This is to all.  Somehow the reader won't let me address it to "all."
 I dunno.  Anyway,
 I usually don't "debate" the gun control fools.  But something that
 was said by the LC> below set me off, and I responded.
 Got an interesting response from a bystander.  I disagree, but his
 point was well-reasoned.
 Now what I'm curious about is this: re-reading my response to RJ>, I
 sound as if I'm stocking up, gathering the ANFO, renting a truck, just
 getting ready for it to hit the rotary air handler...
 Would I do "our" cause more good by shutting up?
 (and renting a truck )
 Comments are appreciated.
 Here, netmail to the origin line, or e-mail to yupper@aztec.asu.edu
 * Crossposted from: POLITICS
Ric was returning fire at Paul 
 about GUNS 
 ³ LC> bad-guys gettin' it...well THAT's just an UN-fair comparison! He
 ³ LC> says it's "WAY less than honest". I guess he just doesn't care
 ³ LC> much about the innocent folks who, because of a handgun, died
 ³ LC> tragically.
 RJ> ³
 RJ> ³ You are either ignorant or a liar.  Firearms are used over 2 1/2
 RJ> ³ million times annually to stop or prevent a violent attack.  How
 RJ> many ³ "innocents" (most aren't) are killed or hurt?
 RJ> Hi Paul,
 RJ> The figures you refer to above are very accurate.  Gary Kleck of
 RJ> Florida State in Tallahassee complied these figures from research he
 RJ> and others have done.  I was talking with Gary not long ago about these
 RJ> figures, and he plainly stated that the only criminologists who
 RJ> disagree with or dispute his findings are those who have professed
 RJ> their ANTI-firearm position(s) long ago, and are thus biased in their
 RJ> position.  Of course, this eliminates them from the realm of "credible"
 RJ> as far as I'm concerned, because of their overwhelming bias.
 
 I've been informed Professor Kleck is "in the employ of the NRA."  A
 perfect example of either prevarication, ignorance or some other agenda
 on the part of the person stating such.  Just shows how far some will
 go.
 Speaking of bias:
 
Ä Area: PR_NET 
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
  Msg#: 5170                                         Date: 08 May 96  19:02
  From: Lpyleprn@mcs.net                             Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: All                                          Mark: Save               
 
  Subj: (Fwd) Premature reports of CDC NCIPC's demise
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
NOTE: This message was originally addressed to LPYLE
      and was forwarded to you by LEROY PYLE
                          --------------------
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Sun, 5 May 1996 12:40:04 -0400
Reply-to:      EdgarSuter@AOL.COM
From:          EdgarSuter@AOL.COM
To:            Multiple recipients of list 
Subject:       Premature reports of CDC NCIPC's demise
May 3, 1996
Letters to the Editor
Atlanta Constitution
PO Box 4689
Atlanta GA 30302
404-526-5611 FAX
Dear Editor:
As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has already admitted and the
Wall Street Journal recently reported, the CDC has used strategic lies
to promote their AIDS agenda.  On the topic of guns and violence the
CDC has used similar strategic lying and misconduct.  The CDC's
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) has funded
gun prohibition newsletters using tax money and diverted tax funds
earmarked for study of farm injuries to fund a rally with Sarah Brady
in Iowa (while posturing to the media that one reason NCIPC shouldn't
be disbanded is that they study farm and other injuries).  CDC's
Directors have been very clear in their statements of their personal
agenda in support of gun bans, but pose before the media as "objective
scientists" concerned about children.  CDC's tax-funded researchers,
such as Dr. Arthur Kellerman (originator of the "43 times as likely"
and other oft-parroted factoids and fallacies) have similarly been
exposed in the scholarly medical, legal, and criminological literature
as biased researchers, condemned by their own words and work.
All this misconduct has been called to the attention of Congress by
our national non-profit think tank of physicians, by other phsyician
organizations (such as Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership),and by
innumerable independent scholars.  Naturally the CDC has nurtured the
convenient fiction that they are objective and loving scientists who
are being martyred by the bloodthirsty demons at the National Rifle
Association.
 Let us not mince words, the CDC's liars in lab coats have prostituted
themselves to serve a political agenda.  If CDC's NCIPC is disbanded
as it should be (it is far too tainted to be salvageable), they only
have themselves to blame.
Yours truly,
Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    leroy.pyle@prn-bbs.org
The Paul Revere Network, 1201 N. Dearborn #139, Chicago, IL 60610
            (312) 482-9910 voice, (312) 482-9940 BBS
            Fido: 1:115/223          CIS: 72316,1711
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 ³ LC> I wonder why the gun-nuts are now looking for an Amendment OTHER
 ³ LC> than the 2nd, to hide behind, when they make the claim that the
 ³ LC> Constitution guarantees individuals the right to handguns, assault
 ³ LC> rifles, etc.?
 RJ> ³
 RJ> ³ We don't need no steenking piece of paper, parchment _or_
 RJ> government's ³ permission to own property.  Including firearms.
 RJ> Be cautious when dealing with those who use inflammatory/prejudice
 RJ> producing words and phrases Lloyd's "gun-nut" and the like.  These are
 RJ> emotional arguments, or better yet psuedo-arguments, in attempting to
 RJ> deal with the topic of firearm ownership in the USA.
 RJ> Be diligent to present the facts, and avoid the emotional argument(s).
 Nope.  No more...
 RJ> It doesn't hurt to point out emotional arguments when you run across
 RJ> them, but always counter these with the many facts we have available
 RJ> to combat such.  This will cause your opponent to admit he has no facts
 RJ> with which to offer as "reasons" for his ANTI-firearm position, and
 RJ> will cause those who read your posts to come to know you have the facts
 RJ> on the matter.
 
 Been there.  Done that.  Gave up.
 There are three kinds of people who advocate "gun control."
 The naive.  These folks are educable.  I will occasionally run across
 one, and will gently point out that most of what they base their
 conclusions on is invalid.  Every, _every_ EVERY statistic that the
 "gun control" crowd puts out in an effort to link gun control to crime
 control is hokum, and easily refuted.  Many, when confronted with fact
 are actually capable of changing their mind.
 Mary.  Late fifties, has been carrying a concealed firearm for years.
 She decided that she would choose not to be a victim.  Believes that it
 is every free person's right to defend himself.  But those evil ole
 "assault weapons", now...they _should_ be banned.  Well, we both know the
 argument.  Once Mary has the facts she realizes that the "assault
 weapons ban" isn't and didn't...and the whole thing is hyperbole.
 Mary got herself educated.
 Then there are the terminally naive.  These folks are bubbleheads, for
 whom I have absolutely no respect.  The facts are available for anyone
 who desires them.  Having the facts, they insist that somehow if we
 just make it illegal to own firearms we're gonna live in a safer world.
 Facts are irrelevant to these people.
 Tim.  Early fifties.  Doesn't happen to own firearms, no interest in
 such, but believes that we all have the right to keep and bear arms.
 So long as we register them, beg for permission to buy and keep them.
 But only in government approved configurations and calibers and for
 government approved purposes.  Now Tim readily admits that criminals
 can get guns any time they want 'em.  Tim readily admits that "assault
 weapons" have absolutely nothing to do with crime.  But they're still
 bad and the government shouldn't allow us to own them.  Tim also gets
 most of his news from the major networks.
 Tim is a lost cause in this area.
 Then we have the poltroons.  Chuckie Schemer, er, Schumer.  Florio.
 Feinstein.  Boxer.  Kennedy.  And their asshole buddies such as the
 Canfills and Ginanes of the world.  Who know that they are lying.  Who
 have the facts.
 In this group we also have the Sugarmans, Bradys, and Dees who would
 profit from the fear of the uninformed.
 But apparently have an agenda to which I'm not privy.  These are the
 43% liars.  And the "Assault weapons" are tracked in 10% of all crimes"
 liars.  And the "Saturday nite special" (whatever the hell that might be)
 liars.
 Lying for profit, power or personal aggrandizement.
 These are the lying poltroons who give one poorly put together work of
 semi fiction that purports to prove the second amendment doesn't apply
 to individual citizens and that the founding fathers didn't mean it to
 say what it plainly says.  When there are over 40 law review articles
 that state otherwise.
 So, yeah, I have the statistics.  I have the facts.  Screw 'em.  I'm
 not a role model.  I'm not a spokesperson for "our" side.  I am
 probably capable of scaring more folks than converting 'em.  But it
 isn't my role in life to educate the educable so usually I don't bother
 with the debate.
 The poltroons, however...now they _are_ the ones I would educate.  They
 are the ones who need to know that when the jack booted thugs are
 loosed it's going to mean war.
 They need to understand the effects of war on the civilian population:
 their grandmothers starving, because they have nothing to sell.  Their
 wives prostituting themselves because they have nothing else to sell.
 And their daughters being raped, because they are defenseless.
 Say "Bosnia."
 They need to know that when the state and local police get the order to
 confiscate our weapons of defense, those issuing those orders had
 better be doing so via phone, because there are a significant number of
 police who recognize that when they receive that order they are going
 to have to pick a side, and many will choose the side of freedom.
 Similarly there is a significant portion of the military that when
 posse commitatus is suspended by executive order they will be less than
 totally effective because they are going to experience a significant
 rate of mutiny.
 They need to understand, with scrotum-shriveling certainty, that having
 disarmed themselves, they are going to be at the mercy of those who
 have the weapons.
 ³ LC> anyhow. Well, should we have expected more from an extremist
 ³ LC> gun-nut? Of course not. Especially when, as if to reinforce the
 RJ> ³
 RJ> ³ The "extremist gun nuts" will kill you when you come for our
 RJ> weapons. 
 RJ> Fortunately, the "extremist gun-nuts" are those who demand we disarm
 RJ> ourselves.  Their position is "extremist" because it diametrically
 RJ> opposes the plain language and intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Secondly,
 RJ> I've never known a PRO-2nd Amendment, PRO-firearm, PRO-"reason" person
 RJ> to be a so-called "gun-nut."  These words -- "extremist gun-nut" --
 RJ> are words used to induce prejudice.  Lloyd's use of them is quite
 RJ> clear.  He hopes to cause those who are reading the posts --- AND are
 RJ> neutral on the matter of firearms right now --- to become ANTI-firearm.
 RJ> I have been kicking around ANTI-firearm, ANTI-2nd Amendment arguments
 RJ> for well over 7 years now on the various conference/networks.  I've
 RJ> dealt with the emotionalism of such a position as the ANTI-firearm,
 RJ> ANTI-2nd Amendment proponents.  Rest assured, Paul, the use of facts
 RJ> will silence them every time.  And, if it doesn't, others will notice
 RJ> the presentation of facts by you versus the presentation of
 RJ> emotionalism from the other side.
 I'll defer to those who are suited to reasoned debate.  And welcome.
 Meanwhile, I'll take my cues from such as Harry Thomas:
"I sincerely hope that a political solution to this problem is
still possible, and I will continue to work on the NRA Board of
Directors to try to find that solution. But if that solution
cannot be found, I say this to the megalomaniacs in Washington:
"Pass your gun laws. I will not beg the government for a license
to continue to be a handgun owner. I will not submit to being
finger printed, or photographed, or interrogated like a criminal
for claiming my birthright as a free American. I will not
register a single gun that I own. I will not surrender a single
gun that I own. I will not apply for an "arsenal" license because
I own more than 20 guns or more than a thousand rounds of
ammunition. I will not attend mandatory safety training, nor will
I submit to a test to prove that I'm fit to be a gun owner.
"And Miss Reno, I have this to say to you: if you send your
jackbooted, baby-burning bushwackers to confiscate my guns, pack
them a lunch, it will be a damned long day. The Branch Davidians
were amateurs, I'm a professional."
Harry Thomas
Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you
contemptible...It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is
armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed
man will remain safe among armed servants.
... "They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzDUzgQAAAEEAN6MnLhBtPwhJY68a8pOuPBPp0HLKULorewLxBVlwcF+L2LZ
5Mo8/QzUeqvsqPJ4R7K/xc/LzH5x2oIwXKQuExdEyW8yVQ13/5OYBd9zSADglAsP
527PfLNDmgnG09weRt+XdvFBjZcEtefP1P2+KLP2qDibuGquEG8UllgW/QLVAAUR
tApwYXVsIG5peG9u
=bzds
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
~~~ PGPBLUE 3.0 
--- FMail 1.02
---------------