Different cultures beget different solutions, Deri.  As a high-schooler, my
friends and I would check our shotguns at the front office in order that we
might enjoy an afternoon's bird hunting with the dean after classes.  The
blood sports in this country have not been the province of poachers or
gentry.  My hope is that it remains so.

I do think the banter about "guns" on list has been healthy and fun, but I
can't imagine that anyone's opinions will be changed by an exchange of dry
facts about an emotional issue.

The difference lies not so much in whether one is "anti" or "pro" gun as it
is whether or not we feel comfortable with to nationalizing more and more
aspects of our lives.  I daresay that the Europeans and, for the most part,
individuals who reside on east and west coasts of the United States are more
comfortable with the notion of socialization than those of us whose forbears
desired to explore the "New World" further inland than Boston or San
Francisco.

A large element of our U.S. population is dependent upon the State for their
most basic of needs.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  What IS
wrong is when that becomes the desired norm.  With that construct we get
three basic factions:  The group wishing to be "on the dole", the group
wishing to "administrate the dole" (and its inherent power) and the third
group, to which I belong, that maintains that the ideal is for me to take
care of my own needs, IN AS MUCH AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.  It is to this
third group that the writers of the American Constitution were directing
that document.  It is this third group that sees the value of personal arms
as a viable defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well
as understanding that there is a mandate for an armed citizenry to keep a
government of, by and for the people from becoming a government by fiat and,
ultimately, jackboot.

-Kyle

-----Original Message-----
From: Deri James
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 10/23/02 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: another shooting

On Wednesday 23 Oct 2002 5:55 pm, you wrote:
> My dad had guns, you know what he did, he thought us to respect them
and
> use them correctly. I shot his guns when he had to put the barrel in a
tree
> fork because I could not hold it up. We had rifle clubs at schools
even in
> New York when I was a child. Probably did not stop all accidents but,
it
> kept them down more than any laws. Negligence and stupidity can not be
done
> away with by legislation. You might as well use a ball bat if someone
is
> breaking in on you and you have to unlock the gun, then unlock the
bullets
> then unlock the trigger. We were thought that the gun is "always"
loaded.
> Do not play with the guns.

But if all guns were illegal you would not need this safety training.
Kyle
says most firearms homicides are between criminals so if you are not a
criminal why should you need a gun. A handgun bought today will not
protect
you from the sniper shooting you tomorrow, but it will lay at the back
of the
sock draw - a potential for someone's death.

If America says only certain people should have Weapons of Mass
Destruction,
why the insistence on the universal right to have Weapons of Single
Destruction!!?? I can't fathom it.

If someone wishes to do me harm, steal my property, I hope I have the
wits to
maintain control of the situation, I don't think waving a gun at the
perpetrator is going to achieve that.

Cheers

Deri