards. Many police I know dislike carrying firearms, and would not
if they were allowed. These are also the ones who never practice with their
firearms.
>
> Next: hunters. Some are fine; others are the equivalent of Massachusetts
> drivers -- brandishing their weapons, firing weapons within range of people's
> houses, drinking while hunting, etc.
Funny, this is not my impression at all. Last year, a new Savage rifle I had
bought did not operate safely: If you had pulled the trigger any time while the
bolt was open, with the safety on, and then closed the bolt on a round (with
finger off the trigger), it would fire. I was rather pointedly told NOT to even
bring that gun back to camp until it was fixed. Replacing the trigger fixed that
problem. People I know who are hunters are rather anal retentive about safety,
and are rather particular who they hunt with.
I understand that there have been significant problems in the past with
flatlanders who are new hunters, and don't pay attention to their safety
classes, but the primary problem with hunter safety is not guns, or instruction,
but alcohol. Where I hunt, its pretty standard policy in most camps that
drinking only starts when the guns are put away.
>
> Least: liberals who get a gun for self-defense. Since they abhor guns,
> they typically never learn to use them safely. Their kids are the most likely
> to be accidentally killed by guns because their parents hid the guns from them,
> and never taught them gun safety.
Their guns are also most likely to not only be stolen from them in burglaries,
but are also most likely to have their guns taken from them in a confrontation,
and are most likely to use lethal force illegally, or in messy divorces.
>
> One thing I'm sure we all would agree upon, even Joe and Mike, is that if you
> own or carry a gun, it behooves you to learn how and when to use it safely. If
> you target-shoot, you should take an NRA class. If you want to use a gun for
> self-defense, especially if you plan to carry concealed, you should take a class
> through the Lethal Force Institute, or equivalent.
At the very least read Masa Ayoob's books on the subject and take a course from
a local iinstructor.
>
> I'm leery of legally mandating this, because it gives the govt. too much
> discretion, but I encourage insurance companies to collude, and require gun
> training as a condition for issuing liability coverage to gun owners. And I'd
> also encourage them to give a 10% discount on a home policy for gun owners,
> much as they give a discount for a deadbolt or burglar alarm. Perhaps the city
> could also give trained owners a discount on their property taxes as well,
> because of the reduction in crime city-wide.
Yes, these are all good ideas, some of which I've noted previously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:06 MST