Random,
I've heard the story that some public schools are no longer teaching anything about the second amendment, but not that it has been removed from texts, something I think highly unlikely. I hope the CA Rep. is misinformed.
904. Random - Sep. 3, 1998 - 9:13 AM PDT
I'm double checking this as we speak. Metcalf is suppose to be 2nd
Amend. expert. Be back..Dr. Appointment.
905. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 9:40 AM PDT
cigarlaw:
"elliot: I felt safer in London also. However I also resented being searched everytime I entered a public building."
You've made this absurd claim before. I lived in London for the first 26 years of my life and I was never, not once, searched when I entered a public building. Sometimes, when I entered a museum or gallery and had a backpack or bag with me, I would have to open it for a security guard. That's as close as I ever got to being searched. The same thing has happened to me when entering museums in Washington and New York.
"Of course I was safer -- I was better armed than any English whimp I was likely to meet."
Ah yes, that must be it. If you ever take your wretched guns to Britain, I hope they capture you and throw you in the slammer for a long time.
906. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 9:48 AM PDT
Ronski,
There are millions of guns in New York because there were already a lot of guns there before the restrictions were tightened and because there is no way to prevent guns from being brought into NYC from neighboring jurisdictions. Gun control has to be national in scope to be effective.
Your argument that the present reality of millions of guns, many in the hands of kids and criminals, justifies the perpetuation of the policies that created that insane situation is a recipe for a never-ending increase of gun violence and bloodshed.
907. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 10:24 AM PDT
Elliot,
And to think you have suggested that I am utopian in outlook.
908. JJBiener - Sep. 3, 1998 - 10:50 AM PDT
Sure we can eliminate guns. Just like we have eliminated illegal drugs. Piece of cake.
909. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 10:58 AM PDT
JJBiener:
Up to your usual intellectual standards, I see. I don't think we can "eliminate guns." We can control and limit them much more than we are doing now, however, just like every other advanced democracy does.
910. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 11:03 AM PDT
Yes, but guns aren't as closely linked to those other advance democracies' cultural psyches, Elliot.
It says in our constitution that we have the right to bear arms.
What other country has, as a founding premise, the right of citizens to own guns?
Quite apart from whether or not that's a good thing.
You seem to be saying that we are a violent society because we have guns. There's an argument to be made that you're looking at it backwards. We have so many guns because we are violent.
911. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 11:22 AM PDT
CalGall:
"Yes, but guns aren't as closely linked to those other advance democracies' cultural psyches, Elliot."
Yes, we need to change the gun-fetishizing nature of American culture. We need to get rid of the insane frontier mentality that infects so many people in this country.
"It says in our constitution that we have the right to bear arms."
No gun control law has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. No serious constitutional scholar believes that the Second Amendment prevents much greater gun control than exists in America today.
"What other country has, as a founding premise, the right of citizens to own guns?"
The right to own guns is not a "founding premise" of this country.
"You seem to be saying that we are a violent society because we have guns. There's an argument to be made that you're looking at it backwards. We have so many guns because we are violent."
America is a violent country for many reasons. Guns are one of them. The insanely unrestricted access to guns in this country is what makes the expression of violent impulses by Americans so deadly.
912. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:00 PM PDT
Elliot,
Vermont has virtually no restrictions on gun ownership, and has very little gun-related crime. This suggests to me that local culture plays a more important role in gun crime than gun ownership.
913. rickc2000 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:04 PM PDT
Ronski; I agree with you culture comment but in Vermont the population density may be a factor as well.
914. rickc2000 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:05 PM PDT
Ronski; I agree with you culture comment but in Vermont the population density may be a factor as well.
915. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:12 PM PDT
rickc2000,
Certainly that is true, but Burlington is fairly densely populated now, for the State. And one always feels safe there. Crime, such as it is, is generally petty. I do think that many Vermonters, including those few who are contemplating a person-related crime, stop and think that a target may be armed, and that dissuades some people. In some cases, crimes have been committed by persons arriving from other localities where legal gun ownership is much more rare (these cases usually have been hard-drug related).
Thirty years ago, Vermont had more dairy cows than people. That is no longer the case
916. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:21 PM PDT
Elliot,
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gun control is bad. To me, it is largely pointless--but that's a different issue. Gun safety, otoh, I imagine we're largely in synch.
I wasn't drawing any line between gun control and the Second Amendment. My thoughts are far more psychobabblish than that. I'm saying that the second amendment and the right it gives had a profound effect on our culture in many ways. What you call “gun-fetishizing” is, to me, just the leftovers. But you talk about getting rid of it like it's just easily done. I'm not so sure. It's part of us (Americans) for good or bad. (Well. That's my theory, anyway.)
“The right to own guns is not a "founding premise" of this country.”
Um. Is this definitional? Is the right to free speech a founding premise? If so, then so is the right to bear arms. If not, then whatever you call the right to free speech—we also have for bearing arms. They are on a par in terms of the importance the Constitution gives them.
“The insanely unrestricted access to guns in this country is what makes the expression of violent impulses by Americans so deadly.”
Fair enough. I actually think Cigarlaw might be right in his interpretation of this. A price we pay. The way to change it might be changing us. I don't think restricting gun access will do it.
Again, I don't particularly care whether or not people try to restrict gun access. I just question whether it will work to control the real problem—we're just violent.
917. CLLRDR - Sep. 3, 1998 - 12:59 PM PDT
It has to do with "a well-regulated militia," CG. And I'm sure you know where that leads.
Look people, it's all a question of power -- who hasn't and who doesn't. Laws are the lies society tells itself about "fairness" and "responsibility."
918. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
As in, "The law is an ass."
919. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:35 PM PDT
CalGall:
"I'm saying that the second amendment and the right it gives had a profound effect on our culture in many ways. What you call “gun-fetishizing” is, to me, just the leftovers. But you talk about getting rid of it like it's just easily done."
It's not easily done. That's why your kind of babbling equivocation is so dangerous.
"Is the right to free speech a founding premise? If so, then so is the right to bear arms."
No, that doesn't follow. And the right to bear arms is not synonymous with virtually unrestricted access to firearms by private citizens, anyway.
"I actually think Cigarlaw might be right in his interpretation of this. A price we pay."
A price we pay for what? Just what is this thing that is so important, and that is absent from countries with strict gun control, that it justifies rates of death and injury from guns unparalled in the advanced world?
"Again, I don't particularly care whether or not people try to restrict gun access. I just question whether it will work to control the real problem—we're just violent."
Yes, so you've claimed. If we didn't have drive-by shootings, we'd have drive-by stabbings, right? And if kids didn't accidently shoot themselves with their parents' guns, they'd accidently stab themselves with a kitchen knife, right? Your argument is patent nonsense. Guns make killing and injuring supremely easy. The idea that without guns there'd be just as much death and injury is nonsensical.
920. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:41 PM PDT
Not to intrude in your talk with Cal, Elliot, but a "thing that is so important" is self-defense. I know you don't agree with that premise, but I want you to know how someone who is basically a pacifist (me) could still be against the confiscation of guns in America
921. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:44 PM PDT
Vermont is hardly typical of the U.S. or of advanced democratic societies in general. What is the population density? What is the rate of handgun ownership? What is the poverty rate? I daresay that gun violence, and violence in general, in rural parts of other industrial nations is lower than that in the nation as a whole. If we could remake the entire U.S. so it had the same kind of demographics that Vermont has, perhaps there would be much less gun violence in this country. But we can't do that. What we can do is place much greater restrictions on guns.
922. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:49 PM PDT
Ronski:
"Not to intrude in your talk with Cal, Elliot, but a "thing that is so important" is self-defense."
You're saying that the right to self-defense doesn't exist in other countries. I'm sure most Europeans would be surprised to learn that. You are far more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than in Europe (or Canada, or Australia), and even more likely to be murdered with a gun (or killed accidently with a gun, or injured with a gun). The idea that guns provide self-defense is an illusion.
923. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 1:52 PM PDT
Elliot,
No, I'm not saying that self-defense does not exist in Europe or Canada. But I am saying that someone who is threatened by someone with a gun should be able to defend himself with a gun, if he chooses.
924. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 2:04 PM PDT
Ronski:
"But I am saying that someone who is threatened by someone with a gun should be able to defend himself with a gun, if he chooses."
Why? It is an illusion that a gun provides protection for most people. You are much more likely to be killed or injured with a gun in America than in countries with strict gun control.
925. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
Elliot,
“A price we pay for what?”
The price we pay for the fact that our country probably sublimates a lot of that violence into kick-ass competitiveness and other stuff. Further down the psychobabble path. The price we pay for the fact that, like it or not, we are a violent group here and probably always will be. The price we pay for the fact that, as Ronski points out, we do have the right to defend ourself with a gun if someone attacks us. If the government attacks us, in fact. That was what they had in mind with this amendment. To deny that is to deny part of what makes us….us.
“And the right to bear arms is not synonymous with virtually unrestricted access to firearms by private citizens, anyway.”
Are you sure? That's certainly what the intention seems to have been. As I'm sure you know, the founders modified the English law from which this law came—they modified it to exclude any caveats about types of guns we could own. So at the time, I think it was synonymous. Again, that's what I'm talking about—how the way this country was founded might have something to do with our violence.
“Guns make killing and injuring supremely easy. The idea that without guns there'd be just as much death and injury is nonsensical.”
Yes, the results of violence would probably be less without guns. No argument. But we are, in the end, allowed to own guns, are we not? And that right (waiting periods, who gets to own one, whatever) is in our constitution. So the guns are always going to be there.
I just wonder how much of changing our gun laws, or trying to, is really just a matter of trying to change us. And that isn't to be messed with lightly.
We have an entire amendment to our Constitution that says the people have the right to bear arms. Think about what that says about us.
926. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 2:39 PM PDT
Elliot,
I do not believe that the protection inherent in owning a gun is an illusion. I know of too many cases where I live where it was the gun, and nothing else, that saved someone from victimization.
927. ChristiPeters - Sep. 3, 1998 - 2:48 PM PDT
The "smart gun" is now a reality. It's not totally perfected yet, but working prototypes have been developed. I read it will be marketed solely to law enforcement at first. Given some time and typical Yankee ingenuity, it will eventually be mass produced reliably and cheaply. This should really throw a monkey wrench in the works when arguing about gun control.
(If you don't know what a "smart gun" is, here is the simplistic explanation. It is a gun with a microchip in the firing mechanism which prevents the gun from firing unless the grip is held by a person wearing a ring in which is embedded a corresponding microchip.)
So, if a burglar breaks into my home he/she cannot use my smart gun against me unless he/she gets the ring off my finger, too. If the smart gun is left out and one of the kiddos (or their friends) get ahold of it, there is no accidental shooting because the gun won't fire. If a crook breaks into my home while I'm away, stealing my smart gun just gets him/her a lump of metal. I'm wearing the ring and the gun is useless without it.
Gun control laws have always only affected law abiding people, not criminals. I believe smart guns will make it harder (not impossible, just harder) for the average, petty crook to get a gun.
928. ChristiPeters - Sep. 3, 1998 - 2:51 PM PDT
From Ronski:
"Elliot,
I do not believe that the protection inherent in owning a gun is an illusion. I know of too many cases where I live where it was the gun, and nothing else, that saved someone from victimization."
Elliot,
Me too.
929. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:00 PM PDT
CalGall:
"The price we pay for the fact that our country probably sublimates a lot of that violence into kick-ass competitiveness and other stuff."
Huh? Epidemic levels of gun violence is the price America pays for sublimating violence into competitiveness. What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that America has to have epidemic levels of gun violence in order to be competitive? Why?
"Further down the psychobabble path."
No kidding.
" The price we pay for the fact that, like it or not, we are a violent group here and probably always will be."
Huh? So America is violent, gun violence is part of that, and there's nothing we can do about it because America will probably always be that way. Is that it? Or what? What is the basis for this claim? Why is gun violence an immutable part of the American character?
"The price we pay for the fact that, as Ronski points out, we do have the right to defend ourself with a gun if someone attacks us."
It's an illusion. Americans are more likely to be killed or injured with guns than citizens of countries who don't have the "right" to "defend" themselves with guns.
"If the government attacks us, in fact. That was what they had in mind with this amendment. To deny that is to deny part of what makes us….us."
Only guns nuts and militia types seriously believe that the average American is at greater risk of violent attack by his government, which he needs his guns to "defend" against, than he is from ordinary gun violence resulting from the proliferation and lack of control of guns in America.
"Are you sure? That's certainly what the intention seems to have been. "
Really? How do you know what the intention was? Anyway, it's irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.
930. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:06 PM PDT
CalGall:
"Yes, the results of violence would probably be less without guns. No argument."
Good. Perhaps we're making progress.
"But we are, in the end, allowed to own guns, are we not?"
At the moment, yes, Americans are allowed virtually unrestricted access to a wide variety of guns. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
"And that right (waiting periods, who gets to own one, whatever) is in our constitution. So the guns are always going to be there."
More incoherent babble. Waiting periods are in the Constitution? Where?
"I just wonder how much of changing our gun laws, or trying to, is really just a matter of trying to change us. And that isn't to be messed with lightly."
No, it isn't. Perhaps you think that America's epidemic of gun violence is a "light" reason for changing our gun-happy culture and laws. I don't.
"We have an entire amendment to our Constitution that says the people have the right to bear arms. Think about what that says about us."
I'm not sure what it says. But I am entirely sure that it doesn't mean that virtually unrestricted access to guns is a vital and unchangeable aspect of the American psyche regardless of the consequences.
931. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
Elliot,
If you can get all the guns out of the hands of criminals, then, and only then, will I consider supporting the confiscation of guns held by law-abiding people.
932. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:13 PM PDT
Ronski:
"I do not believe that the protection inherent in owning a gun is an illusion. I know of too many cases where I live where it was the gun, and nothing else, that saved someone from victimization."
I seriously doubt you can know this. In any case, it means nothing. It will always be possible to find individual cases where the possession of a gun at least appeared to prevent someone from being victimized. But you're ignoring the big picture. America has more violence than other countries, not less. Americans are more at risk from guns than people in other countries, not less. And the difference isn't just a factor of two or three; the risk to Americans from guns is DOZENS of times greater than it is for people in other countries. The idea that keeping a gun in your home or your car makes it less likely that you or someone in your family will be a victim of gun violence is an illusion. If guns really made people safer, America would have the lowest rates of violence in the world. Instead, it has amoung the highest.
933. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:15 PM PDT
Elliot,
Please see # 931.
934. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:17 PM PDT
ChristiPeters:
"Gun control laws have always only affected law abiding people, not criminals."
Really? What is the empirical basis for this claim? The Brady Law, for example, has prevented literally tens of thousands of convicted felons from purchasing guns at gun stores. The claim that this law has not "affected criminals" is nonsense.
935. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:20 PM PDT
Ronski:
It will never be possible to get all guns out of the hands of all criminals.
936. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:25 PM PDT
Elliot,
Re: 935 --
Therefore, it is wrong to disarm the law-abiding citizenry.
As I've said before, I have no objections to limited gun control laws that seek to increase safety in the home and to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. I draw the line at confiscation, and I fear that is what the gun control lobby wants.
937. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:27 PM PDT
P.S.: In case you haven't guessed, I too believe that the Constitution is now pretty much what the Court says it is. I'm not sure that is a good thing, but it's a fact.
938. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:34 PM PDT
Ronski:
Ronski:
"Therefore, it is wrong to disarm the law-abiding citizenry."
What do you mean by "disarm?" Confiscate all guns currently possessed by Americans? No one has advocated that. All criminals were once "law-abiding citizens." Allowing virtually unrestricted access to guns is the best way of getting guns into the hands of criminals and of increasing the risk to everyone that they will become the victim of gun violence.
939. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:41 PM PDT
Elliot,
You can't seriously call our present gun laws "virtually unrestricted access, " can you? In Vermont, possibly, but certainly not in New York City.
940. elliot803 - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:48 PM PDT
Ronski:
No, not in New York, but I've already addressed that. Generally speaking, it is incredibly, insanely easy to get a gun in America. In other countries, it is much, much harder.
941. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:50 PM PDT
And while I think groups like the NRA attract all kinds of paranoids, I do agree with them on one thing: that the unstated goal of many gun control advocates is total confiscation.
For the record: I have only seen black helicopters in movies.
942. Ronski - Sep. 3, 1998 - 3:52 PM PDT
On the other hand, I do get a little nervous about FEMA.
(Just kidding.)
943. labarjare - Sep. 3, 1998 - 7:05 PM PDT
Well, some things do change. CalGal has now moved from having become sufficiently interested in the Second Amendment to have read one or maybe a couple of books to now being confident enough to state her views as ironclad conclusions. Cllrdr. stated it most succinctly, Cowgas - remember that language about a well regulated militia etc.
Say, Ronski - just where in Brooklyn do you live? The street I currently live on hasn't had a crime - of any type - in over ten years. BTW - speaking as an ardent anti-gun violence type who is married to an even more ardent activist in the field, trust me - most anti-gun violence advocates do not have confiscation as their goal. Sane gun laws intended to promote safe manufacture, reasonable regulation over sale and distribution, and prevention of access to guns and ammo. by children are the goals.
944. chaosinc - Sep. 3, 1998 - 7:34 PM PDT
Funny Woody Allen bit from Sleeper:
DIANNE KEATON: "The NRA? Who were they?"
WOODY ALLEN: "Oh, an orgainzation who used to help criminals get guns so they could shoot citizens. Sort of a public service."
945. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 7:59 PM PDT
Elliot,
"Huh? Epidemic levels of gun violence is the price America pays for sublimating violence into competitiveness. What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that America has to have epidemic levels of gun violence in order to be competitive? Why?"
Well. As I said, and you agreed--further down the psychobabble path. If you look at the original sentence from which this discussion stemmed, it was me saying that Cigarlaw "might" be right. (Hopefully, Lab, this dispels your theory that I've moved to stating ironclad conclusions. I'd hate to lose my reputation for mealy-mouthedness.)
I'm not saying that America must have epidemic gun violence levels to be competitive. I'm speculating (hence "might") that a huge amount of the drive we have as a country is in part due to sublimated violence. And that we are a violent culture in part because we have the right to own guns built into the foundation of our country.
What does it matter? Nothing, really. If you're successful in getting guns off the street, yay team. Truly. I despise guns.
But it seems to me important to remember that the purpose of the second amendment at the time it was written is now generally acknowledged to be that yes, they wanted private citizens to own guns--not just for self-protection against criminals, not just to hunt, but for a protection against the government. Whether or not that works for us today is irrelevant to the fact that it *was* what they intended then. And it just seems to me interesting--that has to do something to a cultural (and forgive the use of the word) psyche to be formed with that intent.
cont'd.
946. labarjare - Sep. 3, 1998 - 8:14 PM PDT
Cowgas - the last paragraph of your 945 is a classic example of what I am talking about. You state before meandering off into what you yourself call psychobabble that it is generally acknowledged that the intent of the Second Amendment was to have private citizens bear arms to protect against government. Generally acknowledged? To be succinct - bull shit. As one example, there is an excellent recent analysis in the UC-Davis law review that convincingly argues (with a lot of backup research)that in terms of the political maneuvering that went on when the Second Amendment was being framed that it was the southern states that persuaded Madison et al that said S.A. was needed to insure that the southern states could maintain militias themselves to guard against slave rebellions.
947. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 8:21 PM PDT
cont'd from 945
"Perhaps you think that America's epidemic of gun violence is a 'light' reason for changing our gun-happy culture and laws."
In a sense, yes, I do. I think the Supreme Court will decide whatever it decides. But it does seem odd that when we're busy expanding the scope of other amendments that we seek to limit this one.
But to me the issue is whether or not it will be successful. IOW, how much of the low violence rate in other countries is due to the fact that they're not as violent as we are?
"It's an illusion. " (about self-protection) and
"Only guns nuts and militia types seriously believe that the average American is at greater risk of violent attack by his government, which he needs his guns to "defend" against, than he is from ordinary gun violence resulting from the proliferation and lack of control of guns in America."
Oh, I agree. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it seems this was what the intent was of the Constitution.
BTW, I apologize for the blip in this parenthesis of mine "(waiting periods, who gets to own one, whatever)". It should have had the words "whether we add restrictions about..." in front of it. And I probably should have left the whole parentheses out.
"How do you know what the intention was? Anyway, it's irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means."
I agree with the last sentence. But it's not irrelevant if you look at it in terms of how this amendment may have formed our attitudes. Do I have any proof? Of course not. But I just keep coming back to the fact that no other country has it built into their constitution that they have this right. It seems interesting.
948. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 8:25 PM PDT
As for how do I know the intent. Well. I'm deeply hesitant to bring up facts or assertions, because I do so rarely and I have little regard or use for facts. I'm into interpretations. But in this case, I'd be interested in feedback either way.
Joyce Lee Malcolm's book "To Keep and Bear Arms" is about the origins of the second amendment and how it came from England.
Here is a review of the book that was in the Michigan Law Review and was written by David Kopel of the Independence Institute. Here is the part I wanted to quote in particular:
"Here, Malcolm provides a well-written summary that offers almost nothing new to any student of the history of the creation of the Second Amendment. She concludes that Congress intended the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right of all free Americans to possess firearms. Congress designed the Amendment to permit a militia drawn from the whole body of the people, thus ensuring that a uniformed standing army would not be the sole defense of the nation. Although Malcolm's conclusion may startle some television commentators, it fits squarely within the overwhelming scholarly consensus of the last fifteen years."
Here is a paper written that cites her book.
"Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view of the Second Amendment."
That's why I'm asserting that yes, it was their intent. I've read the same thing in papers and haven't found anything that refutes this yet.
cont'd.
949. CalGal - Sep. 3, 1998 - 8:31 PM PDT
cont'd.
But this is making me very nervous because I dislike saying Fact A is true. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? I'd be interested in reading about it.
I don't know where the militia part came from. Haven't finished the book yet. But I keep reading over and over that constitutional scholars agree on the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. That this is not generally disputed. If it *is* disputed--not the part about the militia, but the deliberate expansion of the English laws to exclude any restrictions as to type or nature or type of people who could own guns--then I'll happily say, geez, this assertion isn't right.
Again. I'm not arguing that this means we *should* let everyone own guns. And I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do.
My point is only that it seems a bit simplistic to say that getting rid of guns will make us less violent. Especially since we *can't* get rid of them, but only restrict ownership and access. (To say nothing of the fact that we haven't been all that successful in that area, either.)
And that I think those who just want to get rid of guns without taking into account the impact the Second Amendment and its intent and how it might affect our cultural psyche (I threw that in just to please you, Lab) are being too optimistic.
950. cigarlaw - Sep. 3, 1998 - 9:37 PM PDT
elliot, I don't know what you call being searched. I call having to open my pack for some asshole governmental functionary being searched and I don't like it. And it happened EVERY time I entered a public building.
As for being better armed, I was not referring to any weopon. Just by being an American and free I was better armed.
951. cigarlaw - Sep. 3, 1998 - 9:48 PM PDT
elliot, contrary to your oft-stated assertion, the statistics show that you are far more likely to escape with your life by resisting an attacker than by passively submitting.
952. LadyChaos - Sep. 3, 1998 - 10:19 PM PDT
I've really enjoyed and appreciated Ted Koppel's specials on Crime and Punishment. It's important for such a highly visible television journalist to present the stark reality of the sort of C.J. system which we (meaning the voting public) have demanded.
953. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 5:18 AM PDT
LadyChaos,
Unfortunately I missed that series. Could you synopse?
954. Msivorytower - Sep. 4, 1998 - 6:08 AM PDT
First time I've ever seen synopse as a verb.
Language pedants, what's the verdict on this usage? Just sloppy or nouveau talk?
955. Bubbaette - Sep. 4, 1998 - 6:11 AM PDT
Maybe it was a faulty synapse.
956. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 6:45 AM PDT
*sigh*
I am beginning to think none of you are interested in compromise or solutions. You just like to argue. I was ignored the first time I posted this, but I'm going to give it one more try. There IS a technological solution which addresses many (not all) of the concerns of gun control advocates.
The "smart gun" is now a reality. It's not totally perfected yet, but given some time and typical Yankee ingenuity, it will eventually be mass produced reliably and cheaply. A "smart gun" is a gun with a microchip in the firing mechanism which prevents the gun from firing unless the grip is held by a person wearing a ring in which is embedded a corresponding microchip.
So, if the smart gun is left out and one of the kiddos (or their friends) get ahold of it, there is no accidental shooting because the gun won't fire. If a crook breaks into my home while I'm away, stealing my smart gun just gets him/her a lump of metal. I'm wearing the ring and the gun is useless without it.
Background checks, and waiting periods, plus requiring all guns to be manufactured with the smart gun technology (once it's perfected) satisfies all MY concerns about balancing public safety with the right to own guns.
957. Msivorytower - Sep. 4, 1998 - 6:51 AM PDT
Bubba
Well at the very least it should have been synopsis, eh? Or synopses, but NOT schnapps.....ever, never schnapps.
958. Msivorytower - Sep. 4, 1998 - 6:58 AM PDT
CP
Agree that the smart gun technology solves some of the problems, but then *each* person in a household would need their *own* weapon. It's possible, then, that MORE guns would be demanded than less, and safety issues (of needing the closest gun at hand in order to protect oneself) still remain questionable.
For instance, your husband has a smart gun, he's out of town, you're in bed late at night and someone breaks into your house. The gun is virtually useless to you (unless you have matching decoder rings! cool!).
959. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 7:02 AM PDT
MsIvory,
That's why we have double ring ceremonies.
960. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 7:12 AM PDT
MisIT -
Yes, as I understand it you can have *matching decoder rings*. Kind of like getting two sets of keys for the family car.
Of course, smart guns will not solve all the problems. Nothing will. A really determined, smart criminal (is that an oxymoron?) will find a way to arm himself/herself. However, it will make it harder for the petty criminal who depends on cheap stolen weapons today. Anything that makes it harder will drive up the price.
The main problem solved by the smart gun technology, IMO, is the problem of a child in the household playing with a gun and an accidental shooting. As I've posted before, I grew up in a family which used hunting as our main source of meat. I also used wearing a gun to intimidate my neighbors who robbed me into leaving me alone. However, now as a single woman who is supposedly vulnerable to violent crime, I do not own a weapon. If I had a gun in the house and didn't keep it locked up, there would be the possibility of a child getting ahold of it. I can assume that I could teach my daughter gun safety, but I cannot guarantee the good sense and training of all her friends. If I keep the gun lacked up, I wouldn't be able to get to it in time if I woke up to a burglar or rapist in the house. Catch 22.
961. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 7:24 AM PDT
labarje,
You'll note that I accept sane laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of children and the deranged.
I live Downtown, in the shadow of a large housing project. The period I referred to in my post on the subject was the late 80s to early 90s; specifically, the multi-muggings occurred in the summers of '88 and '89, if I recall correctly. Things are much better now, and I suspect that even with the eventual change of mayors, we will probably not return to any such level of violence, just as I suspect that anti-gay fundamentalist swine, such as the woman who ran the "ex-gay" ads and who admitted her goal was the imprisonment of active homosexuals, will never come to power. (I mention this gay business because that is what launched this gun discussion.) It's a cliche, but the price of liberty *is* eternal vigilance (see the rantings of Minister Khalid Muhammad; the NY Times has today a good ad from the ADL on the subject, p. A 16).
I do want to see the confiscation of legal guns. I'm delighted to hear that you are not advocating that. Peace to you.
962. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 7:29 AM PDT
Well, I started to use "summarize," but I felt like being creative. If it looks like a verb and it sounds like a verb...
Cristi, I don't know about the other compromisers, but I think smart guns are an excellent solution, despite MsIt's misplaced misgivings.
963. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 8:10 AM PDT
Re: 961, that was "don't" want to see the confiscation of legal guns, obviously. Sorry for the mispost.
964. cigarlaw - Sep. 4, 1998 - 8:55 AM PDT
christi: the "smart gun" is an idea that has been around for at least 20 yearstat I know of. It is an ingeneous, costly and essentially dangerous solution to a non-existent or minor problem.
Cops would benefit the most, since most are killed by their own guns when taken away from them. Children shooting each other accidentally is a tragic, albeit insignificant probem. Sort of like developing a complex system to keep cheldren from piloting aircraft. Nice idea, but do we need it?
Also, it is not one ring, to be safe, everyone with access to the gum would have to wear two rings (one on each hand) and hope the contact points were always clean.
frankly I have little sympathy for people who allow their children access to firearms with no training. Children old enough to operate a firearm -- figure out how to load a revolver or strong enough to pull back the slide on an automatic -- are old enough to know better. If they are stupid enough or their parents are so stupid they did not teach them, well... I have been accusedof being a soctial darwinist. This is one time where they may be correct.
965. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:00 AM PDT
I think I may propose to Vader a thread on social darwinism.
966. Msivorytower - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:19 AM PDT
"Cristi, I don't know about the other compromisers, but I think smart guns are an excellent solution, despite MsIt's misplaced misgivings."
Now Selene, just because you're embarrassed about your renegade language usage doesn't mean you should make unsubstantiated comments, like my having"misplaced misgivings".
First, they aren't *my* misgivings, they are a general critique against the supposed solution of using smart guns. Second, they aren't misguided unless you can show how the underlying problem I indentified is not really a problem.
967. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:27 AM PDT
cigarlaw,
I don't follow your scepticism.
1) What's wrong with protecting policemen?
2) What if you were the one shot by your "unfit" neighbor's kid?
3) I'm sure the rings could be designed such that they didn't have to make physical contact --- an inch or two away would work fine.
968. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:33 AM PDT
MsIt,
I'm not embarrased! I'm proud! (Hey, when one mispells their bad grammar as much as I do, that's one to be proud of.)
And your anti-smart gun points have already been addressed. To wit:
"then *each* person in a household would need their *own* weapon."
No, just multiple rings.
"It's possible, then, that MORE guns would be demanded than less, and safety issues (of needing the closest gun at hand in order to protect oneself) still remain questionable."
The first part is solved with multiple rings. In fact, there might be fewer guns since lawful gun owners wouldn't have theirs stolen so frequently. The second part (needing closest gun at hand) seems to be an argument in favor of more and handier guns - is this what you intended?
"For instance, your husband has a smart gun, he's out of town, you're in bed late at night and someone breaks into your house. The gun is virtually useless to you (unless you have matching decoder rings! cool!)."
Well, you solved your own problem.
969. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:45 AM PDT
p.s.,
I'm still hoping for a constitutional FrayLawyer to point out the article or amendment which can be interpreted as providing the federal government with the power to regulate our toilet size.
970. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:54 AM PDT
Christi:
"There IS a technological solution which addresses many (not all) of the concerns of gun control advocates."
I think smart guns will have little impact on America's gun problem. There are already 200 MILLION dumb guns circulating through the population of this country, thanks to decades of insanely lax gun laws and the "I need a gun for protection" nonsense that you and Ronski are pushing. Smart guns do nothing about that problem.
For a view of the gun problem from the front lines, talk to a doctor or nurse who works in the ER in a typical American city hospital. They hate guns, because they see first hand the kind of horror and tragedy that guns cause.
971. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:58 AM PDT
Elliot,
First, what they don't see are the crimes prevented. Second, how much of that horror and tragedy are caused by guns which are currently illegal? In other words, how many would be prevented by passing more gun laws?
Back to your smart gun critique - That argument applies to ANY solution, not just smart guns. In fact, it applies NOW. Are you waitin for utopia, or would you settle for improving things now?
972. Msivorytower - Sep. 4, 1998 - 9:59 AM PDT
Selene
But then the issue of gun safety is obliterated with the multiple ring approach (although matching decoder rings is a cool thing). Unless someone wears the ring ALL THE TIME, the risk of having a child use the weapon doesn't seem to be greatly reduced (children DO like to make trouble, you know).
"In fact, there might be fewer guns since lawful gun owners wouldn't have theirs stolen so frequently."
Well, you can't really suggest this unless there's some data behind it, ie that gun theft would go down, particularly if there are multiple rings. The more rings, the more the probability that smart guns won't solve ANY of the problems identified.
I do agree, however, that the multiple ring thing takes care of the out of town husband scenario. Assuming, of course, the spouse is wearing the ring at the time.
To wit, I can see smart guns having some potential to solve some of the problems with "guns out of control" in this country, but remain somewhat skeptical of the details. (The devil is always in the details, you know.)
973. Random - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:04 AM PDT
965: Ronski: Self serving, aren't you!
974. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:10 AM PDT
cigarlaw - "christi: the "smart gun" is an idea that has been around for at least 20 yearstat I know of. It is an ingeneous, costly and essentially dangerous solution to a non-existent or minor problem."
1. The current smart gun I saw demonstrated was not too costly. PCs were costly to begin with. Two years ago I couldn't afford a cordless phone - now the prices are about 1/4 or less than they were then. Cost is an issue with any new technology.
2. The smart gun I saw had no contacts to clean. In fact, they started with the chip in a wristwatch, so obviously no contact was necessary. The ring method prooved more reliable. The problem with the watch was not that the gun ever fired when it was not supposed to, but that it did NOT fire when it was supposed to. That problem went away with the closer proximity of the ring.
5. I do not consider my concern that an attacker might get my gun away from me and use it against me a minor concern. Nor do I consider the possibility of an accidental shooting minor. Remember those two boys who stole Grandpa's guns and went on a shooting spree at the school. If Grandpa's guns were smart guns, they wouldn't have fired for the kids and no one would have been shot, (I'm asuming that Grandpa wears his ring all the time)
4. How are smart guns dangerous?
975. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:11 AM PDT
AdamSelene:
"First, what they don't see are the crimes prevented."
Oh please. What "crimes prevented?" And don't give me NRA gun lobby propaganda. If guns were needed to "prevent crime," countries where guns are severely restricted would be awash in assaults and murders. But they're not. It's America that is the capital of gun violence. A gun kept in the home or car makes the owner or his family *more* likely to be a victim of gun violence, not less. And doctors are on the front lines of dealing with this bloodshed.
"Second, how much of that horror and tragedy are caused by guns which are currently illegal? In other words, how many would be prevented by passing more gun laws?"
A lot.
"Back to your smart gun critique - That argument applies to ANY solution, not just smart guns. In fact, it applies NOW."
No, it doesn't. We need strong gun laws to inhibit the circulation of the hundreds of millions of ordinary guns that are already out there and to prevent even more of them from being added to the mix.
976. JadeGold - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:12 AM PDT
CP;
I would not be asking cigarboy for a rational response regarding firearms.
977. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:13 AM PDT
MsIt,
Are you suggesting that the kiddies will borrow the ring about as frequently as they now borrow the gun? That's an interesting point, but I don't think it holds up that well. For the kids who are intentionally killing others, you're right. But most of the kid's shootings are accidental --- and kids don't need the rings to play with the guns, nor do hunters need to wear the rings when cleaning their guns.
I sympathise with your skepticism --- but we have to start somewhere.
978. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:16 AM PDT
Random:
I'm glad you got the joke.
Elliot:
That's "I *MAY* need a gun for protection." And I talk to ER physicans often.
979. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:18 AM PDT
elliot -
You are absolutely right that the production of smart guns would do nothing to make all the "dumb" guns out there safer. However, I don't feel this means we should throw up our hands, give up, and do nothing. I think understand your stated anti-gun opinion. However, there is a significant portion of the population who feels very strongly, as I do, that they have a right to own guns. In a fundamental disagreement, I find it more effective to search for a compromise than to try to convince someone that my entrenched opinion is right and their entrenched opinion is wrong.
Have you read of the gun buy-back programs where a temporary "amnesty" is declared and anyone can trade their guns in with no questions asked? (Usually at the local police station.) So, how about a similar program to replace 'dumb' guns with 'smart' guns? (No it WON'T get them all, but if you're looking for perfection, give it up and join the real world.)
980. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:19 AM PDT
elliot,
Me:
"Second, how much of that horror and tragedy are caused by guns which are currently illegal? In other words, how many would be prevented by passing more gun laws?"
You:
"A lot."
Do you mean that a lot of the current tragedy is caused by illegal guns (which new laws would not prevent?) Or do you mean that a lot of that tragedy would be prevented by passing more gun laws?
I'm more interested in the first question right now than the second. If you choose to stick with the second, then tell me what percentage of the ÉR doctors experiences would be reduced by passing more laws - and which laws.
981. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:23 AM PDT
This whole "self-defense" business is nonsense from any number of angles. When I was held up and robbed at gun point a few years ago, even if I had owned a gun I wouldn't have had it with me, and even if I had owned a gun and had it on my person, it would have been insane to try and pull it out to "defend" myself against the men who were pointing a gun at me. It seems that hardly a week goes by that I don't read of some road rage incident or quarrel between neighbors here in Arizona that ends up with one of the participants, or an innocent bystander, being killed or injured because a gun was fired in a moment of rage and anger. I remember one particularly tragic incident a few years ago in which two young men, who I'm sure would probably have said that they needed their guns for "self-defense," were exchanging gun fire on the freeway after one of them had enraged the other through some violation of driving courtesy. Neither was hit. Instead, a pregnant woman and her unborn child in another car were killed when they got caught in the crossfire.
982. Random - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:30 AM PDT
Is Bill Clinton's White House Private Eye Company Giving Dirt to Spin
Doctors?:
It appears that, under the guise of "reinventing government" to "reduce bureaucracy" President Clinton directed the
formation of a company called US Investigations Service, Inc. headquarterd in an abandoned mine hundred of feet beneath Butler County in rural northwest Pennsylvania.
According to the Scripps-Howard report,"The company, which
checks virtually all prospective civilian federal workers to determine if they have past criminal convictions or otherwise might endanger national security, was formed when 706 government employees of the U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) were dismissed in 1996 and offered jobs in the first employee-owned corporation ever created by the federal government.
"A Scripps Howard News Service analysis shows the federal government paid the 706 employees $37.3 million a year in salaries and benefits before they were privatized in July 1996. The private company, called US Investigations Services, received nearly twice that amount, or $73.2 million, from the government in its first full year
of operation. The firm is expected to get a total of more than $153 million in its first two years and two months of business.
Does this strike you as a money saving operation? And, while we are talking about investigations whih determine the hiring of people,what kinds of safeguards exist in this new private company which was merely handed millions of dollars worth of contract work without having to bid competitively? The company won't disclose how it spends taxpayer money or provice any details about its profits or salaries,
including the compensations given to corporate officers.
To be continued..
983. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:32 AM PDT
Christi:
"However, there is a significant portion of the population who feels very strongly, as I do, that they have a right to own guns."
Yes, that's the problem. People in America have been indoctrinated with these ideas about their "right" to own a gun since birth. If that was indeed a natural human right, like freedom of speech or the right to vote, people in other democracies would also be clamoring for it. But they're not. People in other countries look at the consequences of the American "right" to own a gun and shake their heads in amazement at the stupidity of it. It's not a "right," it's a product of American history and culture, but millions of Americans are too blinded by their immersion in that culture to see it.
"Have you read of the gun buy-back programs where a temporary "amnesty" is declared and anyone can trade their guns in with no questions asked? (Usually at the local police station.) So, how about a similar program to replace 'dumb' guns with 'smart' guns?"
If that's the best we could do, I'd support it. But I'd much rather see gun buy-back programs that traded cash or something else, not more guns.
984. lazygeorge - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:32 AM PDT
Complicating a firing mechanism with the technology you suggest increases its chance of failure when you need it most. Cigarlaw is right. The technology has been around a long time. If it was as reliable and as safe as you suggest I think it would become widely available instead of being an option to be installed by a few skilled gunsmiths. How many times have you seen it tested? How many misfires were produced per thousand rounds fired? Who is betting their life on this technology functioning flawlessly?
985. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:32 AM PDT
Elliot,
I think you'll agree that anecdotes do not make good policy, on either side, or any side, of this question.
I, too, have been mugged, and have thought that had I actually had a gun on me, the situation would have been worse. Many police will say the same thing, that if a perp finds a gun on a victim on whom he has gotten the drop, things may escalate.
Still, there are stories where people have been saved by their weapons.
Again, I do not propose there should be no gun laws. And I remain strongly against the confiscation of all legal guns.
986. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:36 AM PDT
Elliot -
There are anecdotes for just about every position taken in this issue. Here's mine -
When my idiot neighbors robbed me, were caught, arrested, and let out on bond, they started harrassing me. (How dare they have to pay for robbing me! Obviously it was all my fault, not theirs!) They not only harrassed me, they robbed me again. Reporting this to the sherrif, did not get the behavior stopped. Once I started wearing a Colt Python .357 openly on my hip (legal in New Mexico) they stopped harrassing me and I was not robbed again. I am not only in favor of gun ownership, I am in favor of carrying UNconcealed weapons. The best defense against robbery, mugging, and attack is to make the criminal afraid to target you. Then you don't have to shoot anybody to defend yourself, because no one attacks you.
987. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:40 AM PDT
Christi,
I knew I liked New Mexico for more than the scenery, and Smokey's gravesite (where I blubbered!).
988. AdamSelene - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:44 AM PDT
elliot,
Ok, if you don't want to play, then I'll not bother asking you anymore questions.
989. JadeGold - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:49 AM PDT
Ronski;
Excellent point to this issue.
Most people assume that a firearm will save them from crime or an assailant. This is not true. The NRA often states that firearms are used millions of times annually to prevent crime. The frequency of these uses, defensive gun uses (DGUs), are belied by the NRA's own numbers.
For example, the NRA often touts Gary Kleck's number of 2.5 million DGUs per year (Kleck has revised this number down to 1.2 million). The NRA states that in 8% of all DGUs, the offender is wounded or killed. Further, the NRA estimates that 15% of all firearm wounds are fatal.
Thus, doing the math
1.2M x .08 x .15 = 14,400
or 2.5M X .08 x .15 = 30,000
This means there would be either 14,400 or 30,000 DGU homicides each year. However, FBI UCR put DGU homicides at about 250-260 each year.
990. Random - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:51 AM PDT
How Clinton is getting rich off taxpayers..Cont'd:
However, this supposedly "private" company pays nothing for its office space or for even the computers that make the business possible. Those costs are paid by the U.S. Government. Essentially, only the work force was privatized. Phil Harper, president and chief executive officer of the new firm called said, in refusing to give reporter a profit figure. "That would give our competitors an edge. There are still a lot of expenses besides salaries." Harper said, "Travel is a large component. And we still have the need for paper, pens, pencils, repair agreements on equipment, leases on equipment-a lot of incidentals that add up"
It strikes me that one could buy a whole lot of paper, pens and pencils with the extra $35.9 million. The reporter must have asked the government officials the same question. "Was there a better way to do this? Maybe. Maybe there was a more efficient way." said Office of Personnel Management spokesman Bruce Milhans "but we are confident that we have saved the taxpayers money. We are confident of that."
He couldn't figure out just HOW that was the case, since the figures we have indicate it cost at least double what was paid previously, but assured the reporter that it must have been. Milhans and other
officials said that the decision to privatize the former Office of Investigations was "an executive decision" from the White House. This was part of the reinvention of government," he said. "If we had just fired everybody, there would have been an enormous disruption among the federal agencies(needing background checks). There wasn't a private-sector company in existence that could do this when this was decided to be done. We did care about our employees and we wanted to give them the support they needed for five years wo they could make a successful transition."
To be cont'd.
991. ChristiPeters - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:51 AM PDT
"If that was indeed a natural human right, like freedom of speech or the right to vote, people in other democracies would also be clamoring for it."
That is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of "accepted" practices in other countries that I think are looney. there are a lot of American traditions that others think are looney. SO WHAT?
"The technology has been around a long time. If it was as reliable and as safe as you suggest I think it would become widely available instead of being an option to be installed by a few skilled gunsmiths."
Actually what I'm talking about hasn't been around for a long time, and isn't being installed by a few skilled gunsmiths. It was demonstrated by a gun manufacturer for mass production. It is similar to the microchip technology imbedded in you car key so your car won't start if hot-wired.
*sigh*
I think this is one of those debates that will go on and on and on and on with no solution. Everyone's opinion is too entrenched and too emotional. There's really nothing you can say that will convince me that I don't have the right to own a gun. There's apparently nothing I can say that will convince you to change your mind either.
(BTW licensing, background checks, and waiting periods are ok with me and IMO all that's necessary to 'control' gun ownership)
Anyway, I'm tired of it. Y'all carry on. Bye.
992. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 10:59 AM PDT
Christi:
"There are anecdotes for just about every position taken in this issue."
Right. So we shouldn't argue from anecdote or personal experience, should we? We should adopt a position based on serious scientific study and overall experience. And the overall experience of America's gun policies is a level of gun violence vastly exceeding that of any other advanced democracy. And yet people like you and Ronski just ignore this fundamental reality and keep going back to your "People need a gun for protection" nonsense.
993. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 11:04 AM PDT
Christi:
"That is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of "accepted" practices in other countries that I think are looney. there are a lot of American traditions that others think are looney. SO WHAT?"
So, if the traditions seem loony to most people who haven't been immersed in them from birth, it's probably because they are. Most people outside the U.S. think America's attitudes to guns are loony, and they're right. I think you can't see this because you are so much a product of those traditions.
994. Ronski - Sep. 4, 1998 - 11:05 AM PDT
Jade,
Yes, I agree that there are some very funny numbers floating around.
I see myself as something of a moderate on this issue, but others will disagree with that description. I do think that gun laws in New York City are too extreme; in Vermont and New Mexico, they seem to work just fine in their current very limited form. Perhaps, in the South, they could use some strengthening, but not being from that area I would be reluctant to tell the folks down there what to do. (Some of us Yankees are not carpetbaggers.) Regards.
995. Random - Sep. 4, 1998 - 11:10 AM PDT
Clinton's money funnel: Cont'd:
So, you see, Harper HAD to refuse to respond to questions. He said if he revealed the amount of profit it might help competitors. WHAT competitors? Perhaps the Secret Service? The Clintons resentment toward the White House Secret Service, who were supposed to the investigations on White House personnel, is well documented. Who, besides the federal government is a customer of the investigating company? Supposedly the work which so far has been done totally by the monopoly set up the President and
Vice President becomes available for open bid in 2001, just as Bill Clinton leaves the White House. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?
To "help" the
fledgling company, the Clinton White House insulated it from public scrutiny of
a public, tax supported entity as well as many of the major operating expenses
faced by most start-up businesses. For example, it has free use of tens of
thousands of square feet of office space in the Butler County cave complex(a
secured compound the government began leasing during the Cold War) and in 21
other federally leased offices nationwide. Most important, it has free access
to a vast and priceless government computer database of criminal, civilian and
governmental records not available to the public.
The Clinton White House fling at entrepreneurship resulted in the creation of firm which instantaneously became the worlds largest security background company. A year later the company was denying that their profit margins are "excessive".
US Investigations Services spokespersons said they "voluntarily" gave up an additional $5.1 milion the company was entitled to in the federal contract by reducing its charge for each investigation and by rolling back the price cut to July 8, 1996, when the company began. Harper said he turned down the additional $5.1 million not because he feared appearing too profitable, but in order to win a new
996. elliot803 - Sep. 4, 1998 - 11:19 AM PDT
THE RISKS OF GUNS IN THE HOME
Over 35% of American households contains at least one firearm.
--Police Foundation, 1996
One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home.
--Police Foundation, 1996
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1986
When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.
--Kellermann A, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
In 1995, there were only 179 justifiable handgun homicides compared with a total of 11,198 handgun murders in the United States.
--FBI Uniform Crime Reports, released October 1996
In 60% of fatal accidents involving a firearm, the weapon was located in or near the home.
--General Accounting Office Report on Accidental Shootings, 1991
85 percent of adults who don't own guns feels less safe when others in the community acquire firearms.
--Hemenway, Solnick and Azrael, Firearm Training and Storage, 1995
In 1994, 16 children, aged 19 and under, were killed with guns every day in this country.
--National Center for Health Statistics, 1996
More than 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes.
--Lee, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990
997. Random - Sep. 4, 1998 - 11:23 AM PDT
Cont'd: contract in three years., "I've got 700 people here. I want to win that reb-bid." he said.
Re-bid? There is no indication he ever bid anything to get this huge contract.
Thomas Hargove, of Scripps Howard reported,
"According to an in-house chrono