From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Jun 01 1999 - 15:55:31 MDT
Date sent: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:07:10 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Safe Gun-Free Britain (was Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights])
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:13:15 -0400
> > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
> > >
> > > If Britain is so safe, why are gun crimes still happening? I have not heard of a
> > > single instance of a Brit successfully defending themselves in many years.
> > >
> > There's not a whole lot of them getting shot, either, Mike. I just
> > thought I'd mention this, since you conveniently forgot.
>
> When the most popular TV announcer in the country is popped off on her front doorstep and the
> shooter gets away without anyone attempting to stop them, there is something odd going on.
> I've seen numerous stories of women getting raped or mugged in parks there while people stroll
> by, afraid to interfere cause they aren't armed.
>
When stitistics are not on one's side, one has no choice but to
resort to anecdotes, exceptions and hearsay.
> > >
> > > Additionally, no you are not as free as an American. You are a subject, not a
> > > citizen. Your rights only exist as a matter of statute, not as a matter of
> > > Natural Law. You did once have a similar level of freedom, but it was severely
> > > eroded under Charles I and James I. You have no freedom of speech except for in
> > > one location on some stone in a park somewhere. Everyplace else your speech is
> > > only what the government allows you to say. The illusion of freedom is not the
> > > same as actual freedom. Actual freedom survives tests of its limits. Illusiory
> > > freedom triggers additional limitations on that freedom. Granted that things
> > > here have been becoming more and more illusiory the last few decades.
> > >
> > He is more free from the threat of gun violence than we; why don't
> > we combine his greater freedom and ours, and render ourselves
> > freer still?
>
> Security is not freedom, except maybe to an Orwellian. Why don't we free ourselves even
> further by enlsaving ourselves. "Slavery is freedom".
>
The absolute of either is as impossible to embodied mortals as is
precisely knowing the momentum and position of an electron
simultaneously; however, we can try to compromise so as to
achoeve the greatest combination of both.
>
> > >
> > > > I cannot believe people use freedom as leverage behind having the right to
> > > > carry a gun. It is pointless in this day and age. Sounds to me like many
> > > > people believe they are still living in the world as it was 200 year ago.
> > >
> > > Has the human animal significantly changed over the last 200 years? No it has
> > > not.
> > >
> > Some cats refuse to be declawed even when they eat din-din from
> > a dish.
>
> As well they should. Who knows when their owner decides to toss them out the door, or wants to
> torture them, or even goes and dies on them. >
>
We, however, have no owners, no the analogy doesn't apply. It
would be nice if cats would agree amongst themselves not to bite
or scratch each other. Of course that will not happen, for they are
merely cats. We, however, are human and should be able to do
better than that.
>
> > > > In the UK, when crimes involve guns special police units take care of it.
> > >
> > > As stated repeatedly here, there have been numerous Supreme Court rulings that
> > > specifically declare that no police unit or personnel at any level of government
> > > in the US is permitted or delegated the authority to protect individuals from
> > > crime, or to prevent criminals from commiting crimes. They are only authorized
> > > to catch criminals once they have committed crimes. Part of the whole 'innocent
> > > until proven guilty' tradition that you all seem to forget so easily. The
> > > presumption of innocence dictates that you cannot apprehend anyone for the
> > > crimes they have not yet commited. You can only apprehend them while in the
> > > commission or after the commission of a crime.
> > >
> > When someone pulls a gun on another person, a present
> > policeman has probable cause to assume that the gunman is
> > about to rob, wound or kill him, and is authorized to act to protect
> > his life and/or property.
>
> They are not authorized to shoot someone who merely is holding a gun. The person must either
> point the gun at the officer or at a person who appears to not be violating any law, or
> actually shooting. Its also situational based. Of the 50 police officers who belong the gun
> club I am a director of, if any tried that on club premises they'd be summarily booted for
> even attempting that, if they are not shot themselves.
>
What do the words "pulls a gun on another person" mean to you,
Mike?
>
> > >
> > > It is a recognized fact that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by private
> > > citizens with guns here in the US each year, most of these WITHOUT DISCHARGING
> > > THE WEAPON. Some 60,000 people are killed every year with guns. Half of these
> > > are suicides and should not be counted as crimes. At least half of the remainder
> > > are the offenders being killed by law abiding citizens. Of the remaining 15,000,
> > > 90% are themselves criminals who are killed by other criminals, leaving around
> > > 1500 innocent civilians who are killed by guns each year. So we have 1500
> > > murders/homicides by guns countered by 2.5 million crimes prevented by guns.
> > >
> > Well let's work to keep the guns out of the hands of the violent
> > criminals, the mentally deficient and/or deranged, children, and
> > spouse and/or child abusers, and bring the 1500 bad ones down as
> > far as possible (as well as some of the 30,000 suicides, preferably
> > those which do not represennt a rational desire for surcease from
> > intractable physical pain), while not interfering with the right of
> > responsible people to defend their lives, families and property.
> > What could possibly be wrong with that?
>
> I have said repeatedly that I don't find your stated standards totally unreasonable, however
> the ease with which you are ready to institute them with IMHO extremely loose and easily
> manipulated definitions of what exactly meets these standards causes me great concern and is
> what I do find unreasonable. The government authorities have already proven with their abuse
> of the Insta-Check records that they have no regard for statutory limitations on their abuse
> of power. What makes you think they will not do the same with the other standards when it
> suits their needs? That you yourself seem to show little or no regard for due process, the
> presumption of innocence, and unreasonable search and seizure also causes me great worry. Any
> time I press you on this, you say 'screw those rights'. This is what, IMHO makes YOU the very
> dangerous person here. If you can retract or qualify those statements I would appreciate it.
>
You either lie or misattribute here (and I am assuming that it's an
honest mistake); it was the Brit, not me, who said "screw those
rights". I have repeatedly said that only the names of the people
who are forbidden to purchase firearms should be included in a
prohibited purchase registry, AND NO OTHERS. These should be
as follows:
1) Those who have been convicted in a court of law of a violent
crime, "violent'" being defined as "harming or attempting to harm
another while not acting in self-defence or to protect a criminally
attacked other."
2) Minors (under the age of 18 seems reasonable to me. If they
wish to hunt or target practice they can use a gun their parents
bought and do so under adult supervision (hunting with a special
minor's license), and if their parents, who know them to some
degree, do not consider them responsible enough to do so safely,
we, who don't know them at all, shouldn't either).
3) Those who have been convicted in a court of law or spousal
and/or child abuse (the child abuse may be of either a beating or a
sexual nature). Also, if a peace bond has been taken out by one
spouse against the other, and this other has shown a propensity to
disregard such court orders in the past, the other's name should be
included until such time as it is judged that (s)he no longer poses a
violent threat to his/her spouse.
4) Those who have been judged mentally unfit (the classic phrase
is "likely to be a danger to him/herself or others") by a legitimate
psychiatric authority.
5) The names of those people for whom trials or psychiatric
reviews are proceeding or pending should be provisionally added to
the list, to be removed upon acquittal or judgment of mental fitness.
6) All judgments should be appelable, but the names of the
appelants should remain on the purchase-prohibited list pending
the disposition of the appeal.
7) The purchase-prohibited list should be employed and made
readily electronically accessible to gun dealers, gun shows, pawn
shops, flea markets, and any other place where it is likely that gun
sales might take place in which the buyer and the seller are
personally unfamiliar with each other, but only be accessible if the
prospective buyer agrees. If he does not, the sale should not
proceed. Those who knowingly sell a weapon to someone who
they have reason to believe may be listed in the prohibited
purchase registry and who in fact is listed in the registry shall be
prosecutable for illegal firearms sale as well as civilly liable for the
consequences of any subsequent crime which the buyer commits
employing the purchased weapon.
8) Trigger locks, whether combination or key, should be sold with
all firearms. If a weapon is stolen and its trigger lock was not
installed at the time of the theft, the owner should be prosecutable
for negligence, as well as civilly liable for the consequences of any
criminal action the thief subsequently takes in which the stolen
weapon is employed, If the lock was picked, broken off or
otherwise removed by the thief, the owner should not in any
manner be held liable.
9) There should be no necessity for a waiting period; once it has
been established that the prospective buyer is both of legal age
(birth certificate and picture ID sufficing) and not listed in the
prohibited purchase registry, the purchase should be allowed to
proceed expeditiously.
> > >
> > > > You see, in the UK they actually employ police officers that are trained for
> > > > those situations. Unlike in the US where people obviously have so little
> > > > faith in the law enforcement agencies that they feel they must deal death
> > > > themselves. As for protecting yourself, chances are, in a situation where
> > > > they police don't have time to respond, you'd probably be dead anyway before
> > > > you have a chance to brand your gun and do that bit of shooting which people
> > > > are just dying to do (no pun intended). Is that a wrong perspective? Well,
> > > > then why dictate you need a gun to 'defend' yourself, what else do you plan
> > > > on doing with a gun?
> > >
> > > Its a proven fact that in any given crime situation, a police officer is five
> > > times more likely to kill an innocent civilian that a law abiding citizen in the
> > > same situation. What sort of special training does it take to do THAT badly? Its
> > > also proven fact that a person carrying a gun is 29% more likely to survive a
> > > given crime situation than without a gun (you are only 16% more likely to
> > > survive if you have a knife.)
> > >
> > This is because the victim KNOWS who the bad guy is, but the
> > policeman who walks into the evolution of a strange situation can
> > never be as sure.
>
> I never said that the arms bearing person was the victim. It frequently isn't.
>
> > >
> > > Rather than a danger to the community, I am an asset. I know the people and the
> > > geography, and function much like a plainclothes police officer, although as a
> > > private citizen I am limited to making citizen's arrests. The only people in
> > > government who will look at me as a threat are the types who have really nasty
> > > things in mind to do with their government authority.
> > >
> > Sounds like a closet authoritarian to me. You dislike the
> > government because you don't control its every move, and like the
> > idea of playing cop with your piece.
>
> Hardly. I don't play cop, since cops cannot and will not protect me. I work the very serious
> and responsible job of free citizen, and I encourage others to do the same. Keeping and
> bearing arms is not just a right, but a civic duty.
>
Once one decides to exercise the right, doing so responsibly is
indeed a duty.
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:55 MST