question re: mp40 mp44 (not just CM related)

[Hakko Ichiu]

I love the JPFO site, it's so politically incorrect. I especially love the "Ask the Rabbi" section.

BTW, the correct link is www.jpfo.com

They're stretching the point wrt Gun Control = Genocide, but only slightly.

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 06-10-2000).]

[Lee]

I'm familiar with the JPFO and their basic point is simple. Citizens

who all have free access to guns and are able to have the use of them at

will and without delay cannot be murdered by the millions the same way

unarmed citizens can. That's just a logical fact. An armed man is

a FAR more dangerous target than one that is unarmed, cowering in a

corner and begging for his life.

I, for one, don't plan on ever being put in a position where I am defenseless

against armed thugs, whoever they might be.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Citizens who all have free access to guns and are able to have the use of them at

will and without delay cannot be murdered by the millions the same way unarmed citizens can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This can be disproved (look at Sweden, Canada, the UK, Germany, etc), while at the same time it can be proved that the "free access to guns" is responsible for thousands of deaths each year in the US and tens of thousands of crimes where death was not the result. Last month, in a small town of about 1200 next to mine, a 15year old was shot dead by accident. The lack of government control over guns, and the culture it has produced, allowed her to die so that her freedoms could be guarrenteed? Sounds like a pretty hars way to be protected (i.e. dying).

But let's not get into the "guns=freedom" debate, because it is just a bunch of BS. It might have been true 200 years ago, but it certainly isn't true now. Ever lived in a country with practically no private gun ownership? I have. Lived 6 months in London, one of the largest cities in the world. The cops don't pack guns, and neither do the criminals. I can tell you that I felt safer in London than I do in US cities 1/10th the size. And as for democractic protection, there ain't nothing wrong with the way it works in Great Britian in relation to how it works in the US, which only proves the point that guns aren't a part of the "protection of liberty" equation. It is also interesting to note that the private ownership of guns didn't prevent McCarthism, the experimentation on children with radiation, the entry into war with Vietnam, etc.

And this is coming from somone who onwns plenty of guns I just understand what they really are good for, and protecting my civil rights is not one of them. I pull a gun on a cop exercising an illegal Search and Siezure and (if I survive) I will be in jail for a LOOOOOONG time. As I should.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-11-2000).]

[guachi]

I can tell you what they are good for in my former residence of MT - hunting. According to a blurb in USA Today a month ago or so MT has the highest percentage of residents that hunt of any state 26%. Probably helped by the fact that there are more deer/antelope than people...

Even my roommate hunts - and she's 5'4", 100 lbs, tan, blonde, 36D. She looks quite silly in pictures holding a rifle in one hand and a dead antelope up by the antlers in the other.

Jason - who's never hunted and is about as far from being a Montanan as someone who has lived there 17 years could get. But wishes gun laws were laxer so I could own a WWII MG for collecting purposes...

------------------

Betas available to everyone are just publicity stunts anyways. -FK

[Lee]

Steve, I have absolutely no intention of getting into a debate on this.

But I would like to point out that just because any particular country

isn't currently mass murdering it's disarmed population is no guarantee

of what might happen in the future. I prefer to see that the citizens of a

country are packing enough firepower that they don't have to rely on

the good will of anyone to stay alive should the political climate become

dire. But rather can take care of themselves and each other in a very

effective manner.

Anyhow, that's about all I have to say on that.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lee,

I do not expect to make much headway since I have found that most people that take your hardline position have disengaged critical thought. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here

Picture the kind of event that would allow our government to do genocide upon us (as opposed to others, which this government has done before). Think really hard. And if you can think of a scenario, please outline it since I have *never* heard an actual scenario yet. Then try and figure out how my 40cal Beretta is going to stop a squad of armored and heavily armed government soldiers popping out of an AFV from killing me. The thought that my little handgun is somehow preventing my government, now or in some mythical future, from taking away my rights and life is just irrational. If the event should ever come, I am effectively just as defenseless with my small array of weapons as I am with a large pointed stick.

On the other hand, "little guns" like mine have made the US the leader in murders per capita in the "free world". And it was a gun just like my little one that killed that 15 year old last month. So while you might say it is protecting us against something that is not likely to ever happen, and be effectively powerless to stop even if it does, thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths every year they would otherwise not suffer in a country like Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. THAT is reality, not some mythical event in the future. Like I say, I love the ownership of firearms, but I am not blind enough to see that in the big picture they cause definite harm while not protecting me against jack squat.

I have seen these "gun nut" guys and talked with them. They are a paranoid and anti-social bunch who is still really upset that Y2K didn't offer them the chance to shoot their neighbor while eating some MREs in the dark As a gun owner with an IQ greater than my pistol's caliber, I will not be sucked into the mindless rhetoric of the rabid right. Who, I might add, would be the first to take away my civil rights and shoot me dead if the current form of goverment should collapse. Yup, if the good 'ol US of A were to fall apart right now, my first fear would be about some of my 2nd Ammendment neighbors killing me far more than some agent of the government.

From my first hand experience, I would say that the "gun nuts" are far more dangerous than any pissant criminal or lowly governement official in terms of "genocide". I like to reffer to these guys as "Ryder Truck Patriots" after their beloved idol McViegh (who is a mass murderer, but his heart was in the right place...).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-11-2000).]

[Lee]

As I said Steve, I have no intention of getting into a debate over

this. So I will keep my comments very brief.

First off, the sort of nuts you mention are just that, nuts. And since

I have no liking nor particular interest in such people, I have nothing

to say about them.

If a government tried to strip it's citizens of their rights in a country

where said citizens were well armed, the last thing that any sane citizen would

try to do would be to take on armored divisions head on. Lol.

Such a defense of life and liberty would largely be conducted, I would

guess, by guerilla tactics and a targeting

of the key oppressors

responsible for the criminal acts. Not in open battle in some big field

where the bad guys could mow down the citizenry. A tank can't

shoot at an unseen foe.

And if the citizens are dumb enough to arm themselves with only

Berettas then that is their own poor judgment.

As far as the U.S. murder rate goes, guns were *far* easier to get

in this country 40 years ago and we didn't have epidemics of kids

shooting class mates. Even thought it was much more common back then

for kids to bring guns to school to hunt for food on the way home

(in rural areas this was common) or to participate in school shooting

teams. Now, you can argue all you like about why the murder rate has

gone up so much over the last 40 years, but you *can't* say it's because

of the availability of guns. Because they were *easier* to get back

then (you could just order them through the mail as easy as you could

order a toy truck) and the murder rate was *a lot less*. So that's the

end of that phony and utterly illogical argument, once and for all.

People have the right to defend themselves and to have access to the

means to accomplish that end. Whatever you or I might think their chances

are for success doesn't matter. It should be their choice to decide.

So that's it, I'm done with this subject. I said I wasn't going to

get in a big debate and to go further on would be doing just that.

No hard feelings.

[Guest Big Time Software]

No hard feelings at all. It is a complex issue, and I totally agree that the screwed up evening news "if it bleeds, it leads" stories have roots that are far deeper than anything we could ever get into here. But how could there be school shootings without guns? And, might I add, in spite of the tougher regulations very easily obtained guns? I would just love to see how 2 puny little highschool students could kill 14 people in a matter of minutes with baseball bats. The problem with the gun is that it gives total and instant power of life and death to someone who shouldn't have it. And therefore highly deadly weapons easily finding their way into their hands is a big problem.

My beef with the "pro gun" people is that they (or the NRA to be exact) has fought every single regulation that is in place today. Like the auto industry fighting against putting in seatbelts (1950s I believe) and big corporations fighting against polution controls, the pro gun folks have fought even the most sensible restrictions tooth and nail as if even something as simple as manditory trigger lock sold with every gun is going to lead to a Nazi like goverment. BS. Certainly some anti-gun legislation is poor and useless, but I am talking about the things that make sense.

So while I agree that getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the problem, I am under no illusions that my guns protects my liberty. I can just as easily say that God *might* come down and flood us as I could say that our US government might decide to round us all up into camps and execute us. There is just as much credability in one as the other, and that is why I cringe every time I hear such a statement out of an otherwise intelligent mind. It is a form of brainwashing by the likes of the NRA. Hopefully I might have said something to get you thinking about this.

As I said above, I have NEVER heard a plausible case outlined where we might not only need our guns to protect ourselves from our government, but how this would do more than annoy the new Evil States of America goverment. And therefore to protect against something that has no basis in reality is by definition "paranoid". And to think that such protection would, if the unthinkable should happen, protect us against this groundless theory is "dumb paranoia" (if there is such a thing ) since it clearly would not. Meanwhile many Americans live in RATIONAL fear of being shot by the very thing that is supposed to save them from an IRRATIONAL fear.

Hopefully some food for thought

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

If your fundamental premise were correct, then we would logically expect that the violent crime rate would drop in countries which have disarmed. If you look (try www.sightings.com for starters) at both England and Australia, you'll find that violent crime has gone UP not down since the people were disarmed. Worse, the nature of the crime has changed too. It has become blatantly invasional. Naturally, none of this gets mainstream press coverage here, since it flies in the face of what we're being told.

One of the biggest problems is that "hot jobs" have mushroomed. These are break-ins while the residents are home. Typically, these target the old and infirm. How would you like to be a pensioner facing one or more strapping, possibly drug-crazed, thugs armed with lead pipes, knives and such? It is precisely such a situation that a firearm corrects, usually without anyone getting hurt. What else can so quickly level the playing field?

Sidebar

By the way, Steve, some years ago a retired, much respected Scotland Yard detective did an analysis on victim survival expectancy if attacked by gun, lead-filled pipe or knife. On average, the victim stood a 25% chance of death if shot, but a 50% chance of death if hit with the pipe or stabbed. This was because the pipe typically was applied vigorously to the victim's skull, usually resulting in depressed fractures and brain trauma. The knife not only did direct stab injury but also carried contaminated foreign matter, like clothing, deep into the wound, leading to often deadly infections. Restated, a violent crime victim is actually, on average, better off being shot than bludgeoned or stabbed.

End sidebar

Criminals have repeatedly demonstrated an enormous interest in not getting shot. Study after study confirms that the last thing crooks want is an encounter with an armed potential victim. A gentleman named Cates (sp?), an academic who has carefully studied the effect of firearms in deterring crime, came up with 60,000 violent crimes a year averted by private firearm ownership, usually with all parties alive and intact. We get hugely inflated casualty figures from gun deaths, but their proven deterrent effect on criminals rates no media mention. Why?

In Dade County , Florida some years ago there was a major rape problem. The police then announced a program to teach 10,000 women to shoot and issue those who passed the training with concealed carry permits. Guess what? Not only did rape plummet, but so did ALL violent crimes. I don't know about you, but that sure looks like a real world deterrent effect to me. That also explains why foreigners are targeted in Florida. They can't carry concealed weapons.

If you have an issue with accidental shootings, as I certainly do, I would then argue that this points to a need for education concerning firearms, not demonizing them as seems to be the current approach. When I was twelve, I went through the official Arizona Fish & Wildlife Safe Hunter course. The demonstrations there of what a gun could do were so telling that they remain clear in my mind to this day. I also received stern coaching from my father. There are several organizations, including the NRA, which offer excellent training in proper handling and use of firearms. Why not use their proven expertise to help protect our children?

If the fundamental problem regarding kids and guns were access, then we would logically expect that the less restrictive days back when would've had notable problems with school shootings, but with one bizarre exception from the 1930's, we don't. When my Dad was going to school in Arkansas it was common for the kids to shoot squirrels on the way to school, and they brought their rifles to school!

So what's different? Let me count the ways. How about destruction of the family unit, community erosion, drugs, lack of discipline, a culture based on rampant egotism, materialism and instant gratification, a violence saturated culture in which the consequences are seldom discussed (19,000 shootings seen on TV by the time a kid turns 18), almost nonexistent morality, an acute, worsening public mental health problem and, oh yes, how about the widespread prescription of antidepressants to our kids and the public, with drugs which have been repeatedly shown to cause all sorts of acting out (Phil Hartman's wife on Prozac, at least one Columbine shooter on Fluvoxil, for starters)?

Could these possibly have anything to do with the problem you describe, Steve? But none of the ones I've listed is sexy, politically high profile or amenable to a "quick cure."

The incidence of violent crime is way down from what it was years ago, according to the FBI's official statements every year for many years now. Yet you'd never know it from listening to the antigun forces or watching the media, who often lead the local news with a gun murder. Why? We are being terrorized into giving up our guns.

Nor do most people know that some of the most rabid antigun types, such as Senator Barbara Boxer of California, have concealed carry permits for firearms. She "needs a gun for personal protection," (even though she has bodyguards, which we don't) but is leading the charge to deprive the rest of us of that self same defensive option!

The current administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it cares not one whit for the law or the Constitution. At Ruby Ridge a mother was shot in the head while holding a baby in her arms. The government prosecutor was sanctioned for advising federal agents how to falsify evidence at the scene. Not only was no one punished, but the guy behind it got promoted. He was a major player at a little event called Waco, where some 87 people died, including quite a few children, under circumstances still under litigation.Additional prison time for Waco defendants from firearm charges has been thrown out. Interestingly, one of the Senate's consultants on the now famous IR footage disappeared, ALL his files and video footage vanished, then he reappeared, two weeks later, as a badly decomposed corpse sitting behind the desk in his locked office.

And did I mention that with all the filming the government did during the raid, somehow the critical warrant service footage was "lost?" Odd, isn't it, how incredibly clumsy the government is with vital records (Agent Orange, radiation experiments, biowarfare experiments, Gulf War Syndrome, etc.)? I highly recommend you rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and the follow-up "Waco--A New Revelation," if it's been released (www.waco-anewrevelation.com). Noted IR experts have described the recent, much ballyhooed government IR tests (which naturally found light flashes, not federal machinegun fire) as fundamentally flawed and in no way even close to the real conditions they supposedly model.

If you think that my minuscule tally above just means I'm a Clinton hater, then I'd like to offer the wonderful picture of an MP5 SMG toting, body armored Border Patrol agent pointing that gun right at Elian Gonzalez and Donato Dalrymple, as well as the testimony of the brutalized news crew members who unanimously report that they were told they'd be shot if they moved and were totally prevented from carrying out their Constitutionally-protected 1st Amendment function. Their accounts didn't make the news either. Quoth Reno, "we were told that there might be guns, either in the crowd or in the house."

The stormtroopers were sent in after the 11th Court of Appeals specifically and directly enjoined the government from taking Elian. Reno didn't honor the law; she simply found a tame judge and got a highly dubious search warrant issued. In other words, the Executive branch simply ignored the Judiciary. So much for checks and balances!

But let's say that everyone in the administration is in fact a living saint. There is an even more pressing reason why people should own guns and be trained in their use. There is a court ruling which says the police are NOT responsible for protecting individuals, only the community at large. It's called Bowers vs. De Vito and arose from a case in Seattle in which a woman reported a break-in in progress. No one came for hours, during which time she was repeatedly raped, stabbed and mutilated. Amazingly, she survived, sued Seattle PD and the City--and LOST.

The politicians, law enforcement and many others may have their control and rice bowl agendas, but when it comes right down to it,

we CAN'T COUNT ON THEM, nor are they legally liable.

Columbine provides another sterling example. There, SWAT units sat on their thumbs for two hours while terrified students hung signs out the window saying "They're Killing Us!" SWAT is armed,equipped and trained to deal with armed nut jobs, yet it did nothing and children were massacred. Still want to let the government protect your vital interests?

If the government can't protect us, isn't required to, and in word and deed daily

routinely exceeds its authority, flouts the law and hides the truth (I've cited only flagrant examples), then perhaps people will begin to understand why no less august a personage than George Washington himself said this of firearms:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence..."

I seriously doubt I'll change your mind, Steve, but I urge the rest of you to take a close look at what's occurring, see whose interests are really being served, see what the Founding Fathers, who risked all that we might be free, have to say about firearms and their relation to liberty, then act as your informed conscience directs.

And if you're really worried about kids and their survival, plan on banning cars, planes, bathtubs, swimming pools, skateboards, etc. They're EVIL! They KILL KIDS! (Same logic as gun controllers are using.)

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I knew this was a big can of worms... so I am going to close this up. As a supporter of the right to bear arms, and someone who is all to aware that violence is a part of human nature and not as a result of a piece of meta, this doesn't mean that I think that guns somehow solve problems either. One can argue from both sides about the merrits of gun ownership, but there are two things nobody will ever convince me of:

1. That by me having a pistol or rifle that I somehow safer from both my government or some crack addict that shoots first before you have a chance to say "don't sho..." Especially because I don't live with a gun strapped to my hand. You even pointed out several examples that prove my point. Floridians own lots of firearms, but that didn't stop what happend with Elian (and shouldn't have in my opinion).

2. That society is somehow better with any idiot who reaches the age of 16 can get at least a rifle. Society will never be perfect, and there will *always* be abuses of power. By and large our system of governement works, but it will NEVER be perfect no matter how many guns each of us owns. Funny you didn't mention that after Ruby Ridge that Weaver got $3,000,000 from the Feds for the shootout, as it proves that the system can fail and then be rectified in the end.

Overall, I know that if this governement were to collapse that many of these "patriots" and "TRUE Americans" would be the first to read up on how to make gas chambers so that they can more effeceintly kill their enemies (gays, Blacks, Latinos, women who don't know their place is in the home, former goverment officials, and anybody that crosses their path the wrong way). I have seen this mentaility and tollerence level before. They called themselves the Brown Shirts and they started their own Eutopia better known as The Third Reich. And that is why if this US government should fall the first thing I would do is get the Hell out of here because Bosnia would look like Disney in comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I seriously doubt I'll change your mind, Steve, but I urge the rest of you to take a close look at what's occurring, see whose interests are really being served, see what the Founding Fathers, who risked all that we might be free, have to say about firearms and their relation to liberty, then act as your informed conscience directs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a reminder that these gents also thought Slavery was OK and women should be allowed to be equal to men. Just a point in fact that they didn't get everything "right" by today's standards. The Second Ammendment might not have been a "mistake", but it certainly isn't our salvation either.

Steve