Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:43:11 +0000
From: thaddeus@PRIMENET.COM ("J. Thaddeus")
Subject: Re: Your e-mail
To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
You go, boy!!!! (cheering and applause!)
> From: Richard DeStephens <r.destephens@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
> Subject: Re: Your e-mail
> Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:57 PM
>
> "Jones, Brenda" wrote:
>
> > > I believe that I stated our position and agenda clearly in my
previous
> > > note, and we are committed to our efforts to hold handgun
manufacturers
> > > accountable for tragedies their products cause.
> >
>
> Yes. Your position is quite clear. Your defense of it is absent. In 1995
the
> police killed
> an innocent person 330 times (citizens made that mistake only 30 times).
Are you
> going to
> sue Glock for those deaths and the medical costs they brought? Citizens
killed
> their attackers
> about 2500 times each year. Are you going to sue Ruger and Slick & Weasel
for
> those?
>
> > >Our judiciary will hear the merits of our case and that
> > > is where the decision will be made.
>
> You can't defend it to me. How well do you think you will do in a trial?
You
> don't
> want a trial however, do you? You want to rack up the legal bills of the
gun
> manufacturers so they will capitulate. A judge will likely never hear it
and if
> one does,
> recent history in Cincinnati and California suggests you will lose.
>
> > >We also believe that a successful
> > > conclusion to this case will have a major impact on handgun violence
in
> > > Newark and other cities,
>
> Tell e where in the world a gun ban has lowered crime? Recent gun bans
in
> England,
> Canada, and Australia were met with double-digit increases in violent
crime. Now
> there
> are an estimated 3 million illegal guns in England. Enough for six gun
for every
> criminal.
> How many guns do the good guys have? That inequity might explain why "hot
> burglaries"
> (when the owner is home) occur 59% of the time in England and only 11% of
the
> time in
> America.
>
>
> > >without impinging on the rights of law-abiding
> > > handgun owners.
>
> Doubling the price of a gun is not infringement? Requiring that a
self-defense
> gun be locked
> up, as is done in the now crime-ridden District of Columbia? Let's double
the
> price of the New York
> Times and see how that is met.
>
>
> > > There is no purpose served in a war of overheated rhetoric. Clearly
our
> > > viewpoints on this issue are diametrically opposed,
>
> I'm just asking you to justify your position so I can see how well you
have
> thought this out.
> If you can't justify it on a criminological basis, then your purpose is
not to
> reduce crime it is to
> promote another step in citizen disarmament.
>
>
> > >I respect your position - although I do not respect your vitriolic
and
> > > defamatory language -
>
> What was vitriolic or defamatory about my words? The part about
"Niggertown
> Saturday Night Special"?
> Hey, that's historical fact. The term "Saturday Night Special" has racist
roots.
> The same laws that were
> used to increase the cost of guns to disarm poor blacks 130 years ago
will do
> the same to the peaceful
> poor today. You may not be a racist, you gunphobe, but you are a bigot,
> nonetheless. Fact.
>
> > >but we are committed to our position and our
> > > lawsuit, and we will proceed on it with due diligence.
> >
>
> Whether you can justify it or not. Aren't bureaucrats wonderful?
>
> > > Thank you again for your letter.
> > > Sincerely yours,
> > > Sharpe James,
> > > Mayor