|
Gun
Control Philosophy
If you were planning to commit suicide and wished to take as
many people to death with you as possible, would you choose a NRA meeting, a gun
show, Beer Joint, Shopping Center, or Grocery store where there are a few people
carrying firearms? How about choosing a different place where people are not
likely to be armed such as a school, college or church where even licensed
handguns are prohibited on these premises. Of course you would choose a school,
college or church where your chances of being stopped by an armed citizen are
very minimal, or maybe non-existent.
The police will not place
themselves at risk in order to stop a mass murderer from killing people, or even to save the lives of
any of
their potential victims. The police will respond to the scene quicker than they used to
respond, but they will not put themselves at risk by confronting any person who
is committing mass murder to stop that person from reloading, resting, rearming and/or committing additional murders. The police
will normally wait
outside of the field of fire until the murderer is satisfied with the body
count, commits suicide, or maybe runs out of ammunition. The police are of almost no
use to stop these mass murderers, until the mass murder ceases his efforts. The police will then create large
voluminous reports and
files that describe and document the carnage that took place. The only person with any chance
to stop or at least minimize the number of mass killings is one (or more) armed
person in that room or space with the murderer.
Handgun Licensed
Teachers, Visitors and Students should be allowed to carry their handguns into
class and other places on the campuses. If you are in the classroom when these
murders are occurring, the only possible thing that will stop the killing
spree of an armed murderer is one or more armed persons in that classroom. Teachers should be encouraged to get licensed
and to carry concealed handguns.
Most (maybe all) of the
latest mass murderers at educational facilities have been under psychiatric care
for various reasons. Maybe people that visit any psychiatrist should be listed
on a computer database that is publicly accessible to the police and the general
population. This will allow the public to know and beware of those who
visit psychiatrist. These people might be
potentially dangerous mass murderers. This could be operated and
maintained in a manner similar to the public convicted
sex offenders lists.
I am the Engineer of Record
for construction of U. S. Government facilities in countries where the criminals are armed to
the teeth and the average citizens are totally un-armed by law, and totally at
the mercy of the armed criminals. I have visited these countries many times,
and as a result, I now have strong opinions on Gun ownership. This contact
with these unarmed victim populations changed my
opinion and at 59 years of age, I joined the National Rifle Association in 1997 after realizing how critical handgun ownership
and an armed population is to maintaining the democracy, the personal safety, and the welfare of the
average citizen.
People who want to live in a country where the average
citizen is prohibited from owning handguns or any type of firearm should go to
India, where the law-abiding population is totally disarmed (except for the
politically connected who are armed with automatic high powered assault type
weapons). I have spent time in India on different occasions. I have derived
the following information from the local daily newspapers that I would read
every day, plus talking to the local businessmen. Every business from the large
plantations and industries to the Mom & Pop retail stores must pay armed people
(criminal gang members carrying pistols and assault rifles) for protection services. The
particular local armed gang that claims the area (or the turf) where the
business is located requires that the business pay the gang for the protection
services. This is similar to the old New York City Protection Rackets before
the New York population was allowed pistol permits for their own protection.
Failure to pay for protection can result in death, rape, fire, theft, or other
bad things happening. Turf wars between gangs are also a very severe problem in
India, as they were in New York City.
Even the tenant farmers or
sharecroppers in India are exploited to the point that a large part of their
share of the crop is paid to the protection providers. The sharecropper farmers
are left with only a small part of their meager earnings. The only assets these
people have are their children. Slavery is illegal in India, but indentured
servitude for up to 10 years is legal. The farmers sell their boys to the rug
weavers at about 12 years of age, and sell their daughters to the brothels at
even earlier ages. The newspaper had articles (Mumbai 1999) with pictures of
these farmers lined up around the block in the mornings with their little
daughters waiting for the brothels to open. The maximum legal length of
indentured servitude is 10 years. The going price for 10 years of servitude for
a child equated to about $45.00 U S Dollars. The local newspaper articles were
protesting the fact that the brothels wanted younger and younger girls for their
customers due to the AIDS scare. The newspapers were editorializing by
proposing legislation that would prevent people leasing (selling) their
daughters to the brothels until they have had their first menstrual period.
There is a constant demand for young girls since the girls are thrown out of the
brothels to live on the sidewalks if they get pregnant or if they contract a
venereal disease. I have heard of even worse situations on other Asian
Countries.
The large businesses hire or
form their own gang (of armed criminals) to provide protection from other gangs
trying to control their turf. These gangs are offered additional money from
neighboring small mom & pop businesses to provide protection from other gangs
when possible. Every Business has to pay protection. If the businesses become
successful, the protection "insurance" rates charged by the protection provider
are increased so that the protection gang is actually a partner in (or the owner
of) each business. The protection payments are normally established to be a
percentage of the federal taxes paid to the federal government with the theory
that the protection provider (racketeer) actually provides some beneficial
service to the business and that the federal government provides none.
A few years ago when I was
in India (September 1997), one province with tea plantations had two
revolutionary groups (or really protection racketeer gangs) claiming control of
the area, and with each gang requiring that the plantations pay separate
protection taxes to each group, plus the federal government taxes. The central
government dispatched a company sized military unit of 140 soldiers to be
garrisoned in the capitol of that province for the benefit of the plantations.
After one month in that province, the Indian Parliament passed a law that
prohibited payment to any military personnel located in that province. Most all
of the members of parliament are under the absolute total control of the various
protection racketeering gangs (and/or revolutionary groups), which assured
passage of the legislation. The government withdrew the troops within a short
period of time, and there was much publicity from the press decrying the rampant
corruption of the government.
During October 1998, the
Indian Medical Doctors Association (similar to the US AMA) got together and
decided not to pay protection. As a result, some of these doctors were being
dragged out of their offices into their waiting rooms and murdered in front of
their waiting patients. The executioner would explain to the patients that this
was an example to other Doctors that might decide not to pay protection. The
main daily issue in the daily newspapers was about the Indian Medical
Association demanding that the parliament pass legislation automatically
granting a pistol-carrying permit to every individual who has a medical doctor's
license. The medical doctors were threatening to leave the country if
parliament did not grant a pistol-carrying permit to every licensed medical
doctor in India. I do not know the
outcome of that particular proposed national legislation.
The various revolutionary
groups in India do not really (seem to) want to take over the government, but
they want to continue to collect protection insurance from their un-armed
victims. If the corporations refuse to pay protection, the revolutionary groups
or gangs will kidnap a corporation officer and after raping his wife, daughters,
and other female members of the selected corporate officer's family, they will
hold the corporate officer until the protection is paid by a published
deadline. If the protection is not paid within the time frame allowed by the
gang, the corporate officer is executed and his body dumped into a prominent
public place for all to see as an example to others that might consider not
paying their protection charges. If the corporation still refuses to pay, the
kidnapping process is repeated, except with a different corporate officer. If
the Central Indian government catches any person paying protection, that person
is put in jail, not the kidnappers or the protection gangs.
The solution to the crime
and corruption in India (and other countries where the population is not armed)
is to arm their population. I have not personally been to any African
countries, but some of my employees have and they state that doing business in
Nigeria makes business in India look like amateur night in Dixie.
If the current proposals to
ban handguns becomes the law in the U.S., then we could awake to a situation
similar to India, Africa, Russia, Bosnia, or New York City during the earlier
part of the 20th century when privately owned firearms were prohibited. Many
New York City residents have since been licensed to carry firearms, and this
probably is the main reason or maybe the only reason for the demise of the
protection businesses (rackets) in New York City.
If private ownership of
firearms had been allowed in Yugoslavia, the various Police Forces
could not have been able to commit so many rapes, murders, beatings, and other
atrocities upon the various people that they did not like. Russia has become
like India since the demise of the USSR. One of the first actions of each
despot regime is to disarm the population so that they cannot object to his actions.
In Africa various groups cut off one arm of political opponents after asking if
they want long sleeve or short sleeve (meaning to cut off the arm at the forearm
or at the bicep).
Instead of Gun Control, how
about creating enough deterrent penalty for the use guns during the commission
of a crime to encourage these activities to stop? How about a mandatory death
penalty for conviction of armed robbery, using a firearm during a rape, and
mandatory death penalty for conviction of murder with a firearm? How about a
painful death sentence by hanging and/or horse drawing the condemned into
quarters at a public place such as the Reliant Stadium with the state selling
admission tickets to raise funds for maybe education. We need public painful executions in lieu of painless,
semi-private death by injection behind closed doors. Public burning at the
stake could be imposed upon those convicted of particularly heinous murders such
as Clerical Pedophilia. The judge or the jury could decide upon how much pain
would be inflicted as punishment with the death process. School children should
be required to attend these executions, and this would provide a lifetime
deterrent to that child committing murder later in life.
How about at least changing
our prisons to places of punishment with corporal punishment meted out at the
will and whim of the prison guards. This would be in lieu of the convicted
prisoners watching TV and throwing fecal matter and urine at the guards without
any punishment whatsoever for their actions. U. S. Constitutional amendments
are needed (required) to repeal all of the recent federal court rulings by the
Hon. William Wayne Justice that prevent the punishment of convicts.
I did not worry too much
about crime in present, mainly because the criminals normally performed their
armed robberies at the "STOP & ROB" type convenience stores where I seldom
shop. The criminals have since grown in such numbers that there is not a
sufficient number of "STOP & ROB" type convenience stores to serve their needs.
The criminals in Houston have started to look for additional easy targets, such
as the general public. The criminal element has discovered that most
businessmen and elderly women in affluent neighborhoods carry jewelry, Rolex
Watches, valuables, money, and are normally un-armed. The criminal element can
follow these people home or to his business, beat up or shoot the individual as
they get out of their auto, and take the billfold and jewelry with almost no
resistance. The smart criminal will then shoot the victim, check to see if the
victim is still alive, and if he or she is alive after being shot, place the gun
in the victim's ear and fire a bullet into the victim's brain. The criminal
knows that there is less probability of getting caught when he kills the victim,
and the punishment is not very severe, unless he gets the death penalty. The
criminal knows that he will probably not be convicted depending upon the
selection of the jury. He knows that even if he is caught and even if he is
convicted of cold-blooded murder, he will be released on parole after a few
years of incarceration, unless he gets the death penalty.
Car jacking and kick
burglary (the actions that the newspapers refer to as kick burglaries are
actually armed robberies) present another growing area of opportunity for
resourceful criminals. The average citizen is not wealthy enough to employ armed guard
protection 24 hours per day to protect him from the criminal elements (a la
Rosie O'Donnell). The average non-wealthy citizen deserves the right to be well armed with a pistol
when the criminals come to harm him and/or his family.
Enough deterrent to prohibit
widespread murderous criminal behavior could be possible if we could return to
the criminal justice system of the 1950's when murderer's were executed within
months after conviction, convictions were easy to obtain, and the primary (only)
issue that the criminal court addressed was the innocence or guilt of the
accused. There were probably some innocent people executed for murder
every year during the 1950's, but this is/was only a small percent of the number
of innocent people murdered by criminals each year. This was before the
liberal judges were elected and before the ACLU increased their activity to
cause the release of both accused and convicted criminals. The outrageous
interpretations of the constitution that are espoused by the ACLU and recognized
by our court systems is also responsible for our increases criminal activity.
One innocent person executed
by the state is one too many, but one innocent person executed by a criminal is
also one too many. At least the person executed by the state got some form of a
trial and justice that the citizen executed by the criminal did not get.
Banning the ACLU might be
more effective to reducing crime rather than banning handguns. How about a U S
Constitutional amendment reversing all of the Supreme Court decisions in
criminal matters during the past 60 years. How about monitoring the ACLU and
passing a new U. S. Constitutional Amendment to close each proposed loophole
dreamed up by the ACLU to release some murderer from prison (to kill again) as
soon as that loophole is submitted to a court by the ACLU.
Elimination of the people's
right to protect themselves would result in the total corruption similar to that
experienced in many other countries that have disarmed their populations. I was
62 years old when I decided to join the NRA. The NRA group is the only
organized opposition to the advocacy of disarming the U. S. population that I
know to exist. I was not interested in either side of gun control until I spent
time in countries that have gun control. I do not want this country to become
criminally corrupt similar to India, Mexico, Russia, Yugoslavia, Central
America, Africa, China or New York City (before Gun Licensing). Without an
armed population we could end up with a criminal dominated society. We must
forever protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. This is
the must important right of all.
In 1996, Britain banned
handguns; since then, gun crimes have risen by 40%. Australia also passed
severe gun restrictions in 1996 and made it a crime to use a gun defensively.
In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose 51%, unarmed robberies rose
by 37%, assaults rose by 24% and kidnappings increased by 43%. The problem with
these harsh gun laws, experts say, is that they take guns away from law-abiding
citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving potential victims
defenseless. The U.S. has shown that making guns more available is actually a
better formula for law and order. The criminals know that the potential victim
is probably defenseless.
In the U.S., 43 states have
right-to-carry laws. In those states, deaths and injuries from multiple-victim
public shootings fell on average by 78%. Various studies estimate that 107
crimes per day are avoided by citizens using firearms to defend themselves and
their families.
SUBJECTS OR
CITIZENS?
In 1929, the Soviet Union
established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million
unarmed
dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun
control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
unarmed
Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control
in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, 6 million
unarmed
Jews and another 6 million
unarmed
homosexuals, gypsies, retarded
people, and others who
were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control
in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
unarmed
political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun
control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
unarmed
Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun
control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" and
unarmed people, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up
and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control number about 48
million. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask him or her,
"When do you want to be rounded up and exterminated?"
With guns, we are citizens.
Without guns, we are subjects.
Research shows so-called
'gun free zones' (ie. Churches & Schools) invite armed criminal attacks: That
conclusion, Lott said, is not mere speculation. He and University of Chicago
Professor William Landes studied "multiple victim public shootings" from 1977
through 1999 and reported the results in The Bias Against Guns.
| 
