From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: gun(s) for carry in a car
Followup-To: tx.politics
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: houston
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:34:00 GMT

In article <BvsCoC.CCw@rice.edu>, kossack@qvi.com writes...
>- 
>- This is truly discomforting.  The police are openly condoning the 
>- carrying of fatal weapons by the masses.  The police are going to 
> 
>	Well, considering that the police are unable to prevent violent  
>   crime from occurring, what is wrong with allowing citizens to carry 
>   tools that will improve their chances of surviving a criminal attack? 
>   After all, self-defense is a basic human right and to deny folk the 
>   ability to have the tools to exercise this right is unconscionable.  
>   Too, bearing arms is a Constitutional right, as is public assembly. 
>   Would you be so outraged if the police condoned the protests outside 
>   the dome during the RNC?  What if they condoned National Night Out?  
> 
>- decide who is OK on the basis of looks?  Let me guess: cowboy boots,
>- big belt buckles, and chewing tobacco are OK, nose-rings, long hair,
> 
>	Good guess!     :-) 

Look, I do not want to get into the debate about gun control, 
because I have better things to do with my time.  I will just leave
it clear that I disagree with you about the so-called "right".
My point is that the police are selectively enforcing existing
laws according to their own biases, which are often racist, 
misogynist, and political.

> 
>	But seriously, the police are human.  Until such time as our 
>   city streets are patrolled by an army of robocops, individual cops 
>   will have to exercise their personal judgement.  After all, they 
>   just don't have the time to thoroughly search every car they have 
>   stopped for traffic violations, nor the time to search every person 
>   outside of their home after dark.  Even if they did, the ACLU would    
>   have a fit (rightfully, IMHO) if the police engaged in such blatant    
>   violations of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.  
> 
>	Look, I'm not saying it is right, and you have my sympathy if  
>   you're hassled because you fit some police profile, but that's the 
>   way it works.  You're more likely to be stopped/hassled/searched if 
>   you look "suspicious" to an individual officer.  If you want to 
>   argue that the profile should be changed, I'm willing to discuss it 
>   with you.  Regardless, the fellow was explaining how things are, not 
>   how they should be, so let's change the subject line if we're going 
>   to discuss this topic.  But, getting back to guns ...   

Sympathy is hardly reassuring, given that several friends in Houston
have been assaulted by police officers for political reasons.  One 
friend was an unarmed, nineteen year old woman who weighs less than
100 pounds, standing alone, assaulted by a rather large, uniformed,
helmeted, armed and club-wielding member of Houston's finest.
Police routinely abuse their rights and need to be reigned in from
such abuses.  Selective enforcement is one such abuse.

> 
> 
>- Every time I read stuff like this about Houston, I feel less safe here.
> 
>	You can always move to New York, where the serfs are not 
>   permitted to own/possess/carry arms but the goblins have all 
>   sorts of weapons anyway.  After all, they're criminals - they 
>   don't mind breaking the law.  It's the working class Joe who 
>   actually obeys the law who gets screwed when he has no means 
>   to defend himself against knife weilding punks, or the women 
>   who are raped because the (rascist) Sullivan law made tools for  
>   self-defense illegal so they are easy prey for wilding.  Feh! 

I would rather move to Canada with much more strict gun control,
and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less murder (by guns or other means).
But, I will not get into the pointless debate about gun control.
:-)