Million Mom March

Lori · Post by **Lori** » Sun May 14, 2000 4:17 am

So tomorrow is mother's day and large numbers of women are decending on our nation's capital to propone stricter gun control. From what I see on the news, much of their technique will be to have victims of violent crime involving guns share the painful stories of losing their loved ones.

While I do not begrudge the opportunity to seek reparation from the pain inflicted by criminal use of firearms, I do wonder at the wisdom of enacting more laws that will only restrict these very victims from using the strongest means available to protect themselves and their families.

Why not march upon our judicial branches and lobby to enforce the laws we already have on the books? Is passing out millions of dollars of trigger locks going to bring down the violent crime rate? Of course not. Saving a child's life is a worthy enterprise and all precautions should always be taken to ensure their safety - but these tactics will do nothing to remove guns from the hands of the vermin who will use firearms against an increasingly helpless public. Repeat offenders are out on early release programs and women and children become victim to criminals who are probably right behind these marchers for more gun control - if not physically then at least in spirit!

Those marching tomorrow probably never read pages like are found on these forums - and especially the likes of the Realities forum. Yet they have the attention of the media. Maybe it's me - but I just wonder where all this propaganda is coming from. The mothers I know believe strongly in their right to defend their families and themselves - why restrict this and not work more on reducing the number of repeat offenders which I believe I have read in some statistics are the highest percentage of violent crime perpetrators?

The implications of misguided intentions are scary to contemplate.

Peace,
Lori

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Sun May 14, 2000 4:40 am

Yes, it is the repeat offenders that will be cheering tomorrow. According to a 1996 US DoJ survey 7% of the criminals commit 70% of the violent crimes. By the way, guns are not the #1 tool used by the violent criminal - it is the criminal justice system.

I think that I will take my wife to the range tomorrow for mom's day!

Rich

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Mon May 15, 2000 4:04 pm

Well said, Lori...

Jackie

Kevin Mackie · Post by **Kevin Mackie** » Mon May 15, 2000 4:35 pm

It's not surprising that the mom's would use an appeal to pity as the basis of their arguement for stricter laws.

What was surprising is that in Sunday's Boston Globe (leftist paper), "experts" argued that newer laws won't prevent gun violence. (no kidding!)

What was also not surprising is the hypocracy of celebs' like Rosie O'Donnell to come out against gun ownership as she hawks products for the largest seller of guns in the country.

Kevin

Kevin Mackie · Post by **Kevin Mackie** » Mon May 15, 2000 4:52 pm

from today's boston herald

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/shooting05152000.htm

Which of the following would have prevented this tragedy?
a) a trigger lock
b) stricter gun laws
c) a brain

Kevin

------------------
http://homepage.altavista.com/Uechi_Ryu_Karate/
<A HREF="mailto:k_mackie@hotmail.com">k_mackie@hotmail.com</A>

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue May 16, 2000 1:10 am

Good ol' Rosie and Kmart have agreed to end their business relationship. Kmart initiated the move as a result of customer complaints I hear.
Rich

Lori · Post by **Lori** » Tue May 16, 2000 1:51 am

Kevin,

What a sad article - and good questions on your post.

Rich,

I'm sure that both sides will have adequate propaganda surrounding the parting of Rosie and K-mart - she is using it on the other side to further her anti-gun mom movement.

I find it sad when any issue becomes so clouded by emotional stories of pain - both sides have their points - but if you remove the emotion - try to see things from a logical perspective, what are we left with? Facts like enforcement of the existing gun laws in Richmond dropped violent crime with firearms by 65% (I believe I quoted that correctly) WITHOUT ADDING ONE MORE GUN RESTRICTING LAW TO THE BOOKS!

Some more facts by the US Department of Justice that I posted on the Realities Forum as well - so skip this section if you read it there (or read it again - it's scary stuff!):
***************************

<blockquote>* Between 1992 and 1994, the number of violent incidents involving a female victim averaged 4.6 million a year--nearly 14 million crimes during the 3-year period.
* In 1995, women were about two-thirds as likely as men to be victims of violence; 20 years ago, they were half as likely.
* In 1994 females represented 23% of all known homicide victims in the United States; 9 out of 10 female victims were murdered by males.</blockquote>

This is why women need to have available to them every means of protection available.

<blockquote>* In 1992-93, women were more likely to be victims of nonfatal violence by someone they knew (78%) than by a stranger (23%). Male victims were about as likely to be victimized by a stranger (49%) as by someone they knew (51%).
* For rape, robbery, and assault in 1992-93, female victims experienced 7 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate (present and former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends) as male victims. 12/96 NCJ 162602</blockquote>

This tells me that in most incidents where a WOMAN is raped - a gun will most likely not be deemed or even thought of as necessary. The situations where an intimate takes advantage of a situation of trust to perform an act of violence and control on a woman will not likely be ones where a gun would do any good for multiple reasons: 1) Guard will be "down" and a gun will most likely be locked away or left in the purse or car 2) How would a female victim deal with the psychological effects of fighting off someone she actually KNOWS with a handgun? and 3) If as these statistics say, most attackers know their female victims, they would probably know when and where their victim is most likely to be without their gun. How do you protect against a rape by someone you supposedly trust?

The only glimmer of hope there is concern #3 - that if the attacker knows of the potential victim, and their penchant to carry a firearm - would they not now be less likely to attack if they knew it was on the person of the intended victim at all times? As DeBecker states in Gift of Fear it is a shame we cannot garner statistics on the crimes that are avoided. It is hard enough to get statistics on the crimes that actually happen!

**************************

Above was just a summary - a link to a more complete listing of statistics regarding crime and women victims follows:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fvvc.txt

Check it out and draw your own conclusions.

Peace,
Lori

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited May 15, 2000).]

Allen M. · Post by **Allen M.** » Thu May 18, 2000 4:22 am

Million Mom March?

I read somewhere the other day that one of the reasons their crowd swelled to a few thousand is that the high schools in Virginia were giving free graduation credits to those who attended.

Here is an interesting piece I found on my desk this afternoon:

=====> Million moms and the media
Author: Mark Steyn
Country: United States
The White House-orchestrated "Million Mom" gun control rally
couldn't ask for better friends than it found in the media.
(5/16/00)
URL: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.asp?f=000515/289533

------------------
Allen, Home: http://www.ury2k.com/ mirror: http://home.ici.net/~uechi/

P.S. I'm neither for nor against, but this is all the news I could find about the moms.

[This message has been edited by Allen M. (edited May 17, 2000).]

Allen M. · Post by **Allen M.** » Fri May 19, 2000 9:20 pm

<font color=red>MORE MOM STUFF </font>

=====> MADD: Moms against data and deduction
Author: Ann Coulter
Country: United States
"Now we have an entire movement of babbling idiots demanding that
their opinions be accorded equal standing with facts on the
basis of their stunning achievement of having borne children."
(5/18/00)
URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000515_xex_madd_moms_ag.shtml

=====> Motherly advice
Author: Jacob Sullum
Country: United States
The emotionalism on display at the Million Mom March only heightens
the suspicions of Second Amendment supporters. A dead child is
sad, to be sure, but a dead child is not an argument. (5/18/00)
URL: http://www.reason.com/sullum/051700.html

=====> Camille Paglia calls Million Mom March 'a crock'
Author: Camille Paglia
Country: United States
Says Paglia: "National policy shouldn't be set by packs of weeping
white women led by Rosie O'Donnell." (5/18/00)
URL: http://www.salon.com/people/col/pagl/2000/05/17/cpmillionmom/index.html

=====> Gun law protest backfires
Country: United States
The anti-gun Million Mom March had at least one effect. Publicity
for the White-House-coordinated rally coincided with a surge in
National Rifle Association membership by over 200,000. (5/19/00)
URL: http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/05/19/timfgnusa01001.html

=====> Los defensores de las armas de fuego
City: Chicago, State: IL, Country: United States
The gun rights counter-march in Chicago caught the eye of the Latin
American community. "Mientras las madres de la 'Marcha del
millón' gritaban sus consignas, el grupo 'Libertarian Party of
Chicago' se manifestaba muy cerca exigiendo lo opuesto." (In
Spanish) (5/19/00)
URL: http://www.laraza.com/ch2.html

------------------
Allen, Home: http://www.ury2k.com/ mirror: http://home.ici.net/~uechi/

[This message has been edited by Allen M. (edited May 19, 2000).]