Hi Kyle,

            The only thing I have against guns, is the false feeling of security they give people. It is one thing to own a gun - its another to be able to shoot someone. Now having said that - I believe any action against guns is another just putting out fires rather than solving the problem. The problem is/are people. Guns are no more harmful than ice picks, butcher knives, fists, baseball bats and cars. Anything can become a weapon in the hands of person. We have advanced weapons and Cave man brains. Frankly, we don't need to outlaw guns we need to outlaw people. That would solve the gun problem. About 10,000 years ago we almost became extinct - we have never lived in peace - not even with our most beloved, I am highly curious how long it will take us to get to a higher level of thinking - than me, mine, and screw you. This has come more clear since I got custody of Alex - people are giving me a halo for what is just the proper thing to do. They can't understand taking a child in to begin with - then the fact I don't get any renumeration is so beyond their thinking that I an really considered odd, or very angelic. I just think if we placed a little less emphasis on us and our belongings - and gave that little emphasis to caring for others - there would be less death, fewer suicides, less crime, etc. Of course, I know I am naive and stupid to think such stuff, and even more naive and stupid to live like that. I must have gotten off on the wrong planet for this lifetime. LOL

        And I looked up the numbers - and I keep coming up with 8 million legal handguns - which is about 1/3 of the population. I wonder what the number and percent of illegal guns and gun owners there are.

                                             Trisha


> Trisha, the percentage of Americans owning firearms for protection is on the
> rise--particularly among women.  Most "think tanks"--liberal &
> conservative--attribute this to a general feeling of insecurity post 9/11
> and, to a lesser degree, a ruling in Federal Court (California) stating that
> police agencies are NOT bound to protect individuals from harm (upheld on
> appeal).  In a nutshell, what this means is that LE officers do not have to
> put themselves in harm's way to prevent a violent crime.  This stemmed from
> a case where a California woman was being stalked and threatened by her
> ex-husband.  He ignored restraining orders and her requests for "police
> protection" were denied.  She then requested a permit to carry a handgun,
> citing viable reason, and that request was also denied.  The long and short
> of it was that her ex ended up killing her, the family brought suit against
> the state and the courts decreed, through several appeals, that the
> "government" has no inherent duty to protect individual lives.  I can
> provide details when I get time later, if anyone wants.
> 
> Kyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trisha Cummings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 7:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: documentary
> 
> 
> Hi Deri,
> 
>    You said just what I thought!! - Also since the feds have a well equipped
> military - not sure what a handgun can do against a tank or APC, or Hummer -
> macine gun, etc.  I am sure the founders never imagined the kind of weapons
> we have today or we would all have the constitutional right to a bomb
> shelter, and mandatory military service. I am truly curious what actual
> percentage of Amercian own a gun - beyond the military and police, FBI, CIA
> and other alphabet soup agencies.
> 
>    How are things across the pond these days?
> 
>                                      Trisha
> 
> 
> > On Thursday 21 Aug 2003 4:38 pm, you wrote:
> > > as far as gun control. putting all the bs about
> > > hunting and sceet shooting aside where it should be.
> > > the founders put gun ownership in so the future> 
> > > oppresive governments could be overthrown.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, difficult to fight off Poison Gas and other WMD (which your gov has)
> with
> > handguns, at the time the founders wrote that they were saying the
> populace
> > should have the same weapons as the gov. Personal Nukes? Luverly!!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Deri