KY Prof calls for total ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Here's an excerpt:

"It is time to face reality. If we are serious about doing something about the slaughter on the streets then let's outlaw the private possession of handguns. "


Here's the Link

http://www.kypost.com/2003/11/19/kylifesteph111903.html

Here's Stephen C. Richard's Northern Kentucky U email

[email protected]

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Remember kiddies, when you post your reactions to this article on this forum don't call nice Professor Richards any nasty names like "academic hothouse pansy" or "dunderheaded ignoramous" or "bleeding heart blissninny."

Even though the good Professor admits in his first paragraph that he doesn't know much about the topic, right before he calls for a total handgun ban, it just wouldn't do to label or deride the Professor at all........

You might cause some potholes in The High Road that way.

hillbilly
 
Dear Mr. Richards,

In the Kentucky Post you wrote:

There is a national debate about handgun ownership and concealed carry. Although I have read some of the vast literature on the subject, I do not profess to know all sides to this debate. I do not own a firearm. Nevertheless, I think we need to consider passing legislation to outlaw the private ownership of handguns.
*****

In the past this country has tried prohibition of alcoholic beverages. In the end Prohibition failed because significant numbers of Americans wanted alcoholic beverages.

This country has been embroiled in a "War on Drugs" for perhaps 30 years. The country is not winning. Why? Because a significant number of Americans want to enjoy drugs.

Just what do you propose beyond a simple ban on handguns to make such a ban successful? England and Australia have enacted bans on varying types of guns and it really hasn't done any good. They are smuggled into the country by the criminal element. British police complain there is a growing cottage industry where replica guns are converted to fire live ammunition. Believe me, Great Britain hasn't seen the end of their woes. And while the police are struggling to enforce their Draconian gun bans, the incidence of violent crime against unarmed people is growing by leaps and bounds.

You suggest that a shotgun or rifle is all the average American needs to protect his home. Perhaps they are. However Professor, I want to be able to leave my home and be secure in my person and property. Shotguns and rifles are a bit bulky and awkward for those adventures. Therefore, I carry a handgun. I carry legally because I am a retired peace officer. I do believe that every law abiding person not a convicted violent felon, or drug addict, or mental patient should be able to do so. Something like 34-35 states have over the years have enacted laws to permit private citizens to go armed in public. I think if you studied those states who do permit armed carry, you will find they have much lower crime rates than those enlightened states like New York, Washington D.C., Maryland, Illinois, and California which severely restrict the carrying of arms by their citizens.

Professor, I respect your work as a criminologist in the field of corrections. I think I may have used some of your work in the classes I have taught at my local community college. However, I think you lack practical street knowledge which I obtained through over seventeen years as a deputy sheriff. Criminals will not respect gun bans no matter how severe you make them. All the gun bans you propose will accomplish will be to disarm innocent, law abiding citizens.

Bruce Stanton
Commander, U.S. Navy - Retired
Sergeant, Kings County Sheriff Dept. - Retired
Adjunct Instructor, Administration of Justice Dept., West Hills Community College.
 
I'm working on an email right now. Unfortunately I have to go to a meeting, hope to finish it in a few hours. Here's my partial draft.

Prof. Richards,

I just read your article and found several items that I disagreed with. First, let me introduce myself. I am a Junior at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, working on a Psychology degree. I was in the Army ROTC program until last semester. I withdrew from the program because I felt I could better serve as a law enforcement officer upon graduation. I learned proper firearms handling in the Boy Scouts at the age of 13, and shoot regularly.

You state that '"Today, more people are killed by gunfire than auto accidents." This is simply not true in this country. In 1995, there were only 1.500 fatal accidents nationwide involving firearms. Contrast that with 43,900 deaths from automobiles, 12,600 from falls, 10,600 from poisoning, 4,500 drownings... (source: "ILA Research & Information Division Fact Sheet." National Rifle Association of America – Institute for Legislative Action – Research & Information Division, 3/1/98. Source Cited: The National Center for Health Statistics. )

In regard to your murder statistics - a gun is a tool, a means to an end. If Person A desires to kill Person B, he will do it. If he cannot find a firearm, he will use another tool.

I would like to point out that it is already illegal for a person under 18 or a convicted felon to purchase a handgun. They do so anyways because they are criminals, and do not follow laws. Were the government to outlaw the private possession of handguns, who do you think would go to the local police department and turn their firearms in? Law-abiding citizens. Criminals would keep their already illegal firearms, and crime would likely rise dramatically. You state that "there is simply no way to prevent criminals from stealing or purchasing handguns." This is true, and making them illegal for everyone to possess will not change this.
 
Did anyone check Mr. Richards to see if he has a permit to exercise his first amendment rights? I wonder if he was using a concealable word processor to write this article. We could stop this kind of uninformed publishing if we will only do away with all electronic word processors.
Has anyone seen his vehicle? I wonder if he has a bumper sticker on it that says I will give up my pc when you pry it from my cold dead fingers?
 
1. Don't cite the NRA. They are evil gunmonkeys and not to be trusted.

Instead, cite the CDC:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


2. Gotta be careful of apples and oranges. He's talking about deaths; you are talking about accidental deaths.

There were 29,573 firearm deaths in 2001, broken down as follows:
Suicides: 16,869
Homicides: 11,348
Accidents: 802
"Legal Intervention"
(killed by cops or citizens while committing a crime): 323
Unknown: 231

Also in 2001:
Motor vehicle deaths: 42,443
Poisoning: 22,242
Drowning: 3,923

You still win, but you are more accurate and appear less biased.
 
I merely mailed Richards the following.

Saw your opinion column. Thought you might want to see what actually happens
when handguns are totally banned.

Roy Hill

http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml



Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
By Joyce Lee Malcolm


Article snipped for brevity.................
 
i read some blurb the other day about how albania has the highest ratio of firearm-related deaths, at 22 per 100,000; and the USA has 11 per 100,000.
 
From mpayne's link ( http://lark.phoblacht.net/fedprisonerprof.html ) :

I have learned that becoming a professor means I do not have to suffer fools or foolish books. I have no patience for social scientists that study their subject from a safe distance.
Click to expand...

And from the Ky Post article ( http://www.kypost.com/2003/11/19/kylifesteph111903.html ) :
Although I have read some of the vast literature on the subject, I do not profess to know all sides to this debate. I do not own a firearm. Nevertheless, I think we need to consider passing legislation to outlaw the private ownership of handguns.
Click to expand...

Someone should ask him how he reconciles his personal hypocracy of spouting off about handguns from a distance that is safe from actual knowledge of them :evil:

(it would be interesting to know what he was sent away for. If it was a felony he wouldn't be able to own one anyway)

Greg
 
I do not own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he should change this to...." I cannot legally own a firearm.".

I'd venture to say he'd be more comfortable carrying a "shank". :rolleyes:


Good Shooting
Red
 
Mpayne, thank you for the stats! I was apprehensive about the NRA quote but couldn't find it elsewhere. :)
 
I went to college in souther Indiana and our televisions stations were all Louisville stations. And I remember well when KY repealed the ban on concealed carry.

I doubt they'll reverse course on the subject again.
 
I think it is safe to say we don't have to worry too much about this guy.
 
I think it is safe to say we don't have to worry too much about this guy.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. He is a professor and as such has access to eager young minds. :what:
 
Wow. Following that link that tells of our good professor's criminal background makes my hair stand on its end. He enters prison not as a convicted criminal but as a prisoner of the drug war who failed to participate in the oppression of others? Huh?

Does this mean he was a drug dealer or mfg who got caught and so he's lesser of a criminal because he wouldn't turn states evidence? He wants us to believe he's "innocent" just like the other thousands upon thousands of innocent convicts who happened to be locked up and happen to have lengthy criminal histories.

What's even more surpising is that if he's at all familar with criminals and prisons, he should know that gun control doesn't work. Will he deny that "shanks" or "shivs" aren't made and concealed by clever convicts with regularity? Or that alcohol doesn't exist behind bars (home made) or that drugs can't be obtained while incarcerated? I wonder if he wants us disarmed so his "friends" can have their way with society. Good thinking, Prof! For an academian, he really knows how to reason things out.
 
My e-mail to him

Dear Sir,

The United States, in spite of the presence of firearms, is fifteenth in the world behind (respectively) Lithuania, Russia, Estonia, Hungary, Finland, China, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. Many of these countries have firearms regulations akin to those you propose. They still have high rates of suicide, however.

Ref: http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/cebmh/elmh/nelmh/suicide/statistics/international.html

You also state “A good, old-fashioned shotgun or hunting rifle is more than sufficient for this task.â€; but criminals who come into the possession of a rifle or shotgun will cut the stock and barrel off to shorten it into -- you guessed ut -- an especially powerful and deadly handgun. The only people who will not have handguns will be the law-abiding. You are also under the impression that all crimes worthy of deadly force with a firearm occur in the home. Most violent crime happens outside the home, the very place you want the law-abiding to be disarmed. By extension, you legitimize crimes against the person in public while deligitimizing self defense.

As for the United States and the “slaughter on the streetsâ€:

The United States is TWENTY-THIRD of the top 100 nations in rate per 1,000 persons. Many of these countries have firearms regulations akin to those you propose.

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

In the number of murders within a country boundary, The United States is SIXTH behind India, Russia, Columbia, South Africa, and Mexico. Many of these countries have firearms regulations akin to those you propose.

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur

In murders with firearms, The United States is EIGHTH, of the top 100 nations in rate per 1,000 persons, behind South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Belarus. Many of these countries have firearms regulations akin to those you propose.

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

In murders with firearms within a country boundary, The United States is FOURTH behind South Africa, Columbia, and Thailand. All of these countries have firearms regulations akin to those you propose.

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

While the United States leads, at number ONE, for the total number of ALL crimes within a country boundary,

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri

the United States is EIGHTH for all crimes of the top 100 nations in rate per 1,000 persons including some of the nations touted as the most safe -- Finland, Denmark, and Great Britain.

Ref: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

On the webpage http://www.nationmaster.com , note the crime statistics for rape, robbery, burglary, etc. You will find that the United States lags far behind in Rate per 1,000 persons for these crimes also.

As for your assertion that “handguns as common as television sets†the Media Coalition says “Today, 98% of American homes have a TV set, and 40% have three or moreâ€. As for firearms, kidsandguns.org , an anti-firearms group says “38% of households in the U.S. have at least one gun and 24% contain a handgun.â€. This is based on their reference to Johns Hopkins fall 1998 National Gun Policy Survey available as a PDF file at: http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf .

Ref: http://www.mediacoalition.org/stm/stm_violent_crime.htm

Your position and your veracity are never strengthened by such wild assertions.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
Kimball, NE
 
My letter to the Editor of the Kentucky Post

Re: Americans and guns (11-19-2003)

Dear Sirs,

In his article Stephen C. Richards states "I do not own a firearm." Perhaps that should be changed to "I do not own a firearm because I am an ex-felon; and the law precludes me from owning one."

On his webpage at http://lark.phoblacht.net/fedprisonerprof.html , he states "I entered federal prison not as a convicted criminal, but a prisoner of the drug war. I would do hard time in maximum security for failure to cooperate with federal authorities in the persecution and destruction of others." In other words, he wouldn't give the authorities information about his criminal drug suppliers.

This man decries the use and possession of handguns while he actively participated in the activity that has caused more firearms violence in America than any other cause. The turf wars that the people he refused to give up have been far deadlier than the gang wars of Prohibition.

While he claims "Slaughter on the streets demands we outlaw possession of handguns", his participation in the drug culture has contributed to that slaughter.

Mr. Richards needs to acknowledge his remorseless role in the violence through his association with the criminal element before he attempts to disarm the law-abiding.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
 
when you post your reactions to this article on this forum don't call nice Professor Richards any nasty names
Click to expand...

How about treasonous traitor? That's more along the lines of a well earned title than it is name calling.
 
Careful there, Ryder.

Calling a felonious slime ball, oops, I mean political opponent, like Richards a "treasonous traitor" is "Name calling" and apparently beneath The High Road standards.

Such writing can get you a disapproving message with a frowny-face on it from a moderator.

Call this waste of DNA nasty names at your own risk!!!!!!!!!


hillbilly
 
Uh - people - just 2 simple questions

How on earth did this feloneous j**k weed get to be a
professor ?

and

What does that say about ANY college (institute of higher
learning !! - yeah right ) that would hire him ???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top