Nice article--"Guns make society safer"
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
Eric of IN
New member
Here's the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Editorial: Guns make society safer
Those bent on murder are deterred when people are armed
Sunday, September 05, 1999
Buford Furrow, the Nazi pig who shot up a Jewish day-care center in Los Angeles Aug. 10, dominated the evening news the night of his dastardly deed, and for days afterward. So did Mark Barton, who murdered his family and then killed nine people in two suburban Atlanta office buildings July 29.
But television news ignored what happened in Santa Clara, Calif., on July 6, when 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens took three hostages at a local gun club and said he intended to kill them.
Stevens did not get to join this summer's roster of highly publicized mass murderers because one of the hostages he'd taken had a .45 caliber handgun concealed beneath his shirt. He pulled it out and shot Stevens in the chest, bringing him down. Stevens was subdued until the police arrived to arrest him.
Sgt. Anton Morec of the Santa Clara police department said the gun-toting hostage almost certainly prevented a massacre.
"It certainly looks like [Stevens] intended to take a lot more people out," Morec was quoted in a Reuters dispatch, one of the few news accounts of the event.
Was tragedy averted in Santa Clara not news because tragedy was averted - or because the manner in which tragedy was averted does not support the media drumbeat for more gun-control laws?
Plenty of air time has been given to those who argue that Furrow, Barton and Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, who killed two people and wounded nine in drive-by shootings in Illinois and Indiana over the Fourth of July weekend prove that more gun controls are needed. The facts suggest otherwise.
Consider Furrow. He'd been arrested for felony assault in Kirtland, Wash., on Nov. 2, 1998, just three days after a psychiatric hospital he'd tried to admit himself to obtained a restraining order against him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he had. Police could have confiscated them. They could have locked Furrow up. They just never got around to it.
Consider Barton. Police in Alabama suspected him of having killed his first wife and her mother.
Consider Smith. When he tried to buy a gun legally from a federally licensed gun shop in Illinois June 23, he was turned down because he failed the background check. By lying on the application form, he committed a felony, for which he could have been arrested. But the police never got around to it. The guns Smith used for his murder spree he obtained illegally.
The cases of Furrow, Barton and Smith suggest that what is needed are not more gun laws, but better enforcement of existing ones. I say this not to be critical of the police. Cops at all levels comprise just half of 1 percent of the nation's work force. Only 25 percent are on duty at any given time, and many of these are in administrative positions. There just aren't enough lawmen to watch over us all.
Which raises another point about Furrow. He attacked the Jewish Community Center because there was too much security at the three targets he scouted first. He knew there'd be no armed adult on the premises to protect the children.
Furrow is a lousy shot. He fired 70 rounds at unarmed women and children and only wounded five. Had he pulled his stunt at, say, the National Shooting Club in Santa Clara, chances are he'd have been goose-stepping into hell long before he got the chance to murder postman Joseph Ileto, whom he killed on his way out of town.
Two other recent news reports pour cold water on the case for gun control.
In North Carolina, a gun-control nightmare: Authorities report the law the Legislature passed four years ago to permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons has been a huge success. The state issued 40,506 concealed handgun permits between Dec. 1, 1995, and Aug. 4, 1999. Just 137 permits - three-tenths of 1 percent - have been revoked, most for technical violations. The rate of violent crime in the state fell precipitously during this period, from 660.7 incidents per 100,000 people to 591.8.
"People predicted there would be shoot-outs on the highways," said Democratic state Sen. Fountain Odom. "This has not been the case."
In Australia, gun controllers got their dream. In 1996, authorities passed a "firearms elimination program" in which the government forced law-abiding gun owners to surrender some 640,381 personal firearms, including shotguns and semi-automatic .22 caliber rifles in addition to handguns.
Crime rates had been declining steadily in Australia for the 25 years prior to enactment of the gun confiscation law. But in the 12 months afterward, homicides were up 3.2 percent, assaults were up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent.
The evidence is clear. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Jack Kelly is national affairs writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. His e-mail address is jkelly@post-gazette.com.
[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Editorial: Guns make society safer
Those bent on murder are deterred when people are armed
Sunday, September 05, 1999
Buford Furrow, the Nazi pig who shot up a Jewish day-care center in Los Angeles Aug. 10, dominated the evening news the night of his dastardly deed, and for days afterward. So did Mark Barton, who murdered his family and then killed nine people in two suburban Atlanta office buildings July 29.
But television news ignored what happened in Santa Clara, Calif., on July 6, when 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens took three hostages at a local gun club and said he intended to kill them.
Stevens did not get to join this summer's roster of highly publicized mass murderers because one of the hostages he'd taken had a .45 caliber handgun concealed beneath his shirt. He pulled it out and shot Stevens in the chest, bringing him down. Stevens was subdued until the police arrived to arrest him.
Sgt. Anton Morec of the Santa Clara police department said the gun-toting hostage almost certainly prevented a massacre.
"It certainly looks like [Stevens] intended to take a lot more people out," Morec was quoted in a Reuters dispatch, one of the few news accounts of the event.
Was tragedy averted in Santa Clara not news because tragedy was averted - or because the manner in which tragedy was averted does not support the media drumbeat for more gun-control laws?
Plenty of air time has been given to those who argue that Furrow, Barton and Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, who killed two people and wounded nine in drive-by shootings in Illinois and Indiana over the Fourth of July weekend prove that more gun controls are needed. The facts suggest otherwise.
Consider Furrow. He'd been arrested for felony assault in Kirtland, Wash., on Nov. 2, 1998, just three days after a psychiatric hospital he'd tried to admit himself to obtained a restraining order against him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he had. Police could have confiscated them. They could have locked Furrow up. They just never got around to it.
Consider Barton. Police in Alabama suspected him of having killed his first wife and her mother.
Consider Smith. When he tried to buy a gun legally from a federally licensed gun shop in Illinois June 23, he was turned down because he failed the background check. By lying on the application form, he committed a felony, for which he could have been arrested. But the police never got around to it. The guns Smith used for his murder spree he obtained illegally.
The cases of Furrow, Barton and Smith suggest that what is needed are not more gun laws, but better enforcement of existing ones. I say this not to be critical of the police. Cops at all levels comprise just half of 1 percent of the nation's work force. Only 25 percent are on duty at any given time, and many of these are in administrative positions. There just aren't enough lawmen to watch over us all.
Which raises another point about Furrow. He attacked the Jewish Community Center because there was too much security at the three targets he scouted first. He knew there'd be no armed adult on the premises to protect the children.
Furrow is a lousy shot. He fired 70 rounds at unarmed women and children and only wounded five. Had he pulled his stunt at, say, the National Shooting Club in Santa Clara, chances are he'd have been goose-stepping into hell long before he got the chance to murder postman Joseph Ileto, whom he killed on his way out of town.
Two other recent news reports pour cold water on the case for gun control.
In North Carolina, a gun-control nightmare: Authorities report the law the Legislature passed four years ago to permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons has been a huge success. The state issued 40,506 concealed handgun permits between Dec. 1, 1995, and Aug. 4, 1999. Just 137 permits - three-tenths of 1 percent - have been revoked, most for technical violations. The rate of violent crime in the state fell precipitously during this period, from 660.7 incidents per 100,000 people to 591.8.
"People predicted there would be shoot-outs on the highways," said Democratic state Sen. Fountain Odom. "This has not been the case."
In Australia, gun controllers got their dream. In 1996, authorities passed a "firearms elimination program" in which the government forced law-abiding gun owners to surrender some 640,381 personal firearms, including shotguns and semi-automatic .22 caliber rifles in addition to handguns.
Crime rates had been declining steadily in Australia for the 25 years prior to enactment of the gun confiscation law. But in the 12 months afterward, homicides were up 3.2 percent, assaults were up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent.
The evidence is clear. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Jack Kelly is national affairs writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. His e-mail address is jkelly@post-gazette.com.
[/quote]
Miss Demeanors
New member
Here is another article that was in my paper 
Law abiders under fire
October 1, 2000
BY MICHELLE STEVENS SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Guns don't kill; people do.
Yet the anti-gun advocates are at it again, bullying Congress to support
their cause--which is to banish the object rather than the person who
illegally uses the object. Instead of lobbying for longer sentences for
criminals who use guns, the gun-control advocates continue their efforts
to make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own a
gun. In their well-meaning but warped thinking, all guns are bad.
Not so. And there are endless incidents where people have prevented a
robbery or assault by brandishing a gun, but many of these cases go
unreported. And that's too bad: The gun-control folks love to exaggerate
gun use in committing crimes. The police and John Q. Public need to know
how effective guns can be at preventing crime.
But in this climate where guns are demonized by the media and such
groups as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, it's dangerous
to speak out in support of guns, even for defensive purposes. Those who
do risk being stereotyped as "gun nuts" or potential criminals.
That's why I respect people like John Birch, president of Concealed
Carry Inc., who is ignoring the heat and relentlessly lobbying the
General Assembly to give Illinois residents the right to carry a gun for
self-protection.
And I admire Christopher K., 32, a disabled man who carries a handgun
for self-defense. "Somebody has to speak out," he said. "I feel that, by
putting a face on the issues of self-defense and concealed carry, the
debate will be brought into the open. Gun owners are not all crazies."
I will not divulge Christopher's last name, even though he insisted that
I do so. In the virulently anti-gun climate in Chicago and northern
Illinois, Christopher risks his job and his freedom for shooting off his
mouth in favor of guns.
Because Christopher has cerebral palsy and walks with a cane, he makes
an easy target for criminals, who prefer to pick on the weak and
defenseless. He began carrying a gun about five years ago after a
particularly harrowing assault one night at a CTA L station. "The guy
had me cornered and demanded money," he said. "Several people saw what
happened," but nobody interceded. He can't run away.
Christopher has carried a gun ever since, and says police tell him--off
the record, of course--that he's smart to carry a gun. Police are never
around when you need them.
Christopher never has used his gun. But he has had to reach for it at
least twice--and that was enough to scare away the bad guys, including a
man who demanded money while threatening to break a 40-ounce beer bottle
over Christopher's head.
Gun-control advocates like to cite dire statistics about how many
victims are killed or injured each year by guns. I prefer the
unpublicized statistics on the many thousands of times crimes are
prevented because the would-be victim was armed--legally or illegally.
"Under Illinois law I risk a felony conviction every time I step outside
my home when carrying a gun for self-defense," he said. "For years I've
battled with the fear of being arrested vs. my terror of further
victimization. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't."
Christopher is willing to risk all for his principles. He embodies the
spirit of Americans who risk going to prison for defying a law that says
you can't carry a gun to protect yourself when you work at night or
travel through dangerous neighborhoods. On taking one's chance in such a
dilemma, my father used to say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 [jurors]
than carried by six [pallbearers]."
Remember that when you're passing the Kluczynski Federal Building Plaza
downtown on Monday afternoon, or watching the television coverage of the
18th annual Rally Against Handguns. I doubt that reporters or news
editors will seek out anyone in the crowd who supports gun ownership by
law-abiding people. But there will be gun supporters in that crowd, just
as there were last summer at the Million Mom March. And remember: A gun
is just an inanimate object. It is only as evil as the person carrying
it.
E-mail: stevensm@suntimesmail.com
Law abiders under fire
October 1, 2000
BY MICHELLE STEVENS SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Guns don't kill; people do.
Yet the anti-gun advocates are at it again, bullying Congress to support
their cause--which is to banish the object rather than the person who
illegally uses the object. Instead of lobbying for longer sentences for
criminals who use guns, the gun-control advocates continue their efforts
to make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own a
gun. In their well-meaning but warped thinking, all guns are bad.
Not so. And there are endless incidents where people have prevented a
robbery or assault by brandishing a gun, but many of these cases go
unreported. And that's too bad: The gun-control folks love to exaggerate
gun use in committing crimes. The police and John Q. Public need to know
how effective guns can be at preventing crime.
But in this climate where guns are demonized by the media and such
groups as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, it's dangerous
to speak out in support of guns, even for defensive purposes. Those who
do risk being stereotyped as "gun nuts" or potential criminals.
That's why I respect people like John Birch, president of Concealed
Carry Inc., who is ignoring the heat and relentlessly lobbying the
General Assembly to give Illinois residents the right to carry a gun for
self-protection.
And I admire Christopher K., 32, a disabled man who carries a handgun
for self-defense. "Somebody has to speak out," he said. "I feel that, by
putting a face on the issues of self-defense and concealed carry, the
debate will be brought into the open. Gun owners are not all crazies."
I will not divulge Christopher's last name, even though he insisted that
I do so. In the virulently anti-gun climate in Chicago and northern
Illinois, Christopher risks his job and his freedom for shooting off his
mouth in favor of guns.
Because Christopher has cerebral palsy and walks with a cane, he makes
an easy target for criminals, who prefer to pick on the weak and
defenseless. He began carrying a gun about five years ago after a
particularly harrowing assault one night at a CTA L station. "The guy
had me cornered and demanded money," he said. "Several people saw what
happened," but nobody interceded. He can't run away.
Christopher has carried a gun ever since, and says police tell him--off
the record, of course--that he's smart to carry a gun. Police are never
around when you need them.
Christopher never has used his gun. But he has had to reach for it at
least twice--and that was enough to scare away the bad guys, including a
man who demanded money while threatening to break a 40-ounce beer bottle
over Christopher's head.
Gun-control advocates like to cite dire statistics about how many
victims are killed or injured each year by guns. I prefer the
unpublicized statistics on the many thousands of times crimes are
prevented because the would-be victim was armed--legally or illegally.
"Under Illinois law I risk a felony conviction every time I step outside
my home when carrying a gun for self-defense," he said. "For years I've
battled with the fear of being arrested vs. my terror of further
victimization. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't."
Christopher is willing to risk all for his principles. He embodies the
spirit of Americans who risk going to prison for defying a law that says
you can't carry a gun to protect yourself when you work at night or
travel through dangerous neighborhoods. On taking one's chance in such a
dilemma, my father used to say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 [jurors]
than carried by six [pallbearers]."
Remember that when you're passing the Kluczynski Federal Building Plaza
downtown on Monday afternoon, or watching the television coverage of the
18th annual Rally Against Handguns. I doubt that reporters or news
editors will seek out anyone in the crowd who supports gun ownership by
law-abiding people. But there will be gun supporters in that crowd, just
as there were last summer at the Million Mom March. And remember: A gun
is just an inanimate object. It is only as evil as the person carrying
it.
E-mail: stevensm@suntimesmail.com
SnakeLover
New member
If you liked the Sun Times article, I'd suggest sending a quick email thanking them for covering the "other" side of gun control. The more folks that respond makes it it easier to run additional articles.
Snake
Snake
'Sent a short "Thank You" to Mr. Kelly and Ms. Stevens.
These are two brave people. There are others in the business just like them. It's a lot easier to be PC.
It's a shame it takes bravery and a rebel's attitude to write and speak the truth. But it's always been that way hasn't it?
These are two brave people. There are others in the business just like them. It's a lot easier to be PC.
It's a shame it takes bravery and a rebel's attitude to write and speak the truth. But it's always been that way hasn't it?
I sent a thank-you to Ms. Stevens also, I'm pleasantly surprised reading an unbiased article in the Sun-Times. Usually it follows the PC thought process and demonizes guns. I'm a life-long Illinois resident, born in Chicago, and am amazed by the current political situation in that city. This was a pleasure to read.
Ms. Stevens had better be on her guard, I'm sure the mayor wasn't happy. Logic has that effect on people such as he.
Ms. Stevens had better be on her guard, I'm sure the mayor wasn't happy. Logic has that effect on people such as he.
SnakeLover
New member
I received an email tonight from Ms. Stevens thanking me for my response. She also advised she was somewhat surprised at the positive responses she had received from this article, since a prior article she had written on gun control was not received well. I don't know what side that article reflected, so the same group that is thanking her now could be the group that was offended before. Anyway, I'm encouraged.
Mordwyn.45
New member
I sent both the writers my thanks about 2 hrs ago.
To Ms Stevens I sent the following:
Ms. Stevens,
As a honest, law abiding, firearms owner, I would like to thank you for putting forth the truth about defensive firearms ownership, and some needed truth about gun control, in your editorial dated Oct. 1st.
Your editorial was brought to my, and many other gun owners’, attention when it was posted on a popular Internet message board that deals with different types of shooting sports, called “The Firing Line” (www.thefiringline.com). Please feel free to stop by sometime. We’re a friendly bunch, even when dealing with, those who disagree with us on firearms ownership. True facts and a smile has been found to work better than insults and anger.
Your description of the situation being forced upon Mr. Christopher K is a situation suffered by many throughout this nation. People like Mr. "K" are conveniently either "forgotten" (read: "ignored") when dealing with this important issue, or condemned as being criminals by the president, the vice-president, (lower case intentional) Sara Brady, Et Al. Mr. "K" it seems is a criminal, without any criminal intent, he's a felon just because he wants to go home in safety at night.
If these so called leaders had their way, the stress placed on Mr. "K" would be shared by all citizens of this country. At the stroke of a pen we'd all become instant felons just by wanting to protect ourselves and our families through the most efficient manner available, a concealed firearm.
When my current home state of Florida, I'm originally from NYC, passed what is known as "Shall Issue" legislation, permitting citizens to carry a concealed weapon for self defense, the clamor was loud and emotional. If you believed the anti-defense furor that was spouted by these doomsayers in the mid 80s, Florida should be completely depopulated by now. Florida residents should have slaughtered each other over "fender benders" and minor disagreements over the spray patterns of lawn sprinklers crossing property lines. Remember, we ARE the “Gunshine” state.
Of course the exact opposite took place and crime fell precipitously almost immediately after the "shall issue" legislation was passed. You might also recall that this was the period of time were the criminal element in the Miami area began targeting foreign tourists in rental cars with "Z" license plates. From their own police confessions, the young criminals knew that those foreign visitors fit 2 important criteria for their victims when they went "Z-ing"
1) They had a great deal of cash on them
and unlike locals;
2) They were guaranteed to be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
I'm very happy to see that Mr. "K" fails at least one of those criteria.
Thanks again for the honest editorial. It was nice to see the other side of the issue for once.
My Sincere Regards,
Rob X
Orlando, Florida
And I recieved from her just now:
Thank you so much for your kind comments. I have been pleasantly surprised
that most letters have been overwhelmingly positive, contrary to the last
time I wrote about this issue, when I was roundly criticicized.
Anybody have a copy of the original editorial??
------------------
"TANSTAAFL"- R.A. Heinlen
"Molon Labe"- Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopile
[This message has been edited by Mordwyn.45 (edited October 06, 2000).]
To Ms Stevens I sent the following:
Ms. Stevens,
As a honest, law abiding, firearms owner, I would like to thank you for putting forth the truth about defensive firearms ownership, and some needed truth about gun control, in your editorial dated Oct. 1st.
Your editorial was brought to my, and many other gun owners’, attention when it was posted on a popular Internet message board that deals with different types of shooting sports, called “The Firing Line” (www.thefiringline.com). Please feel free to stop by sometime. We’re a friendly bunch, even when dealing with, those who disagree with us on firearms ownership. True facts and a smile has been found to work better than insults and anger.
Your description of the situation being forced upon Mr. Christopher K is a situation suffered by many throughout this nation. People like Mr. "K" are conveniently either "forgotten" (read: "ignored") when dealing with this important issue, or condemned as being criminals by the president, the vice-president, (lower case intentional) Sara Brady, Et Al. Mr. "K" it seems is a criminal, without any criminal intent, he's a felon just because he wants to go home in safety at night.
If these so called leaders had their way, the stress placed on Mr. "K" would be shared by all citizens of this country. At the stroke of a pen we'd all become instant felons just by wanting to protect ourselves and our families through the most efficient manner available, a concealed firearm.
When my current home state of Florida, I'm originally from NYC, passed what is known as "Shall Issue" legislation, permitting citizens to carry a concealed weapon for self defense, the clamor was loud and emotional. If you believed the anti-defense furor that was spouted by these doomsayers in the mid 80s, Florida should be completely depopulated by now. Florida residents should have slaughtered each other over "fender benders" and minor disagreements over the spray patterns of lawn sprinklers crossing property lines. Remember, we ARE the “Gunshine” state.
Of course the exact opposite took place and crime fell precipitously almost immediately after the "shall issue" legislation was passed. You might also recall that this was the period of time were the criminal element in the Miami area began targeting foreign tourists in rental cars with "Z" license plates. From their own police confessions, the young criminals knew that those foreign visitors fit 2 important criteria for their victims when they went "Z-ing"
1) They had a great deal of cash on them
and unlike locals;
2) They were guaranteed to be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
I'm very happy to see that Mr. "K" fails at least one of those criteria.
Thanks again for the honest editorial. It was nice to see the other side of the issue for once.
My Sincere Regards,
Rob X
Orlando, Florida
And I recieved from her just now:
Thank you so much for your kind comments. I have been pleasantly surprised
that most letters have been overwhelmingly positive, contrary to the last
time I wrote about this issue, when I was roundly criticicized.
Anybody have a copy of the original editorial??
------------------
"TANSTAAFL"- R.A. Heinlen
"Molon Labe"- Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopile
[This message has been edited by Mordwyn.45 (edited October 06, 2000).]