My letter to Colorado Governor Romer on the concealed weapons bill
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
My letter to Colorado Governor Romer on the concealed weapons bill
Governor Romer
April 11, 1997
Dear Governor Romer,
We hear that a decent version of the concealed weapons bill is
expected to pass in the legislature and come to you for signing in the
near future. While we had hoped for a better version of the bill, more
like the simpler Vermont style affirmation of the Second Amendment, like
the song goes; “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try
sometime you get what you need.”
But we hear that you’re almost certain to veto the bill when it
comes to you and we were very disappointed to hear that because we voted
for you twice and used to think you were a governor that was concerned
with the well being and civil rights of the law abiding people of
Colorado.
We understand that the reason you’re planning on vetoing the bill
is because it doesn’t contain a provision that allows the issuers of the
permits to determine need instead of the citizen applying. But we thought
our civil rights were based on a Bill Of Rights, not a Bill Of Needs left
to some authoritarian Big Brother committee to dictate what people need
instead of those best qualified, The People themselves.
We’re also sorry you missed the SWARM rally and press conference
today because you could have seen first hand examples of why we women
especially need to have the right given back to us to be allowed to defend
ourselves against violent male predatory criminals who are much physically
stronger. The testimony before a packed room of mostly women was extremely
compelling and moving. Add to this the fact that reasonable concealed
carry laws have already lowered violent crime rates in the 31 states that
have already passed right to carry laws, and we can’t imagine how you
could resist signing this law, unless it was your personal or political
agenda to oppose our civil rights as outlined in the Constitution.
We, as women, do not feel safe in this state with over 14,000
wanted violent fugitives in Colorado alone, ( as reported by the local tv
news ) at any one time, out there roaming the streets freely.
We feel it’s extremely hypocritical of you to partake of
traditionally patriarchal kingly powers that allow you nearly a million
dollars of taxpayer money each year for your personal security and
bodyguards, while we mere common class women peasants are left defenseless
on the streets to face violent male criminals virtually unarmed because of
authoritarian state threats to criminalize us if we exercise our Second
Amendment civil rights! ( If you still can’t see your way to signing this
bill, why don’t you give up all your armed bodyguards and security forces
and at least not be a hypocrite about it?! )
Like one of the other women at the rally today said to me today;
she’d rather risk having to face a jury of twelve than risk having to be
carried to her grave by six! So some of us women are already ignoring the
unconstitutional laws that abridge our civil rights and are exercising our
right to concealed carry as it is.
I personally haven’t done so yet, and I’m waiting for you, my
governor, to pass this law affirming that the law abiding citizens of
Colorado are not the enemy, violent criminals are the enemy, and allowing
me my civil rights to concealed carry without further threat to, or
hindrance of, my liberty.
Please restore my faith in the governor I voted for twice and sign
this bill when it comes to you!
Thank you. Most sincerely,
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
( phone & addr snipped )
Internet Email: Mel...@asupernet.com
Unconstitutional Government Hate Crime Of The Decade!
The Colorado State Legislature Is Trying To Ban Our Presently Legal Marriage!
Read all about it! :
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/marriage.htm
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/wpdsgn.htm
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/melissas.htm
Personal opinions I express are not necessarily those of the organizations I may be doing volunteer work for.
Abusive email may be posted.
Please don't send me email copies of your follow ups to my posts unless I request it.
Scott Weiser
>
>My letter to Colorado Governor Romer on the concealed weapons bill
While I agree with your arguments, your approach is, IMHO, very
insulting and confrontational and much more likely to just piss him
off than pursuade him of the rightness of your argument.
I hope you haven't sent it. If not, I suggest you redraft it and
excise the parts where you personally insult the man who holds the
bill in his hands and try logic, pursuasion and mutual respect
instead.
Unless you are trying to guarantee the bill will be vetoed, in which
case you're doing a fine job.
I can say that if you sent it to me, and I were governor, I'd get
through "We feel it’s extremely hypocritical of you to partake of
traditionally patriarchal kingly powers", at which point I'd circular
file it without further consideration.
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
PGP: A6 BD 79 21 A4 24 7B 10 F1 4C 2E BF D1 40 2A 0A
Copyright 1997 by Scott Weiser
Larey J. Kerling
Scott Weiser <sorry....@for.me.com> wrote in article
<334ef6b0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 97 02:26:23 GMT, Mel...@asupernet.com (Melissa
> Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
> >
> >My letter to Colorado Governor Romer on the concealed weapons bill
>
> While I agree with your arguments, your approach is, IMHO, very
> insulting and confrontational and much more likely to just piss him
> off than pursuade him of the rightness of your argument.
>
Piss off Roy Romer, the consummate Politician??? I don't think expressing
*any* opinion to Uncle Roy would piss him off. You might try stopping his
buddies from making billions on the next public works project, that might
get him a little hot under the collar....
David Thielen
...
>compelling and moving. Add to this the fact that reasonable concealed
>carry laws have already lowered violent crime rates in the 31 states that
>have already passed right to carry laws,
This is interesting - where di you get this tidbit? Everything I have
read on the subject says that carrying a gun increases the chance that
you or a family member will be killed.
The above could be true too in which case conceled weapon statues are
a big win for those who don't carry because crime drops but it's the
people with the guns who are more likely to get killed.
But if you could post the source I'd appreciate it. Preferably a
source other than the NRA which has a tendency to cook the books.
> and we can’t imagine how you
>could resist signing this law, unless it was your personal or political
>agenda to oppose our civil rights as outlined in the Constitution.
...
Pray tell what civil right is this? You can own all the guns you want.
You just can't hide them in public.
- dave
=====
David Thielen
www.windward.net
home of Enemy Nations (Red Alert meets Civilization)
Scott Weiser
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:34:13 GMT, da...@thielen.com (David Thielen)
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 97 02:26:23 GMT, Mel...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>...
>>compelling and moving. Add to this the fact that reasonable concealed
>>carry laws have already lowered violent crime rates in the 31 states that
>>have already passed right to carry laws,
>
>This is interesting - where di you get this tidbit? Everything I have
>read on the subject says that carrying a gun increases the chance that
>you or a family member will be killed.
>
>The above could be true too in which case conceled weapon statues are
>a big win for those who don't carry because crime drops but it's the
>people with the guns who are more likely to get killed.
>
>But if you could post the source I'd appreciate it. Preferably a
>source other than the NRA which has a tendency to cook the books.
This information is from the NRA website, but it cites independent
studies by Lott and Kleck.
http://www.nra.org/research/NRA-FFACT.html
The Lott study is the latest research, and has been subjected to
rigorous peer review. In a matter as controversial as this, one can
expect controversy, but the Lott study has yet to be refuted by any
competent researchers. All of the figures on crime come directly from
the DOJ and the FBI, and can be independently verified. You might
note the story on the front page of either the Daily Camera or the
Denver Post (I can't remember which) which spoke about a 12% reduction
in crime last year. It didn't attribute this drop to any specific
cause, but it does tend to verify the Lott study's conclusions.
"Thirty-one states now have right-to-carry laws permitting law-abiding
citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection against
criminals. Twenty-two states have adopted right-to-carry in the last
decade, 11 in the last two years. Half the U.S. population,
including 60% of handgun owners, live in right-to-carry states.
Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, of the University of
Chicago, have concluded that "allowing citizens to carry
concealed weapons deters violent crimes, and it appears to produce no
increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did
not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in
1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and
over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. . . .
[T]he estimated annual gain from allowing concealed
handguns is at least $6.214 billion. . . . [W]hen state concealed
handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by
8.5%, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5% and 7%." ("Crime,
Deterrence, And Right-To-Carry Concealed
Handguns," 1997)
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime
rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. Total
violent crime is 18% lower; homicide is 21% lower; robbery is 32%
lower; and aggravated assault is 11% lower. Since Florida
adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide, firearm homicide, and
handgun homicide rates have decreased 36%, 37%, and
41%, respectively, while the national homicide rate decreased 0.4% and
firearm and handgun homicide rates increased 15%
and 24%, respectively. (FBI) Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of
Florida carry licenses have been revoked because of
firearm crimes committed by licensees. (Florida Dept. of State)
Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
with firearms. Most protective uses do not involve
discharge of a firearm. In only about 0.1% of protective gun uses are
criminals killed, and in only 1% are criminals wounded. A
Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit
at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed,
and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James
D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered
Dangerous, 1986)"
>> and we can’t imagine how you
>>could resist signing this law, unless it was your personal or political
>>agenda to oppose our civil rights as outlined in the Constitution.
>...
>
>Pray tell what civil right is this? You can own all the guns you want.
>You just can't hide them in public.
Well, I must agree with you here. In Colorado at any rate, concealed
carry is specifically excluded as a fundamental right, though it can
(and is) permitted by statute. However, I challenge you to carry your
pistol, or semi-automatic rifle, or shotgun, or .22 single-shot openly
through *any* Metro area community...something which you presumeably
have a fundamental Constutional right to do.
You won't get far before you are accosted at gunpoint by numerous
police officers. This is why the concealed carry program is
necessary. In the 1800's, carrying a firearm openly was a normal and
unremarkable thing, but carrying a concealed weapon was the mark of a
criminal and a coward.
This perception has changed, and these days, the visible presence of a
weapon is usually considered alarming in and of itself. If I could
carry my pistol unconcealed, I wouldn't mind, but everyone else would.
This does not mean that the right to keep and bear arms is any less
valid today than it was in yesteryear, just that the public
perceptions have changed. In fact, today's society is much, much more
violent, gun-wise, than the days of the frontier *ever* were. Outside
of pitched battles, the use of firearms in public for "gunfights" was
almost unknown in most communities, with notable exceptions, and this
peace and order was enforced by not just the marshall, but by the
citizens themselves. No "bad guys" could hope to withstand a posse of
citizens who were armed just as well as they were, and they well knew
it, Hollywood notwithstanding. There were notable exceptions, like
the Daltons and Billy the Kid, who were verifiable hoodlums, but the
reason that they are so notable is because they are relatively few and
far between. Does anybody remember the names of the vicious murderers
and gang-members today? Of course not, mostly because of their common
nature.
So, in order to quell the paranoia of the average person when they see
a gun, concealed weapons are perfectly appropriate and justifiable.
They also have a demonstrable effect on crime *because* they are
concealed, and a criminal doesn't know if the next person he tries to
victimize will take out a weapon and kill him. Criminals are
cowards, and when faced with deadly resistance, often take up a
different line of work.
But, there is also an argument to be made that the provisions of the
Colorado Constitution which discuss concealed carry may be
unconstitutional themselves, under the federal Constitution.
I don't necessarily like the idea of licensing for concealed carry,
but in our state that's the only way one can do so unless the
Constitution is amended or overturned, both of which are unlikely.
Doug McKenna
Scott Weiser writes:
> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
> with firearms.
Here's some questions that come to my mind...
The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
them?
Doug McKenna
Doug McKenna
Scott Weiser writes:
> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
> with firearms.
Here's some questions that come to my mind...
The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
20 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
were highly concentrated in cities, many instances were multiple
instances, shouldn't count children, or whatever). Were there 100
incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
If 100 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
them?
Doug McKenna
Scott Weiser
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:17:20 +0000, Doug McKenna
<do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>Scott Weiser writes:
>
>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>> with firearms.
>
>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>
>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
>protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
>10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
>were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
The number is an educated guess, and varies from .5 million to 2.5
million, depending on who you talk to.
>If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>them?
The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news, but
when some shopkeeper shoots a robber, unless he's charged with murder,
it ends up on page 47 in a 1 column inch note, if at all. Each month
in the American Rifleman magazine, the NRA reprints 30 or so media
excerpts from newspapers around the nation of such actions, it's
called "The Armed Citizen". They have a book *filled* with examples.
The other reason it's hard to quantify is because many of the
situations are never reported to the police, nor does the FBI track
non-shootings. The consensus amongst experts seems to be that in most
cases, the mere *presence* of a firearm, even if not brandished or
fired, is enough to stop many crimes. There is nothing quite so
convincing to a burglar as the racking of a Remington shotgun.
Chris Pollard
Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
: The number is an educated guess, and varies from .5 million to 2.5
: million, depending on who you talk to.
: >If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
: >them?
: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
: accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
: their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news, but
Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
Scott Weiser
>were highly concentrated in cities, many instances were multiple
>instances, shouldn't count children, or whatever). Were there 100
>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
>
>If 100 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>them?
You also can't assume that the distribution of the use is even.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <33541A...@mathemaesthetics.com>,
Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>Scott Weiser writes:
>
>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>> with firearms.
>
>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>
>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
>protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
>10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
>were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
>
>If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>them?
>
>Doug McKenna
The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
- Melissa
If you actually read my post, are not a spammer just harvesting names for your trash junk mail,
and if you'd like to reply by email, please remove the XXX out of my email address in the address listed
before sending it to me. Thanks.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j5b4t$5r4$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
>: The number is an educated guess, and varies from .5 million to 2.5
>: million, depending on who you talk to.
>
>: >If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>: >them?
>
>: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
>: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
>: accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
>: their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news, but
>Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so many
people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal system
( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham. Only
17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
criminals, not the guns.
Jack Rudd
Chris Pollard wrote:
>
> Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
> : The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
> : an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
> more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
> fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
> medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
Ah, but there is an inverse correlation between gun control laws and
gun violence. There is also an inverse correlation between concealed
carry laws and gun violence. After Florida began issuing concealed
carry permits by the thousands, the muggers started going after
tourists there, remember? That's because the tourists weren't
likely to be armed. And since then, Florida has experienced a
large drop overall in violent crimes. Violent people don't tend
to attack citizens on the street who may be armed. With concealed
carry laws, they don't know which citizens are armed, and all of us
are safer.
Incidentally, the murder rate in England is almost exactly the same
as for Alglo-Saxons in the USA. Anyone care to speculate why that
is? And why gun control seems to have made no difference?
Dan Duncan
As I recall, Chris Pollard (cpol...@csn.net) wrote:
->Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
->number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
->I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
Clearly you aren't a genius.
More people are killed by handguns in this country because we have
more handguns.
Murderers are smart enough to use an appropriate weapon. A
handgun happens to be IDEAL for killing someone in many
circumstances, but a knife, spear, or large rock will do
the job very nicely as well.
Of course, comparing the US to another country may or may not be
valid. It is not LIKE most other countries. For every country
you bring up that has no guns and less crime, I can bring one
up that has guns and less crime or less guns and more crime.
For example, Switzerland has very low incidences of violent
crime, and yet every (male only?) citizen is required to
own a fully-automatic weapon and fire it regularly.
Now, to keep the focus inside this country, let's look at cities and
states. LA and DC have very high incidences of handgun murders,
and yet handguns are STRICTLY controlled there. In DC, you can't
even OWN a handgun unless you owned that handgun before a certain
date. (1972, I think....) Of course, criminals by definition
don't obey laws, and since we have freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure you can't keep criminals from carrying guns
around. Laws DO keep law-abiding citizens (by definition) from
carrying guns around. But of course why let facts get in your way?
You are clearly far too emotionally involved in this issue to
discuss it rationally, much like your recent foray into hunting.
(Where you were quite soundly spanked, as I recall, because you
tried to argue emotion over reason and facts.)
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com http://rmii.com/~dand
# The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. PAUL ERLICH
Dan Duncan
As I recall, Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
->The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
->an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
Well done, Melissa!
I'd also like to point out that:
a) most gun injuries are INTENTIONAL rather than accidental
b) more people own cars than guns
c) more people are harmed by cars than guns
d) most car injuries are ACCIDENTAL rather than intentional
Banning is the solution for ACCIDENTAL misuse. Since ANYONE (theoretically)
can harm someone with a car, there isn't any reliable way to prevent
these injuries unless we take away EVERYONE's car.
For intentional misuse, you target the offenders or potential offenders
rather than the devices themselves.
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com http://rmii.com/~dand
# He that waiteth for all men to be satisfied with his plan, let
# him seek eternal life, for he shall need it. - Mark Twain
TUCKER JAMES PETE
Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> writes:
>Scott Weiser writes:
>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>> with firearms.
>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
No you can't. Boulder is ridiculously affluent and has no real social
problems as compared to the rest of the nation...Its packed with snotty
liberals who have to invent problems (like traffic circles,gum chewing,
leash laws, house colors, volkswagons, columbus day, etc) to have something
to be self-righteous about. I've lived places where going out after dark
unarmed would be foolish....this place is ridiculously safe, i leave my piece
home now...Remember a defensive use can be simple as taking the safety off
when someone stops to ask you the time (a common prelude to mugging in many
big cities)
-glasser
David Thielen
On 18 Apr 97 00:54:41 GMT, tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES
PETE) wrote:
>cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) writes:
>
>>Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
>
>Well, most other countries are Socialist states which dont suffer
>the dramatic rich poor gap tensions found in the US. Most other
>countries dont have the extensive urban wastelands that the US has (where
>most killings occur) This is a nation of extremes , its our biggest asset
>and our biggest liability.
Go to Cairo or Istanbul some time. You will see a much greater divide
and yet they are much safer cities.
TUCKER JAMES PETE
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) writes:
>Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
Well, most other countries are Socialist states which dont suffer
the dramatic rich poor gap tensions found in the US. Most other
countries dont have the extensive urban wastelands that the US has (where
most killings occur) This is a nation of extremes , its our biggest asset
and our biggest liability.
-glasser
Chris Pollard
David Thielen
>In article <5j5b4t$5r4$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
> cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>>Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
>>: The number is an educated guess, and varies from .5 million to 2.5
>>: million, depending on who you talk to.
>>
>>: >If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>>: >them?
>>
>>: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
>>: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
>>: accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
>>: their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news, but
>
>>Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
>
>First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so many
>people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal system
>( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham. Only
>17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
>prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
>running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
>criminals, not the guns.
If your answer to the above problem is to arm all citizens (rather
than reform the justice system), then you are essentially proposing
vigilante justice.
And when you have that then you have gun battles between those who
think 55 is an absolute limit and those who ignore it (and those
caught in the crossfire).
If this is your reason for guns then I'll take no guns and fixing the
system over anarchy any day. Because that approach at least has the
hope of a civilized solution.
David Thielen
>
>In article <33541A...@mathemaesthetics.com>,
> Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>>Scott Weiser writes:
>>
>>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>>> with firearms.
>>
>>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>>
>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>>are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
>>protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
>>10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
>>were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
>>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
>>
>>If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>>them?
>>
>>Doug McKenna
>
>The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
>an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
Another interesting statistic. That's about 25% of the population of
the country. If you subtract kids (who can't own guns and by and large
don't have one), you're at about 1/3 of the population.
Hard to believe since I can only think of 1 or 2 people I know who own
guns. And I know people from a reasonable cross-section of our
culture.
Is it safe to assume this is another NRA statistic?
David Thielen
On 18 Apr 97 00:35:05 GMT, tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES
PETE) wrote:
...
>home now...Remember a defensive use can be simple as taking the safety off
>when someone stops to ask you the time (a common prelude to mugging in many
>big cities)
Now there's a thought to make us all feel safe...
Chris Pollard
j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
Distribution:
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
: First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so many
: people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal system
: ( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham. Only
: 17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
: prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
: running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
: criminals, not the guns.
Bullshit - it is no use putting people in jail once they have shot
somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Chris Pollard
j5v13$g8t$1...@news1.rmi.net>
Distribution:
Dan Duncan (da...@shell.rmii.com) wrote:
: You are clearly far too emotionally involved in this issue to
: discuss it rationally, much like your recent foray into hunting.
: (Where you were quite soundly spanked, as I recall, because you
: tried to argue emotion over reason and facts.)
Please rationally justify so many people being killed and so many people
being put in jail.
There is still a problem and criticising my opinion won't make it go away.
Emotion is as good a reason as any. The militia groups have too much
emotion - believing that a bunch of AK47 is any good against a military
that is the best in the world and that has nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
Chris Pollard
F609...@lmco.com>
Distribution:
Jack Rudd (jack...@lmco.com) wrote:
: Incidentally, the murder rate in England is almost exactly the same
: as for Alglo-Saxons in the USA. Anyone care to speculate why that
: is? And why gun control seems to have made no difference?
That is a pretty specific statistic - how is it defined and what are the
actual numbers for the two countries. Is this a number or a rate per 100,000.
Dale Anderson
mpc...@highaltitude.com (Mike Cook) wrote:
>Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
>>: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
>>: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
>>: accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
>>: their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news, but
>>: when some shopkeeper shoots a robber, unless he's charged with murder,
>>: it ends up on page 47 in a 1 column inch note, if at all. Each month
>
>I read the Daily Camera front to back every day and cannot remember the last
>time I saw such a report. Can you cite the hundreds of examples that must
>have happened in Boulder for the last year?
>Mike
Well, here's one. This happened to me, in Boulder, so it is not an
unconfirmable report. In 1987, I was living in a condo at Folsom and
Iris. One night, a drunk came into my place, late at night - I guess
I left the door unlocked. He was beligerent and looking for some foe
who had wronged him, but had gotten into the wrong condo. When he
came through the door, yelling and swearing, into the bedroom where I
had been sleeping and saw the barrel of my Colt Commander covering the
space between his eyes, he sobered up real fast and hightailed it out
of there. In my mind, if not for my .45, he would have committed some
crime of violence against me as he was really pissed off, worked up
and drunk. It was the reality of the gun, not realizing he made a
mistake in his drunken passion, that caused him to leave.
This event never made it to the Daily Camera. There's at least one
for you. This is MY personal protection belief. If my gun(s) save my
life just once, then the right to keep and bear arms is more than an
outdated slogan, it is something I will fight for.
Dale Anderson
Boulder, Colorado
da...@ix.netcom.com
TUCKER JAMES PETE
>Bullshit - it is no use putting people in jail once they have shot
>somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
>in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
>stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You're right. We must have complete control over everyone !
Once humanity has been reduced to automata we will all be safe.
-glasser
Santiago de la Paz
>>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
>
>the dramatic rich poor gap tensions found in the US. Most other
>countries dont have the extensive urban wastelands that the US has (where
>most killings occur) This is a nation of extremes , its our biggest asset
>and our biggest liability.
This is inaccurate. In any first world nation, regardless of their
government, you will find $100,000 luxury autos driving through city
centers filled with the homeless, and the US is much *less* urban than
most of these other nations.
Handgun deaths are much smaller in other nations because access to the guns
themselves is much more tightly controlled.
~james
Dan Duncan
->somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
->in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
->stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Exactly! See, I KNEW you knew this. But taking away their guns won't
stop them from killing people. SHOOTING people, maybe. Then they'll
resort to stabbing people. Or chopping them up with machetes. (Check
out Rwanda) But you see, guns already EXIST. We've HAD them. A legal
ban will only make the law abiding ones turn them in. The crooks
will hang onto them. You see, criminals by definition don't obey
laws. The gods knew that once Prometheus had given us fire, it
couldn't be taken away. Why don't you?
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com http://rmii.com/~dand
# GEEK CODE: GAT -d+ H s-:+>+: g+ p? au* a? w+++ v++?* C++++ US++++$ P+>+++
# L++>+++ 3- E--- N+++>++ K+++>+++++ W--- M--(+$) V-- po Y+ t++ 5++ jx R+@
# G---@ tv+ b+++ D++ B---$ e+>++ u** h+ f--- r-->+++ n+ y**
Dan Duncan
As I recall, David Thielen (da...@thielen.com) wrote:
->Hard to believe since I can only think of 1 or 2 people I know who own
->guns. And I know people from a reasonable cross-section of our
->culture.
And nearly everyone I know owns at least one. About half of them are
former military. About half of them hunt. (No correlation) About
1/3 have concealed weapons permits. (Again, no correlation) All
of them own them legally. None of them have criminal records
prohibiting them from owning them. None of them have tendencies
towards violence.
For every one of you, there's one of me to balance out the statistics,
I guess. :)
->Is it safe to assume this is another NRA statistic?
Why don't you ask BATF? They're pretty much on the opposite side
of the fence from NRA. Use their figure, NRA's figure, or something
in between if you like. I'll accept whichever YOU choose as
fact for the sake of this discussion.
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com http://rmii.com/~dand
# If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger,
# screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mr. Brave man,
# I guess I'm a coward. -DEEP THOUGHTS
Doug McKenna
glasser writes:
>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>No you can't. Boulder is ridiculously affluent and has no real social
>problems as compared to the rest of the nation...
[rest of silly rant deleted]
Which is why I discounted the extrapolated figure (2000) to 1/10 (200).
Heck, discount it to 1%. Have there been 20 incidents in the last year
of people in Boulder County thwarting criminials with their guns? I
could believe there have been, but I have not heard of a single
incident.
Dale Andersons's story is irrefutable evidence that it happens (or did
some time ago), but I want to know about the last year.
I don't agree with Scott's assertion that the press "deliberately"
doesn't
report occurrences of citizens, although I can believe that there might
be other reasons.
Doug McKenna
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j6f9o$2qc$1...@news-2.csn.net>,>: The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country
>: an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>Seems as though you care an infinitessimally small amount about having a
>more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
>fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
>medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
I care far more about my liberty than having a nice safe police state to
live in. I'll take my chances. Of course I'd rather do it armed myself.
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” - John
F. Kennedy
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
“Liberty, then, is the sovereignty of the individual, and never shall man
know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the
only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time, and property, each
living and acting at his own cost; and not until we live in a society
where each can exercise his right of sovereignty at all times without
clashing with or violating that of others.” - Josiah Warren
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <tuckerj....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,
tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES PETE) wrote:
>Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> writes:
>
>>Scott Weiser writes:
>
>>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>>> with firearms.
>
>>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>
>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>
>No you can't. Boulder is ridiculously affluent and has no real social
>problems as compared to the rest of the nation...Its packed with snotty
>liberals who have to invent problems (like traffic circles,gum chewing,
>leash laws, house colors, volkswagons, columbus day, etc) to have
something
>to be self-righteous about. I've lived places where going out after dark
>unarmed would be foolish....this place is ridiculously safe, i leave my
piece
>home now...Remember a defensive use can be simple as taking the safety
off
>when someone stops to ask you the time (a common prelude to mugging in
many
>big cities)
Yes, and like Rebecca pointed out so well at the SWARM press conference a
week ago, need is often not determined until a few seconds before you're
attacked.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <3356e5e8...@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 97 23:48:47 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>>In article <5j5b4t$5r4$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
>> cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>>>Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
>>>: The number is an educated guess, and varies from .5 million to 2.5
>>>: million, depending on who you talk to.
>>>
>>>: >If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>>>: >them?
>>>
>>>: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking
for
>>>: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
>>>: accounts of the lawful use of firearms as deterrents as a part of
>>>: their anti-gun liberal agenda. Gun accidents are front page news,
but
>>
>>>Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>>>number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>>>I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
>>
>>First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so many
>>people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal
system
>>( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham.
Only
>>17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
>>prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
>>running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
>>criminals, not the guns.
>
>If your answer to the above problem is to arm all citizens (rather
>than reform the justice system), then you are essentially proposing
>vigilante justice.
Not at all. What I advocate is that if someone wishes to carry, they
should be allowed to legally as long as they harm no one. Anyone who wants
to be a pacifist should be allowed that privelege. In fact they can even
wear a big sign that says "I'm unarmed" if they wish.
Remember the police have been found by the courts not to have any
obligation to protect us. So it's best if those who choose to, could take
a little responsibility for their own safety. It's no more vigilantism
than taking reposnibility for locking your doors at night or having a
security system. It's taking personal responsibility for your own safety
instead of having unfounded expectations that someone else can or should
do it for you.
>And when you have that then you have gun battles between those who
>think 55 is an absolute limit and those who ignore it (and those
>caught in the crossfire).
Sorry, it just doesn't happen. Law abiding people don't do things like
that and criminals will do it despite laws. I know plenty of people who
have owned guns all their lives and never fired them in anger and I've
never known any one of them who has.
>If this is your reason for guns then I'll take no guns and fixing the
>system over anarchy any day.
By all means go for it if that's your chosen path. But don't deny liberty
to those who can handle it and want it.
>Because that approach at least has the
>hope of a civilized solution.
It doesn't have anything to do with it actually. Civilized people are
those who care about and respect the rights and liberties of others and
they can be armed or unarmed and do that. It happens 24 hours a day all
over the world.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <3358e6aa...@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 97 19:13:47 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <33541A...@mathemaesthetics.com>,
>> Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Weiser writes:
>>>
>>>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>>>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>>>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>>>
>>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective
use
>>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>>>are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
>>>protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure
is
>>>10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
>>>were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
>>>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
>>>
>>>If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>>>them?
>>>
>>>Doug McKenna
>>
>>The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country
and
>>an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>
>Another interesting statistic. That's about 25% of the population of
>the country. If you subtract kids (who can't own guns and by and large
>don't have one), you're at about 1/3 of the population.
>
>Hard to believe since I can only think of 1 or 2 people I know who own
>guns. And I know people from a reasonable cross-section of our
>culture.
>
>Is it safe to assume this is another NRA statistic?
I may have misstated it. There are 65 million guns in this country. Some
people own more than one. And there are also the people that you don't
know which can easily make up for the ones you know. And there may be
those you know who have them and just don't go advertising it. I was
talking to a woman the other day about the SWARM rally last week and she
confided in me that she has a pistol that she keeps for her own safety.
The subject never would have come up if I hadn't brought up the rally to
her.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <3359e79c...@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On 18 Apr 97 00:35:05 GMT, tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES
>PETE) wrote:
>
>....
>>home now...Remember a defensive use can be simple as taking the safety
off
>>when someone stops to ask you the time (a common prelude to mugging in
many
>>big cities)
>
>Now there's a thought to make us all feel safe...
Well, if you're inclined towards paranoia; you'll never quite know, will
you? :-)
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j6s98$c3k$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
>
>Distribution:
>
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>: First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so
many
>: people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal
system
>: ( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham.
Only
>: 17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
>: prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
>: running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
>: criminals, not the guns.
>Bullshit - it is no use putting people in jail once they have shot
>somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
>in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
>stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The only way to stop everyone before they can possibly harm anyone is to
have a police state. Did that occur to you?
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <3356F6...@lmco.com>, Jack Rudd <jack...@lmco.com> wrote:
>Chris Pollard wrote:
>>
>> Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>> : The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this
country and
>> : an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>> Seems as though you care an infinitessimally small amount about having
a
>> more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
>> fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
>> medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
>
>Ah, but there is an inverse correlation between gun control laws and
>gun violence. There is also an inverse correlation between concealed
>carry laws and gun violence.
[snip]
I'd agree with that except I've never heard of a gun being violent. :-)
David Thielen
On 17 Apr 1997 19:52:03 GMT, da...@shell.rmii.com (Dan Duncan) wrote:
...
>Of course, comparing the US to another country may or may not be
>valid. It is not LIKE most other countries. For every country
>you bring up that has no guns and less crime, I can bring one
>up that has guns and less crime or less guns and more crime.
Actually not counting countries that are basically anarchies like
Somalia and Lebanon, name a country with a higher murder rate. Last I
heard we were the world's top.
David Thielen
On Sat, 19 Apr 97 03:07:26 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
...
>If you read some history books, you'll see that the underground in Europe
>held off Hitler's higher tech army pretty well with just a few small arms.
> A book called Mila 18, I believe, details how a few hundred Jews with
>pistols, some Malotov cocktails and very little ammo held out for months
>against tanks and Hitler's modern army in the Warsaw ghetto.
This is classic. Read the intro to Mila 18 - it's pure fiction. The
underground in Warsaw did hold out about a month but it was still a
losing battle the entire time and they were fighting an army that was
quickly retreatring.
>And if it ever came down to it, do you really think any politician in
>their right mind would use nukes or CWB against our own cities? If so,
>we'd need everything we could to take back our country.
The point is either the military won't act against the populace here
or if they do, your guns won't matter for squat. And they won't need
any advanced weapons to do it either.
Chris Pollard
will not consider. You would prefer, apparently, people to be shot and
the people who shot them to be put up at my expense in the local jail. I
think prevention is more worthy. I didn't say police state - whatever that
is (in reality). COuld you be a little less polarized and a little more
constructive in your response.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j5v13$g8t$1...@news1.rmi.net>,>->Still rather interesting Scott - how can you posssibly justify the huge
>->number of people killed by handguns in this country versus any other.
>->I've never read so much gobbledygook rhetoric to justify it.
>
>Clearly you aren't a genius.
I am, but what's that got to do with anything?
>More people are killed by handguns in this country because we have
>more handguns.
A simplistic answer to a complex problem. First of all no one's ever been
killed by any gun. Secondly, the tiny percentage of the 65 million gun
owners who use guns to kill people do it for a wide variety of reasons.
It's not a simple thing but very complex. It gets into issues like how
people are brought up and the kind of society we've become that people of
other countries may not have. So scapegoating guns and demanding that we
give up our liberty for the promise of lying politicians that we'll be
safer is not the answer.
>Murderers are smart enough to use an appropriate weapon. A
>handgun happens to be IDEAL for killing someone in many
>circumstances, but a knife, spear, or large rock will do
>the job very nicely as well.
If that were the case, why haven't more kives spears or large rocks been
used? They're a lot quieter than a gun. See all your doing is spouting
politically correct anti-gun hearsay and anti-civil rights propaganda.
>Of course, comparing the US to another country may or may not be
>valid. It is not LIKE most other countries. For every country
>you bring up that has no guns and less crime, I can bring one
>up that has guns and less crime or less guns and more crime.
Exactly but you don't even have tyo go outside this country to compare.
Why do DC and NYC have the highest murder rates while they ban all guns
and places like Denver have lower rates while they don't? Could it be
something else at work here? Ah!
>For example, Switzerland has very low incidences of violent
>crime, and yet every (male only?) citizen is required to
>own a fully-automatic weapon and fire it regularly.
Now you're getting the picture. It's not the gunz it's the people!
>Now, to keep the focus inside this country, let's look at cities and
>states. LA and DC have very high incidences of handgun murders,
No, you keep laying the blame on inanimate objects. Handguns have never
murdered anyone. Quit scapegoating!
>and yet handguns are STRICTLY controlled there.
Another thing that all gun control laws totally ignore is the fact that
criminals, by their very definition, don't obey laws. All laws do is
infringe on the civil rights of the law abiding. Criminals couldn't care
less about them.
> In DC, you can't
>even OWN a handgun unless you owned that handgun before a certain
>date. (1972, I think....) Of course, criminals by definition
>don't obey laws,
Look! You took the words right out of my mouth! You could join the NRA
yet!
>and since we have freedom from unreasonable
>search and seizure you can't keep criminals from carrying guns
>around.
Never could, never will. The only way you can stop criminals from doing
crime is to arrest and jail them. Which brings up part of the real
problem, that our criminal legal system ( notice I didn't use the word
"justice" ) is a revolving door. Many murders are committed by the same
criminals over & over. Not the guns mind you, the criminals.
> Laws DO keep law-abiding citizens (by definition) from
>carrying guns around.
[snip]
And that makes society less safe, according to all the crime statistics
lately in the states that have passed good concealed carry laws versus
those that haven't. 31 states are actually safer now because the criminals
have to think twice before they pick on someone. An armed society is a
more polite society.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335689...@geocities.com>,
Marc Callier <supe...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone wrote:
>
>> The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country
and
>> an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>>
>> Hmmmm, I don't know how you define infinitessimal, but I suspect my
>definition may be somewhat different than yours. I don't have my handy
>dandy statistics in front of me but approximately 20,000 folks die
>every year from "overexposure" to bullets fired by handguns here in the
>US of A.
Ok, here's how I define it. 20,000/65 million = .000307 ( roughly,
according to my Windows calculator )
Also take into account that people kill people, not guns, and that many
murders are committed by the same repeat offender murderers because they
are not caught and imprisoned for life after doing their first one. Here
in Colorado we have life with no parole for murder but how many other
states do? Add to that the fact that only 17% of criminals ever get caught
and 2% spend significant time in prison and you have the picture.
>I guess you could say that's less than half of the people that
>die in traffic "accidents" or only about one chance out of 13,000 of
>facing death in this manner. But it is still rather large when compared
>to the death rate from handgun fired projectiles in the rest of the
>"civilized" world.
>
>But, then again, this is the Wild, Wild, West, isn't it?
Sure it's significant if it happens to you or someone you know, as much as
it is if they die of cancer or car accidents but you don't see people
running around in a panic willing to give up their liberty because of car
accidents or cancer. ( 450,000 people die from smoking in the U.S. alone
each year ) So put it in perspective and sure, try to get some better law
enforcement and place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the
criminals, not the law abiding.
For a more in-depth coverage of this, read:
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/assault.htm
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j7vi1$7ts$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
If you read some history books, you'll see that the underground in Europe
held off Hitler's higher tech army pretty well with just a few small arms.
A book called Mila 18, I believe, details how a few hundred Jews with
pistols, some Malotov cocktails and very little ammo held out for months
against tanks and Hitler's modern army in the Warsaw ghetto.
And if it ever came down to it, do you really think any politician in
their right mind would use nukes or CWB against our own cities? If so,
we'd need everything we could to take back our country.
David Thielen
On Sat, 19 Apr 97 02:39:40 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
...
>>If this is your reason for guns then I'll take no guns and fixing the
>>system over anarchy any day.
>
>By all means go for it if that's your chosen path. But don't deny liberty
>to those who can handle it and want it.
My argument wasn't against guns per-se. It was against your argument
for guns.
>>Because that approach at least has the
>>hope of a civilized solution.
>
>It doesn't have anything to do with it actually. Civilized people are
>those who care about and respect the rights and liberties of others and
>they can be armed or unarmed and do that. It happens 24 hours a day all
>over the world.
Again, your argument was that we need guns because our legal system
doesn't work. That's vigilantism.
David Thielen
On 18 Apr 97 18:16:17 GMT, tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES
PETE) wrote:
>
>>Bullshit - it is no use putting people in jail once they have shot
>>somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
>>in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
>>stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>
>You're right. We must have complete control over everyone !
>Once humanity has been reduced to automata we will all be safe.
It's an interesting quandry. One school of thought (I assume you're in
it) says let people drive 120MPH in school zones with no ticket and
charge them with murder if (when usually) they run over a child and
kill them.
Others say that we limit people by law to actions that don't endanger
others thereby reducing the number of innocent victims. Into this camp
go the people who feel guns should be regulated if that regulation
makes this a safer place.
- dave
ps - of course you also have bozo's like Scott Whiner who want
everyone to do what they say so driving is regulated to 55MPH (and
lord knows 65MPH is no more dangerous on freeways) but guns are
widespread...
David Thielen
On Sat, 19 Apr 97 02:46:01 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>In article <5j6s98$c3k$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
> cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>>j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
>>
>>Distribution:
>>
>>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>>: First of all, no one has ever been killed by any gun. The reason so
>many
>>: people are killed by criminals in this country is because our legal
>system
>>: ( I hesitate to use the phrase "justice system" ) has become a sham.
>Only
>>: 17% of violent criminals get arrested and 2% spend significant time in
>>: prison. In Colorado alone we have over 14,000 violent wanted fugitives
>>: running around, per the last tv news report that said that. It's the
>>: criminals, not the guns.
>
>>Bullshit - it is no use putting people in jail once they have shot
>>somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put them
>>in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even more
>>stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>
>The only way to stop everyone before they can possibly harm anyone is to
>have a police state. Did that occur to you?
Actually a police state does not provide this. Almost by definition in
a police state the people at the top can strike with impunity.
- dave
abe
Kelvin Fedrick wrote:
>
> In article <3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>,
> Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >When they finally realized their mistake, I asked if they knew the law
> >and that I was COMPLETELY in my rights to carry an unloaded gun (much
> >less an antique) that is not concealed, on the streets of Boulder.
>
> Um, actually you are within your rights to carry a *loaded* weapons in
> the state Colorado so long as it is not concealed, or if it is within your
> auto and carried for 'purposes of self defense and defense of property while
> traveling'.
Is this in fact true for Colorado and does it include hand guns as
well as rifles?
Must it be in plain view in the car or can it be concealed in the
glove compartment or map pocket, for example?
Abe Collins,
a...@sprintmail.com
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335d4513....@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 97 03:07:26 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>....
>>If you read some history books, you'll see that the underground in
Europe
>>held off Hitler's higher tech army pretty well with just a few small
arms.
>> A book called Mila 18, I believe, details how a few hundred Jews with
>>pistols, some Malotov cocktails and very little ammo held out for months
>>against tanks and Hitler's modern army in the Warsaw ghetto.
>
>This is classic. Read the intro to Mila 18 - it's pure fiction. The
>underground in Warsaw did hold out about a month but it was still a
>losing battle the entire time and they were fighting an army that was
>quickly retreatring.
>
>
>>And if it ever came down to it, do you really think any politician in
>>their right mind would use nukes or CWB against our own cities? If so,
>>we'd need everything we could to take back our country.
>
>The point is either the military won't act against the populace here
>or if they do, your guns won't matter for squat. And they won't need
>any advanced weapons to do it either.
I have to disagree. But it's still not the point. The point is it's a
civil right that shouldn't be taken away.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j9g8o$8ci$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Kelvin Fedrick) wrote:
>In article <3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>,
>Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>When they finally realized their mistake, I asked if they knew the law
>>and that I was COMPLETELY in my rights to carry an unloaded gun (much
>>less an antique) that is not concealed, on the streets of Boulder.
>
>Um, actually you are within your rights to carry a *loaded* weapons in
>the state Colorado so long as it is not concealed, or if it is within
your
>auto and carried for 'purposes of self defense and defense of property
while
>traveling'.
>
already
>said. It's supposed to be a right, but if you exercise it, the cops and
>everyone else seem to get really upset.
That's because the political correctness these days is totally against
that civil right, because of the anti-civil rights propaganda put out by
the govt and the media.
Chris Pollard
Kelvin Fedrick (fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:
: Nonsense. It is 'self-defense'.
Yeh - right - you're driving through Denver at night and somebody takes a
potshot at you - fat lot of good the gun is going to do. Unless you've
got somebody riding shotgun just in case. It sounded good in the movies.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j9j0d$b8u$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Kelvin Fedrick) wrote:
>In article <335a4386....@news.dimensional.com>,
>David Thielen <da...@thielen.com> wrote:
>>
>>Again, your argument was that we need guns because our legal system
>>doesn't work. That's vigilantism.
>
>
> vigilantes when law fails
>
>It is not the job of the justice system to protect you, nor is is even
>possible. Defending yourself from harm whether with a gun, with your
fist,
>for by tackling someone to the ground is 'self-defense', period. Would
you
>also feel that it is 'vigilatism' to use force to restrain someone who is
>in the process of raping a 7 year old girl unless you are a cop?
>
>-kelvin
Yes, and it seems that vigilantism, by the definition you posted above, is
not a dirty word either, it's just been made to sound so by the
politically correct propagandists.
Call me "Paula Kersey". :-)
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335c44d7....@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
That's the way it works out when you give up all your liberty. You can be
very safe as long as you don't anger the police.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5j9i2k$g30$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>: The only way to stop everyone before they can possibly harm anyone is
to
>: have a police state. Did that occur to you?
>I believe there are several intermediate positions which you obviously
>will not consider.
Yes, I will not consider any erosion of my civil rights, that's correct
and that's what the things you're suggesting amount to. My civil rights
are not up for compromise.
> You would prefer, apparently, people to be shot and
>the people who shot them to be put up at my expense in the local jail.
No, I'd prefer that govt. focus on stopping only the people who cause
clear and uncalled for harm, not those who don't.
How would you like it for example, if every time you came home, your
neighborhood safety committee stopped your car, made you get out and strip
searched you to make sure that you didn't have anything that might
possibly allow you to harm anyone in your neighborhood. You'd feel a
little violated when that rubber glove went up your butt, wouldn't you?
> I
>think prevention is more worthy. I didn't say police state - whatever
that
>is (in reality).
Well, just how do you propose filtering out those who just might do harm
in advance without infringing on everyone elses' civil rights? It's just
not possible and ignores the fact that criminals don't obey laws.
> COuld you be a little less polarized and a little more
>constructive in your response.
I'm not polarized, I'm not even a conservative arguing this, I'm a
moderate centrist progressive independent libertarian, one of the most
tolerant liberty and justice minded people you'll ever run across.
But I think what you're advocating infringes on the liberty of the law
abiding and that's supposed to be what our civil rights are there to
protect us against.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335a4386....@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 97 02:39:40 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>....
>>>If this is your reason for guns then I'll take no guns and fixing the
>>>system over anarchy any day.
>>
>>By all means go for it if that's your chosen path. But don't deny
liberty
>>to those who can handle it and want it.
>
>My argument wasn't against guns per-se. It was against your argument
>for guns.
And the difference would be?
>>>Because that approach at least has the
>>>hope of a civilized solution.
>>
>>It doesn't have anything to do with it actually. Civilized people are
>>those who care about and respect the rights and liberties of others and
>>they can be armed or unarmed and do that. It happens 24 hours a day all
>>over the world.
>
>Again, your argument was that we need guns because our legal system
>doesn't work. That's vigilantism.
I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
It's a Bill Of Rights not a bill of needs. We have a right to them and
that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335b440f....@news.dimensional.com>,
da...@thielen.com (David Thielen) wrote:
>On 18 Apr 97 18:16:17 GMT, tuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (TUCKER JAMES
>PETE) wrote:
>
>>
>>>somebody - even if they are still alive - its too late. If you put
them
>>>in jail then you and I have to pay to keep them there which is even
more
>>>stupid. YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>>
>>Once humanity has been reduced to automata we will all be safe.
>
>It's an interesting quandry. One school of thought (I assume you're in
>it) says let people drive 120MPH in school zones with no ticket and
>charge them with murder if (when usually) they run over a child and
>kill them.
>
>Others say that we limit people by law to actions that don't endanger
>others thereby reducing the number of innocent victims. Into this camp
>go the people who feel guns should be regulated if that regulation
>makes this a safer place.
>
>- dave
The fatal flaw to that is that the only way of limiting people to actions
that won't possibly endanger others is by having a police state. You can
carry that reasoning to everything else potentially harmful and you'll
wind up in a padded cell watched 24 hours a day by Big Brother to make
sure you don't hurt yourself or anyone else.
The only place a free society can draw the line is when people actually do
harm someone.
Tim Schreiner
Good luck, Dale. Sound like a serious case of overzealous reaction by
the Boulder PD. When are you going to get rid of Tom Koby ? Seems
like a real jerk from his TV appearances.
Can you still get into Boulder without a passport ?
Thanks
Tim
Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>...
>
> This morning (Friday), I was harassed by the People's Republic of
> Boulder Police department. At about 10am, I purchased, at a gun store
> in downtown Boulder a Marlin 1881 .45-70 lever action rifle (made in
> 1883). This gun, by legal definition, is an antique, not a gun. I
> hand carried the rifle straight back to my office, a distance of about
> 4 1/2 blocks. When I just entered the lobby of my office, where I own
> a software consulting company, I was surrounded by four police
> officers (backed up by a couple of squad cars) all with their hands on
> their guns. I was ordered to put the rifle down, put up my hands and
> snip ...
>
> Dale Anderson / Fatchance Slim
> SASS / NRA / VHA / HOG (Life)
> Just to the Right of Boulder, Colorado
> da...@ix.netcom.com / Roa...@aol.com
>
Frank Crary
In article <5jefs1$n2o$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
Chris Pollard <cpol...@csn.net> wrote:
>: I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
>: that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
>it doesn't say guns it says arms - just like you and your "guns don't kill
>people" pedantics. It is not clear they could predict hand held
>automatic weapons when they wrote it.
Nor could they have predicted radio, television, or the internet. By
your logic, these things would not be covered by the First Amendment's
freedom of speech and of the press clauses.
>...Other laws and interpretations have
>changed with time but apparently this one gets people excited.
The interpretation of the Constitution is either still consistent
with the original text of the Constitution, has changed because
of amendments to the Constitution, or is as heavily debated as
gun control (e.g. the abortion debate.) And, in the later case,
the debatable changes to the Bill of Rights have been to _increase_
the protection of rights, not to remove protections written into
the Bill of Rights. Creatively reintrepting the Bill of Rights
to remove a protection to totally unprecedented.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Chris Pollard
j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com> <3356e5e8...@news.dimensional.com> <5j9b9c$h5g...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com> <335a4386....@news.dimensional.com> <5jboqh$frk...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
Distribution:
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
: I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
: It's a Bill Of Rights not a bill of needs. We have a right to them and
: that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
it doesn't say guns it says arms - just like you and your "guns don't kill
people" pedantics. It is not clear they could predict hand held
automatic weapons when they wrote it. Other laws and interpretations have
changed with time but apparently this one gets people excited.
I think we should still have the red flag law from England - Scott would
like that - NOBODY would speed then.
Scott Weiser
On 18 Apr 1997 00:29:44 GMT, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>: The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
>: an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>Seems as though you care an infinitessimally small amount about having a
>more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
>fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
>medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
No such nation exists anywhere on the face of the planet. Just ask
the residents of Canada or Dunblane, Scotland.
All restrictive gun control does is ensure that the madmen or
criminals with the guns can do their deeds with impunity, like one of
them did in Tazmania recently.
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
PGP: A6 BD 79 21 A4 24 7B 10 F1 4C 2E BF D1 40 2A 0A
Copyright 1997 by Scott Weiser
Scott Weiser
On 17 Apr 1997 18:27:58 GMT, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Scott Weiser (wei...@dimensional.com) wrote:
>: The reason you don't hear about them is because you aren't looking for
>: them, and the media deliberately downplay and refuse to publish
>: called "The Armed Citizen". They have a book *filled* with examples.
>This is really funny Scott. When the subject is speeding and the highway
>death rate is comparable to Europe you propose going out on the freeway to
>act as a mobile traffic cop slowing people down.
>Where we DO have a problem comapared to Europe - you're all for guns -
>sounds a lot like total hypocrisy to me. Pick on an easy non-problem
>instead of a real one!
That's because speeding is not a Constitutionally-protected
fundamental civil right.
Scott Weiser
On Sat, 19 Apr 97 02:30:17 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>Yes, and like Rebecca pointed out so well at the SWARM press conference a
>week ago, need is often not determined until a few seconds before you're
>attacked.
Geeze, I go away for a couple of days and you people just go right
ahead and have a discussion without me....(snif)....oh
well....Melissa's doing a great job. Have fun, Y'all....
Scott Weiser
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:16:14 -0600, abe <a...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Kelvin Fedrick wrote:
>>
>> In article <3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>,
>> Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >When they finally realized their mistake, I asked if they knew the law
>> >and that I was COMPLETELY in my rights to carry an unloaded gun (much
>> >less an antique) that is not concealed, on the streets of Boulder.
>>
>> Um, actually you are within your rights to carry a *loaded* weapons in
>> the state Colorado so long as it is not concealed, or if it is within your
>> auto and carried for 'purposes of self defense and defense of property while
>> traveling'.
>
>Is this in fact true for Colorado and does it include hand guns as
>well as rifles?
Interestingly, it is illegal to carry a "loaded" rifle or shotgun in
your car, "loaded" meaning "with a round in the chamber", but the
restriction is under the *hunting* laws, not the general firearms
statutes.
It is, as other say, an "affirmative defense" that you were carrying a
loaded handgun in your car, but you can *still* be arrested for it.
This may change if the concealed weapons statute is passed.
>Must it be in plain view in the car or can it be concealed in the
>glove compartment or map pocket, for example?
The law generally considers "concealed" to mean "within easy reach of
the occupants" and capable of being put into action with a single
action. The intent being to prevent people from shooting cops during
traffic stops. If the weapon is in a holster, in a case, behind the
seat, where it would take more than one motion to get it out, it's not
"concealed" under the commonly accepted meaning of the statute. Which
doesn't mean you won't be arrested if you have it *anywhere* but
unloaded in the trunk. It just means you probably won't be
*convicted*.
Frank Crary
In article <5je2da$1eu$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Kelvin Fedrick <fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>>> Um, actually you are within your rights to carry a *loaded* weapons in
>>> the state Colorado so long as it is not concealed, or if it is within your
>>> auto and carried for 'purposes of self defense and defense of property while
>>> traveling'.
>>Is this in fact true for Colorado and does it include hand guns as
>>well as rifles?
>>Must it be in plain view in the car or can it be concealed in the
>>glove compartment or map pocket, for example?
>The law regarding carrying a firearm in your auto is mentioned as an
>affirmative defense against carrying a concealed weapon (along with
>affirmative defenses for carrying in ones own residence or place of business),
>therefore it need not be in plain view. The caveat is that they can still
>arrest you and try you for carrying a concealed weapon if they chose (even
>if they know you met the criteria for one the the affirmative defenses), and
>force you to defend it in court.
Probably not. They could arrest you and try to put you on trial. But
most judges would dismiss the case almost instantly, if you had a
clear affirmative defense. (An affirmative defense technically means
that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
affirmative defense does not apply.) Odds are, a case of someone
having a gun in his car would never get past pre-trial motions.
Also, in the city of Boulder, there is a local ordinance against
carrying firearms at all. But there is an affirmative defense for
carrying one for self-defence, and the ordinance specifically
cautions police officers not to waste people's time with arrests
that are just going to be dismissed anyway.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Dale Anderson
After I posted my message about police harassment last Friday, I went
over to the police building to complain. Once there, I had a talk
with an officer who took my story. After recounting the events, he
(no big surprise here) stated that all of the officer's actions were
legal. He then said that he thought that they overreacted and was
going to inform all officers at the next pre-patrol meeting that they
should try for minimal reaction when justified in future events. So,
he is saying that what they did was legal, but they won't do it again.
Who says that the President is not a role model in this country?
He then explained my options. I could: 1) drop the matter, 2) enter a
new binding arbitration program, 3) file a formal complaint with the
Internal Affairs division, and/or 4) file a lawsuit. Before deciding,
I asked him to provide me a copy of the contact report to see how they
handled the matter internally. He promised I would be sent one "If
the officers bothered to right one up". At this time, I am leaning
toward filing a complaint with the I.A. division and wait to see about
suing at a later time. The channels are there I want to go through
the system that is set up for such complaints.
In addition to seeking redress to having my rights trampled on Friday,
I want to ensure that this will not happen again. I fully intend to
purchase more firearms from the same place and also take advantage of
their gunsmithing services, so I will be carrying firearms between my
office and the gun store many times in the future. This time, I bent
over backwards to help these officers deal with the situation. I did
not have to volunteer that I just purchased the rifle and did not have
to offer to show them the receipt, I did not have to say that I was at
the front door of my office, I did not even have to be overly polite
(I would NEVER cross the line and become abusive, as an event like
this is a terrible time for such histrionics).
By proactively telling them that I was breaking no law and would
cooperate fully, that I did not want anyone to be hurt due to the
slightest misunderstanding, offering more information than they
requested, immediately doing everything they ordered me to do, being
overly polite, and not questioning them nor confronting their actions
at all, I was still handcuffed and detained. What would have happened
if I would have just said, "I am doing nothing illegal, intend no
harm, and would like to leave now"? Would I be arrested, beaten,
hauled off to jail? Millions of Americans have died defending the
rights that these officers abused and it would be a dishonor to them
to not follow this complaint through the system to ensure that it not
happen again in the future, to me nor anyone else.
Dale Anderson
Boulder, Colorado
da...@ix.netcom.com
Chris Pollard
Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: Nor could they have predicted radio, television, or the internet. By
: your logic, these things would not be covered by the First Amendment's
: freedom of speech and of the press clauses.
like the you can't listen in to cellular calls. The basic element of
ideas has stayed the same all that has changed is the transmission method.
Freedom of speech doesn't hurt anyone. Guns.....
Scott Weiser
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:29:19 GMT, da...@ix.netcom.com (Dale Anderson)
wrote:
>
>This morning (Friday), I was harassed by the People's Republic of
>Boulder Police department. At about 10am, I purchased, at a gun store
>in downtown Boulder a Marlin 1881 .45-70 lever action rifle (made in
>1883). This gun, by legal definition, is an antique, not a gun.
Actually, this is incorrect, it is both an antique and a firearm,
since .45 - 70 ammunition is still available....even in "downpressure"
cartridges especially made for antique firearms. But, that's
irrelevant to your case.
>hand carried the rifle straight back to my office, a distance of about
>4 1/2 blocks. When I just entered the lobby of my office, where I own
>a software consulting company, I was surrounded by four police
>officers (backed up by a couple of squad cars) all with their hands on
>their guns. I was ordered to put the rifle down, put up my hands and
>come out. I informed them that it was an unloaded antique that I just
>purchased and was taking home. I then was handcuffed, detained,
>searched, and interrogated.
(snip)
>case, as they insisted, I would, conceivably, been guilty of carrying
>a concealed weapon. The cop holding the gun even dropped it on the
>muzzle on the concrete sidewalk, scratching the barrel.
Sounds to me like he just bought himself an antique....
>I am, after writing this, on my way to the Police station to file a
>formal police harassment charge and, after consulting with my
>attorney, fully intend to sue for their violation of my rights.
Good. This is exactly what is needed.
>I am a supporter of the various law enforcement agencies and
>appreciate their work and the risks they take. But they have NO right
>to handcuff and detain someone who they admit was within the law. If
>they had just ASKED what I was doing and ASKED if they could verify
>that the gun was unloaded, I would have fully complied as that is
>within their rights. It is a fine line they have to walk, but they
>stepped over the bounds of law. If the police flaunt the
>Constitution, what is left?
Not much.
Both the Colorado Constitution and the US Constitution have pretty
much been evicerated by such acts. When people ask why we need
concealed weapons permit, this story should be given to them as a
classic example of what happens when you try to exercise your
fundamental right to keep and bear arms. BTW, you *could* have had
the weapon loaded, and you *still* would have been legally justified
in carrying it. There is only one thing more dangerous than a loaded
gun....and that's an unloaded one.
>At some point, we all have to stand up for our rights. Mine were
>violated today and I intend to fight for justice and redress.
Good for you, you are perfectly correct, and the police in Boulder
(and everywhere else) need to be taught a lesson about the law.
I'd suggest a march in which law-abiding gun owners get a permit and
peacefully march to the CJC with their lawfully-owned and possessed
long guns when you go to court.
The Black Panthers did something like this some time ago, and the
police didn't do squat.
Neither would the Boulder police.
Scott Weiser
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:05:12 GMT, da...@ix.netcom.com (Dale Anderson)
wrote:
>
>After I posted my message about police harassment last Friday, I went
>over to the police building to complain. Once there, I had a talk
>with an officer who took my story. After recounting the events, he
>(no big surprise here) stated that all of the officer's actions were
>legal. He then said that he thought that they overreacted and was
>going to inform all officers at the next pre-patrol meeting that they
>should try for minimal reaction when justified in future events. So,
>he is saying that what they did was legal, but they won't do it again.
>Who says that the President is not a role model in this country?
Yes, it probably was "legal", and the courts would probably say that
an officer would be "derelict" if they failed to investigate an openly
armed person in a city, what with the propensity for loons and
drive-by's, and you *were* in a public place.
However, your complaint is not that they *did* investigate, it's HOW
they did so, and the presumptions they used when approaching you, and
this is a matter of policy, not necessarily the law, though you do
have a fairly strong case for abusive conduct and negligence,
particularly since they damaged the weapon through carelessness.
This would be the thrust of at least one claim, to get them to
compensate you for the damages to your firearm they caused. This is
pretty clearly their fault.
Make note of your conversation that a supervisor though that his
people probably overreacted, it's a significant admission, and you'll
want to document it and call him as a witness.
>He then explained my options. I could: 1) drop the matter, 2) enter a
>new binding arbitration program, 3) file a formal complaint with the
>Internal Affairs division, and/or 4) file a lawsuit.
You can do 3) and 4), but I'd avoid 2), the odds are stacked against
you and it's not as "binding" as you might think, and it's only
binding in re YOU, and will have no effect on police policy overall,
and won't therefore help anybody else, which a court judgement would.
>Before deciding,
>I asked him to provide me a copy of the contact report to see how they
>handled the matter internally. He promised I would be sent one "If
>the officers bothered to right one up". At this time, I am leaning
>toward filing a complaint with the I.A. division and wait to see about
>suing at a later time. The channels are there I want to go through
>the system that is set up for such complaints.
I would absolutely file a complaint, and add to the complaint the fact
that the officer failed to write up a report on a detention which
resulted from his mistake, faulty training and supervision,
(respondiat superiori) and his failure to write a report to explain
the negligent damage to your weapon.
>In addition to seeking redress to having my rights trampled on Friday,
>I want to ensure that this will not happen again.
Oh, it'll happen again, just about every time somebody openly displays
a weapon.....
> I fully intend to
>purchase more firearms from the same place and also take advantage of
>their gunsmithing services, so I will be carrying firearms between my
>office and the gun store many times in the future.
Is it YOUR office? YOUR building? If it's leased, there might be
exclusions, OR, the police might approach the owner of the building
and "pursuade" him to forbid firearms on the premises, in which case
they could arrest you for trespassing.
Be careful with this.
>This time, I bent
>over backwards to help these officers deal with the situation. I did
>not have to volunteer that I just purchased the rifle and did not have
>to offer to show them the receipt, I did not have to say that I was at
>the front door of my office, I did not even have to be overly polite
>(I would NEVER cross the line and become abusive, as an event like
>this is a terrible time for such histrionics).
You are quite correct, and if it happens to you repeatedly, then you
*will* have a case. I'd even offer to drop by and walk with you
sometime, with my legally-carried concealed weapon, just to see what
they would do THEN.
>By proactively telling them that I was breaking no law and would
>cooperate fully, that I did not want anyone to be hurt due to the
>slightest misunderstanding, offering more information than they
>requested, immediately doing everything they ordered me to do, being
>overly polite, and not questioning them nor confronting their actions
>at all, I was still handcuffed and detained. What would have happened
>if I would have just said, "I am doing nothing illegal, intend no
>harm, and would like to leave now"? Would I be arrested, beaten,
>hauled off to jail?
You might. You would MOST CERTAINLY be "taken down" at gunpoint if
you offered even the *slightest* objection or resistance. That's the
mind set we're talking about.
However, I suggest that when the police arrive, you take up "parade
rest" position, holding the gun by the muzzle with the butt on the
ground and *don't move*. Don't speak, don't offer any resistance
whatsoever, don't verbally abuse or even argue with them, just stand
there, till they pull their guns (which they will when you fail to
respond). Then I suggest you calmly tell them that you are going to
very slowly and carefully lay the weapon down so as not to damage it,
and the you are going to step away from it.
Then you do what they tell you to do, so you don't get hurt or charged
with resisting arrest, which is what will happen if you offer even
verbal interference.
Then, when they start interrogating you, ask them "Am I under arrest
or am I free to leave?" When they tell you "no, you're not under
arrest but you're not free to leave." then tell them "I want to speak
to my attorney immediately, and have nothing further to say to you.
Arrest me or release me."
Whatever happens, you MUST maintain a calm, non-threatening demeanor
in the face of *whatever* they do. And exercise your right to remain
silent. You owe them no explanation unless you WANT to cooperate.
I'd cooperate the first couple of times, but then I'd stand on my
rights and let them hang themselves.
Next time you do it, get a friend with a video camera to tape the
whole thing.
But, don't expect too much, they will keep right on doing it to
everybody else, even if they get to know you as that "nut who walks
around town with the gun that we can't touch". They won't give the
next guy the same courtesy.
Until we *all* make it a practice to wander about town with rifles and
shotguns and sue them every time they violate our rights.
Of course, you also have to realize that the City can, and probably
would, pass an ordinance forbidding such acts, requiring that all guns
be kept cased. They passed an ordinance requiring that persons who
openly carry loaded handguns, such as security guards, be "licensed".
I think it was repealed, but I'm not sure, you might call the City
Attorney and ask them. They can probably get away with it because
they are a Home Rule city. It would take a Supreme Court case to
overturn it, but if you want to be the one, I'll support you.
Ben Holmes
Dale, right now my heart is racing and my face is flushed after reading
your experience. In 1993, when I was visiting Boulder to buy my home, I
was a guest at the Holiday Inn on 28th. The night I arrived happened to
be the night Paul McCartney was playing at CU. I had driven through the
desert to get to CO and had an AR-15 rifle, which I owned legally, in my
car. The rifle was in a box and was taped closed.
Upon arrival in Boulder, I moved the gun into my room and slid the box
under my bed. The next day, after a round of house hunting, I returned
to my room for a nap. A knock on the door turned out to be two large
Boulder PD officers. They requested to come in, I complied and was
immediately handcuffed and instructed to go to my knees while my room
was searched. They had a report from the housekeeper that I had a gun in
my room. After they checked the gun's number via phone I was released
from the handcuffs and they left. Just like you, no apology, nothing.
You are not the first. I say SUE THEM! If you would like more details,
I'm in the book.
--
Visit my on-line portfolio at http://www.frii.com/~bholmes/
Regards,
Ben Holmes
Photojournalist
Boulder, CO
USA
Scott Weiser
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:40:10 -0700, Ben Holmes <bho...@frii.com>
wrote:
>Dale, right now my heart is racing and my face is flushed after reading
>your experience. In 1993, when I was visiting Boulder to buy my home, I
>was a guest at the Holiday Inn on 28th. The night I arrived happened to
>be the night Paul McCartney was playing at CU. I had driven through the
>desert to get to CO and had an AR-15 rifle, which I owned legally, in my
>car. The rifle was in a box and was taped closed.
>
>Upon arrival in Boulder, I moved the gun into my room and slid the box
>under my bed. The next day, after a round of house hunting, I returned
>to my room for a nap. A knock on the door turned out to be two large
>Boulder PD officers. They requested to come in, I complied and was
>immediately handcuffed and instructed to go to my knees while my room
>was searched. They had a report from the housekeeper that I had a gun in
>my room. After they checked the gun's number via phone I was released
>from the handcuffs and they left. Just like you, no apology, nothing.
>You are not the first. I say SUE THEM! If you would like more details,
>I'm in the book.
This is absurd. They had no probable cause, they had no search
warrant, you had committed no crime. Your mistake was in allowing
them to come into your room. I *ALWAYS* have a gun in my room when
I'm travelling, right beside the bed. When you're in the room, it's
just like your home, and the police cannot enter without a warrant or
exigent circumstances. Possessing a gun is not "exigent
circumstances". Just say *no*. Then tell them to get a warrant.
Of course, you were a fool for leaving the gun in the room while you
weren't there, because it was much more likely that it would have
simply been stolen, and you'd have been out the gun, since there's no
"bailment" for your goods in a hotel room.
I hope you filed a complaint.
Connie Szeflinski
In article <3358e6aa...@news.dimensional.com> da...@thielen.com writes:
>
>On Thu, 17 Apr 97 19:13:47 GMT, Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa
>Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <33541A...@mathemaesthetics.com>,
>> Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Weiser writes:
>>>
>>>> Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5
>>>> million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.,
>>>> more than four times the reported number of violent crimes committed
>>>> with firearms.
>>>
>>>Here's some questions that come to my mind...
>>>
>>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>>>are 200,000 people in the county, were there 2000 incidents of
>>>protective use here? Seems very high to me. Assume that this figure is
>>>10 times too high for whatever reasons (e.g. the original 2.5 million
>>>were highly concentrated in cities, or whatever). Were there 200
>>>incidents of protective use in Boulder County last year?
>>>
>>>If 200 is a reasonable figure, then why haven't we ever heard about
>>>them?
>>>
>>>Doug McKenna
>>
>>The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
>>an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>
>the country. If you subtract kids (who can't own guns and by and large
>don't have one), you're at about 1/3 of the population.
>
>Hard to believe since I can only think of 1 or 2 people I know who own
>guns. And I know people from a reasonable cross-section of our
>culture.
>
>Is it safe to assume this is another NRA statistic?
>
How do you know who owns a gun or not. Do you ask everyone that you
know if they own one? I suspect that many folks you know do indeed own
guns, they just don't talk about it a whole lot.
I feel like i know a good cross section of people in Boulder county
too, and many of them are "40 something used to be hippies"... and well
over 50% of these "kind" folks own at least one gun. Perhaps anecdotal
evidence is not the best to use here, neither yours nor mine. I have
no trouble believing that there are 65 million gun owners in the US.
And, some of those 65 million are indeed "kids". I know many people
who received their first rifle as a birthday gift from dad way before
they turned 18 (or whatever you think the cut-off for gun ownership
is). There are many 12 year olds who "own" guns...
take care,
connie
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Szeflinski Boulder, CO & Santa Cruz, CA USA con...@cozmic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weiser
On 22 Apr 1997 02:00:58 GMT, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank
Crary) wrote:
>>hand carried the rifle straight back to my office, a distance of about
>>4 1/2 blocks. When I just entered the lobby of my office, where I own
>>a software consulting company, I was surrounded by four police
>>officers (backed up by a couple of squad cars) all with their hands on
>>their guns. I was ordered to put the rifle down, put up my hands and
>>come out. I informed them that it was an unloaded antique that I just
>>purchased and was taking home. I then was handcuffed, detained,
>>searched, and interrogated.
>
>This is a bit different from what people have been discussing in
>replies to your post. You had "just entered the lobby of [your]
>office". That is, they did not stop you on the street, but in
>your office (and, more to the point, the office of a company you
>own, as opposed to an office where you are an employee.) Police
>authority to enter private property and give orders to the
>tenant or owner of that property is, if memory serves, _much_
>more limited than their authority to give the same orders to
>someone on the street. Except for the handcuffs, and the fact
>that they can't "interrogate" someone like that (they can
>stop you and ask questions, but you don't have to answer them),
>their actions might have been legitimate if you had been on the
>streets. Inside your own office, unless the owner invited them
>in, their actions are very, very doubtful.
I'm certain that this would fall under the "exigent circumstances"
exception *IF* they felt they had reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to contact him in the first place, since they had no way of
knowing that it was "his" building. This seems to be the principle
question, is the mere "unalarming" possession of a weapon in a public
place (he was seen walking on the street) sufficient cause to justify
a Stone/Terry detention?
Frank Crary
In article <3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>,
Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This morning (Friday), I was harassed by the People's Republic of
>Boulder Police department. At about 10am, I purchased, at a gun store
>in downtown Boulder a Marlin 1881 .45-70 lever action rifle (made in
>1883). This gun, by legal definition, is an antique, not a gun.
Not quite. It is an antique, as the term is used in the Gun Control
Act and (I think) all more recent laws. That means you don't have
to fill out the federal record of sale form, can send it somewhere
by mail, without a federal firearms license, etc. But that only
applies to federal gun control laws. Local and state laws basically
consider anything that fires bullets to be a gun.
>...I
>hand carried the rifle straight back to my office, a distance of about
>4 1/2 blocks. When I just entered the lobby of my office, where I own
>a software consulting company, I was surrounded by four police
>officers (backed up by a couple of squad cars) all with their hands on
>their guns. I was ordered to put the rifle down, put up my hands and
>come out. I informed them that it was an unloaded antique that I just
>purchased and was taking home. I then was handcuffed, detained,
>searched, and interrogated.
This is a bit different from what people have been discussing in
replies to your post. You had "just entered the lobby of [your]
office". That is, they did not stop you on the street, but in
your office (and, more to the point, the office of a company you
own, as opposed to an office where you are an employee.) Police
authority to enter private property and give orders to the
tenant or owner of that property is, if memory serves, _much_
more limited than their authority to give the same orders to
someone on the street. Except for the handcuffs, and the fact
that they can't "interrogate" someone like that (they can
stop you and ask questions, but you don't have to answer them),
their actions might have been legitimate if you had been on the
streets. Inside your own office, unless the owner invited them
in, their actions are very, very doubtful.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5jekvh$j...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>>: I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
>>: It's a Bill Of Rights not a bill of needs. We have a right to them and
>>: that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
>
>>it doesn't say guns it says arms - just like you and your "guns don't
kill
>>people" pedantics. It is not clear they could predict hand held
>>automatic weapons when they wrote it.
>
>your logic, these things would not be covered by the First Amendment's
>freedom of speech and of the press clauses.
Please, don't give them any more ideas. The Constitution is eroded enough.
- Melissa
If you actually read my post, are not a spammer just harvesting names for your trash junk mail,
and if you'd like to reply by email, please remove the XXX out of my email address in the address listed
before sending it to me. Thanks.
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335add11...@nntp.netcruiser>,
da...@ix.netcom.com (Dale Anderson) wrote:
>After I posted my message about police harassment last Friday, I went
>over to the police building to complain. Once there, I had a talk
>with an officer who took my story. After recounting the events, he
>(no big surprise here) stated that all of the officer's actions were
>legal. He then said that he thought that they overreacted and was
>going to inform all officers at the next pre-patrol meeting that they
>should try for minimal reaction when justified in future events. So,
>he is saying that what they did was legal, but they won't do it again.
>Who says that the President is not a role model in this country?
>
>He then explained my options. I could: 1) drop the matter, 2) enter a
>new binding arbitration program, 3) file a formal complaint with the
>Internal Affairs division, and/or 4) file a lawsuit. Before deciding,
>I asked him to provide me a copy of the contact report to see how they
>handled the matter internally. He promised I would be sent one "If
>the officers bothered to right one up". At this time, I am leaning
>toward filing a complaint with the I.A. division and wait to see about
>suing at a later time. The channels are there I want to go through
>the system that is set up for such complaints.
>
>In addition to seeking redress to having my rights trampled on Friday,
>I want to ensure that this will not happen again. I fully intend to
>purchase more firearms from the same place and also take advantage of
>their gunsmithing services, so I will be carrying firearms between my
>office and the gun store many times in the future. This time, I bent
>over backwards to help these officers deal with the situation. I did
>not have to volunteer that I just purchased the rifle and did not have
>to offer to show them the receipt, I did not have to say that I was at
>the front door of my office, I did not even have to be overly polite
>(I would NEVER cross the line and become abusive, as an event like
>this is a terrible time for such histrionics).
>
>By proactively telling them that I was breaking no law and would
>cooperate fully, that I did not want anyone to be hurt due to the
>slightest misunderstanding, offering more information than they
>requested, immediately doing everything they ordered me to do, being
>overly polite, and not questioning them nor confronting their actions
>at all, I was still handcuffed and detained. What would have happened
>if I would have just said, "I am doing nothing illegal, intend no
>harm, and would like to leave now"? Would I be arrested, beaten,
>hauled off to jail? Millions of Americans have died defending the
>rights that these officers abused and it would be a dishonor to them
>to not follow this complaint through the system to ensure that it not
>happen again in the future, to me nor anyone else.
>
>
>Dale Anderson
>Boulder, Colorado
>da...@ix.netcom.com
Did they say anything about offering to pay for the damage to your rifle?
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5jeu1g$1ru$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: Nor could they have predicted radio, television, or the internet. By
>: your logic, these things would not be covered by the First Amendment's
>: freedom of speech and of the press clauses.
>Maybe not but they did bring a whole slew of laws and regulations.
Rather
>like the you can't listen in to cellular calls.
That happens to be a violation of free speech and the long held principle
that the air waves belong to the public and that people are free to listen
to whatever they want. If the cell phone people don't want others
listening they can scramble. But the laws about the air waves have always
held that people could listen to whatever they wanted as long as they
didn't divulge police transmissions or use them for illegal purposes.
IMO, it's also an infringement on free speech to tell people what they can
& can't listen to, as there's not much point in having free speech if
someone else can tell people they can't listen to it.
> The basic element of
>ideas has stayed the same all that has changed is the transmission
method.
> Freedom of speech doesn't hurt anyone.
I wouldn't say that either. It hurts tyrants and they don't like it one
bit and would live to be able to supress it the same ways as guns.
> Guns.....
>
Guns don't hurt anyone either, people do.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <335b1603....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
wei...@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:16:14 -0600, abe <a...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kelvin Fedrick wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3358296e....@nntp.netcruiser>,
>>> Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The law generally considers "concealed" to mean "within easy reach of
>the occupants" and capable of being put into action with a single
>action. The intent being to prevent people from shooting cops during
>traffic stops. If the weapon is in a holster, in a case, behind the
>seat, where it would take more than one motion to get it out, it's not
>"concealed" under the commonly accepted meaning of the statute. Which
>doesn't mean you won't be arrested if you have it *anywhere* but
>unloaded in the trunk. It just means you probably won't be
>*convicted*.
Years ago we used to know an Iraqi-American arms dealer here who would
carry a semi-auto 9 MM in his glove compartment and the loaded clip in his
pocket. He said that if he really needed it, it would be a simple enough
matter to take the pistol out and slam the clip in. It sounded pretty
reasonable to me at the time but I don't know if it would violate any
present laws.
David Thielen
On 21 Apr 1997 01:28:33 GMT, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com> <3356e5e8...@news.dimensional.com> <5j9b9c$h5g...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com> <335a4386....@news.dimensional.com> <5jboqh$frk...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
>
>Distribution:
>
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>: I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
>: It's a Bill Of Rights not a bill of needs. We have a right to them and
>: that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
>it doesn't say guns it says arms - just like you and your "guns don't kill
>people" pedantics. It is not clear they could predict hand held
>automatic weapons when they wrote it. Other laws and interpretations have
>changed with time but apparently this one gets people excited.
I think it was the right to "bare arms" which means corporations can't
make us wear long sleeved shirts.
- dave
=====
David Thielen
www.windward.net
home of Enemy Nations (Red Alert meets Civilization)
David Thielen
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:34:12 GMT, wei...@dimensional.com (Scott
Weiser) wrote:
>On 18 Apr 1997 00:29:44 GMT, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>
>>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>>: The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
>>: an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>>Seems as though you care an infinitessimally small amount about having a
>>more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
>>fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
>>medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
>
>No such nation exists anywhere on the face of the planet. Just ask
>the residents of Canada or Dunblane, Scotland.
So people at elementary schools like Dunblane should carry weapons? Oh
boy would this make things safer - armed elementary school teachers...
Frank Crary
In article <335add11...@nntp.netcruiser>,
Dale Anderson <da...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>After I posted my message about police harassment last Friday, I went
>over to the police building to complain. Once there, I had a talk
>he is saying that what they did was legal, but they won't do it again.
>new binding arbitration program, 3) file a formal complaint with the
>Internal Affairs division, and/or 4) file a lawsuit. Before deciding,
>I asked him to provide me a copy of the contact report to see how they
>handled the matter internally. He promised I would be sent one "If
>the officers bothered to right one up". At this time, I am leaning
>toward filing a complaint with the I.A. division and wait to see about
>suing at a later time.
If the officers involved did not "bother to" write a report, I would
strongly suggest that you file a complaint with the I.A. division.
Not filing such a report is stupid and dangerous. I'm not sure about
the Boulder police, but other police departments use such reports
as part of training for police officers. Basically, these reports
are part of a data base on how to handle, and how not to handle,
certain situations. I think that is critical for correcting problems,
and if the officers involved didn't "bother" to file a report about
an event involving a deadly weapon, someone ought to yell at them.
That would imply a careless and harmful attitude. In addition, it
might imply they they were not reporting incidents in which they
made a serious mistake, and that should _not_ be an acceptable
attitude within any police department.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Scott Weiser
>Years ago we used to know an Iraqi-American arms dealer here who would
>carry a semi-auto 9 MM in his glove compartment and the loaded clip in his
>pocket. He said that if he really needed it, it would be a simple enough
>matter to take the pistol out and slam the clip in. It sounded pretty
>reasonable to me at the time but I don't know if it would violate any
>present laws.
As I said, carrying a concealed weapon in Colorado is a misdemeanor,
under *all* circumstances (except one, which I will mention later), in
your car, on your private property, in public with or without a
permit.....anywhere, anytime, whether you are a citizen or police
officer.
There are, however "affirmative defenses" to a charge of carrying a
concealed weapon, but, and it's a big but, you must present this
defense *in court*, to the judge.
This means that if you are found with a concealed weapon, you can be
arrested, handcuffed, transported, booked, jailed, bonded, arraigned,
and compelled to come to court, at which time you present your defense
and the case is dismissed.
The arrest then remains on your record, and may affect your ability to
obtain/retain your permit, and the process of arrest, being jailed for
up to 48 hours, forced to post bond, hire an attorney and suchlike are
a significant burden and imposition in and of themselves.
The pending statute would change this and make it "not an offense" if
you held a permit or were a police officer, which would eliminate the
potential for abuse by officers or jurisdictions with anti-gun
agendas.
Which brings up the sole exception to the "affirmative defense"
construction of the current statute:
That is if you are carrying a concealed weapon *on school, seminary or
University grounds* and have a valid permit, where the statute clearly
states that "it shall not be an offense under this section."
The current policy of the University Police Department is to ignore
the pre-emptive effects of 18-12-105.5 regarding the carrying of
weapons on campus and cite violators under the "Unlawful Conduct on
Public Property" statute, which allows administrators to make rules
regarding conduct in public buildings and on public property.
This issue is still in a state of flux, and I am currently researching
and writing a paper for presentation to the District Attorney which
clarifies the required statutory interpretations. It's clear to me
that the use of the Unlawful Conduct statute is improper, since the
specific subject matter of permitted concealed weapons carriage on
University grounds has been addressed by the Legislature in a specific
statute which makes it not a crime to do so. Common rules of
statutory construction dictate that where the Legislature has
specifically addressed a matter, that statute acts to preempt other
regulations of a more general nature which purport to regulate the
same conduct. The Chief of Police and the University Counsel have
stated that they will "entertain any challenges as they occur."
Jack Rudd
David Thielen wrote:
>
> Actually not counting countries that are basically anarchies like
> Somalia and Lebanon, name a country with a higher murder rate. Last I
> heard we were the world's top.
>
No, not at all. Russia has a higher murder rate than the USA, and
South Africa (still) has a much higher murder rate. Several times
as high. Not counting the countries you also wouldn't include,
South Africa has the highest murder rate of all.
Dale Anderson
Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
>Did they say anything about offering to pay for the damage to your rifle?
>
>
>- Melissa
>
Though the damage does not appear to be severe (I have not fired the
rifle yet, so I do not know if there is a mechanical problem) but, no,
they did not..
Frank Crary
In article <3358e6aa...@news.dimensional.com>,
David Thielen <da...@thielen.com> wrote:
>>The main point is that over 65 million people own guns in this country and
>>an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
>Another interesting statistic. That's about 25% of the population of
>the country. If you subtract kids (who can't own guns and by and large
>don't have one), you're at about 1/3 of the population.
>Hard to believe since I can only think of 1 or 2 people I know who own
>guns. And I know people from a reasonable cross-section of our
>culture.
>Is it safe to assume this is another NRA statistic?
No. The 65 million number is from a study published by Wright and Rossi
(sp?), published in the early 1980s. Wright has no affiliation with
the NRA, and has publicly stated that he started working on the
study to prove gun control would reduce crime, although his results
ended up proving the opposite. More recent work has shown that the
fraction of people owning guns hasn't changed much, although the
average number of guns per owner has increases (i.e. a gun owner
today is more likely to own two or more guns than he was in the
early 1980s.) By the way, that number is the national total. A
Denver Post survey a few years ago found that about 60% of the
people (adults) in Colorado owned a gun, and about 40% owned a pistol.
(And that's just the number who said so when the Denver Post's
survey people asked them...)
As for you only knowing a couple of people who own guns, you probably
know more gun owners who haven't mentioned the fact to you. As an
example, I and about 20 other people entered a particular department
of the University of Colorado in 1992. Of that group, I know of
three who own guns: Myself and two others. The other two mentioned
the fact to me _because_ they knew I objected to gun control and
wouldn't think of them as "gun nuts" if I found out they owned a
gun. One, in fact, specifically asked that I not tell anyone else,
for exactly this reason. I'm fairly sure there are some other
gun owners in this group, who I don't know about.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <3359432a....@news.dimensional.com>,
David Thielen <da...@thielen.com> wrote:
>>Of course, comparing the US to another country may or may not be
>>valid. It is not LIKE most other countries. For every country
>>you bring up that has no guns and less crime, I can bring one
>>up that has guns and less crime or less guns and more crime.
>Actually not counting countries that are basically anarchies like
>Somalia and Lebanon, name a country with a higher murder rate. Last I
>heard we were the world's top.
I have no idea where you heard that. Jamica, for example, has roughly
twice the homicide rate as the United States. Interestingly, it also
has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world. As a
counter-example, Switzerland has gun laws similar to those of the
United States, a relatively high fraction of the population owns
guns, and a very low homicide rate. (And, no, I'm not talking about
the assault rifles issued to a large fraction of the public as part
of Switzerland's militia/national service.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <335759...@mathemaesthetics.com>,
Doug McKenna <do...@mathemaesthetics.com> wrote:
>>>The above statistic implies, on average, that there's one protective use
>>>of a firearm per year for every 100 people (assuming 250 million in
>>>country). Can you extrapolate this to, say Boulder County? If there
>>No you can't. Boulder is ridiculously affluent and has no real social
>>problems as compared to the rest of the nation...
>Which is why I discounted the extrapolated figure (2000) to 1/10 (200).
>Heck, discount it to 1%. Have there been 20 incidents in the last year
>of people in Boulder County thwarting criminials with their guns? I
>could believe there have been, but I have not heard of a single
>incident.
The statistics in question are based on the Justice Department's
National Crime Victimization Survey. This is an annual study,
done to estimate crime rates, including those which are _not_
reported to the police. In particular, the FBI's statistics
report only those crimes which are reported, and drastically undercount
rapes and thefts of under $100. That's the motive for the NCVS.
But it also shows that crimes involving a successful self-defence
also go unreported. Sometimes, the person involved did something
illegal, like carrying a pistol without a permit, and doesn't want
to tell the police about it. In other cases, they don't think it's
worth reporting: The crime is over, they weren't hurt, and there
isn't much the police can do. So the incident isn't reported, but
would show up in the NCVS statistics. If it isn't reported, you aren't
going to hear about it, unless it happened to a personal friend.
Also, most cases of self-defence aren't exactly headline news.
"Someone broke into a house, then ran off as soon as the resident
pointed a gun at him." isn't exactly front-page material. So you
don't end up hearing about many of the cases that _are_ reported to
the police.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Scott Weiser
On 23 Apr 1997 05:42:12 GMT, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>
>Dan Duncan (da...@shell.rmii.com) wrote:
>: Exactly! See, I KNEW you knew this. But taking away their guns won't
>: stop them from killing people. SHOOTING people, maybe. Then they'll
>: resort to stabbing people. Or chopping them up with machetes. (Check
>: out Rwanda) But you see, guns already EXIST. We've HAD them. A legal
>: ban will only make the law abiding ones turn them in. The crooks
>: will hang onto them. You see, criminals by definition don't obey
>: laws. The gods knew that once Prometheus had given us fire, it
>: couldn't be taken away. Why don't you?
>Yes but you don't become a murderer until you murder someone.
Precisely. And if you are determined to murder someone, you will use
whatever weapon comes to hand, and all you do by disarming the
law-abiding public is to make them defenseless, as they are in England
and Australia and Canada.
> And quite
>simply countries with more restrictive handgun policies have less hand gun
>murders. Yes I know they have the same number of knife and other attacks.
This is because the Pandora's box was never opened, and the cultural
mores are different. In Japan, for instance, obediance to
governmental authority is a cultural norm, and they don't question
when the government does things which we find repugnant....like
ignoring the practice of sexual assault and fondling of schoolgirls on
subways and government-supported prostitution involving children.
In England, being a very small country, importation of handguns was
never permitted to become widespread, so civilians never had them.
But this has not stopped criminals from using smuggled handguns, and
the crime rate involving handguns is skyrocketing in both Britain and
Japan, to the point where *WE* are sending the English police our used
body armor, and Parliment is authorizing the street Bobby to carry a
handgun for the first time in history.
>Freon was made illegal even though it only had killed a few people and it
>largely has gone away.
Freon is not an offensive weapon, it is also not a defensive weapon,
and it's not protected by the Constitution.
> Getting rid of guns would be difficult but I can't
>see that saying the criminals would keep them is a very good excuse fro
>not doing it.
It's absolutely the BEST reason, aside from the Constitution! When
you confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens, then you leave only the
criminals and police with guns. The police are not, and never have
been, responsible for the individual safety of citizens, and your plan
makes helpless sheep of everyone, free for the criminals to prey upon.
No thanks.
> Reducing the availability would increase the cost of those
>tht were available which would tend to make them more expensive and
>therefore less available to people who are short of money which is why
>some of them resort to using a gun.
Which would also discriminate against poor, but honest citizens who
could no longer afford to buy a weapon to protect themselves with, and
would leave all the remaining weapons in the hands of the rich....sort
of like South Africa.
Poverty does not make criminals.
>The mass production of AK47's brought the price down way too far.
"AK47's" are not handguns, by the way......sheesh. (Nor are they
"AK47's", which are fully-automatic assault rifles (the REAL thing).
And then there's the OTHER reason for allowing citizens to be
armed....so they can put down tyrannical governments and factions
which try to take away their constitutional rights....by force if
necessary.
George Boggs
In article <5jefs1$n2o$1...@news-2.csn.net>, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard)
wrote:
> j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
<3356e5e8...@news.dimensional.com>
<5j9b9c$h5g...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
<335a4386....@news.dimensional.com>
<5jboqh$frk...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
>
> Distribution:
>
> Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
> : I didn't say we needed them. Need has nothing to do with civil rights.
> : It's a Bill Of Rights not a bill of needs. We have a right to them and
> : that right should not be infringed if people choose to exercise it.
> it doesn't say guns it says arms - just like you and your "guns don't kill
> people" pedantics.
I think you may mean "semantics". And yes, it says "arms". The use of the
word "armed" is extremely common in the contemporary lexicon, and no one I
know thinks the Second Amendment means cap and ball squirrel guns.
As an aside, do you say "cars kill people"? Or do you say "drunk drivers
and careless motorists" kill people?
> It is not clear they could predict hand held
> automatic weapons when they wrote it. Other laws and interpretations have
> changed with time but apparently this one gets people excited.
Well, actually, one of the more recent attempts to interpret the
Constitution in a "modern sense" was the attempt to censor speech on the
Internet. The Founders with imagination might have been able to
extrapolate to modern arms from the arms that they knew about, but they
surely could not extrapolate to a technology that is, in the form
recognizable to most of us, about 50 years old. Where do you stand on the
Internet censorship issue, and how does your view dovetail with your
argument above?
[...]
--
remove "j" for e-mail
G. Boggs God: "Sum id quod sum."
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum
est quod sum."
Chris Pollard
Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world. As a
: counter-example, Switzerland has gun laws similar to those of the
: United States, a relatively high fraction of the population owns
: guns, and a very low homicide rate. (And, no, I'm not talking about
Yes but by Melissa's definition Switzerland is almost a police state -
they even have rules about how men can go to the bathroom in apartments.
Chris Pollard
Dan Duncan (da...@shell.rmii.com) wrote:
: Exactly! See, I KNEW you knew this. But taking away their guns won't
: stop them from killing people. SHOOTING people, maybe. Then they'll
: resort to stabbing people. Or chopping them up with machetes. (Check
: out Rwanda) But you see, guns already EXIST. We've HAD them. A legal
: ban will only make the law abiding ones turn them in. The crooks
: will hang onto them. You see, criminals by definition don't obey
: laws. The gods knew that once Prometheus had given us fire, it
: couldn't be taken away. Why don't you?
Yes but you don't become a murderer until you murder someone. And quite
simply countries with more restrictive handgun policies have less hand gun
murders. Yes I know they have the same number of knife and other attacks.
Freon was made illegal even though it only had killed a few people and it
largely has gone away. Getting rid of guns would be difficult but I can't
see that saying the criminals would keep them is a very good excuse fro
not doing it. Reducing the availability would increase the cost of those
tht were available which would tend to make them more expensive and
therefore less available to people who are short of money which is why
some of them resort to using a gun.
Frank Crary
In article <5jk7fl$rr9$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
Chris Pollard <cpol...@csn.net> wrote:
>: Exactly! See, I KNEW you knew this. But taking away their guns won't
>: stop them from killing people. SHOOTING people, maybe. Then they'll
>: resort to stabbing people. Or chopping them up with machetes. (Check
>: out Rwanda) But you see, guns already EXIST. We've HAD them. A legal
>: ban will only make the law abiding ones turn them in. The crooks
>: will hang onto them. You see, criminals by definition don't obey
>: laws. The gods knew that once Prometheus had given us fire, it
>: couldn't be taken away. Why don't you?
>Yes but you don't become a murderer until you murder someone. And quite
>simply countries with more restrictive handgun policies have less hand gun
>murders.
Not really. Jamica is a strong counter-example. With draconian gun
control laws, they still have more gun-related murders than the United
States. (By the way, Bob Marley's song, "I shot the sheriff", isn't
about America's "wild west"...)
>...Yes I know they have the same number of knife and other attacks.
In general, they don't, which is an interesting point when comparing
homicide rates. Murders using knives and other weapons are about
five times as common in the US as they are in England, while the
total homicide rate is about a factor of ten higher in the US.
That means something other than gun control laws makes homicides
at least five times less common in England, and suggests that
there gun control laws may be irrelevant to England's low murder
rates.
>...Getting rid of guns would be difficult but I can't
>see that saying the criminals would keep them is a very good excuse fro
>not doing it. Reducing the availability would increase the cost of those...
It isn't clear that the availability of guns would be reduced by any
law. Guns are quite easy to make, smuggle into a country, or steal
from police or the military. Given how long it takes before a gun
wears out (over 50 years in most cases), these sources could easily
keep the black market supplied.
>...therefore less available to people who are short of money which is why
>some of them resort to using a gun.
"Some" is a bit vague. This certainly isn't true of drug dealers, and
most gang-related gun crimes aren't about money. A ban might result
in a small reduction in the number of gun-armed criminals, but it
would also be a de-facto ban on effective self-defence. That would
do far more harm than good.
>The mass production of AK47's brought the price down way too far.
Have you priced any recently? First, AK-47 are a fully-automatic
rifle, and therefore illegal to own without a special license which,
among other things costs something like $200. You are probably thinking
of the semi-automatic version of this rifle. Last time I checked, it
listed for over $1000. (Mostly because of panic buying associated with
potential bans on such weapons, not because of cost of manufacture.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
George Boggs
In article <335d329e....@news.dimensional.com>, da...@thielen.com
(David Thielen) wrote:
> [...]
>
> So people at elementary schools like Dunblane should carry weapons? Oh
> boy would this make things safer - armed elementary school teachers...
>
>
Maybe you do know something, Dave. I'm sure you are referring to the
apparent reductions in crime rate in many of the 31 states that now have
concealed carry laws. Aren't you?
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
>>
>>>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone (Melis...@asupernet.com) wrote:
>>>: an infinitessimally small number of people harm anyone with them.
a
>>>more civilized country where you can drive or walk anywhere without the
>>>fear of having somebody shoot at you. Of course ther is such a good
>>>medical system that getting shot is no worry either.
>>
>>No such nation exists anywhere on the face of the planet. Just ask
>>the residents of Canada or Dunblane, Scotland.
>
>boy would this make things safer - armed elementary school teachers...
Actually it just might make things safer if teachers were trained & armed,
in instances like the Dunblane massacre. At least they wouldn't have been
sitting there helpless like a flock of sheep ripe for slaughter. Teachers
were armed in the old west.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <gjboggs-2204...@192.0.2.1>,
gjb...@indra.com (George Boggs) wrote:
>In article <5jefs1$n2o$1...@news-2.csn.net>, cpol...@csn.net (Chris
Pollard)
>wrote:
>
>> j6csv$f5c...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
><3356e5e8...@news.dimensional.com>
><5j9b9c$h5g...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
><335a4386....@news.dimensional.com>
><5jboqh$frk...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>
>>
>> Distribution:
>>
You don't even have to go as far as the net, there's also radio & tv.
Rights is rights.
- Melissa ( Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone )
If you'd like to reply by email, remove the XXX from my email address before sending.
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/ http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/melissas.htm
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/wpdsgn.htm Abusive email may be posted.
Personal opinions I express are not necessarily those of the organizations I may be doing volunteer work for.
Please don't send me email copies of your follow ups to my posts unless I request it.
George Boggs
In article <5jk7fl$rr9$1...@news-2.csn.net>, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard)
wrote:
> [...] And quite
> simply countries with more restrictive handgun policies have less hand gun
> murders. [...]
Quite simply, that is utterly false as stated. You are speaking from
ignorance, and should have more self-respect than to utter such tripe in a
public arena where you will be called on it.
It is true that some countries with restrictive gun policies have less gun
crimes than the US. The UK comes to mind. However, you obviously do not
know that, as UK gun laws have become more draconian, their gun crime rate
- not "knife crime" - *gun crime* rate is rising. How do you explain that?
On the other hand, Switzerland, which has a national policy of
distributing fully-automatic assault weapons to the militia (the male
citizens) that are kept in homes has a very low gun crime rate.
No, Mr. Pollard, you should get your facts straight. Unless, of course,
you are gabbling with a gaggle of like-minded hoplophobic toadies, in
which case you can bandy about whatever imaginative myths you choose.
George Boggs
In article <5jk7k4$rr9$2...@news-2.csn.net>, cpol...@csn.net (Chris Pollard)
wrote:
> [...]
> Yes but by Melissa's definition Switzerland is almost a police state -
> they even have rules about how men can go to the bathroom in apartments.
Of what relevance is this to a gun discussion. Sidestepping, you say?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
>: has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world. As a
>: counter-example, Switzerland has gun laws similar to those of the
>: United States, a relatively high fraction of the population owns
>: guns, and a very low homicide rate. (And, no, I'm not talking about
>they even have rules about how men can go to the bathroom in apartments.
My definition? Must be someone else. I know little about the Swiss except
that I like their cheese.
Joel....@colorado.edu
In article <5jp280$hsg$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Kelvin Fedrick) writes:
>In article <gjboggs-2404...@192.0.2.1>,
>George Boggs <gjb...@indra.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well, there's also Mexico, and guns are basically banned there.
>
>I beg your pardon? I have a coworker who said he and his brother-in-law,
>cousin, or something went to Mexico a couple of times just so they could
>fire automatic weapons because Mexico has *less* restrictive gun laws.
>
>-kelvin
Hmmm I kinda doubt this. I know for certain that Mexico has a complete ban
on the possession and ownership of handguns and also, I believe, most if not
all rifles and shotguns. Perhaps your people were in *New* Mexico?
Or for that matter, Las Vegas, where you can rent and fire full-auto weapons
(if you have any money left) without having to cross an international
border to do it.
I have heard of hunting in Mexico but I don't know the details. It's also
possible there is some sort of tourist attraction where people can fire
full-auto but no way are those weapons legally available to the common
folk. Mexico does, however, have a huge black market for guns and many
otherwise law-abiding people have an illegal handgun hidden away somewhere.
-Joel Frahm
Steven M. Wilson
In article <5jp280$hsg$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Kelvin Fedrick <fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>> Well, there's also Mexico, and guns are basically banned there.
> I beg your pardon? I have a coworker who said he and his
> brother-in-law, cousin, or something went to Mexico a couple of
> times just so they could fire automatic weapons because Mexico has
> *less* restrictive gun laws.
Either you misunderstood them, or they are dang lucky 'mercans! Gun
laws are very restrictive there (nationally), and penalties for their
infraction are severe. Probably the only thing worse than having a
gun in Mexico is driving your car on a "no-circulation day" for your
license plate! (First infraction for that is a 1-month impound of
your vehicle!)
In Mexico (I have family in the D.F. -- Mexico City, that is) the only
caliber of gun that can be owned by civilians is a .22, and that only
with permits. And for transport, permission is needed for each area
you pass through.
Hunting is very difficult there, everything has to be set up with
leased guns and guides etc.
Advise your co-worker's relation to double-check his laws before his
backside winds up in a Mexican prison. (They don't get cable TV in
jail there...)
--
--Steve...@Colorado.EDU * http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/
[PGP: finger -l] A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its
redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make
himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong. Edgar Allen Poe
Frank Crary
In article <5jql1p$9...@lace.colorado.edu>, <Joel....@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>>Well, there's also Mexico, and guns are basically banned there.
>>I beg your pardon? I have a coworker who said he and his brother-in-law,
>>cousin, or something went to Mexico a couple of times just so they could
>>fire automatic weapons because Mexico has *less* restrictive gun laws.
>Hmmm I kinda doubt this. I know for certain that Mexico has a complete ban
>on the possession and ownership of handguns and also, I believe, most if not
>all rifles and shotguns.
I believe the restriction is on owning rifles in "military" calibers, i.e.
a caliber used by a military-issue rifle. That sort of restriction is
fairly common in latin America. However, enforcement of laws in Mexico
is less than uniform. If the local authorities looked the other way,
you could probably go down there and do some plinking with an automatic
weapon in the middle of the desert. But the story doesn't still doesn't
sound right to me: Even if the local authorities didn't object (i.e.
chose not to enforce the national laws), getting an automatic weapon
in and out through customs would be very, very difficult. Much more
so than going to a state which allowed firing of automatic weapons
(e.g. your suggesting that the original poster's friend said New Mexico,
and the original poster misunderstood.) In any case, the original
statement is also a bit odd, since (if the poster's friend is in
Colorado) he can fire automatic weapons here, at certain rifle ranges
and (I think) on BLM lands. The legal restrictions on such weapons,
at least here in Colorado, are the federal laws about owning one and
a ban on hunting with them.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder