From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:45:38 GMT

In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
|> In article <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
|> >In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
|> >
|> >For about 20 years, I have been donating used, low cost, but reasonable quality
|> >firearms (mostly revolvers) to acquaintances (and relatives) of mine that could
|> >not otherwise afford to defend themselves.
|> >
|> >That's how.
|> 
|> Do you have to go through a procedure to transfer gun ownership?

Fortunately, I've always lived in areas that don't require intervention of the
State for private transfers of ownership.

In other words, the law was obeyed in every case.

|> >In a police state, this is a valid argument.  In our Republic, it should be
|> >repugnant to anyone who understands that:
|> >
|> >1.  Persons have a guaranteed right of privacy; and
|> >
|> >2.  The government exists at the whim of the governed.
|> 
|> When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
|> and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
|> them from buying weapons.

No, you need to have a means to prevent them from victimizing people.

Since the government won't take responsibility for your safety, and since
purchase restrictions are a burden on the 99.99% of purchasers who are law
abiding, there is only one logical answer:

There's no point in placing purchase restrictions on adults, and each person is
responsible for his own safety, and of those in his presence.

Believe me, criminals are cowards, and if they had a reasonable expection of
experiencing an armed confrontation, from their victims and from bystanders, each
and every time they committed a violent crime, there'd be two results:

1.  A lot more "bushwacking" type crimes, where the criminals shoot first.

2.  A lot more dead and crippled criminals, leading to an immediate and dramatic
decrease in violent crime.

The first is not a desirable thing, obviously, but the second is very desirable,
since classic rehabilitation seems to be an utter failure.

Indeed, our prisons resemble post-graduate institutions of crime, more than they
resemble prisons.

|> >|> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
|> >|> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
|> >|> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
|> >|> carry concealed weapons.
|> >
|> >You are WRONG - no one in Arizona, except police, is allowed to carry concealed
|> >weapons.  Those kids were breaking a law that's been on the books since the
|> >1950's, at least.
|> >
|> >The argument in Arizona is basicly over whether the state pre-emption law is
|> >worth the paper it is written on.
|> 
|> However, kids can carry, but not concealed.

What's your point?

When I grew up in Arizona, all the kids I knew carried at one time or another.

No accidents, no incidents, and no murders were recorded in that peer group.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)