July2001

ARMED-M

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd., which has no opinions. This newsletter is linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG

===============================================================================

June 2001

I have moved and am now in Wilmington North Carolina. My E-Mail address is Smith13@Worldnet.att.net. I can always use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows. Bob Smith

I have very mixed feelings on the execution of Timothy McVeigh. I feel as long as Janet Reno is out of jail Timothy McVeigh had a right to his life. Acts of terrorism are not just an academic exercise for me. While in Vietnam my cleaning lady that I always tried to greet with a smile and warm greeting was found with a satchel charge. She was trying to kill the people in the Officers Club by blowing us through it. There is a quote that says, “Government officials should exercise their authority with fear and trembling.” Blowing up the office of government officials who killed others is I think is a good way to keep officials from reckless actions.

Had Janet Reno anticipated the possibility of Oklahoma City I think victims there and the people in Waco would still be alive. By Bob Smith

ALERT: School Shooting in California.from Randall N. Herrst about the school shootings on Monday March 5:

I would like to suggest a few issues that we can use to address the school shooting in San Diego, CA. today.

1. The other side has bragged that California has "the toughest gun laws in the nation", yet it is obvious that they have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER and cannot prevent any crimes, even in a specially "protected" zone such as a school! Why? Because criminals are not deterred or prevented from obtaining firearms (mostly illegally) or prevented from committing even the most serious crimes. The San Diego murderer is apparently underage, so he could not have obtained his firearms legally. There is also a child-access-prevention law in California, which also did not work (although that law did cause 2 deaths and a serious wounding in the "Merced Pitchfork Murders"). In California, it is also illegal to bring firearms onto campus, and that didn't work either. Incidentally, in California I think it is also illegal to shoot people and murder them. Not to mention another dozen or so felony violations. I wonder why those laws didn't work, but new gun control laws will?

2. What would have worked in the short term? The "Israeli Solution" of arming some of the teachers and staff members. This has cut school murders to zero as soon as the policy was enacted and it has maintained that success over a two decade period. Go to http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm for an explanation. Note that the criminal in San Diego told several people, including adults, that he was going to commit these crimes.

3. What else might work? One of the main reasons why these criminals do these things is for notoriety. For this, we can ask why the media insists upon glorifying and promoting the criminals. Let us suggest that the media, IF IT WANTED TO ACT RESPONSIBLY, would glorify the victims and minimize the celebrity treatment of the criminals--even including a refusal to mention the name of the criminal and refusal to publish their photos and refusal to publish the ego-driven ramblings of these criminals. These criminals aren't doing these things so that no one will notice them. Of course, I am just fantasizing here, since I am fully aware that almost no one in the media ever acts responsibly or in the public interest. Still, it would be interesting to see whether the media might be willing to try it as an experiment.

4. Are there any long-term solutions? Yes, but this will be difficult to accept and even more difficult to implement. The main reason, IMHO, that school mass murders by students were almost unknown prior to the 1990's (is it only coincidence that school shootings blossomed during the Clinton years?) is the fact that society as a whole had some concept of morality and taught those precepts to the children. Morality was taught, not just in the home, but in the schools, churches, neighborhoods, the courts, the news media, and even the entertainment media (remember when movies and TV shows had "a moral to the story" and the good guys won while the bad guys were punished?) Furthermore, the media did not lionize heinous criminals or make mass murder look like fun (did you know that half a dozen mass murderers have cited "Natural Born Killers" or "The Basketball Diaries" or "Taxi Driver" as their FAVORITE movies?) Up until the mid-1970's, it was not uncommon for even urban high schools to have shooting teams, with members bringing firearms and ammunition onto campus, sometimes via public transportation and school buses. In rural areas then, and in some small town and rural places even today, children brought their hunting firearms to school and either left them in their cars or gave them to the teachers for safekeeping during school hours. Morality was what kept us safe.

5. There is a consistent pattern of violence where it is hard for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, whereas there is less violent crime where firearms ownership is widespread and easy. My studies have shown that violent crime is lower in the small cities and rural areas of each state compared to the metropolitan areas (as much as 500% higher) of 42 of the 50 states; while it is comparable in 7 states and in only one state, Kentucky, is the pattern significantly reversed (~35% higher violent crime in small cities and rural areas). The pattern of firearms ownership and crime is an inverse relationship, which should not be possible if the other side were right when it claims that "easy availability causes crime". Why hasn't the media ever noticed that there is less crime where it is easier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones? Why hasn't the media ever pointed out that crime is highest in the major metro areas where legal firearms ownership is low? Isn't it interesting that Seattle, Washington (metro pop. 2.2 million), where almost any law-abiding citizen can get a Self-Defense-Permit/Concealed Carry Permit, has a murder rate that is lower than the national average? Same for Salt Lake City.

6. The one thing that has become obvious over the last few decades, both here and in other countries, is that although gun control sometimes does no harm (big deal!), the more likely outcome is that GUN CONTROL INCREASES VIOLENT CRIME, by shifting the balance of power to favor criminals, while it disarms innocent victims. The only result that almost never happens is the reduction of violent crime when a gun control law is passed (see U.S. government, National Institute of Justice study, "Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America", still available in a commercial book, "Under The Gun", by Profs. James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen M. Daly, Aldine de Gruyter Press). A few examples of this effect are the rising crime rates after the passage of gun control/prohibition laws in Britain 1921, New York 1911, California 1952, 1966, 1973, 1989, Jamaica 1975, Washington D.C. 1976, Britain 1996, and Australia 1997. In contrast to that effect, crime rates have gone down where firearms ownership and public concealed carry have become more widespread and attainable by ordinary citizens (see "More Guns, Less Crime" by Prof. John Lott).

7 Prof. John Lott has done a study on multiple victim public shootings and found that such incidents decline by 60% after a state passes "shall issue" CCW/Self-defense-permit laws and that fatalities decline by 80%. His rationale for this effect is quite persuasive: the criminal is deterred from even trying the mass murder because they have less confidence that they will be able to complete the vengeful or publicity-seeking act. The criminal doesn't worry about dying (since they might intend to die anyway), they worry about failing in their angry act against "society". Sick, but consistent with what we know about the motivations of such barbarians.

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby. By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute

Perhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. This "43 times" figure is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It's not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition mindset.

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

Counting a gun suicide as part of the increased risk of having a gun in the home is appropriate only if the presence of a gun facilitates a "successful" suicide that would not otherwise occur. But most research suggests that guns do not cause suicide.

In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed suicide data for every America city with a population more than 100,000, and found no evidence that any form of gun control (including handgun prohibition) had an effect on the total suicide rate. Gun control did sometimes reduce gun suicide, but not overall suicide.

Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and regulates long guns very severely, has a suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level. Many of the northern and central European nations also have very high suicide rates to accompany their strict gun laws. (Of course, if you have any suspicion that anybody in your home might be suicidal, it would hardly be a mistake for you to ensure that they do not have ready access to guns, tranquilizers, or other potentially lethal items.)

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1, but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

But just as many other people who would commit suicide with a gun would use an equally lethal method if guns are unavailable. Many of the people who kill themselves in firearm accidents may also be bent on destruction, regardless of the means. One study of gun-accident victims found that they were "disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime, and heavy drinking." (Philip Cook, "The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review of the Literature," in Criminal Violence).

Or, as another researcher put it, "The psychological profile of the accident-prone suggests the same kind of aggressiveness shown by most murderers." (Roger Lane, "On the Social Meaning of Homicide Trends in America," in Violence in America, Vol. I, 1989.)

Without guns, many accident victims might well find some other way to kill themselves "accidentally," such as by reckless driving.

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police - and of home handgun ownership - are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

Finally, Kellermann and Reay ignore the most important factor of all in assessing the risks of gun ownership: whose home the gun is in. You don't need a medical researcher to tell you that guns can be misused when in the homes of persons with mental illness related to violence; or in the homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or in the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or in the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence. These are the homes from which the vast majority of handgun fatalities come.(Editors input: I saw some data that said 40% of victims and 60% of murderers had been indicted for felonies in the previous two years. Not my kind of friends.)

To study these high-risk homes and to jump to conclusions about the general population is illogical. We know that possession of an automobile by an alcoholic who is prone to drunk driving may pose a serious health risk. But proof that automobiles in the hands of alcoholics may be risky doesn't prove that autos in the hands of non-alcoholics are risky. Yet the famous Seattle 43-to-1 figure is based on lumping the homes of violent felons, alcoholics, and other disturbed people in with the population as a whole. The study fails to distinguish between the large risks of guns in the hands of dangerous people, with the tiny risks (and large benefits) of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

But then again, treating ordinary people according to standards that would be appropriate for criminals and the violently insane is what the gun control movement is all about.

If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects [firearms] necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself.

Alan Keyes The armed defense of liberty 7/30/1999 - WorldNetDaily

(Editor: One of my campaign planks as a politician: taking 200 female teachers and nurses through a canceled weapons course at government expense. I have not been able to get the data but am sure that the female teachers and nurses are at least five times less likely to be indicted for a felony as a Uniform Officer.)

(Monday, March 5, 2001) -- Thanks to your very hard efforts, 89 Representatives joined Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) in petitioning HUD Secretary Mel Martinez to eradicate part of Bill Clinton's anti-gun legacy.

The Department of HUD is spearheading the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, a group that is helping cities and localities all around the country in bringing lawsuits against gun makers. Grassroots pressure encouraged 89 other Representatives to sign onto the Hostettler letter which asks Secretary Martinez to pull the plug on the anti-gun coalition.

Your phone calls were so incessant that a few Congressional offices even called GOA headquarters, as well as Hostettler's office, to ask that we "call off the dogs." Their beleaguered cry was to please make the phone calls stop.

Well, now that the deadline for jumping on the letter has passed, you guys merit a well-deserved pat on the back. Following is the list of those who signed onto the letter -- some of them kicking and

screaming the entire way:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 3, 2001 UNARMED AND UNSAFE By Paul Craig Roberts CREATORS SYNDICATE

The last vestige of civilized Britain has fallen away - the unarmed British "Bobbie." For 170 years, British police functioned without guns. Since their founding by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, Bobbies walked their beats armed only with their nightsticks. (Editors note: Four weeks after founding the Bobbies shot four people at a labor picnic, Bobbies were then disarmed) Until the last few years of these 17 decades, the British public was armed. Now it is the other way around. The police have guns, and the law-abiding public doesn't. What happened? Britain has the most severe "gun control" laws in the world. Not even members of the British Olympic Shooting Team are allowed pistols. The British are reduced to registered single- and double-barreled shotguns, and the maximum permitted shell load is birdshot. According to the arguments of gun-control advocates, Britain should be safe and crime free. But, alas, violent crime and robberies have skyrocketed.

Gunfights between rival immigrant gangs caused the revolution in British policing. In Robin Hood's Nottinghamshire, constables now patrol in pairs armed with semi-automatic pistols. They are backed up by armed-response vehicles stocked with submachine guns.

If gun control makes society safe, why was it necessary to overthrow British police tradition, arm police with semiautomatic weapons and provide machinegun backup? As a test case in gun control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

In Britain, a man's home may be his castle where the king of England cannot enter without a warrant, but robbers and rapists enter at will. It is easier and less risky for a criminal to have his way with a victim in the privacy of the victim's home than in public. Gun control has made home invasion safe for criminals.

In the United States, experts have proven time and again that widespread gun ownership is a deterrent to crime and prevents between 1 million and 3 million criminal acts each year. Gun ownership saves numerous lives and foils large numbers of rapes and robberies. Yet, gun controllers persist in their attempts to disarm the public. A person can't help but wonder whether gun-control advocates are uninformed fools or have a secret agenda.

Once gun control enters politics, the lying makes even Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton blush. As the 20th century came to a close, Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock fended off criticisms of a gun-registration bill his government was pushing by giving assurances that "there is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms." Within 10 months of the minister's assurances, 553,000 legally registered handguns were confiscated. Now, rifles and shotguns must be licensed and registered.

Having learned that the only purpose of registration is to tell the government where the guns are, compliance has collapsed. Large numbers of law-abiding Canadians prefer to risk five years in prison than to register their guns. Gun-control laws dramatically reduce public safety and turn law-abiding citizens into law-breakers. Licensing and registration increase crime by devoting police resources to paperwork. Gun-registration databases cannot prevent crimes or aid in their solving, because criminals do not register their guns. The people most dangerous to the public are not on the FBI's "Most Wanted List."

Far more dangerous to our safety than criminals are gun- control extremists like New York Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Clinton and Sarah Brady of Handgun Control. These are the people who will leave us defenseless as they abrogate the Constitution and destroy respect for law, while promising an end to "gun violence." The American Rifleman reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - the guys who brought us Waco - are using intimidation and threats to compile an illegal registry of gun owners. The BATF thumbs its nose at federal court decisions and continues to harass legitimate gun dealers and purchasers as if they were criminals.

We need to ask ourselves why liberals have made gun confiscation such a priority. I think it is to distract us from the disastrous results of liberal social engineering. When high school students shoot their classmates and workers open fire on their co-workers, the fault lies not in guns. It lies in the breakdown in self-control and moral integrity. The irrational shootings stem from the success of liberals in achieving their goals.

To all those out there that think that the threat to the 2nd amendment posed by the UN is a non-issue, think again. You may want to read Article 6 of the United States Constitiution. It states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and OF ALL TREATIES MADE, or SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

> In a nutshell: If the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd amendment is a "collective" right and the US signs a anti-gun treaty with the UN, you can kiss your guns and your liberties goodbye. It doesn't matter how pro-gun your state legislature or state laws are, federal laws and treaties supercede any state or local laws. Your guns and freedoms are going to go the way of Australia and England.

The Preparatory Committee of the UN Conference on Small Weapons has called on all States, to organize, on a voluntary basis, public events of destruction of small arms and light weapons, preferably on the 9th of July, the opening day of the Conference. Where possible, this should be done together with NGOs and civil society. The widest possible dissemination of information about the events, including through national and international media, should be ensured.

The attempt this year to reprise last year's Million Mom March was a dud, attracting only about 200 demonstrators, and the Democrats' political gurus are whining about how Al Gore's pro-gun-control stance cost him votes last year in crucial states. So the anti-gun activists have moved to a less democratic venue: the United Nations.

On July 9 to 20, New York City will host the United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. The purpose of this conference is to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns.

Don't be misled by the term "small arms." UN documents define small arms as weapons "designed for personal use" (such as your Browning pistol, your Ruger rifle, or your Winchester shotgun), while light weapons are for use by several persons as a crew.

Don't be misled by the term "illicit" trade. UN documents make it clear that, since most illegal guns start out as legal purchases, illicit trade must be stopped by clamping down on legal gun owners.

Don't think that this UN conference is just a talkfest. It is scheduled to produce a legally binding treaty to require governments to mark, number, register, record, license, confiscate and destroy all guns except those in the hands of the military and the police.

Indeed, the first day of the conference is to be called "Small Arms Destruction Day." The conference's Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) is calling on all governments, with the assistance of the UN's NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) and "civil society" (a fancy name for the NGOs working in tandem), to organize public events to promote the destruction of small arms and light weapons on that day.

The decision on NGO participation, adopted by the Prep Com without a vote, is in line with the growing UN practice of expanding the influence of "relevant" NGOs while bypassing sovereign member states. "Relevant " means only those NGOs that promote the UN agenda.

The 18-page Draft Program of Action to be presented to the July conference sets forth the rationale plus the mechanisms for eliminating the "wide availability" of guns. It's obvious that the United States is the target because we are the only country with a Second Amendment, and other democracies such as England, Canada and Australia have either banned or severely restricted private gun ownership.

The Draft Program wraps its gun-confiscation message in typical UN semantics, but makes little attempt to conceal the mailed fist in the velvet glove. It states: "In order to promote peace, security, stability and sustainable development in the world, we commit ourselves to addressing this problem in a comprehensive, integrated, sustainable, efficient and urgent manner."

Indeed, the plan is comprehensive and integrated. According to the Draft Program, "Preventing and reducing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons consists of two sets of measures: the national control of manufacture and the proper marking of small arms and light weapons, coupled with accurate, sustained record-keeping and exchanges of information."

Government "marking" and record-keeping is "an integral part" of the process. It's clear that the UN is demanding that governments build a national electronic database of all guns and their owners, and then facilitate "an information exchange" (i.e., share the database with the UN).

Through the Department for Disarmament Affairs, the UN promises to "develop an international mechanism that will facilitate the exchange of information on all aspects" of guns, i.e., a global gun registry.

To wipe out private gun ownership, the UN demands that all governments enforce "adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal manufacture and possession of small arms and light weapons." And the UN demands that governments criminally prosecute all those who don't comply. The UN plans to develop "model national legislation" so that Congress will pass laws that conform to the treaty's requirements. The UN plans to guide Congress by publishing "best practices" for legislation and procedures.

All unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons are to be confiscated and "expeditiously destroyed." The government is to assure that "no re-transfer of small arms and light weapons takes place without prior authorization" by the government because the UN disapproves of the possession of guns by civilians who are "not part of responsible military and police forces."

The UN also has a plan to propagandize Americans to accept this global ban on private gun ownership. The Draft Program calls for "seminars, conferences, consultations and workshops conducted by the United Nations " for the purpose of "promoting the action plan." As part of its "awareness-training" to induce Americans to accept the new ban-the-guns policy, the UN wants government to pledge to destroy guns in "public destruction events."

When the United Nations bounced us from the Human Rights Commission, while giving seats to Sudan, Libya, China and Cuba, which was just an insult. But it's deadly serious business when the UN tries to take away our guns.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government." Alexander Hamilton (Federalist #28) "The Courts must declare the sense of the law, and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body." (Federalist #78)

To all those out there that think that the threat to the 2nd amendment posed by the UN is a non-issue, think again. You may want to read Article 6 of the United States Constitution. It states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and OF ALL TREATIES MADE, or SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

In a nutshell: If the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd amendment is a "collective" right and the US signs a anti-gun treaty with the UN, you can kiss your guns and your liberties goodbye. It doesn't matter how pro-gun your state legislature or state laws are, federal laws and treaties supercede any state or local laws. Your guns and freedoms are going to go the way of Australia and England.

The time to fight is now! Here's what you can do: Call/write/e-mail your Representative and voice your support for H.R. 1146 The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (The get the US out of the UN act!)

2.) Contact your rep or senator and tell them to vote against any future allocation of funds for the UN.

3.) Support or join a patriot organization that is fighting against US involvement in the UN and supports your 2nd amendment rights. Groups >such as the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, JPFO, etc..

4.) Write letters to your local papers to denounce the UN and American support for it.

Let's set our sights on fighting the blue flag now, before we have to set our sights on a blue helmet later..........