I am not a big proponent of guns, even though my father had several and I grew up using them.

However, the following clip from globe.com really scares me. Just what DO these people intend to do if there are riots, confrontations, or any problems that can't be solved by "being nice"?

I guess wait for Bill to come (for my wife, at least) or else just lay down to be shot.

........ In the end, the voters acted on the facts, such as that gun ownership itself, as researched in medical journals, makes one far more likely to be killed by a gun. They understood that gun ownership does not deter crime, as in statistics that showed that violent crime dropped in the 1990s at twice the rate of some states that allow concealed weapons.

Proposition B lost by 52 to 48 percent. Rural areas indeed voted overwhelmingly for concealed handguns. But the cities and suburbs came out in such force that Missouri set a record for April turnout. In the city of St. Louis, 74 percent of voters rejected Proposition B. In St. Louis County, 70 percent said no. In Kansas City, 72 percent of voters rejected the proposition.

''Rev. B. T. Rice, president of St. Louis Clergy Coalition, said, ''Big Money can't buy us.'' State Auditor Claire McCaskill said, ''Money can't overcome common sense. Voters, particularly in urban areas, understand guns are not the answer for safety.''

Coming just as many cities are suing gun makers, Missouri's vote is one more sign that common sense is slowly becoming the rule, rather than the exception, of debate on handguns. No longer can the NRA ride into town with a Ten Commandments that bear false witness to the need for such weapons in a modern society. No longer can Heston show up and assume that just because he has played Moses, the sea will part on his command.

Derrick Z. Jackson is a Globe columnist.

This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 04/09/99. ) Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 12, 1999

Answers

These people are out and out FOOLS! People kill people, not inanimate guns! Guns in the hands of our people, is exactly why this country has never been invaded. The crime rate has gone DOWN in areas were people carry. Wake up America, your freedoms are slipping away! Sheilds a full power captain!

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 12, 1999.

The American people will not be disarmed.

Anyone called 911 lately? Cops don't "protect" anyone. They draw chalk outlines and fill out paperwork describing how you were buglarized and/or murdered. Most such crimes then go unsolved.

Say again: the American people will not be disarmed. If they let socialists step on the constitution by recinding their right to keep and bear arms, they will no longer be the American People; they will be slaves: insects in a socialist hive.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 12, 1999.

I used to be anti-gun, then I saw the old black and white movie "Fail-Safe". In it, one of the characters has the line:

"How far do you think the Nazis would have gotten if every Jew who's door they knocked on met them with a gun in his hand?"

That did it for me. Think about it. How many Albanians would be refugees standing around in the mud with nothing but the clothes on their backs if every Serb who showed up at their door had been met with a gun? I'll tell you, not many...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 12, 1999.

Jon,

It's funny, but there's a significant segment of the population out there which simply doesn't think about selfdefense...in fact they WONT think about it -absolutely refuse to do so...so what they'll do in a critical situation is what they've practiced doing, which is nothing...and then, most likely, they will no longer be capable of doing anything.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 12, 1999.

Most big city people are a different breed from small town and country folk. Oregon has got a similar problem -- Portland is full of tree-huggers, pussies and wusses who don't have a clue about the realities of lumbering, cattle and sheep ranching, and farming. Food and supplies, to city folk, grow on supermarket and hardware store shelves.

But, not to worry, when a BIG crunch comes, whether induced by Y2K, Communist China, North Korea, Libya, Yugoslavia, Russia, Iraq, Iran ... or some other group or country "our" meddling U.S. government has pissed off ... the big cities (some at least) will be toast and the small towns and rural areas will experience a jolt but will "keep on keepin' on".

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 12, 1999.

Personally, I can't see the "common sense" in expecting someone who would take an innocent human life to be detered by a ban on guns. Try reading and then refuting "More guns, less crime" by Dr. John Lott. The book is cheap, about $20 bucks from amazon.com. It's supposed to be written for non-statistic heads like us. (Me at least). The fun reading is the sections on the responses he got to the study.

And last but not least...

http://communities.msn.com/OUTDOORS/magazines/firearms/1/australia.asp

Keep it polite

eyes_open

P.S. Let's all plan to take care of five additional people. We can't feed them all, but if it get's that bad we can save a few. Hopefully they'll save us back.

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), April 12, 1999.

Also -- look up book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross on Amazon.com and Looompanics.com

Political action will not solve the problem, so the alternative is ... (see the book).

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 12, 1999.

That is "Loompanics.com" (2 "o"s not 3)

http://www.loompanics.com

also has a lot of survival and defense books.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 12, 1999.

"Those who beat their guns into plowshares
will plow for those who don't."

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), April 12, 1999.

Good posts all. And right-on, every one.

'Cept- Dano, buddy - with the exception of "Southern and Western small-town cultures", Americans have ALREADY been disarmed. We are a Socialist state.....because the people went to sleep and LET it happen, getting promised goodies in return.

They traded their liberty for convenience and perceived safety.

Therefore they deserve neither safety nor Liberty.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 12, 1999.

"Portland is full of..."

A,

Good thing you put the comma between "lumbering," and, "cattle." The first time I read the sentence, the comma didn't register.

You forgot about the three other enclaves: Salem, Eugene, and Ashland.

You know about SB700? The state state senate just passed it by one vote. Now on to the house. If made into law, it'll prohibit gun sales to unregistered/unlicensed buyers at gun shows.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), April 12, 1999.

CT - you are exactly right. Predators don't prey on the strong. The Good Reverend Rice was absolutely incorrect - the big (liberal government) money all ready has bought them.

What my "Progressive" friends fail to comprehend is that self and family defense is an individual responsibility. However, these are the same people that say "Look at Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, et al., Somebody has to do something." Bill is one of them. Their option is to send somebody else to do something. They are the 'best and the brightest' and have no intention of personally going and doing anything. The history of the left is that by talking about it they have done something. Yet these same people continue to denounce personal responsibility in any aspect of life - public and private. They rely on the Government for retirement, medical care, protection, disaster relief, Y2K recovery etc.

Unfortunately, the left control the schools and media.

Guns are tools just hammers and saws.

Prepare yourselves and your families as you think necessary for coming events. Let those who don't prepare suffer the consequences of their beliefs.

-- Tom (nomail@nomail.com), April 12, 1999.

Last Summer as I started storing food, it occurred to me that anyone with a gun could come along and take it, unless I had a gun too. I had heard that there are about 60 million gun owners in the US, or about 20% of the total population. I think you will agree that the number of armed criminals is much smaller. Assuming my State has an average number of gunowners, that comes to 20% of roughly 4,000,000, or about 800,000.

It looks as though only a small minority, let's say 10%, of the US population will store more than 1 week's food and water. I believe that the gunowner population will be not more than twice this number, or 20%. That leaves 80% of gunowners unprepared for more than a 'hurricane'.

If TSHTF and food stays scarce for more than a week, then there will be 640,000 hungry gunowners in my State. I feel they present a greater threat than either the government or the criminals.

-- abner gorem (abc@def.ghi), April 12, 1999.

Reply to A

Before anything like "Unintended Consequences" ever takes place we should have exhausted all legal means of protecting our rights. Like taking the time make both side of the debate available to the public. There is a book on things you can do to protect your gun rights (From Paladin Press and Delta Press, forget what it's called but it will be obvious) that should be read and implemented before anyone even thinks about UC type actions being the way to go.

Reply to Abner

Yes, you probably have that many gun owners in your state. But most of us have them due to a self reliance mind set or for hunting reasons. We won't need your food. But if you can approach these people with some useful skills to offer I bet you could work out a deal where they handle your security needs in exchange for what ever you bring to the table. (Pssst. Simple test, if gun owner in question can give you three basic gun safty rules [some say four] off the top of his/her head, they probably are responsible and won't off your dog by mistake.)

And let's all remember to be polite

eyes_open

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), April 12, 1999.

Abner,

If they did store food, I'm willing to bet they didn't store bullets! When those gun owners get really hungry, they will begin to trade their guns for food.

-- Tom (nomail@nomail.com), April 12, 1999.

Abner,

1. all of the firearms owners that I know are storing both food and ammunition.

2. part of my y2k preps involves helping new gun owners learn to use their defensive firearms in a safe and effective manner.

3. what are you doing to take care of those for whom you are responsible? remember firearms owners are a minority - you're going to have a much higher prospect of dealing with large groups of upset people who have only the weapons they've managed to scrounge. what then?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 12, 1999.

Pay attention to actual facts here.

People outside the cities -- who have to live REAL LIFE rather than the insulated artifical and TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON OTHERS comfort most of us have gotten used to, want guns. People inside the cities, apparently, their only exposure to guns being the gangs downtown, don't.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that living in a house with a gun, multiplied by several million often stupid and careless and drunk people, provides an overall higher chance of being shot than people who don't have them.

That does not mean that it is appropriate to violate the central tenant our country was founded upon. Using such an obvious thing in an article as if it means something is ... creative.

I can guarantee that in fact, having a dog also provides an overall higher chance of being bitten by a dog. And dogs can act on their OWN will, unlike a gun which requires a human being to be used. Perhaps we should outlaw dogs.

I was educated in California. When I was 19 I said, "Damn right they should outlaw this and that. You don't need an Uzi to hunt rabbits." It wasn't until I lived a little, and eventually moved to the South (Texas), and learned something about American history -- and about the way the world simply IS -- that I realized how totally indoctrinated I had been, and how my ignorance was not accidental.

Gun safety and education is the first premise not only of the NRA but of anybody with a brain who owns a gun.

These commercials and ads showing some darling little city child who finds dad's gun in a drawer in the closet are politically aimed at restricting guns, but the fact of the matter is, they ought to be aimed at restricting stupidity. It is too tragic for someone losing a child to be prosecuted for being a careless moron responsible for their kid's death, so it's not done, but in a perfect world that awareness would exist.

You do not often hear of farmer/rancher kids blowing each other away, or shooting themselves in ignorance. These kids grow up around guns, they know their danger. Their parents know about guns, they don't do stupid things. Guns with many people are "hidden" like sex is, a secret "bad" thing, a taboo secret, and the results are obvious.

The NRA and many gun owners push extensively for gun education, but the other side fights that because ignorant fear is much better for their cause. There are all kinds of safety items that can make your handgun for example fast to get to but locked to your child (like a wall-lock). Every time you see an ad about some sweet kid who shot himself or another kid with dad's gun, remember that the same people pushing that ad and gun restriction are the same people that end up fighting against gun education so dad-the-moron would know that wall-locks exist and buy one, hence preventing that tragedy that was so convenient for their advertisement.

There is in fact quite a lot of evidence that concealed carry allowances have significantly reduced certain types of crime in more than one state. In fact I remember one that even got into mainstream press, in Florida, where rape-assault was a major problem, and the media pushed the story of concealed carry being allowed and women buying guns, and boy that statistic dropped at the speed of light.

But: When people start giving you statistics, always question the detail. "Violent crime" may include many things. Gun crimes and rape could drop in response to concealed carry being allowed with an easy application, while other types of crimes in general (basic assault for example) may rise for completely different reasons and alter that overall statistic, and that "grouping" may be creatively chosen by somebody to mislead. Also remember that if a concealed carry permit is so hard to get as to be available only to a rare few, as is the case in some places, then it is misleading to use *any* crime statistic to support or detract from that law. A restrictive CC allowance law can pass, make zero difference in the general population, and a rise in gun- or violent- related crimes can occur (these statistics rise constantly on their own accord), and then that can be quoted, "CC gun law passed... crime went up." Really, don't take anything at face value. Someone once said, "Numbers are liars and liars use numbers" and it's so often true.

I was a massive liberal as a young adult. It took some education to make me realize what a freakin' uneducated dolt I was. Now, when I see people fighting against guns, against freedom of speech, or any other basic tenants of our Constitution, I don't even consider it a difference of opinion so much as a sign that they have no real world education or historical/political overview whatever.

Someday in history people will look back and say, "America formed a republic which then voted to become totalitarian." It will seem a lot clearer in retrospect how it happened -- by the "why" will always be a mystery.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 12, 1999.

The original premise: "Every American a rifleman"

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 12, 1999.

Arlin,

To answer your items:

"Abner, 1. all of the firearms owners that I know are storing both food and ammunition. "

I just searched NRA and GOA web sites- no mention of Y2K. I've gotten about the same type of reaction to talk about Y2K from people at gun shows and in gun stores as I have from people in general. I don't believe gunowners are more than twice as prepared as the general population, so 80% of them are unprepared for more than a 'hurricane'. I think the real figure is over 90% unprepared gunowners.

"2. part of my y2k preps involves helping new gun owners learn to use their defensive firearms in a safe and effective manner."

That's good.

"3. what are you doing to take care of those for whom you are responsible? remember firearms owners are a minority - you're going to have a much higher prospect of dealing with large groups of upset people who have only the weapons they've managed to scrounge. what then?"

I've bought several firearms and am learning how to use them. Since I have at least a 15% chance that any given person after my food is an unprepared gunowner, it seems the right thing to do.

-- abner gorem (abc@def.ghi), April 12, 1999.

The state prefers and fosters a condition of near-total dependence among its "citizens". This dependence extends to personal security. The state will attempt to serve your dependence with its usual degree of responsiveness and concern. Self-reliance in such an environoment is unnecessary, wasteful, foolish. The state knows best.

You would you let ol' Bossie have a gun, would you?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 12, 1999.

oops,

You wouldn't let ol' Bossie have a gun, would you?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 12, 1999.

Abner,

interesting your observation about y2k awareness at gunshows. Here in Northern Virginia I've personally noticed a fair amount of evidence of y2k awareness - different clientele for one thing. More upscale yuppie types looking a little out of place but intent on absorbing every word they can while discussing the virtues of various sorts of shotguns, handguns, and so on. Also most military ammo calibers selling out quite rapidly - and even some nonmilitary calibers...dunno if you've noticed but for some reason .44 mag has been getting pretty scarce lately, though I have no idea why. Also, any MREs for sale are gone by mid-morning of the first day...and so on.

Now don't get me wrong, almost nobody talks about y2k directly unless they know you; and even then they only sort of bring it up in passing, but at least around here the awareness is there. I guess from what you're saying though, that isn't the case everywhere else...*sigh* too bad, really, as we, the armed populace, may be the only barrier between some of our neighbors and the predators likely to show up if things get tough.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 12, 1999.

I watched the whole debate over Proposition B unfold in Missouri. The article cited above was from the Kansas City Star (also known as the "red" star). The KC Star is admittedly a pro-Clinton, anti-gun rag, as is the St. Louis Dispatch and the Columbia Paper. Incidently, 104 out of 114 counties in the state voted FOR proposition B. Guess which ones didn't - the ten counties that encompass KC, St. Louis, and Columbia (the three major metro centers and academic centers). These ten counties have the preponderance of population and are able to swing any statewide vote in the direction they choose.

As a former Oregon resident (grew up in the country), I remember well how any decision in the state was controlled by 3 counties: Multnomah (Portland), Marion (Salem), and Lane (Eugene,) the three most liberal, pro-big govt, and pro-environmental counties in the state. The results are pretty plain to see. Oregon has one of the largest state govts per capita (twice that of Wash St), some of the most restricted environmental laws in the nation (many of which have destroyed whole industries,) the most intrusive zoning laws anywhere outside of the former communist block, and an urban growth boundary around Portland that has made that city the 2nd most expensive in the nation. Ain't big govt great?

One more point and then I stop my rant. The KC star made a huge deal about how much money the NRA spent in Missouri. I didn't read one sentence, however, on the monetary value of 3 major metropolitan newspapers that maximized the anti-gun and marginalized the pro-gun arguments. How much is free anti-gun propaganda read by 2 million people worth?

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.

I live in Missouri too, but out in the country. I'm liberal, a Libertarian, and have very little use for the NRA, and I can't stand Charlton Heston....but I also favor gun ownership and Prop "B," not that it did me any good. I think Sarah Brady has had a lot of influence on restricting guns, as did the kids that went on the shooting sprees at school. The anti-gun people have taken these tragedies and used them to the nth degree. But in both those cases, had those disturbed, or angry shooters not had guns, they would have used some other method. Who knows, it might have been worse, like a soda bottle filled with gas a burning sock.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 13, 1999.