Jim was returning fire at Paul 
 about "Give me a gun for protection" 
 PN>GIVE ME A GUN FOR PROTECTION
 PN>by Mantosh Singh Devji, Special for The Arizona Republic,
 PN>Sunday, May 5, 1996, page H3
 
 
 
 PN>                                  The instant background
 PN>        checks that the NRA supports is one way to slow the flow of
 PN>        weapons to those who have proven that they are incapable of
 PN>        handling them responsibly, as is the background check and
 PN>        certification required for a concealed weapons permit in this
 PN>        state. 
 JP> It must be noted, however, that the portion of the
 PN>        population most likely to use a gun in a criminal manner is the
 PN>        segment least likely to get a permit or go through a background
 PN>        check.
 JP> In light of the sentiment expressed in the latter paragraph, that of
 JP> the  former creates a confusing paradox in the author's thinking.  Such
 JP> dichotomies are ripe for would be tyrants to capitalize on.
 She, as a member of the press, is likely to believe (this is inferrence
 and what she's written) that instant background checks and background
 investigations for ccw can somehow keep firearms from the malefactors.
 A sentiment with which I personally disagree, but is a whole lot closer
 to mainstream thought.
 Any system has potential for abuse, but her earlier point that disarmed
 people are more easily made victims was significant, imo.  Especially
 in that on the next (op-ed) page was one of the weekly liberal gun
 control whiners saying that we should regulate firearms more
 restrictively.
--- FMail 1.02
---------------