From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 00:52:18 MDT
john grigg wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I was just kidding on the idea of Mike and Joe duelling at ten paces! In
> relation to the gun control debate between Mike Lorrey and Joe Dees I just
> want to say both men have the right to discuss the matter but it does seem
> to have been beaten to death here on the list.
>
> I realize both men feel they MUST counter any arguments brought forth by the
> other no matter how many times it has been discussed before. I think this
> is not so much for them but for any impressionable minds out there that are
> not set yet in one way of looking at things at least in some matters(like
> me).
>
> I wish we could have a formal debate between them moderated on this very
> list by Greg Burch our legal eagle. Each man would have his turn and then a
> chance for rebuttal would be given. It would go on for so many times and
> then Mr. Burch would ask for closing statements.
I would be happy to be involved in such a debate, but I personally would
like to debate with someone who can actually bring information to the
debate, not curses and personal attacks.
>
> Even if this did not end the debate we would have at least held a "formal"
> debate of the matter. Kept relatively short I would read each post with
> interest. I hope my idea is actually done.
>
> I consider banning the topic of gun control to be wrong along with banning
> any topic on the list. I think it goes against extropian ideals.
>
> But at the same time I can remember countless times scrolling over numerous
> long posts when you two debated in a desire to find topics that appealled to
> me more. I feel like Captain Kirk on the bridge when the two powerful
> aliens with black and white coloring on differing sides got into a
> never-ending power struggle.
>
> I personally believe in the right of common citizens to bear arms when they
> have gotten a concealment permit. There are those who would say the
> information the government gets on a citizen is too much when the permit is
> obtained but I am more worried about people packing heat who do not FULLY
> understand the legal and real life ramifications of this.
It is quite possible to have a system that both ensures that a person is
a law abiding citizen, and prevents the government from being able to
use this information to compile an ad hoc enemies list. It is currently
in existence, it is called NICS, the National Instant Check System. The
way it works (as specified under the Brady Bill) is that a person's
name, SSN, etc are entered into the system, which replies with a go
ahead, hold, or denied response. A Go Ahead response is supposed to
immediately flush the evidence of the query on that individuals ID
information, so there is not a longer term record that a specific law
abiding individual bought a gun. Hold responses occur when there is iffy
information, like a record of a temporary restraining order, on the
database, that needs to be checked on to see if it is still in force.
Denied responses are flagged and the ID information goes into a federal
felony violation database.
This system, which the Clinton's and the gun controllers fought tooth
and nail against, was only added to the Brady Bill at the instistence of
one party, the NRA. When the 5-day waitng period and the unfunded
mandate on local law enforcement to perform background checks were
tossed out by the Supreme Court, the administration belatedly
institutded the NICS system, that they had originally promised would be
in place within one year of the Brady Bill passage. However they
instituted one illegal change in the system, the FBI keeps records of
ALL individuals who are queried on in the database for 6 to 18 months.
The FBI ostensibly claims that this is for 'auditing' purposes, but they
have done only one audit, at the insistence of the Republican congress,
they have illegally disseminated information about law abiding
individuals to local law enforcement from the system, and they have only
prosecuted ONE of the alleged tens of thousands of 'criminals' that were
denied by the system, which is a gross case of capricious enforcement.
>
> I realize there are those who interpret the right to bear arms as very
> different and think only police and soldiers should be issued guns. I
> vehemently oppose this view. I honestly believe in the saying that "if you
> take away all the guns in the end only criminals will have guns!"
What they think is irrelevant. When Prof. Lawrence Tribe, arguably the
most liberal recognised constitutional law professor in the country,
agrees that the Cummins decision in the case US v. Emerson correctly
interprets the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is an
individual right, and that it should not be infringed at all, then only
a pure Stalinist could continue to insist on any other interpretation.
>
> At the same time I find the idea of an America where everyone has a
> concealed handgun to be a very sad and frightening place. But I feel the
> option of being armed should be available to the public. Were I beaten and
> mugged I would definitely get a concealed weapons permit and a pistol to go
> with it.
I personally place more trust in myself, and my fellow citizens, than in
local, state, or federal police. Those citizens I am wrong in trusting
will find out the error of their ways if they wish to test things.
Considering that any given police officer is five times more likely to
kill an innocent person at a crime scene than any given armed law
abiding private citizen at a crime scene, it just a matter of public
health to ban the police and arm the people. ;)
>
> The NRA lost my support when they opposed mandatory trigger locks on all
> guns. I realize this law would slow down access to a weapon in a home
> robbery situation but how many children must die to please the NRA??
> Perhaps mandatory cases with electronic locks would work best though it
> would be expensive by comparison.
The NRA has always been the greatest proponent of gun safety. Indeed the
first nationally used fire arms safety courses insituted outside the
military were established by the NRA. The state of New York asked the
NRA to formulate a standard safety course which was required of all gun
permit applicants there. Massachusetts used to use the same course,
until this year when they decided to copy the NRA course, and charge
$200.00 to applicants to take the course, administered by state
employees (union members, paid nice salaries w/ benefits rather than the
usual free or almost free NRA volunteer), in addition to the permit fees
and taxes.
Trigger locks are indeed a hindrance to the safety of life and limb for
any weapon to be used for self defense purposes. Keep in mind that prior
to the industry agreement to include trigger locks (there as yet is no
national trigger lock law), the rate of death and injury from accidental
firearms discharges (in any age group) was at the lowest level of any
time since such stats were first taken, in 1903. (National Safety Board
stats). Since I don't have any kids, I don't keep my defense gun locked
up, as I carry it most everywhere, but my other guns are locked in their
cases, and I am awaiting the arrival of a much more secure safe, since
my collection is growing.
I am concerned bout my guns falling into the wrong hands, as is any gun
owner, but I am more concerned about my life falling into the wrong
hands. The stats say I have the proper priorities...
>
> Here in Alaska we view ourselves as living in the "last frontier" and I
> suppose compared to other states have fairly open views on gun control. And
> also we are a republican state rather then democratic. Actually I think
> human predators are much more threatening here then the ones with claws and
> antlers.
>
> Well, here I am contributing to the volume of gun control debate posts! But
> I admit it is a very important topic with in my view no easy answers. And
> it ties in at a core level I think with how government desires to hoarde
> power for itself.
>
Considering that government repression kills more people around the
world every year than any other non-natural factor, by large magnitudes,
I agree with you. Considering that twenty to fifty times more people
have been killed in the industrialized world alone this century by
repressive governments on unarmed popultions than have been killed by
violent crime between individuals, I say you are right on the money.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST