http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm

Gun maker: No gun show sales

DENVER - The nation's largest gun manufacturer is instructing distributors not to sell its firearms at gun shows, apparently the first policy of its kind, The Denver Post reported Saturday. In contracts with distributors, Sturm, Ruger & Co. states that its shotguns, rifles and handguns be supplied only ''to federally licensed firearms dealers selling exclusively from their regular place of business,'' the newspaper said. Millions of guns are sold or traded every year at an estimated 4,400 gun shows nationwide. Federally licensed gun dealers must conduct background checks on gun-show customers, but unlicensed private dealers are not required to conduct the checks. Unregulated sales at gun shows became a target of criticism after weapons sold without background checks at the shows were used in the Columbine High School massacre.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000

Answers

WASHINGTON- In an apparent effort to forestall
any further federal investigations, three major
Gun manufacturers agreed to modify their distribution
agreements today. No longer will dealers be able
to sell to just anyone that passes a background
check, the customer must undergo a simple two day
examination at a local Psychiatric center. After
proper forms are completed, the customer may
then opt to complete the transaction with the dealer.

How soon till this story gets filed?

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

first colt, now ruger?

-- snikpoh (snikpoh@ecentral.com), January 16, 2000.

I doubt this will make much of a difference other than a slight increase in prices across the board. Instead of buying directly the gun show dealers will place their orders though brick-and-mortar establishments who will in turn add on a few bucks for each gun they handle. If the gun show dealer is also a brick-and-mortar then all they have to do is spin off a seperate company that does business exclusively at shows and sell to that spin-off.

The gun makers aren't dumb (well, not ALL of them). What they have done is help shield themselves from liability (real or imagined) while not fundamentally changing the market. Works for me.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), January 16, 2000.

LOL possible impact! Job security for me then:) Good thing you were kidding, cause I wouldn't trust my co-workers to make that determination, heh. The main instrument they use is the MMPI which was designed for institutionalized persons, and so measures sane respondents as liars, historical reason (which kids giving the test are too young to know) is that the test was for persons in a funny farm most of their lives, so if they denied hard core symptoms on the test then they really were lying!

Now, accurate instruments for average folks aren't utilized in my facility. No wonder the court orders persons in this jurisdiction to get their assessments done only by us. Go figure.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

-Rant On-

Boycott Ruger and Colt, write them and let them know that you are boycotting them, and continuously write your state senators and congresspersons (I do this monthly) expressing your views on unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, not to mention the 10th amendment violations we are suffering every day when the federal government ignores state sovereignty.

Boycott companies that represent views and opinions that restrict our freedom of choice. Write them, and send them photocopies of receipts when you purchase items from their competitors. Let them know you freely share your views with others.

The government pattern on gun control is clear, just like it was with tobacco: Tax it, regulate it, declare it unsafe, declare a national health and welfare emergency, sue the companies that produce it, raise taxes further on its sale, remove power of choice from the citizens, and justify larger and larger budgets to "combat" the threat.

Privately held firearms thwart 2.5 million crimes per year. This is an irrefutable fact. Responsible citizens should not be restricted on the possession of firearms, because, aside from being unconstitutional, it is not the governments job to "protect us from ourselves".

All this comes from a non-smoker who only owns three guns! We need to get pissed off soon, or we will be down to nicorette gum and slingshots by the end of this decade, along with "at will" property searches, and photo-radar in our living rooms, all done in "our best interests".

-Rant Off-

-- Dr. No (no@no.no), January 16, 2000.

This is good news to me. (ducking now) =)

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 16, 2000.

---have fun cinloo, next time you get burglarized or mugged or whatever, or it's your child. Try "reasoning" with the badguys, that always works. That's as bad a flame as you'll get from me. Wish you could have spoken to ANY of the couple hundred women who came into the gunstore, where I used to work, to get their first gun, AFTER the fact of needing one. Some of them had some really interesting and fun times being "sport" for a carload of really nice guys for hours. But that's ok, nothing bad will ever happen to you, honest, crimes only happen to those other folks on the teevee.

--besides that,ruger can byte me. Wonder if ruger will be at the SHOT show coming up? Be interesting to see if they are hippocrites or not, I'm bettin hippocrites and they'll show up with the same big booth.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), January 16, 2000.

Zog...

bad things HAVE happened to me, and yes, very bad things. I still don't feel the need for a gun, nor do I want to kill anyone. I don't believe more guns is the answer to fighting crime. That's my opinion. I AM entitled to my opinion, right Zog?

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 16, 2000.

It's Constitutionalist Quote Time!

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution-- A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference . . .
George Washington

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.
Thomas Jefferson

-- Cherokee (Cherokee@qtmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Oh, almost forgot-- a very short quiz:

Q: Who is the first person at the scene of a crime? A: The victim.

-- Cherokee (Cherokee@qtmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Cin

I don't want to kill anyone either. It's just that if anyone comes into my house uninvited with the intent on harming my wife, son, or myself, I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to put a .40 cal hollowpoint between their eye's.

Then again I could kill them with my throwing knife, fighting bow, baseball bat, or my wifes heavy 12" frying pan. It's just that I find the gun to be more efficient.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), January 17, 2000.

Gun control is a steady hand. Anyone who does not understand the significance of the previous George Washington quote isn't worthy of oxygen, but is welcome to their opinion in what's left of a free country.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 17, 2000.

People who don't "understand" the George Washington quote, aren't worthy of oxygen? In other words, shouldn't live?

Just the sort of hostile attitude that many gun enthusiasts carry. And THAT is a very scary thing indeed. Thanks for proving a point Will.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin, I'd like to share with you what I have learned in the past year about gun possession. It is not the number of guns owned that contributes to crime...it is the number in the hands of criminals, not "the good guys." Also, in every nation and every state in America where gun carrying is permitted, crime has gone down appreciably (you can check the statistics readily at www.nra.com and other websites.) It is when good citizens can protect themselves that the criminal element reconsiders attacking and robbing them at gunpoint, knowing that they might be shot instead. There are whole books and monthly articles in the NRA's magazine about people whose lives were saved by their possession of a gun. When you take an NRA concealed carry class, two of the instructors are a state trooper and a judge, who attest to these facts. Permits in Virginia are only issued to people with perfectly clean legal and mental records. Law abiding citizens are not going to use their guns thoughtlessly, believe me. And most citizens mistakenly believe that it is the police's job to protect the citizens from criminal attacks, which it is not. Also, they only arrive AFTER the fact...after the 911 call. Having been the victim of a serious crime, I am very much an advocate of the right to own arms.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

How does this decision affect one's right to own guns?

Can't you still buy these guns, just not at gun shows?

If so, what's the problem here? I don't see it.

And why boycott a company because they've chosen the outlets in which their items are sold? Aren't the gun makers allowed to decide who can sell their guns?

-- (very@confused.here), January 17, 2000.

The morality of this country is spiraling rapidly and steadily downward. I'm sure some of the constitution was well-intended, but some aspects just don't work in the long run. It's not the answer. I think the history of society has proven it.

I think the real deterrent to crime is better parenting and the instilling of values and morals. I am trying to teach my children the value of life, any life. And that other living things (people et. al.) aren't here for their gratification but to co-exist with.

I realize that this seems impossible to most, but is it really?

I will defend myself, but with non-lethal methods.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference . . ."

I cannot see the point of gun control, and was not advocating it; I just totally disagree with that statement.

Gun control is like trying to close the stable door after 200 million horses have bolted. Gun control is like turning off the tap are you have flooded the entire basement. Gun control is like trying to mow the lawn with scissors after you have let if grow for two centuries. Gun control, like Prohibition before it, is an ineffective solution to an already established problem.

I just do not believe that rifles and pistols are essential to secure peace, security, and happiness(!?). How can owning a firearm to protect yourself from criminals (with firearms) possibly make you happy? I think's its awful that things have degenerated into a personal arms race.

The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere may restrain evil interference (deterrent), but that is the only benefit. It also leads to high levels of anxiety.

Nuclear Weapons have effectively prevented conventional warfare for the last 55 years in exactly the same way that the abundance of firearms in the US prevents crimes. The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction on a personal level is enough to stop an armed criminal from attacking or stealing from someone. It is a sound argument, but can't you appreciate the wider cost? The Cold War wasn't exactly a bundle of laughs.

The Nuclear Non-Plofiration Treaty (NPT) is a joke - you are never going to convince a "less-developed" country to abandon its nuclear program when you have no intention of giving up yours. Nuclear Weapons are primarily defensive devices, and so are firearms, but the existence of both represents a threat (or a source of anxiety) to everyone who doesn't have one. So they go and get one, and the weapons breed.

Admitting this is probably a mistake, but I am from the UK. No-one talks about gun control here (the usual restrictions exists) because there are not enough guns to justify controlling them. No-one wants them because no-one needs them, especially for the defensive purpose which is being argued here. The only people who own guns are farmers who used them at work, and competitive sportsmen. No-one owns a gun because they fear being attacked by someone with one (or without one). Even our "armed" criminals shy away from guns. Most guns used in robberies are not loaded, and the price of a loaned gun goes through the roof if it is fired (traceable). Even the police aren't armed (which must sound ridiculous) - we have specialist Armed Response Teams instead.

It this situation were to change, then my quality of life would be eroded. The atmosphere of firearms everywhere would probably make me ill.

I know the US isn't a violent place, and I know that highly- publicised shootings are very very rare. We've had 2 in the last 15 years; someone shot 16 primary school children and their teacher 3 years ago.

But don't you think it is sad that people feel that they HAVE to have a gun - has the situation deteriotated so badly that everyone just has to accept it?

Do you envy countries that do not have a gun problem, and where owning a gun for any kind of personal defense is frowned upon?

I'm not being judgemental. I know that firearms are inseperable from the history of the American Nation; the Pioneers had to fight their way in, fight to stay there, and fight to chuck us Brits out. I can even empathise with those who resent the loss of state sovereignty, even though I am convinced that some of them despise any form of government. It is in every respect a historical problem, but I do feel sad when people cite quotes from 200 years ago without any hint of regret. Having to resort to lethal ranged weapons to defend yourself isn't something to be proud about. There is no joy in owning a gun.

-- - (Guns do not make me h@ppy.com), January 17, 2000.

The only "gun control" going on here is by the gun makers themselves. I still don't see what the big problem is.

-- (very@confused.here), January 17, 2000.

Guns do not make me happy...

Thank you so much. I appreciate your insight.

BTW...Shootings here are not so rare, Sadly to say.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin, you said:

I think the real deterrent to crime is better parenting and the instilling of values and morals. I am trying to teach my children the value of life, any life. And that other living things (people et. al.) aren't here for their gratification but to co-exist with.

I realize that this seems impossible to most, but is it really?

I will defend myself, but with non-lethal methods.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Don't you realize (1) that when you are defending yourself you are NOT trying to co-exist, and (2) that bringing a knife to a gun fight leaves you almost assured of loosing, as does bringing bare hands to a knife fight.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), January 17, 2000.

George, give me a break. Who said anything about a knife? You can defend yourself any number of ways without taking anothers life. And yes, I believe that WOULD be co-existing.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin, give us a list of your means of defending yourself that are non-lethal, won't you? If a rapist, murderer, or home invader going after your children were facing you with a gun, what would you use to defend your children from him?

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Dear -- - from the UK (guns don't make me happy fellow):

You say:

"I just do not believe that rifles and pistols are essential to secure peace, security, and happiness(!?). How can owning a firearm to protect yourself from criminals (with firearms) possibly make you happy? I think's its awful that things have degenerated into a personal arms race.

"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere may restrain evil interference (deterrent), but that is the only benefit. It also leads to high levels of anxiety."

This is not meant as a put-down to someone so obviously nice, believe me, but I had to smile broadly when reading the above.

First of all, guns ARE essential when facing a criminal with a gun. Guns are NOT owned to make one "happy"...they are owned to make one SAFE, which tends to make one happy. Being raped, as I was, or being maimed or killed by a criminal does NOT make one happy!

Guns DO restrain evil, ARE a deterrent....and that is a mighty BIG "only" benefit, trust me! I would have a higher level of anxiety if I thought someone could rape me again!!!

The crime rate has soared in Australia alone since the good guys were banned from having guns. The good guys are probably not happy, and probably are quite anxious.

Having to resort to lethal ranged weapons to defend yourself isn't something to be proud about. There is no joy in owning a gun.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

WHOOPS! That last line was part of the quote from -- - from the UK, and NOT my own words. They got lost in the cut and paste!!! Just the opposite. LOL.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Elaine, please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps some therapy would be much more healing than pondering "counter-attacks". I'm really very sorry about what happened to you, but it's a vicious cycle of violence that keeps repeating itself.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

---sure cinloo, you can have any opinion you want, as long as you and other non gun folks views don't turn into illegal laws that restrict my opinions and views about self defense and responsible and constitutional gun ownership. Now can YOU see THAT difference? No one is taking away your decision to only restrict self defense to whatever non lethal means you choose, but a host of folks seem to think it's allright to keep chipping away at MY rights. That's the crux of the "debate". Leave me alone, you get left alone. Anti gunners try to take away my rights by supporting more restrictions and more laws, then you've crossed the line, YOU are now the aggressor, YOU have gone out of your way to restrict me. "You" is used as a collective term for antigunners in this sense. Hope you understand where I am coming from, and still wish you could talk to some of those women, some of the stories heart wrenching, and their views changed radically. there's bad stuff, then there's BAD STUFF that can happen to you, or a loved one.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin, it isn't me who needs therapy: I worked through this business a LONG time ago. I am a realist, that is all. Who accepts self defense as a necessity in a society such as ours.

And there is nothing "pondering" (I think you meant ponderous?) in my response to you.

Finally, you did not answer my question of how you would defend your home and children against someone with a gun without resorting to equal force. Please let us know.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Everyone,

The issues revolving around one's natural right to effective personal and collective self-defense are far too important to decide based upon "feelings" or the carefully orchestrated manipulations of our emotion. The FACTS, and only the FACTS are what matter, for to choose wrongly may prove to be a most grievous error.

If you wish to be wholly dependent upon the state for reluctant and inadequate personal self-defense, if you wish to be left to the tender mercies of the perpetrator of each criminal act as it occurs, if you wish to trust that your government remains within it's constituted and limited role as servant of the people rather than their master, then, by all means, voluntarily disarm yourself. Just leave alone those who have bothered to look at history, who have pondered the facts and the fabrications, who have made a study of human nature, who have quelled our emotions, and who have seen the goals and desires of an unaccountable elite for what they are.

**************************************************************

Gun's don't make me h,

Here's a Reuters piece on the UK's internal crime trends:

from Reuters, 1998-Oct-12:

Most Crime Worse In England Than US, Study Says

LONDON (Reuters) - Reuters [OL] via NewsEdge Corporation : You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States, according to a new crime study reported with some consternation in Britain Sunday.

The study by a Cambridge University professor and a statistician from the U.S. Department of Justice said crime rates for serious offences such as assault, burglary, robbery, and motor vehicle theft were all higher in England and Wales than in America.

Rape and murder rates were still higher in the United States, but Britain was gaining ground, said The Sunday Times, which reported the study at the top of its front page. It said Britain may have tougher gun laws, but the United States had longer prison sentences.

``Common sense says America is the most crime-ridden country on earth while Britain is an oasis of peace and tranquility. Common sense is wrong,'' The Sunday Times said in an editorial.

``We urgently need to re-examine our cozy assumptions about law and order.''

The Mail Sunday reprinted some of the study's findings. They said that in 1995, the last year for which complete statistics were available on both sides of the Atlantic, there were 20 assaults per 1,000 people or households in England and Wales but just 8.8 in the United States.

The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Britain's Home Office said officials were aware of the study.

``We are publishing our own crime statistics Tuesday, which will reflect the state of crime in the UK,'' the spokeswoman said.

***********************************************************

IMO, this author has it pegged:

from The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, by Robert J. Cottrol:

Gun Control is Racist, Sexist, and Classist

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."-Hubert Humphrey, 1960

My background is probably atypical for a somewhat high-profile supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am black and grew up in Manhattan's East Harlem, far removed from the great American gun culture of rural, white America. Although my voting patterns have become somewhat more conservative in recent years, I remain in my heart of hearts a 1960s Humphrey Democrat concerned with the plight of those most vulnerable in American society-minorities, the poor, the elderly, and single women-groups whose day-to-day realities are often overlooked in our public policy debates, people whose lives too often go unnoticed by our intellectually timid chattering classes. This is happening in the public debate over the right to bear arms.

For the nation's elites, the Second Amendment has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights, constantly attacked by editorial writers, police chiefs seeking scapegoats, demagoging politicians, and most recently even by Rosie O'Donnell, no less. It is threatened by opportunistic legislative efforts, even when sponsors acknowledge their proposed legislation would have little impact on crime and violence.

Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments - the Second and the Fourteenth - intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth- century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment's intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.

This anemic defense is all the more embarrassing because it occurs as mounting evidence severely undermines the three propositions that have been central to the anti-gun movement since its appearance on the national radar screen in the 1960s. The first proposition is that the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, poses no barrier to radical gun control, even total prohibition of private firearms. The second is that ordinary citizens with firearms are unlikely to defend themselves and are more likely to harm innocent parties with their guns. The final proposition is that the case for radical gun control is buttressed by comparing the United States to nations with more restrictive firearms policies. These propositions, now conventional wisdom, simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

The proposition that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to gun prohibition - a claim largely unknown before the 1960s - has run up against stubborn, contrary historical facts. Increasingly, historians and legal scholars, including many who support stricter gun control, have examined the history of the Second Amendment, the development of the right to arms in English political thought, judicial commentaries on the right in antebellum America, and the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. The consensus among scholars who have actually looked at the evidence is that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were meant to protect the citizen's right to arms. (See, for example, historian Joyce Lee Malcolm's Harvard University Press book, To Keep and Bear Arms, or the historical documents assembled in the three Gun Control and the Constitution volumes I've edited.)

Similarly, the criminological premises of the anti-gun movement have collapsed in the face of serious social science. For better than three decades the American public has been solemnly assured that peaceable citizens who possess guns for self-defense are disasters in waiting. "A gun in the home is more likely to kill a member of the family than to defend against an intruder," we hear. "Allowing citizens to carry firearms outside the home for self-protection will turn our streets into Dodge City and our parking lots into the O.K. Corral," the refrain goes.

Yet the criminological literature provides little support for this caricature of gun owners. Instead, careful research has discovered an incredibly high amount of firearms' being responsibly used in self- defense. Research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck and others indicate between two and three million cases of self- defense per year. Overwhelmingly these incidents involve not firing the weapon at the attacker, but simply brandishing it and thereby causing the attacker's withdrawal.

In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good.

The most thorough research, by John Lott of the University of Chicago, reveals that concealed-carry laws have had a substantial deterrent effect on crimes of violence. His work shows that women, especially, have benefitted, as substantial drops in rapes and attacks on women have occurred where the laws have been enacted. Lott also discovered dramatic benefits for the urban poor and minorities: "Not only do urban areas tend to gain in their fight against crime, but reductions in crime rates are greatest precisely in those urban areas that have the highest crime rates, largest and most dense populations, and greatest concentrations of minorities."

The final proposition - that international comparisons prove the case for radical gun control - may be the most problematic of all. Certainly the simplistic conclusion that American homicide rates are higher than those in Western Europe and Japan because of the greater prevalence of firearms glosses over significant cultural and demographic differences between us and other advanced industrial nations.

The American population is younger and more diverse. Unlike Western Europe and Japan, the United States has always had a large number of immigrants and internal migrants. We also have a history of racial exclusion and a struggle against that exclusion as old as the Republic and without real parallel in comparable nations. All of these have contributed to crime rates higher than those in other western nations. Indeed, when a number of the cultural and demographic variables are controlled for, much of the apparent difference between American and Western European homicide rates disappears - despite the greater presence of firearms in American society.

But international comparisons should raise deeper and more disturbing questions, questions too rarely asked in serious company. The central and usually unchallenged premise of the gun control movement is that society becomes more civilized when the citizen surrenders the means of self-defense, leaving the state a monopoly of force.

That this premise goes largely unchallenged is the most remarkable feature of our gun control debate. We are ending a century that has repeatedly witnessed the consequences of unchecked state monopolies of force. University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, one of the leading students of democide (mass murder of civilian populations by governments), has estimated that nearly 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in our century. The familiar list of mass murderers - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - only scratches the surface. The mass slaughter of helpless, unarmed civilian populations continues to this very day in Sudan, Rwanda, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.

The reluctance of outside forces to intervene is well documented. And yet the obvious question is strangely absent: Would arms in the hands of average citizens have made a difference? Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked.

Need Americans have such concerns? Well, we have been spared rule by dictators, but state tyranny can come in other forms. It can come when government refuses to protect unpopular groups - people who are disfavored because of their political or religious beliefs, or their ancestry, or the color of their skin. Our past has certainly not been free of this brand of state tyranny. In the Jim Crow South, for example, government failed and indeed refused to protect blacks from extra-legal violence. Given our history, it's stunning we fail to question those who would force upon us a total reliance on the state for defense.

Nor should our discussion of freedom and the right to arms be limited to foreign or historical examples. The lives and freedoms of decent, law-abiding citizens throughout our nation, especially in our dangerous inner cities, are constantly threatened by criminal predators. This has devastated minority communities. And yet the effort to limit the right to armed self-defense has been most intense in such communities. Bans on firearms ownership in public housing, the constant effort to ban pistols poor people can afford - scornfully labeled "Saturday Night Specials" and more recently "junk guns" - are denying the means of self-defense to entire communities in a failed attempt to disarm criminal predators. In too many communities, particularly under-protected minority communities, citizens have simply been disarmed and left to the mercy of well- armed criminals.

This has led to further curtailment of freedom. Consider initiatives in recent years to require tenants in public housing to allow their apartments to be searched: First, police failed for decades, for justifiable but also far too frequently unjustifiable reasons, to protect citizens in many of our most dangerous public housing projects. Next, as the situation became sufficiently desperate, tenants were prohibited from owning firearms for their own defense. Finally the demand came, "Surrender your right to privacy in your home." The message could not be clearer: A people incapable of protecting themselves will lose their rights as a free people, becoming either servile dependents of the state or of the criminal predators who are their de facto masters.

All of this should force us to reconsider our debate over arms and rights. For too long, it has been framed as a question of the rights of sportsmen. It is far more serious: The Second Amendment has something critical to say about the relationship between the citizen and the state. For most of human history, in most of the nations in the world, the individual has all too often been a helpless dependent of the state, beholden to the state's benevolence and indeed competence for his physical survival.

The notion of a right to arms bespeaks a very different relationship. It says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community.

This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise.

Our serious thinkers have been absent from this debate for too long. The Second Amendment is simply too important to leave to the gun nuts.

Robert J. Cottrol is professor of law and history and the Harold Paul Green Research Professor at the George Washington University. His most recent book is From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), January 17, 2000.

Go and re-read my post:

- I was not advocating gun control.

- I did not say that the US was an incredibly violent place.

Crime statistics are notoriously unreliable due to the discrepancy between reported and unreported crimes, but if you want to compare statistics then why did you leave out the homocide rates?

Of course there is crime in the UK, but crimes involving firearms are still very rare (on the increase).

Once again I have I have tried to tread lightly on this forum, but I always end up stepping in someone's invisible dog turd.

-- - (Guns don't make me h@ppy.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin, Teaching your kids right how to live and right from wrong is needed and great. Who is going to teach the 5000 other kids at their school whose parents are to busy or just don't care? These kids get their concept of morals and truth from tv, video games, music, etc,. Believing that you can coexist peacefully with the world is a nice dream . I hope you include a little realism with your life lessons. Teaching your kids about the bunnies and kittens is great, but if you don't also teach them about the wolf and the bear, they are going to get hurt. You will be responsible.

-- grannyclampett (don'thave@clue.com), January 17, 2000.

English bobby, "STOP, or I'll yell stop again!".

Sorry, just couldn't resist. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 17, 2000.

Guns don't make me h,

I thought you'd find the Reuter's piece informative.

Here's the comparative gun homicide rates you requested. Interestingly, Germany and Japan are about as violent as the US. The UK has half the gun homicide rate of the US, but the US has ten times the gun ownership rate, but, as per the previous article, far lower robbery and burglary rates. If we really want to be safe, maybe we should all move to Kuwait. Of course, then I suppose Iraq could conceivably come across the border and kill everyone in sight, but at least it wouldn't be other Kuwaitis doing the shooting.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), January 17, 2000.

Whoops,

The link: International Violent Death Rates

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), January 17, 2000.

Guns don't make me h@ppy.com,
"I think's its awful that things have degenerated into a personal arms race."

Did someone throw a Utopia party and the whole world missed it?

In my study of History I have found no society that citizens didn't need personal protection.
The implements were different, but they were carried and used.

For protection, a gun is a tool used to deter attack or failing that, to stop an attack.
a can of Mace can work in some situations, but not always.


Cin,
I wish everyone could Get along too.
My 8 and 10 year old children have taken martial arts training.
The 10 year old will get gun safety and training classes this summer.
Wishing won't make it happen.
Listen to grannyclampett's words of advice.

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Teaching a 10 year old how to use a gun is endangering. Their mind and their maturity level is not ready for that at 10, if ever. That is so sad to me.

And yes, granny, my children are taught, as ready, about the dangers of society. But they aren't taught how to kill things that they are afraid of, or don't understand.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin,
Maybe a small clarification is needed here.
My son will Not be taking any "military type" training. Target practice with standard bulls eye targets on a range. No Human silhouettes or pop-up bad guys. We have a large farm and hunting is a part of our culture here in Texas. After I am comfortable with his progress, we will try some practice in the woods.

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Cin,

I'm really sorry that you think a 10 yr old is not ready to handle "guns." In the area that I live, I can count on one hand the number of gun deaths that have occurred in the last 25 yrs. Unfortunately for your theory, this area has an extremely high number of kids that are very capable with guns and they are not being endangered in any way (school is closed the first wk of deer season due to the number of kids that hunt). They UNDERSTAND what happens when the trigger is pulled and they see first hand the holes that are left. My three boys (9,6,4) understand that you only point at what you intend to hit. They also already own their own versions of guns (be it a 4-10, 22 or BB). They each started out with a BB and they have as much respect for it as they do our rifles, simply because their dad and I showed them what happens with both. They also understand that the BB is as dangerous, if mishandled, as any other gun, something that a lot of people don't realize. The have been taught that they are not allowed to handle any weapon unsupervised and to do so will guarantee their losing the right of having their own weapon. Their learning to handle the guns appropriately will guarantee that they will NOT have an accident. They will always be able to protect themselves if push comes to shove, and that is something that I think parents need to teach their children. Guns should not be the answer to whatever the problem is, hopefully a calm head and a simple discussion will work it out, but if not then the playing field is equal given the way things are now. As someone said earlier, you don't take a knife to a gun fight. That sets you up to be the loser.

You said that you are teaching your children to respect all life, which is something I agree whole heartedly with. Simply because my kids are allowed to "handle" weapons, doesn't change that view. A person who owns guns respect life as much, if not more, than non-gun owners, simply because we are constantly reinforced on how fragile life is. Anyone handling a weapon of any kind can't forget this fact because to forget, is an major problem waiting to happen.

me

-- me (me@me.com), January 18, 2000.

Guns do not make me happy--

Have you ever heard an old saying, "An Englishman's home is his castle"? Well, these days it appears that the castle is going undefended.

In the UK, about half of illegal home entries occur while the occupants are present.

In the US, about 16 percent of such crimes occur while the occupants are at home.

I leave you to guess the reason for this disparity. You may say, "They're only after money; money isn't worth a life", but may I say that it is a bit dicey to rely upon an intruder's higher instincts after he has crashed through your door and knocked you to the carpet. If only a robbery ensues, consider what your feelings are likely to be afterward. You have been violated, abused, and made helpless in your own home, your erstwhile "castle". May you have pleasant dreams.

-- Cherokee (Cherokee@qtmail.com), January 18, 2000.

On this topic I have to agree with me.

I have a hobby. it involves seeing how close I can punch holes in paper at 50, 100, and 200 yards. I enjoy my hobby. My hobby involves the use of a firearm. Please do not narrow mind my hobby into illegality.

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.