--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00005 Date: 08/29/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 06:59am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: The Big "Guns" line up against Brady Pt 06:59:3908/29/96 * Crossposted from: FREEDOM'S_VOICE Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and the Lawyers Second Amendment Society have filed an amicus brief supporting the dismantling of the Brady Law. In the tradition of the "Brandeis Brief," we do not address the focused constitutional concerns, but address instead the public policy concerns. We cannot allow the Supreme Court to mistakenly imagine that the sky will fall if they dismantle the Brady Law (which, incidentally, was originally named for _Sarah_, _not_ Jim_Brady). We cannot allow the Supreme Court to imagine that a "compelling government interest" exists that overshadows our rights. Though _not_ the text of our brief, we offer the background research for your consideration and dissemination. DIPR, DRGO, & LSAS ********************************* Dismantling the Brady Law - No Public Policy Disaster Dispelling Common Misperceptions Guns in the hands of Americans are overwhelmingly a net benefit to society. To understand why dismantling the Brady Law is desirable - not a public disaster - it is crucial to first understand the enormous protective benefits of guns - the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs averted (because guns save lives and prevent injuries), and the property protected using guns. Evidence continues to accumulate showing that, rather than causing an "epidemic of violence," guns in the hands of good citizens reduce violence. Below we will point to the evidence that the Brady Law background check and waiting period do nothing significant to reduce violence or to ensure that guns are only in "good hands," but do impede the timely access of good citizens to needed protection. In hopes of weakening the Tenth Amendment challenge to the Brady Law "reasonable" background check requirement of Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO), supporters of the Brady Law, with a wink and a nod, have suggested that in some cases a "reasonable" background check is no background check. We argue that such farcical perfidy cannot be suborned by the Court, particularly in view of the superior available option, computerized Instant Check of gun purchasers' backgrounds as currently exist in 28 states. Unlike the Brady Law's ridiculous requirement that CLEOs review available records (such records often constituting little better than outdated paper files in a shoebox), the Instant Check system relies upon current, computerized records. We point to the dramatic difference between the Brady Law's laughable prosecution and conviction record (during the first year of the Brady Law, 7 convictions in the entire nation) and the efficient sweep of computerized state Instant Checks of gun purchasers' backgrounds (between November 1989 and June 1996, 2,479 individuals were arrested - of which 304 were wanted persons - in one state alone, Virginia). We will demonstrate the duplicity of repeated claims that the Brady Law has prevented "Sixty thousand" - or even any thousands - of criminals from obtaining firearms. We provide this documentation with one purpose in mind - to show unequivocally that there is no compelling government interest in resuscitating the Brady Law. Far from a public policy disaster, dismantling the Brady Law is a public benefit. To place the specifics of Brady Law gun control in perspective, one must understand the larger perspective of gun control. As the newest piece of evidence supportive of that contention that guns in the hands of Americans are overwhelmingly a net benefit to society, a forthcoming study of 15 years' data by University of Chicago researchers shows that "1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly" if currently restrictive states would reform their laws to allow more mentally-competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns for protection outside the home.1 Though surprising to those who obtain their impressions of gun violence research from the print and broadcast lay press, the scholarly literature increasingly vindicates guns as "pathogens" of violence and exposes gun control as a "placebo" or "suicide pill" rather than a "cure" for gun violence.2 In fact, the strategy of gun control proponents to repackage gun control as a "public health" measure3 resulted because of the near unanimous recognition of the criminological scholarly literature that gun control was a failure as a crime or violence reductive measure.4 Stringent gun control does not and cannot be expected to keep guns out of the hands of the willful predators who ignore laws against drug trafficking, rape, and murder. By whatever increment any gun control measure inconveniences criminals, those criminals are not (the wishful and repeated claims of gun control advocates notwithstanding) "prevented from obtaining guns," they are merely displaced into the fast and uncontrolled illegal gun market. Predators who sell crack by the gram or heroin by the kilogram, can quickly and certainly find a black market gun and can certainly afford outrageous prices for such guns without any inconvenience of a background check or a waiting period any longer than a "cash and carry" transaction. Accordingly, gun control only impedes gun purchases by willingly compliant law-abiding citizens, the victims. In so doing, gun control is a counter-productive, even deadly, failure. Victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives. To the extent that the Brady Law impedes the access of good citizens to the protection of guns, the Brady Law becomes only a comfort to criminals, an assurance of criminals' continuing job safety. The much ballyhooed "public health approach to gun violence" merely spins "new clothes [a lab coat] for the emperor" offering an insidiously amoral, value-neutral perspective on gun deaths. Because of Hippocratic Oath values, the medical and public health literature tallies the death of the crippled grandmother shot in the back by a gang-banging predator the same as it tallies the death of a predatory 24 year old, drug-trafficking "innocent child" (in the parlance of the American Academy of Pediatrics). Such predatory teens and young adults carry illegal guns obtained on the black market that are not subject to the Brady Law background checks or waiting periods. The medical/gun control advocacy literature5,6 shows that fully two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are, in fact, drug dealers and their customers who wreak tremendous human and economic havoc upon society. Failing to account for this, the medical literature cannot and does not honestly assess these deaths. Whether measured in human or economic terms, our peer-reviewed cost-benefit analysis finds an overwhelming net benefit of guns in our society - overwhelmingly more lives and money saved using guns than are lost using guns.7 Without exception, review of all 14 studies of defensive gun use suggest that protective uses of guns by Americans number 1 to 2.5 million annually.8 The largest-scale, most comprehensive study of protective gun use, Kleck & Gertz's National Self-Defense Survey, suggests about 2.5 million protective uses by adult Americans against human attackers annually - lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected. Protective uses against animals and protective uses by teenagers or children were not included in this study. About 400,000 of these gun defenders believe that they would almost certainly have lost their lives if they did not have a gun for protection. Even if 90% of these gun defenders were mistaken, the number of lives saved using guns still outnumbers the lives taken using guns by thousands. In about 98% of these protective uses the gun is not even fired. In only about 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand) of the protective uses is the attacker killer.9 This exposes the fundamental flaw in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-sponsored research claiming that "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder"10 - gun defenders apprehend or repel attackers a thousand times as often as they kill them. The flawed and politicized nature of the CDC's much publicized research has been repeatedly exposed in the peer-reviewed and peer-acclaimed scientific literature11,12 and before Congress.13,14 In a front page investigation the Wall Street Journal of May 1, 199615 exposed the CDC's campaign of strategic lying regarding AIDS research. The CDC has waged a similar campaign of strategic lies regarding guns and violence. We present this data as background to generate healthy scientific - and legal - skepticism of the flawed and politicized "science" that has polluted the public debate, media, and common wisdom regarding guns in our society. Such rigorous objectivity is essential in examining the key point of this brief, our contention that the Brady Law is useless, perhaps even dangerously counter-productive. Piercing the False Claims of Brady Law Benefits Arguably the most prominent Brady Law supporter, President Clinton, stated "xSixty thousand people with criminal records have not been able to buy handguns because of the passage of the Brady Billx."16 and "It has made us a safer country."17 The President's remarks encapsulate all that is wrong with his and countless similar claims of Brady Law benefits because: * the GAO survey,18 the source of President Clinton's projected figure, stated that it's Brady Law sample data could not be projected to the nation at large as President Clinton has done to arrive at the "Sixty thousand" figure * the GAO survey shows that approximately half of the individuals fingered by Brady Law background checks are not individuals disqualified from gun ownership19 * data from the National Institute of Justice20 and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms21 suggest that, of those actual criminals fingered by the Brady Law background checks, gun purchase was not prevented - criminals are merely displaced from the legal retail market into the illegal black market unaffected by the Brady Law * FBI Uniform Crime Report data from 1993 and 199422 actually show that the 22 states exempt from Brady Law provisions are safer than the 28 states subject to Brady Law provisions. We elaborate on each of these points. "GAO did not conduct a national survey of law enforcement officials.x Instead, GAO judgementally selected and surveyed 20 law enforcement jurisdictions (7 statewide and 13 local). The results of GAO's study, therefore, are not projectable to the universe of denials nationwide."[emphasis added]23 Unfortunately, the President and other Brady Law advocates ignore this important caveat from their own data source. Additionally, such claims of "Sixty thousand" depend upon denials in the entire nation, including the Brady-exempt states. How can Brady Law advocates honestly lay claim to the benefits obtained in states exempt from Brady Law provisions? The GAO survey found that approximately half of Brady Law background check denials, the so-called "criminals," are errors. Half of these Brady Law "criminals" are flagged due to administrative errors (such as forms prepared or mailed incorrectly, innocents whose names are similar to felons, non-disqualifying misdemeanor traffic convictions, or other trivial "crimes" such as fishing without a license and failure to license dogs). Even when considering the convicted felons accurately fingered by background checks, one must wonder what threat to society is the handgun of a former tax evader who paid her debt to society? or the handgun of the middle-aged, working father who forgot about his collegiate plea on "disturbing the peace" charges? Such crimes do disqualify gun ownership, but can Brady Law advocates honestly lay claim that such denials kept handguns out of the hands of criminals? or that such denials prevented crimes? Neither waiting periods nor background checks prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Data from the National Institute of Justice24 and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms25 agree that approximately 7% of criminals' handguns are obtained from retail sources, so controls on retail gun sales cannot be expected to reduce criminals' access to guns much, if at all. Despite exaggerated claims by the administration and gun prohibition lobbyists26 of the success of the Brady Law, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has acknowledged that the little existent evidence is only anecdotal.27 Of the actual felons identified by Brady Law background checks during the first 1 1/2 years of the Brady Law, only seven had been successfully prosecuted (4 received probation and 3 received prison sentences of between 1 to 2 years). Even if we ignore noting that incarcerated criminals still obtain or improvise firearms, we are forced to note that the actual Brady Law criminals who are not incarcerated are merely displaced into the "black market." In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. President Clinton, himself a staunch defender of the Brady Law, admitted the Brady Law failure: "It is true that you can still buy an illegal gun with cash in the streets."28 The real purveyors of violence, the vicious predators with lifelong histories of violence to those around them (family, acquaintance, or otherwise), are the criminals untouched by the Brady Law or other gun laws except for penalty enhancements (when the gun charges are not plea bargained away by the prosecutor). A meticulous scholarly analysis published in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology29 reviewed these and other problems that expose the Brady Law as a political boon, but a public policy sham. There is no persuasive evidence that the Brady Law has made us safer. Prior to implementation of the Brady Law in 1993, FBI Uniform Crime Report data showed that, in the 24 states and the District of Columbia where laws existed to delay handgun purchases, violent crime was 34.6% higher, Robbery was 76.9% higher, Aggravated assault was 21.6% higher, and Homicide was 3.7% higher.30 Following the implementation of the Brady Law, FBI Uniform Crime Report data from 1993 and 1994 show that: homicide dropped about twice as much in the 22 states exempt from the provisions of the Brady Law (a 7.3% drop from 1993 to 1994) in comparison with the 28 states subject to the provisions of the Brady Law (a 3.8% drop from 1993 to 1994). total violent crime dropped exactly twice as much in the 22 states exempt from the provisions of the Brady Law (a 4.8% drop from 1993 to 1994) in comparison with the 28 states subject to the provisions of the Brady Law (a 2.4% drop from 1993 to 1994). robbery dropped over three times as much in the 22 states exempt from the provisions of the Brady Law (an 8.8% drop from 1993 to 1994) in comparison with the 28 states subject to the provisions of the Brady Law (a 2.7% drop from 1993 to 1994). Since most high-crime states and the District of Columbia were exempt from Brady Law provisions, the Brady Law would not have been expected to have had an effect on these jurisdictions. Instead, the Brady Law imposed background check and waiting period requirements upon traditionally low-crime states - a --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00006 Date: 08/29/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 06:59am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: 2 The Big "Guns" line up against Brady P06:59:3908/29/96 priori reason to have low expectations for Brady Law results. Today the District of Columbia and most high-crime cities are exempt from the Brady Law waiting period. Ten such Brady Law-exempt/high-crime cities (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, District of Columbia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Phoenix, Atlanta, Richmond) accounted for 23% of 1994 US homicides.31 "If it saves one life," but costs many lives, what then? The Brady Law is a failure and predictably so. Contrary to the pandemic of propaganda by the advocates of the Brady Law, dismantling the Brady Law will not result in an epidemic of violence or a public policy disaster. In formulating sound public policy, one cannot succumb to the seductive "if it saves only one life" lament as though it suggested some compelling government need, because the dozens of thousands of Brady Law background check errors and the waiting period have certainly denied timely access to the safest and most effective means of protection32 - a gun - to at least many innocent victims. [cont'd] -------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe right2arms RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00007 Date: 08/29/96 From: PAUL NIXON Time: 06:59am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Big "Guns", II * Crossposted from: FREEDOM'S_VOICE The following examples provided by attorney and public policy analyst David Kopel33 are instructive: Bonnie Elmasri On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later. Rayna Ross On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the attacker. Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check." Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be undergoing a permanent "cooling-off period.''34 Sonya Miller Armed with a knife, Charles A. Grant, Jr., sexually assaulted a 33-year-old woman on a Virginia beach one Tuesday in 1991. The assault was videotaped by a tourist who (not having a permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection) apparently could do nothing to help except record the crime. The following day, Wednesday, Charles Grant raped a 12-year-old girl. News broadcasts of the videotape of Grant's Tuesday assault frightened many people in the nearby Nags Head community. A young woman named Sonya Miller had been wanting a handgun for a while, and on that Wednesday, her father bought her a .38 Special revolver. He gave her the revolver that evening. At about 9 P.M., Miss Miller went to the post office to pick up her mail. As she stepped into the dimly lit parking lot near the post office, Charles Grant saw her, and she saw Charles Grant. They both screamed. Grant told the young woman he would not hurt her, but when she attempted to get into her car, Grant lunged at the door. He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face, began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled. Miss Miller drove home; her father called the sheriff's offices, and Charles Grant was apprehended. Regarding the handgun Miss Miller had just acquired, "It's the only thing that saved her life," her father observed.35x Virgen Blanca At the age of seventeen, Virgen Blanca emigrated to the United States from Spain. By the time she was twenty-three, she had three children and was divorced. To make ends meet for her family, she had to work two or three jobs, as long as eighteen hours a day. In 1993, Ms. Blanca and her three teenage children moved from Mesquite, Texas, to Dallas, in order to be closer to her job as a house painter. The family moved into a seven-unit apartment building, where they were the sole tenants. During the night of Saturday, July 24, 1993, a prowler twice attempted to break into the apartment. The second time, Ms. Blanca's 15-year-old son Reel jumped out a second-story window to call the police. By the time they arrived, the prowler was gone, having left behind a message scrawled on a light switch next to the Blanca apartment, "I'll be back." On Sunday, Mrs. Blanca purchased a Bryco semi-automatic pistol [an inexpensive pistol]. On Monday night, Mrs. Blanca left the apartment to buy food. Moments later, 15year-old Reel, 14-year-old Alexandra, and 10-year-old John Paul heard a door creaking outside the apartment house. Recognizing the man to be the same man who had twice attempted to break in Saturday night, Reel took the Bryco pistol from his mother's room, and aimed it out the window at the man in the courtyard below. Reel yelled "Freeze!" but the man began to open the door to the apartment building. Reel shot the gun three times, wounding the man in the groin. The man limped two blocks, asked someone to call an ambulance, and claimed that he had merely been looking for a place to urinate. Because Mrs. Blanca could not make a positive identification of the man, police dropped burglary charges.36 What a Difference a Day Makes In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her daughter might have been raped. Catherine Latta In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then," Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon' she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun.37 These anecdotes illustrate our contention that innocents suffer and die when denied timely access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. The Brady Law waiting period and the extraordinary number of Brady background check errors - almost the rule rather than the exception - deny timely access to dozens of thousands of good and needful people. In so doing, it is our contention that the Brady Law costs many more lives than it saves. Recommendations In balance, the Brady Law is a constitutionally offensive political fraud, a public policy failure, and should be dismantled in its entirety. We strenuously object to the concept of proving qualification to exercise an inherent and irrevocable right to self defense. We strenuously object to even the suggestion of proving qualification to exercise a pre-existent and constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. If despite our most strenuous objections there is to be an infringement of these rights to self-defense and right to keep and bear arms, let it be the least intrusive infringement available; let it be the Instant Check system as freely adopted by states (rather than imposed by the Brady Law's usurpation of Tenth Amendment state powers). State Instant Check systems are less intrusive and less destructive of individual rights and state powers than the Brady Law. On a purely pragmatic level devoid of constitutional concerns (an unprincipled position we neither adopt nor recommend), there are no benefits whatsoever from the Brady Law except those that are better served by Instant Check systems. 1 Lott JR and Mustard DB. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." Journal of Legal Studies. January 1997 forthcoming. 2 Suter EA Waters WC 4th Murray GB Hopkins CB Asiaf J Moore JB Fackler M Cowan DN Eckenhoff RG Singer TR et al. "Violence in America - Effective solutions." J Med Assoc Ga June 1995; 84(6):253-263. 3 Sugarmann J and Rand K. Cease Fire - A comprehensive strategy to reduce violence. Washington DC: Violence Policy Center. 1993. 4 this voluminous literature is best summarized in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 5 McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. Urban firearms deaths: a five-year perspective. J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36. 6 Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratts MJ. Adolescents and children injured or killed in drive-by shootings in Los Angeles. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27. 7 Suter EA Waters WC 4th Murray GB Hopkins CB Asiaf J Moore JB Fackler M Cowan DN Eckenhoff RG Singer TR et al. "Violence in America - Effective solutions." J Med Assoc Ga June 1995; 84(6):253-263. 8 Kleck G and Gertz M. "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:143-186. 9 Suter EA Waters WC 4th Murray GB Hopkins CB Asiaf J Moore JB Fackler M Cowan DN Eckenhoff RG Singer TR et al. "Violence in America - Effective solutions." J Med Assoc Ga June 1995; 84(6):253-263. 10 Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. 11 Kates D, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, and Cassem EW. "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" Tennessee Law Review. Spring 1995; 62(3): 513-596. 12 Suter EA. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994: 133-48. 13 Suter EA, National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy. testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. March 23, 1994 14 Waters, WC 4th, Eastern Director, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc.; Wheeler TW, President, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership; Faria M, Professor of Neurosurgery and Adjunct Professor of Medical History, Mercer University, former editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia; and Kates DB, civil rights attorney and criminologist. testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. March 6, 1996. 15 Bennett A and Sharpe A. "Health Hazard: AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks." Wall Street Journal. May 1, 1996, pp 1 & 6. 16 Clinton WJ, President of the United States of America. Remarks at the Democratic National Committee Gala. Washington Convention Center. Washington DC. May 8, 1966 10:32PM EDT. 17 Clinton WJ, President of the United States of America. Remarks to the people of DesMoines. Knapp Center, Drake University, Des Moines IA. February 11, 1996 2:05PM CST. 18 United States General Accounting Office. "Report to the Committee on the Judiciary - House of Representatives - Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act." GAO/GGD-96-22 Washington DC: USGAO. January 1996. hereinafter "GAO survey." 19 GAO survey Chapter 2. 20 Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of felons and their firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. 21 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "Protecting America: The Effectiveness of the Federal Armed Career Criminal Statute." Washington DC: US DOJ BATF. undated. page 28. 22 Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5. and Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1994. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1995. Table 5. 23 GAO survey at page 5. 24 Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of felons and their firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. 25 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "Protecting America: The Effectiveness of the Federal Armed Career Criminal Statute." Washington DC: US DOJ BATF. undated. page 28. 26 Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the editor. Washington Post. September 30, 1994. 27 Howlett D. Jury still out on success of the Brady Law. USA Today. December 28, 1994. p A-2. 28 Clinton WJ, President of the United States of America. Remarks on MTV's "Enough is Enough" forum on crime. Kalorama Studio. Washington DC. April 19, 1994 11:30AM EDT. 29 Jacobs JB and Potter KA. "Keeping Guns Out of the 'Wrong' Hands: The Brady Law and the Limits of Regulation." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:93-120. 30 Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1993. Table 5. 31 Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1994. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1995. Table 5. 32 Suter EA Waters WC 4th Murray GB Hopkins CB Asiaf J Moore JB Fackler M Cowan DN Eckenhoff RG Singer TR et al. "Violence in America - Effective solutions." J Med Assoc Ga June 1995; 84(6):253-263. 33 Kopel DB. "Guns: Who Should Have Them?" Amherst NY: Prometheus Books. 1995. pp 61-65. 34 "No Duty to Protect." Washington Times. July 13, 1993. page missing. 35 Thiel E. "Gift of a Gun Warded Off Attack, Father Says." Virginia-Pilot. April 12, 1991. p. D-1. 36 Gilman TJ and Talley O. "Violent Reactions: Citizens' Growing Use of Force Stirs Societal Questions." Dallas Morning News. August 1, 1993. page 1-A. 37 Wright GL. "Woman Won't Be Charged: Boyfriend's Slaying Ruled Self-Defense." Charlotte Observer. October 3, 1990. page missing. -------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe right2arms RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. "...the ultimate enemy of any people is not the angry hate groups that fester within, but a government itself that has lost its respect for the individual." ... HCI: Fighting for rapists' rights! --- FMail 1.02 * Origin: CyberSupport Hq/Co.A PRN/SURV/FIDO+ (602)231-9377 (1:114/428) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00010 Date: 08/27/96 From: JOHN DUKE Time: 07:55pm \/To: WYATT DOOLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: 1996 Elections JD>It doesn't matter what they pass. I don't really care because I'm NOT JD>giving up my guns. It's just that simple. WD That's simple enough to really make me feel stupid. Keep practicing, reloading, and stocking the shelves. It really used to bother me to the point I was losing sleep. I'm still active in he pro gun area but I have relaxed a lot knowing that it really doesn't matter what happens. John Duke KE4TQP john.duke@nashville.com * 1st 2.00n #2317bt * 45ACP - Don't leave home without it. --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0118 * Origin: The Digital Rodent - v.fc/ISDN - 615-865-9509 (1:116/125) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00011 Date: 08/29/96 From: NOLAN PENNEY Time: 11:49am \/To: WYATT DOOLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: things WD> Mickey Mouse is getting a few votes this year I hope that he WD> can handle the case load because he has a good chance WD> of winning several public offices around here. They passed a law several years ago prohibiting allowing non-humans from taking office. :-( Personally, I think the Italians have the right idea, elect a crazy stripper porn queen to office! --- * CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY --- InterEcho 1.18 * Origin: The GreyHawk BBS Columbia, MD 410-720-5083 USR V.34 (1:261/1116) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00012 Date: 08/29/96 From: DAN ARICO Time: 01:06pm \/To: JOHN PERZ (Read 1 times) Subj: The Yammering Continues JP> I've basicly come to the conclusion that Guy, and maybe one or two JP> others here, are card-carrying Libertarian Party activists who are JP> out to "Get Votes For Harry" no matter what. JP> If my suspicions are true, the incredibly inept and hostile way they JP> are going about it also explains why the Libertarian Party hasn't JP> been able to get more than 300,000 votes the last several JP> presidential elections. I hope you're not trying to describe me in that statement. I've been trying to pursue this in a reasonable manner. For that matter, Guy isn't really that far off the mark except for his obvious assumption that nobody could vote for Dole except for evil reasons. Honest people can come to opposite conclusions about the course of action that we should take. I don't think anybody here has tried to claim that Dole is a *good* choice - just that his election would be less damaging that Clinton's. I'm not so sure that is the case, but I consider it irrelevant. I'm voting for the best candidate. I'm voting because he is the best candidate and I don't really care whether you do or not. *You're* the one who has to be comfortable with voting for Dole. If you're not, maybe you need to think this through again. If you are, that's fine. Vote for him. Dole's still a schmuck. ___ X RM 1.3 02881 X P-Porky P-Pig of Borg: You will be assim-assim...absorbed --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: Air 'n Sun 703-765-0822 Bang, bang, shoo-oo-oot shoot! (1:109/120) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00013 Date: 08/28/96 From: MATT SMITH Time: 11:53pm \/To: RAY ROONEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Dem Con RR> Even though I tried to avoid it I still got a bit of the Democratic RR> Convention splash on me via the news whilst driving home late RR> tonight. RR> The big opening acts of the Clinton Campaign are an orgy of RR> anti-gunism. RR> Sarah and Jim Brady did a choreographed routine at the convention The whole convention coverage is stage-managed and suppresses any image the Clintons don't want, particularly any hint of disorders near the convention. Did your network TV news tell you that hundreds of pro-drug legalization protesters tied up downtown traffic for an hour this weekend with blockades? --- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS]) * Origin: The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit! * The Spirit of '76 * (1:3644/8) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 275 GUNS Ref: DCZ00014 Date: 08/29/96 From: CHUCK ROSENBAUM Time: 04:54pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: S&w 44 magnum (new) 4sale FOR SALE: BRAND NEW, NEVER FIRED SMITH & WESSON 44 MAGNUM, MODEL 629. THIS BEAUTY HAS A 4" BARRELL AND SILVER FINISH. DEALER TO DEALER OR OTHER LEGAL TRANSFER ONLY. BEST OFFER TAKES IT-IT'S MY SON'S AND HE NEEDS THE $$ FOR SCHOOL. I WILL BE LOSING MY BBS FEED TO THIS CHANNEL IN A COUPLE OF DAYS, BUT HAVE ACQUIRED A NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS WITH MY NEW INTERNET PROVIDER. IF INTERESTED, PLEASE RESPOND TO MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: CROSENBAUM@CYBERGATE.NET * SLMR 2.1a * He aint dead; he's electroencephalographically challenged --- InterEcho 1.18 * Origin: PC-Ohio PCBoard * Cleveland, OH * 216-381-3320 (1:157/200)