On two occasions I kept a loaded pistol in my desk after male co-workers were terminated from their positions.

Fortunately while they may have left angrily, they didn't return to shoot up the workplace. Call me paranoid and a bad judge of character. Better I'm wrong and judged badly by the AdvG's readers than to face workplace violence unprepared.

My unschooled observation: there is a certain brand of weirdo that will escalate eccentric behavior in stalking and worse. I'm not anxious to see if Dr. Oakley's new neighbor's behavior devolves.

It must have seemed far more likely that Rick could sue for being thrown out of school, than that I -- or anyone else -- could ever be hurt. The easiest path, from their perspective, was to simply get me to shut up.

I wonder whether there were any complaints about the lab tech who murdered Annie Le at Yale? He didn't like the way she kept her area. Even after the murder, Yale probably comes out better having done nothing. Imagine the wrongful termination lawsuits. Those garner the big jury awards. Dead people's families are notoriously awarded low amounts because there's no injured party sitting right there in court for the jury to feel sorry for.

Fianza, it's a good thing you don't work in one of those "safety zones" like schools, where where killers can "safely" assume that no one will have a weapon to stop them.

Yeah, I had a woman editor once who talked too much about ".357 Magnum." Whenever angered, she referred to the gun and its uses.
One day she thought she heard a noise outside her apartment, and investigated carrying the .357 Magnum. She was a nutcase--I thought I might read a story one day about love trysters getting shot in the bushes by this nutcase.
The Constitution protects the right to bear arms , though it may be for the purpose of forming civilian militias. Jefferson and Monroe detested the thought of standing armies.
Evidently, some kinds of firearms can be banned, such as "machine guns" outlawed in 1930s when gangters had 'em.
The gun nuts have never explained how to keep guns away fro the nut cases. If this wacko editor of mine could get a .357 Magnum, anyone can. With dum-dum bullets too.
Eventually, she was fired, and the locks to our office changed. I remember thinking what a feeble gesture that was. Like she planned to come at night when no one was around.
I was glad I was not the one who terminated her, and they gave her $25,000 to go away.
It was an uneasy several months of employment for all concerned.

I guess the gun lovers have won this argument, and we will continue to have about 12,000 people shot dead every year (four times the death toll of 9/11--every year, annually) The public seems to want it.

So, while you are pooping in your pants on cue about terrorists (the readers of this column are so easily manipulated), you are far, far more likely to be shot dead, and by someone you know. In the eight years since 9/11 nearly 100,000 Americans have been shot dead in plain vanilla homicides. But let's waa-waa about the 3,000 dead at WTC again, again, again, again, again......and again.

Waa-waa-waa. Let's turn it into a cult. Let's talk about friends who might have been killed if they had been there.

The BOTU engages in full release onto this blog.

"The gun nuts have never explained how to keep guns away fro the nut cases."

Actually, it is your job to explain this. Given your outbursts here, I can make the case that you are such a "nutcase". Do make the distinction. Can you really be so abysmally stupid that you think that hasn't been considered, by even the NRA? Geez, even Charlie McCarthy has enough brains to realize that criminal possession puts a damper on wholly legitimate and socially desirable NRA events and training!

If you wish to set aside a Consitutional provision, you must have a reason - other than your habitually antisocial opinions.

Morton Grove v. Quilici is the case setting the precedent that local governments can be more restrictive in their liberties than the Federal can. I'm sure you'll rush right out to lobby for more local restrictions on things you hold dear, such as the ability to call Amy names.

Meanwhile, take a look at what your views amount to in the words of trained men.

They will tell you what you should already know from Warren v. DC: the operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is self. You seem to think a lot of it; it's only reasonable that you should have to protect it. I can tell the enthusiasm on this blog for saving your butt is quite low.

Meanwhile, enjoy the precious irony of living where and how you please because your phone will summon men with guns to solve your problems.

Because you can't.

There is a website that helps women learn how to shoot, if you're interested:

Second Amendment Sisters

This could further help you to deal with the potential George Sodinis and Cho Seung-Huis of this world. (What the f*** is wrong with these people, anyway?)

To Butthole:

Well, there's the Brady Background check, but that doesn't seem to have worked so well, so far. Having the George Sodinis of the world adjudicated (not just labeled but ADJUDICATED) mentally unfit to own firearms would help, I suppose.

Personally, I merely wish that I could convince these modern-day Napoleons to simply kill themselves before they hurt anybody else.

DO YOU HEAR ME, LOSERS??? KILL YOURSELVES, NOW, AND MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!

Unfortunately, there are just no reliable predictors of who will explode in a violent rage or who will just bumble through life acting weird.

When I was in college, one of my male friends had a roomate who pasted collages of women's photos all over his dorm room wall. He cut out their breasts, genital areas, and painted blood all over them. I was deeply disturbed, and naturally feared he was a threat. But I hear from my friend that he's now a successful motivational speaker. Go figure.

One of my bosses kept an arsenal in his office. He was one of those little cop/nazi wannabes, who loved guns. He even made a "citizen's arrest" once while I was on the air (I was a dj). Some poor kid tried to sell him pot. He handcuffed him and brought him into the radio station he owned and just chained him up. I remember announcing a song, then running out and pleading with my nutjob boss to let the terrified kid go, which he eventually did.

Nothing ever happened to him, and as far as I know, he never actually hurt anyone. He still owns the station and is probably just as crazy.

"The gun nuts have never explained how to keep guns away fro the nut cases."

You can't. Just like you can't keep: Knives, axes, poison, bats, and gasoline away from nut cases. Even if you were to ban all of these things crazies will still find ways to kill people. Also as our friends in the U.K. have learned banning a item does not make it disappear. Drugs are illegal, but; I bet you know of an area in your city where you can quickly and easily buy them if you were so inclined.

But what you can do is not pass laws that disarm law abiding citizens, and leave them defenseless. Because it turns out, and I know that this is a shocker, that criminals don't follow the law, and like everyone else they are less likely to mess with someone who could be armed.

I guess the gun lovers have won this argument.

You've got that one right. We're to large, organized, and dedicated for you to beat us. Democrats have learned that infringing on the 2nd amendment is a losing issue. That's why they haven't even tried to do anything this year despite having control of the House, The Senate, and the Executive branch. DNC operative Nancy Pelosi is so scared of the guns issue that she went on to the press to publicly denounce Obama's attorney general when he suggested that we reinstate the assault weapons ban. So I suggest that you make peace with the 2nd amendment or move to Europe; because, our guns aren't going anywhere.

" have about 12,000 people shot dead every year "...So ,you advocate punishing 300 million citizens, give or take a few, because of the deliberate actions, the calculated criminal behaviour, of 12,000 people ? This is your solution to this problem ? Assinine is too kind a description of your solution. Your solution reeks of the cowardice too prevalent in those whom seek to solve issues by punishing those whom are not at fault.

Radwaste--
I contemplated an "arms race" and bringing six-guns to the office. It seemed like sheer lunacy--not to mention the reaction of fellow office workers.
Despite your missive (in the words of trained men), protecting oneself is not always possible, and obviously imossoble on a regualr basis. No matter how skilled I become (and I have been to a gun range, and I am athletic), someone can always shoot me in the back. Or while I sleep. Taking a shower. Holding bags of groceries, While driving my car. Or should I drive an automatic, and keep a loaded revolver in one hand?
I can get shot by someone simply jumping out from behind bushes before I have time to react, despite good reflexes. Or maybe I should walk around with a Winchester facing forward?
Truly, Radwaste, you have offered a weak-minded commentary, full of bravado and short on brains. There is no way to protect oneself continously.
In addition, Radwaste, macho talk on a blog is a few cuts below talking tough at the Bel Air country club. There is no risk. Women can talk tough about taking gun classes, and how quickly they reload, and how they kept a pistol in the drawer at work.
The very few fellas I know who actually been in a battle never talk tough, and are not sure they would prevail the next time around.

There is no way to protect oneself continously.

So your proposal is to make it more difficult for other people to protect and defend themselves, just because it's impossible to protect and defend oneself everywhere, all the time?

Butthole wrote:

"(the readers of this column are so easily manipulated)...."

If it's so easy, why can't you do it?

You just think you're above it all, kid.

Well, I see blogspace is wasted on someone.

Jeff Cooper started the formal training of police officers. The NRA started training civilians, someone having noted that the kill ratio in the Civil War was grossly in favor of the South. So as not to be accused of misleading you, I will merely suggest you look those things up.

Let me suggest that a society which has already made it impossible to select defensive weapons of your choice, no matter your background or level of training, should be studied, not applauded for these restrictions.

And it's obviously a total surprise that self-defense is never a sure thing. Be sure not to make things up, such as that I said it was, again.

But here's one thing I'll point out again and again: if you count on the police to protect you, they not only cannot do that directly, they are not required to produce the outcome you desire.

This doesn't change, regardless of your wishes or public status.

Call the police. They arrive with guns, because when you need one, something else just does not work.

The gun nuts have never explained how to keep guns away fro the nut cases.

The gun control nuts haven't explained it either. Making something illegal doesn't make it impossible (or even difficult) to obtain.

I feel like an asshole for pointing this out, but I read this first sentence, "This is a New York Times op-ed written in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre by my very good friend Barb Oakley..." and I thought, "Oh, you're good friends with a school shooter, are you?"

Well, Obama has Ayers...

Honestly, that's the first thing that came to my mind, just for a fleeting nanosecond, then I caught on. Gotta love misplaced modifiers.

because of the deliberate actions, the calculated criminal behaviour, of 12,000 people

Not to mention that a large percentage of those 12,000 - the criminal percentage - would have guns in any case.

1: It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

2: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

these are oft repeated because they are true.

I live in Los Angeles. I do not count on the police to protect me--I see a cruiser in my neighborhood every few months. The LAPD is famous for not having anyone on patrol (they do have a three-day workweek, six weeks off a year to start and comp-time for every possible holiday), an anti-terrorism squad, and a resident art theft expert, among many other dubious ventures--well, taxpayer money, you know, always good for spending).
When I moved in this neighborhood, the joke was that it was too dangerous--that is why LAPD doesn't come down here. Still, it is a better neighborhood than where I lived during the 1992 King riots, when huge columns of smoke could be seen in all four directions (the LAPD mysteriously abandoned its posts on that day, led as it was by Daryl Gates, who was terminated and then became a right-wing talk show host in Orange County).
About 10 years ago, there was a spate of five murders within a four block radius of my factory--and then the murders stopped. None lately. I don't know why, but crime is down nationally.
I find having the toughest dog I could find at the pound is enough, and actually most of the neighbors are very friendly. The dog, it turns out, likes everybody, but he looks tough.
As for being murdered--that stats show you will get murdered by someone you know. The home invasion murder is extremely rare.
As for being murdered as i travel, I have pointed out the limited value of carrying a gun. Unless I carry a Winchester at hip level (remember the Chuck Conners in the Rifleman?) a gun is likely of limited use. And while driving?
It does say something about the heightened fright factor of many Americans that many reading this blog insist they need guns--there are women living in my neighborhood without guns, I would say nearly all.
But you tough guys living in suburban Connecticut, West Los Angeles, or rural America got to have your guns.
What a bunch of frightened little weenies.
The BOTU unleashes down on yo

BOTU points out, "crime is down nationally."

Yep, and nobody can figure out why. It wasn't because somebody passed a law; laws in some places changed, but not in New York City, which experienced one of the biggest drops.

Wisconsin, where I live, has a low crime rate. Also it has no law preventing open carry of firearms, but hardly anybody takes advantage of it--so much so that when a guy's neighbor over in the eastern part of the state reported him for wearing a pistol while mowing his lawn, the police didn't know any better than to arrest him. They found out there was no crime on the books they could charge him with.

Minnesota, next door, also has a low crime rate. That state enacted a law permitting concealed carry for people who passed a background check and took a class. After the law went into effect, nothing changed. No increase in shootouts in alleys or on freeways. No significant change in armed robbery or murder rates.

To maintain a free society, we have to let people do stuff--even stuff the rest of us find distasteful. It's the only way. So BOTU, let's let the "frightened little weenies" carry their toys. It doesn't reduce your freedom any, and it increases theirs, without any change (statistically speaking) in danger to you.

(Full disclosure: I may be a little weenie myself, just not a frightened one. In my quiet rural township I do not feel any need for defensive arms, though in an emergency I could press a grouse gun or deer rifle into service during the twenty minutes it would take for deputies to arrive. I do appreciate, though, having the option to legally strap on a pistol in case the need should arise.)

To all the Buttholes of the Universe:

I am a West LA gun-owning weenie. There is a good chance I will never be a victim of a violent crime. I prepare and lawfully own a firearm as so not be on the wrong side of a statistic.

I am a West LA non-gun-owning weenie. There is a good chance I will never be a victim of a violent crime either, because no one can tell the difference between me and my neighbor Fianza.

Also, I might be lying... Or Fianza might. Anybody remember that comedy Western from the 1960's where the criminal Dern complained about the new Sheriff Garner? "He lies to me about whether or not my gun's loaded!"

(I think about that everytime commenter Patrick gets into a conniption and announces that Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or some commenter here is a liar!... As if the whole world could be reduced to childhood taunts, and there's never any meaningful distinction in perspectives and judgments. 'A person's either right or they're a liar!')

But anyway, after the riots, I figured out that I'd been made safer by all the neighbors who had their ammunition at hand. (It sure wasn't the LAPD who protected us.) You can't really tell who's into guns in America... They're not yet required to wear yellow stars on their clothes. So the bad guys have to think about it every time they decide to do something nasty.

Be as liberal and compassionate and gentle as you want: But don't pretend the richness and safety of your life haven't been enhanced by the Second Amendment.

BOTU, I see it more as a matter of logic rather than fear: It is better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

It may be enough of a deterrent for one to have a big dog, an NRA bumper sticker on his car or a "Warning: Trespassers Will Be Violated" sign on his property. But some people would like to be able to back that up, in case some murdering thug doesn't pay attention to the signs or shoots the dog.

You should check out a copy of "America's First Freedom," which is an NRA magazine. In each issue, there is a page detailing media reports of people defending themselves from thugs with firearms. That should put a smile on even your face.

So, in the balance of things, it is better to allow people to exercise their rights of self-defense and deterrence of criminal thugs through the ownership of firearms, if they so choose.

Crid writes: (I think about that everytime commenter Patrick gets into a conniption and announces that Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or some commenter here is a liar!... As if the whole world could be reduced to childhood taunts, and there's never any meaningful distinction in perspectives and judgments. 'A person's either right or they're a liar!')

How strange. A reference to me, out of the blue, about something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, on a subject I haven't even weighed in on. Crid must be mighty obsessed...or perhaps he's in love.

For the record, I don't own a gun (or maybe I do), but I'm very much against gun control, and fully support the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their property and their loved ones through the use of lethal force.

The argument invariably comes up, "So, we're killing people over a VCR?" No, that's not it. When someone breaks into your home, whether they get anything or not, they've already stolen from you. Home is the dearest, most sacred spot on the planet, and anyone who breaks into it has deprived you of the right to feel safe in your own space. Your little piece of the planet set aside for you. As far as I'm concerned, the homeowner has every right in the world to defend his hallowed ground, and if it results the perpetrator's death, too damned bad. At least we can successfully pinpoint his last mistake.

And Crid, as you shriek and sob uncontrollably for the poor maligned liars of the universe, who could only be guilty of innocent mistakes, let's remember that books do get revised. If they choose not to correct their "innocent mistakes" when they've been pointed out to them, they are indeed guilty of lying. Rush Limbaugh has a public platform, in addition to published fiction, therefore has all the means at his disposal to correct his mistakes. When he chooses not to, the "innocent mistake" defense tends to ring just a little hollow.

So, do try not to tear out too much of your hair as you writhe in sympathetic (emphasis on "pathetic") agony over the monstrous injustices that I perpetrate upon the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh by calling them liars.

You guys are wasting your time arguing with a troll.

"Rick, who had been a student for more than a decade..." This is interesting. When I went to school, they had a seven-year limit on matriculation. If you didn't graduate in seven years, they kicked you out. I knew someone who had it happen. Of course, there are a lot of ways to remain a professional student... I wonder if this Rick was a "post-doctoral"?

> A reference to me, out
> of the blue

You're exemplary.

I'd love to see the statistics on the number of gunfire homicides who are gangbangers/criminals killed by other gangbangers/criminals vs the rest. Judging by the local paper alone, the former has to account for more than half. It's unfair, but I view them as a sort of low cost adjunct to the criminal justice system.

I don't feel unsafe, but I don't do or buy drugs, avoid lowlifes and crime infested areas, and don't go around acting like a jerk. That's not always enough, but it improves my odds far more than carrying a gun would. I still think buckling my seatbelt is far more likely to save my life, but I do that also.

A discussion of how to handle nutty stalkers has turned into a debate on gun control, but they're two separate issues.

A stalker can use weapons other than a gun, and then all the gun control in the world won't stop him, or her.

Skillful stalkers also know how to push right up to the boundary of legality without ever crossing it, so they can haunt your life for years with impunity. That's another topic in itself.

Amy, that guy who told you all redheads were witches was CREEPY. And it's disgusting that the cops refused to deal at all. I sure hope times have changed.

Amy, that guy who told you all redheads were witches was CREEPY. And it's disgusting that the cops refused to deal at all. I sure hope times have changed.

The cops are largely worthless in situations like this. I was physically attacked a few months ago by a family member, and I called the police. They didn't believe me, since the injuries were minor. They just seemed pissed off that I'd bothered them, and one accused me of lying. I had to go to the ER myself to rule out a concussion and to get a record of the injuries.

If there's a next time, I'm not even going to bother with the cops.

"I'd love to see the statistics on the number of gunfire homicides who are gangbangers/criminals killed by other gangbangers/criminals vs the rest."

In as much as the crime statistics allows for correlations, the number appear to be very high. In 2007, 90% of the murder victims in Philadelphia had felony criminal records. Baltimore and Los Angeles, two other violent cities, show similar trends. While not conclusive alone, such statistics do suggest that the majority of murders are thugs killing other thugs. Since the the black market in drugs promises enormous profits and government mandates that the drug trade be limited to criminals -- people not noted for peaceable behavior -- this actually make sense.

I think alot of te worlds problems would solve themselves if more people were shot

I think alot of te worlds problems would solve themselves if more people were shot

Is lujlp gonna have to cut a bitch?

Well, really, what are the cops supposed to do - arrest anyone that "seems" creepy? Most posters here are usually against anything that would limit on our freedoms. Who is going to define "creepy?" Think how that could be abused by the awful female population. "He kept offering to walk me to my car..it was soooo creepy. Lock him up!" Do you guys really want another easy avenue for females to prosecute you? I can imagine a lot of socially awkward guys getting into big trouble for nothing more than attempting to be nice. And you know it would be primarily males because they fit the school-shooter/serial killer profile.

"Anybody remember that comedy Western from the 1960's where the criminal Dern complained about the new Sheriff Garner? "He lies to me about whether or not my gun's loaded!""

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maBJzJgYjto

There are many reasons to own firearms.

First and foremost there is the obvious concern for self defense. Many opposed to gun ownership want the right of force held only with the "proper authorities", but the truth is that the onus for the defense of our lives & property rests in the hands of each individual. Police are never around during an emergency because they are doing their job.

Criminals take great pains not to commit crimes in the pressence of police officers. But when there is no officer around, what is one to do?

Most self defense tips are laughably inadequate.

A cell phone does not defend a woman from rape, nor do car keys from assault. Maybe if you got a guy right in the eye, but more likely you'll just give a little cat scratch before you're totally fucked...metaphorically speaking.

Most martial arts methods require a good physique and frequent training, the ones that don't are pure hokum, and even the most average man probably has twice the physical strength of a woman.

OK, so where does that leave us?

There is a way that a woman can become as dangerous as a man, with relatively little training, and minor expense.

Firearms.

Yes it is true that we cannot at all times be on guard and prepared for danger.

Yes it is true that you must be able to draw and fire the weapon for it to be useful.

But the fact that every circumstance is not perfectly certain does not mean that anyone should be constantly defenseless.

When you have no means of self defense, when you abdicate your right, and yes, your DUTY to defend your life and property against incursion or life threatening harm, you are not truly a free citizen, but subject to the whims & chance of those who abide by no law but that of their own selfish or sadistic desires. Perhaps no harm will come to you, I certainly don't wish for you who are voluntarily disarmed to come to any malicious harm...but if you do, you may look into the mirror to find part of the blame.

There was a time when a sword or pistol was as much a part of a gentleman's atire as his coat or hat, because he knew he was his own first and best line of defense. Some of you today have abdicated that responsibility, and as a result you have no defense, but can only hope you live to see the "proper authorities" avenge any harm done to you. To many, do not.
----------------------------------------

Leaving the above aside, hell lets even discount the defense of life or property in the course of a riot, lump it in with the above, when proper authority falls apart.

------------------------------------------

The other reason is security against dictatorship. We are a government of laws and not of men, but human beings are quite capable of corrupting laws, changing or abusing them, and it is only a vigilant population whose liberties are safeguarded. Governments of armed populations serve the people, governments that want to dominate the population, see to it that the population is disarmed.

We cannot forget that it was not diplomacy, it was not protest, it was not the press which brought about our Republic, it was an armed population throwing off its government to build something that better served them.

Those who write or speak, often like to think of themselves as the guardians of freedom, but this just isn't so. They EXERCISE freedom, but they didn't win it, and they are not its great defenders or timeless guardians. If anything we see in other countries that fell into dictatorship, the people who exercised free expression were quite easily muzzled or kept under control by the government, whether you want to discuss Russia, Germany, or hell just look at Hugo Chavez's constant attempts at muzzling opponents. Could he do this against masses of armed citizens?

Yes we like to think such things could never happen in the U.S. The truth is though that it could, it doesn't, because we're armed and watchful, and we've carefully structured ourselves to keep power divided at a variety of levels, but there is no magic reason why we should be immune to a loss of freedom.

And if ever that day comes, how will we guarantee that we get our freedom's back? It won't be by talking.

Anybody remember that comedy Western from the 1960's where the criminal Dern complained about the new Sheriff Garner? "He lies to me about whether or not my gun's loaded!"

Support Your Local Sheriff

Bruce Dern played the youngest and dumbest of the Danby brothers.

One of my favorite scenes is when Pa Danby and his two remaining sons are sitting in the saloon discussing how to go against the sheriff and his two-shot Derringer:
Tom Danby: "He's only got two shots. What can he do against three of us?"
Pa Danby: "He can kill two of us."

From Doonesbury, 1970s:

Duke (testifying for the NRA):"The point is, Senator, that if you outlaw guns, only criminals would have guns."

Senator: "Which would prevent a great many murders, Mr. Duke! As you know, 70% of murders occur between family members and over half of
those involve handguns."

Duke: "Exactly! So look at it from the point of view of the victim, Senator. What if your wife were attacking you with a handgun?"

Senator: "I don't quite follow, Mr. Duke."

Duke: "Well, wouldn't you want to be in the position to return the fire?"

Senator: "Well...I, uh...."

2nd senator: "You don't have to answer that, Jim."

It is better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

I pretty much live by this rule, and it can apply to so many other things:

It is better to have a loaf of bread and not need one than to need a loaf of bread and not have one. A gallon of milk, a dozen eggs, a rack of lamb, a length of rope, a baseball bat, a knife, a car, a camera, y'all get the idea. Besides, if someone was looking to kill you, BOTU, I sure wouldn't stop him. But I think you might feel a little safer knowing I could, if you gave me a large enough monetary stipend. And if you weren't such a weenie yourself.

I am a short, rather skinny woman with about the normal level of upper body strength for my gender and body type. I would be useless in a physical fight (unless, perhaps, I were highly, highly trained by quasi-ninjas or something). With a gun in my hands and the correct training (that second part is key), I'm suddenly not useless. You'd better believe that I'm a Second Amendment supporter. Now, I think someone with a gun and no training on how to use that gun is a danger to himself or herself on multiple levels, so if you aren't willing to learn how to use one, don't get one. But train yourself sufficiently, and it's a different story.

The gun nuts have never explained how to keep guns away fro the nut cases

Want one suggestion? Punish non-murderous crimes involving guns on a different, harsher level than those not involving guns. Shove over a cashier, grab the money and run out? Three to five years. Point a gun at the cashier and get the money that way? 15 to 20 years. I'm fine with treating the use of a gun during a separately defined crime as a factor that implies premeditation and thus calls for harsher punishment. What I'm not fine with is a system that goes after the law-abiding using effort and resources that could be used going after the law-breaking.

Marion, that's already the law.

Federally, you may not possess a firearm in the commission of a crime, but that charge is routinely bartered away. That poor man had no choice but to rob you... he's been victimized all of his life... we have too many minority-class people in jail...

I'd love to see the statistics...

Surf away.

By the way, J&G Sales has a special on ammunition if you buy any AK clone from them. Ammunition is twice what it was two years ago - guess why. Get the Yugoslav variant. Oh, wait. Californians, in the land of the peculiarly free, cannot buy such a thing. No matter who you are, what your clearance level, what training you've had or how law abiding you are, you can't buy an AK in any form. Unless you're a movie company or producer. We have to make $$, you see.

> From Doonesbury, 1970s:

A fellow admirer! I loved, loved Trudeau back in the day. Reaganism seemed to knock him off camber and he never got back on his feet. But when I was teenager Doonesbury was a great way to develop a properly suspicious mentality.