-Caveat Lector-
Anyone wishing to participate in this guy's "debate", the addies to respond to are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce H.G. Calder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Your Daily Info Has Arrived" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:18 AM
Subject: TDI - Gun Control - 2001-01-09
> Bruce H.G. Calder's January 9, 2001
> THE-DAILY-INFO
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> * Guns and gun control *
> *****************************************************************
> *
> * A subscriber sent to me a news item :
> * http://www.sightings.com/general6/finally.htm
> *
> * The story concerns Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack who
> * apparently has recently proposed a bill which would require
> * non-gunowners to register and pay a $500 fee to the state
> * for a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed.
> *
> * Maslack reads the "militia" phrase in the Second Amendment
> * as not only affirming a citizen's right to bear arms, but
> * as a clear mandate to do so. Vermont's constitution states
> * explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the
> * defence of themselves and the State" and those persons who
> * "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required
> * to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters
> * have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that
> * they are capable of responding to "any situation that may
> * arise".
> *
> * Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm
> * would be required to register. "There is a legitimate
> * government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the
> * state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.
> *
> * The story says that Vermont has a very high gun ownership
> * rate : "...it's currently the only state that allows a
> * citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This
> * combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them
> * has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the
> * nation."
> *
> * From a Pro-Gun-Control point of view, the assertion above
> * that it is BECAUSE of Vermont's lack of gun-control,
> * crime is so low, is arguable. Regardless of the merits (or
> * lack thereof) of gun control, to me, the proposal above
> * appears to be ridiculous.
> * Unless armed citizens are REQUIRED to come to my aid,
> * gun in hand when required, (for example, I call 911, and
> * my next door neighbour is dispatched to my house,) I don't
> * see why I should have to pay to be "defended" by gun owners.
> *
> * OK - Now in the last THE DAILY INFO, I mentioned that I am
> * generally in favor of gun control. The only "facts" I can
> * think of right now that lead me to this belief are the
> * following :
> * A - Guns scare me personally.
> * B - It is much easier for deadly accidents to occur with
> * a gun than with any other weapon.
> *
> * My other reasons for believing in gun control are I admit
> * merely opinions, including :
> * A - I don't believe that the statistics cited that "prove"
> * when more people are armed, crime decreases are true...
> * at least not to the extent claimed.
> * B - I don't believe that the government of any western
> * democracy would destroy individual liberty if guns
> * were taken away from individual citizens. (Naive
> * Liberal that I am no doubt.)
> *
> * I find that people on both sides of this issue refuse to
> * even try to understand what the other side is saying. Facts
> * appear to be twisted to suit the argument rather than the
> * other way around. I hope over the next little while to cut
> * through a little bit of this, and if only for my own
> * benefit, get to the bottom of many of these arguments and
> * draw some conclusions.
> *
> * Now it is likely that different conclusions can be drawn
> * from the same set of facts, but I think this exercise may
> * be interesting. I intend to publish some of your comments
> * with or without your name as desired. I actually expect
> * some arguments to work in favor of gun-control and other
> * arguments work against it.
> *
> * For the purposes of this discussion, just reply to this
> * message and let me know what you think. Try to back up
> * your opinions with facts, and use sources for these
> * facts as much as possible. I expect those opposed to
> * gun control to send me much more mail as they tend to
> * be (on average) much more passionate than those in favor
> * of gun control (based on the mail I receive,) but I will
> * really need people on both sides to write, if I'm going
> * to get anywhere.
> *
> * I don't really have a problem with hunting rifles, or
> * shotguns. I'm mostly concerned with handguns, and
> * automatic weapons.
> *
> * There is an interesting transcript at
> * http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
> * of a debate between John Lott, author of More Guns, Less
> * Crime, and Douglas Weil, research director of Handgun
> * Control, Inc.
> * The main weakness in my opinion of this debate, as well
> * as most other debates is that the arguments are of each
> * participant's arguments are based on research, statistics
> * or some other "fact" which the other participant simply
> * rejects.
> *
> * It seems unlikely that the gun control debate, like the
> * debates on abortion and capital punishment can be
> * anything more than an exercise in frustration until
> * both sides can agree on some of the facts, which is what
> * I hope to nail down.
> *
> * I plan on taking arguments in favor and opposed to gun
> * control and (with your help) argue them through. Now
> * obviously I have a bias towards gun-control here, but
> * facts are facts (I hope) and maybe, and I will argue
> * but I hope not to dismiss anything out of hand. I will
> * probably need the help of you all to poke holes in the
> * arguments on both sides of the debate. Like anybody,
> * I'm biased, but I think I can be fair.
> *
> * OK people, let's start. If you have any other points to
> * raise, or questions you want to ask, by all means, reply.
> * I will attempt to find my own answers to the questions I
> * pose below.
> *
> *
> * Assertion : "Vermont's combination of plenty of guns and
> * ========= few laws regulating them has resulted in a
> * crime rate that is the third lowest in the
> * nation."
> *
> * Everybody - Are the assumptions in this statement true?
> * We should be able to agree on these points I think.
> * Does Vermont have more guns per capita than other states?
> * Are there fewer gun control laws in Vermont than elsewhere?
> * Does Vermont have the 3rd lowest crime rate in the nation?
> *
> * Assuming the assumptions are true - Questions for Gun Control Opponents
> * - Do you agree with the above assertion?
> * - If so, why can't Vermont's low crime rate be attributed to
> * other factors?
> * - If so, why are there 2 states with lower crime rates with
> * presumably more gun control laws?
> *
> * Assuming the assumptions are true - Questions for Gun Control Proponents
> * (I will assume gun control supporters do not agree with
> * the above assertion.)
> * - How else can Vermont's low crime rate be explained?
> * - Is being in Vermont more dangerous than being elsewhere?
> * - If not, why not, with do many guns hanging around?
> * - Are criminals more likely to use guns in Vermont than elsewhere?
>
> _____ Subscribe to other CALDER.NET mailing lists _____________
>
> There are 3 mailing lists in the CALDER.NET "family" and I
> encourage you to try out the other two.
>
> Bruce H.G. Calder's JOKE-OF-THE-DAY
> The best and most intelligent humor mailing list on the
> net.
> Just send a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bruce H.G. Calder's THIS-DAY-IN-HISTORY
> A (usually) brief, but in-depth article concerning one
> event which happened on this day in history, plus
> additional articles concerning history in general. The
> emphasis is on, but not limited to the 20th century.
> Just send a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>
> _____ Visit the CALDER.NETwork ________________________________
>
> Come by for a visit, we're slowly giving the whole site a
> new look.
>
> CALDER.NET's JOKE OF THE HOUR
> A new joke every hour, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year.
> http://www.calder.net/jokes/j.htm
>
> With more to come...
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>
> _____ Copyright notice ________________________________________
>
> © 2000 Bruce H.G. Calder http://www.calder.net/
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You may forward this mailing in its entirety, or any individual
> item as long as this copyright notice is included.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
