In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I'll save you the bother of responding. They are being killed by CRIMINALS
using GUNS. Criminals will always have guns in this country, because
criminals, by definition, are not constrained by the moral necessity to
observe the law, including gun laws. Just ask any victim of gun crime in
Great Britain, where the law-abiding citizens have no rights to keep and
bear arms, and even sporting shotguns must be kept in gun club armories,
instead of in the owner's home. Over there, violent criminals have no
problem getting guns -- they're brought into the country by the SEALAND
container load under the watchful eye of Customs officers who have nice
fat pockets full of payoff money. They are quickly distributed throughout
the criminal and terrorist underground at obscene profits, and end up in
the hands of the same kinds of criminals that they've always ended up
in. Even unarmed criminals are having a "field day" of their own. They can
simply walk into the homes of innocent citizens, even in broad daylight,
since they know with absolute certainty that they will not be faced with the
barrel of a shotgun or a 9mm pistol, as they may have been years before.
The net result is that British citizens are being robbed and killed by
criminals with guns at a rate three times what it was before the country
went to total civil disarmament. Crimes against property have risen to
the point where it is now estimated that fully 50% of the British population
has been or will be crime victims within their lifetimes.

Can you point us to a source for that info, Larry?

Jim:

I don't know if I should. I'm about 14 years behind on receiving "sources"
I've requested from others in the past. However, start at www.nra.org. Also
check out www.fredoneverything.com (columnist Fred Reed).

It is a proven fact that everywhere in the United States where "Shall Issue"
Right-to-Carry concealed weapon laws exist, violent crime drops at a
dramatic rate.

Surce, please?

Axed and answered, sort of.

Your own home state of Texas is one of the leading examples.
It is also a proven fact that the only force that can stop a criminal with a
gun is a law-abiding citizen with another gun.

I assume you include law enforcement officers in that group.

Certainly.

You see, the guns don't
know who is using them -- they are inanimate objects which require a
responsible human agency to utilize them for good or evil. The best
solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure that the criminals
have as much to fear from their victims as their victims have to fear from
them.

I disagree.

I think the best solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure
that
the criminals have *MORE* to fear from their victims and the criminal justice
system as their victims have to fear from them.

Won't argue with that, Jim. I'm all for criminals being in fear.

BTW, If I were the owner of a convenience store, I'd have a special door
chime that played a .WAV of a 12-ga. pump-action shotgun being racked
every time someone came in after sundown.

And, you'd probably be local news.

Yeah. The story would be about why my store is never robbed.

There is nothing so stupid that some criminal won't try it. Heck, there was
at
least one case where a couple of guys tried to hold up a gun shop. Owner was
better armed and trained than they were. He's OK. They aren't.

Besides, total disarmament in this country would simply not work because
millions of law-abiding citizens would simply hide their guns and ammo.
Indeed, many non-gun-owners would go out and buy guns and ammo before
any ban went into effect.

Yep, they sure would! Look for that to start happening sometime in 2007,
when Hillary decides to run for President.

I still think the best arrangement would be to license gun owners, not their
weapons. If someone is an adult, law abiding, responsible taxpaying citizen
with a clean record, they should not have their rights infringed. OTOH,
children, people with serious mental problems, and criminals should not be
allowed to have any dangerous weapons. OF course the laws would have to be
structured to put the burden on the govt. to show why someone should not get
a license, not the other way around.

I'm all for that, Jim!

73 de Larry, K3LT