Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Date: 15 Apr 1993 16:47:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 144
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com>
References: <1993Apr13.174829.2324@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com> <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> <PA146008.710.734831135@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

> >        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> > I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> > that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.

> 	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
> 	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
> 	threaten anyone with them.

500,000 to 1,000,000 self-defense incidents a YEAR doesn't count with you?

>       What do they do right ... or are
> 	they just lucky ? 

Maybe they're just UNLUCKY.  If a rapist pulls a woman into an alley
in Boston, chances are almost certain that she won't be counted 
as one of those self-defenders because our local constabulary didn't
consider it important that she be allowed to arm herself.  Even though
the shotgun she owns at home makes her show up in the "gun owner" column.

>       In either case, this means the 'average
> 	threat level' in this country is rather low. 

Ironic words for somebody who lives in Florida.  The "average threat
level" in Florida has been REDUCED by a liberal CCW policy.  It's well
known that your local thugs like to target tourists precisely because 
they are less likely to be carrying than your natives.  Come on up to
Boston, or NYC, or Washington DC, and see how much diddlysquat the 
"average threat level in the country" means to a resident there.

> 	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
> 	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors 
on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the
original text, but the story started with one resident calling the 
cops on a gang member.  Sure enough, a few nights later, there was a 
drive-by performed at the resident's house.  Except that this time,
unlike in LA, the entire street came out and returned fire, putting
an end to the car's occupants.  The gang packed up and left.

Of course, in LA, or in a place like Florida after the hurricane,
your first problem is to FIND an officer to step up to and tell
anything.

> 	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
> 	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
> 	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
> 	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
> 	block party. 

Look, nobody is arguing this.  I have a fire extinguisher at home.  
That doesn't mean I can be careless about tossing my burnt matches 
on the carpet.  I live carefully, monitor the woodstove, get my flue
cleaned twice a year, and test my smoke alarms annually.  But if --
DESPITE all this -- a fire does start, it's too late for any of
these things EXCEPT the extinguisher.

> >        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> > makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> > basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> > solely of force of arms.
> 
> 	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
> 	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
> 	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
> 	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
> 	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
> 	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
> 	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
> 	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
> 	gives a rats ass ? 

You seem to be agreeing with your opponent.  You can't trust your
government to protect you from abusers and violators -- white-collar,
blue-collar, epauletted, or tank-shirted.  Ultimately, no one has the
power to enforce your "rights" but you.  Unless you've given up that 
power.

> 	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
> 	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

Too many people fit that category, that is true.  Some of us like to
believe that they are uninterested in the facts behind the case for gun 
ownership because they've been conditioned to believe that there AREN'T 
any.  You seem content to underestimate the electorate; I'm willing to
try to raise their consciousness.

> 	Argue away ... you can't win. 

I think we can.

HCI was founded in what, 1980?  In the mid-80's, they ran a "One 
Million Strong!" campaign for two years before reaching this goal.  
My understanding is that they "reached" it by the stratagem of including
wide classes of people other than dues-paying members.  (I can't speak
authoritatively on this -- maybe somebody else has details.)  Then they
started running a "Two Million Strong!" campaign for a while -- but they
let it slip into unannounced obscurity when it became clear that they
simply were never going to reach that level of membership.

In 1964, just after the commencement of the Dodd Hearings -- the starting
point of the modern gun-control movement, the NRA had a mere 625,000 members.  
By 1968, barely after the first murmurs of future registration, it had 
about a million.  Today, it has over three million members, making it the
third largest membership organization in the country (next to AARP and AAA).
And its membership is GROWING FASTER than at any previous time.  (Historical
figures from Kukla's "Gun Control," pp. 61 and 420.)

As you say, many of the people in the middle of this debate are bemused
by their T-bones and MTV.  That leaves hard-core gun-owners against 
hard-core gun banners.

I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.

Yes, I think we can and will win this one.

> 	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
> 	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
> 	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
> 	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
> 	complaints. 

I think they would be used far less to hammer nails, as well, but,
like you, I can't give any citation showing that this utilization is
CURRENTLY significant at more than an anecdotal level.  If you can, 
I'm waiting.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

