-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19991021_xcjod_senten cing.shtml"> Sentencing Americans to death </A> Sentencing Americans to death � 1999 WorldNetDaily.com As noted by Mr. Harry Browne recently on the pages of WorldNetDaily, the issue of guns and gun control probably shouldn't center on the Second Amendment and our "right" to own a weapon in this country. Sadly, that should be enough but it isn't because, as he pointed out, most people are concerned only about "rights" that directly affect them. And for a large portion of the country, gun "rights" don't matter because they believe politicians who tell them armed police officers will protect them from anything harmful. So, if the object of the gun control debate is to win pro-gun "converts," Mr. Browne's strategy of changing the focus from one of "rights" to "public safety" is spot on target. That's why it is imperative to jump on stories like this one when they are published. Everyone needs to know when some public official is putting their life at risk. As the story notes, if the state's Democrat attorney general, J. Joseph Curran, gets his way, nearly all Maryland residents will be handed a potential death sentence soon, their only crime being that of trusting state officials like him to protect them because they believed his anti-gun propaganda. This is not a good reason to die for. According to the Washington Post, Mr. Curran, like Maryland's Democrat governor, Parris N. Glendening, is a staunch gun control advocate and is proposing "sweeping" new legislation whose ultimate goal is the banning all handguns in the state. Well, not all handguns, actually -- Mr. Curran believes they should only "be the province of the military or law enforcement or a special segment of people." And naturally, true to autocratic form, he wants to decide who the "special people" are. "King Curran I," if you will. To put his proposals into perspective, though, we really need to first understand the practical applications of them and how they might translate into actual safety for American citizens, discounting the empty notion of merely feeling safer. To begin with, Mr. Curran's suggestion that handguns belong only in the hands of one particular group, the military, is inconsequential when it comes to actually being safe in our homes, on our streets, and in our communities. Since the military cannot, by law, participate in civilian law enforcement, this suggestion becomes a moot point. It goes without saying that the military indeed should be equipped with the very best and latest small arms and ammunition, since they provide general security (if not tangible "safety") to all Americans every day of every year. Most of us are not too worried, though, about invading hordes because we're more worried about practical threats appropriate to our situation -- like some idiot in a dark alley who wants to do us harm. Next, Mr. Curran believes that only police officers need to have the kind of protection (immediate and unencumbered access to a handgun) we all deserve. By suggesting this, he creates a class warfare argument: Police officers are more important than regular folks. And of course, it doesn't hurt that police officers will be the first ones called if "hordes" of ticked-off Americans ever sought to harm precious politicians like Mr. Curran. But for safety's sake, says Mr. Curran, if we only allowed the police to be armed then there wouldn't be any more crime to worry about and hence, there would be no legitimate "safety" concern to own, carry and use a handgun in one's self-defense. That's a ridiculous thought and I realize that, but this is precisely what Mr. Curran is intimating. Having fleshed out Mr. Curran's suggestions, it now becomes entirely appropriate to examine the hard evidence regarding criminal activity in this country. After all, law-abiding American citizens most often quote self-defense as the reason why they believe they need to be armed at all times. Based on the FBI's most recent (1998) Uniform Crime Report, the statistics don't support his utopian view of the issue of personal safety in the United States. Though violent crime is at it's lowest in years, consider these numbers and see if it makes you feel safe enough to give up the best form of personal protection available today, in lieu of being "protected" only by the police: Law enforcement agencies nationwide recorded a 21 percent Crime Index clearance rate in 1998, which means that 79 percent of crimes went unsolved. The clearance rate for violent crimes was 49 percent, meaning 51 percent went unsolved, while the figure for property crimes was 17 percent cleared and 83 percent uncleared. The crime clearance rate was lowest for burglary and motor vehicle theft, with 14 percent solved and 86 percent unsolved. How much would armed home invasions or carjackings increase if nobody were allowed to be armed, except the police? There are only 641,208 police officers and 253,327 civilian assistance personnel "guarding" over 260 million Americans. That's a whopping 2.5 officers for every 1,000 people -- do you feel "safe?" In "liberal" northeastern states like Maryland, the highest officer-to-civilian ratio already exists, with 2.8 officers for every 1,000 residents. But that's not good enough for Mr. Curran -- he still wants residents in his state to be almost totally disarmed, as if this "higher" police officer figure is adequate to protect everyone from harm, theft, or property crimes. What makes no sense in Mr. Curran's proposals to further limit state residents to handguns is his refusal to recognize one factor that has worked to reduce crime -- access to guns by law-abiding people. It's true that more police officers, longer jail sentences, reductions in drug trafficking and "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" have all worked to produce the nation's lowest crime rate in years. But as independent crime researcher John R. Lott of Yale University has proven year after year, concealed carry laws are the second most important factor -- behind more cops -- that has helped reduce the violent crime rate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that less than three police officers per one thousand people cannot guarantee a crime-free society. It also doesn't take a genius to realize that it is impossible for every citizen to have his own private cop -- that is an impractical and expensive proposition, should anyone seriously contemplate it. So -- in the interest of safety and judging by the FBI's own crime stats -- does it not make sense to allow people the right to protect themselves? Or is it better, as Mr. Curran suggests, to sentence more people to death by making it illegal for them to attain the same level of protection as that possessed by the "protectors"? Even armed police officers are (unfortunately) killed from time to time, so how well would an unarmed populace stand up against a criminal faction that will get a weapon -- gun, knife, baseball bat -- somehow, regardless of any prohibition against them? Is it not already happening? Besides, what guarantee does Mr. Curran make that arming only police officers will make us -- or him, for that matter -- safer? The problem with utopian thinkers like Mr. Curran is that their sense of logic and reasoning is seldom based on reality. If we could remove their smug arrogance and elitist mindset and force them to walk the same streets as unarmed as the rest of us, then believe me, the anti-gun laws would change. These people -- tucked safely away in their Ivory Towers -- have no idea what kind of safety issues normal people have to face everyday. It's easy for them to take our guns, but how "safe" do you think they'd feel if we took guns away from the people who protect them? "Why, that's an absurd idea," they'd wail. Why, Mr. Curran -- because you're more important than my wife, my children or me? I don't think so. Sentencing more Americans to death is no way to "protect" them and make them "safer." DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
