| Tuesday,
August 30, 2005
Subject: Hurricanes and Phishing
Dr. Pournelle:
The latest natural disaster in New Orleans area
(hurricane Katina) is an opportunity to help others. Many people need help,
and relief organizations are poised to help.
And the phishers are also poised to help.
If past disasters are any indication, your readers can
expect to see spam/phishing mail that will happily take your money for
“Hurricane Katina Relief”. All they need is your credit card number, PIN
number, etc.
Readers are well-advised to be cautions with
unsolicited mail with this type of plea. And messages with attachments
purporting to be pictures or news about the hurricane should *not* be
opened, as they will contain worms or viruses.
Readers should only contribute to reputable
organizations. I’d recommend the Red Cross, there are others. The Red Cross
has a web site at http://www.redcross.org/ (note that it’s not a ‘dot com’).
Type in the link in your browser, then donate from there.
Caution always with unsolicited email – don’t open it,
don’t reply to it, just delete it.
Regards, Rick Hellewell
========================
From another
conference. It was pointed out that in the 19th Century and early 20th if
you had been asked what nation would be dominant in the 21st Century, the
answer would have been, overwhelmingly, Germany. So what went wrong?
Germany really only had one problem: Nazis.
Without the Nazis and WWII, it's easy to argue that
the Germans would have been the world's first nuclear power. They probably
would have gotten to the moon in the 50's. They would have dominated Europe
politically. With a strong Germany at its throat, the Soviet Union would
never have become the powerhouse it was.
The Nazis stand as the world's foremost "accident of
history." It's like one of those Star Trek episodes where the crew visits an
alternate dimension. One thing has gone wrong, and it has ruined all of
history. Well, we're in the crap Star Trek dimension, not the good one.
Joe
I find that hard to argue with.
===========
Now this is an interesting case:
http://tinyurl.com/b8uy8 (NYT
link)
A 22-year-old man traveled from Nebraska to Kansas and
married a 14-year-old girl, with their parents' blessing, according to the
article. They have one child. He has now been arrested in Nebraska.
Maybe the family didn't have much of a chance anyway,
and the prosecutor shouldn't feel too bad about breaking it up by sending
the father to jail. Then again, I'm always reminded of Will and Ariel Durant
by this sort of thing. He was 26 and she 13. It's not every marriage that
lasts 80 years and where the partners produce an 11-volume of history of
civilization between them. (Will Durant outlived Ariel by just one week.)
For a long time, I have thought that it is interesting
that we live in a society that strongly encourages premarital sex for the
young, but denies them the humanizing institution of marriage. Some of the
problem has to do with college, I think. College is incompatible with
family.
It's an interesting system. College degrees stand in
for IQ tests because employers can't or don't know how to use them. Most
people take relatively little benefit from college, and probably later high
school years as well. But everybody assumes that the system is working
because they were personally so much more mature at 22 than at 17. And
because the people without college degrees that they know tend to be so
dumb.
Then again, I've always harbored a deep suspicion that
handing a person a book and telling him that there will be a test on the
material in a week is just as effective as any course -- certainly for the
very intelligent, but probably for the just normally intelligent too. On the
other hand, that probably just means that I'm crazy.
Joe
Roman boys and girls came of age at 14.
And see below
==============
Dear Jerry:
Spotted this one as I was headed for bed. I am
absolutely appalled by this. What the Hell were they thinking?
Francis Hamit
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_graves_082405,00.html
Ye gods.
=============
Subject: Creative Commons
Dear Jerry:
Creative Commons is a scheme to undermine traditional
copyrights put forth by Lawrence Lessig, and supported by, among others,
Cory Doctorow, Joi Ito and all those other people who find the idea of
getting permission and/or paying for using someone else's creative work all
too uncool and boring. In principle if someone actually wants to let people
use their work without checking first, why they may of course. It's a free
country.. There is nothing wrong with the idea. However, considerable social
pressure is applied to enable these schemes and make them a virtual mandate.
I am sure that those who agree to them haven't really
thought through all of the implications. Not only does this undermine the
entire idea of receiving reasonable payment for work already done, but also
the author or artist's moral right to control the use and disposition of
their work. There seems to be some kind of fad for "remix" or putting your
own interpretation on someone else's work. A real world example of this
would be someone rewriting one of your books as a musical comedy without
your permission. (You begin to see the potential for nonsense?) Author's
control is always essential, even when fans are indulged. You may recall
that George Lucas tolerated Fanfic in the Star Wars melee, but that love
stories between Luke and Princess Leia was verbotten. For reasons which
eventually became clear. .
I may be a little bitter about this. It is one of the
things that makes the conversation about actually enforcing the copyright
law we have so difficult. Lessig keeps trying to change the laws he doesn't
like by creating legions of the ill-informed to promote his agenda, when the
way to do this, if it is desirable , is to lobby the Congress. The Internet
makes it very easy to do these things, which does automatically, perforce,
means that they should be done.
Sincerely,
Francis Hamit
====
Subject: creative commons and Dvorak missing the point
The trouble with John Dvorak is his deliberate
trolling when he doesn't understand something. It is like he has turned into
a second rate shock-jock in old age, he regularly misses the point/his
target and gets on his hobby horse & charges up the valley of death.
One point of view of the Creative Commons Licence
comes from Mike Brotherton who has a Sci-Fi novel published by Tor called
Star Dragon which I may have totally bypassed if I had not seen it first
online:
"There are legitimate uses for Creative Commons that
this humbug is missing. For instance, I've released my first novel Star
Dragon online under CC. It's a real, published novel, still available in
hardback and paperback, by Tor, a major U.S. publisher of science fiction
and fantasy. No one can distribute my book under "fair use" copyright law,
because it wouldn't be, and certainly commercial distribution is right out.
The publisher has agreed to try it in a promotional effort, the idea being I
will make more sales than I lose. Early tech adopters like Cory Doctorow and
Charlie Stross have been doing it, too (and while I've gotten great reviews
both sell a lot better than me, but are more advanced in their writing
careers).
One additional thing. The humbug would claim that in
many instances Creative Commons does nothing that isn't already done by
existing copyright, except be trendy. Well, don't overlook trendy, I say.
Many younger people on the internet these days have a clue what Creative
Commons means, and know little to nothing about copyright. They may respect
something labelled Creative Commons, and that's worth something. Also, it's
nice to see that certain material is expected to be taken, and the author's
permission is explicit and clear. It's possible to end up in court with
legitimate fair use when the author and the user disagree about what that
means.
And finally, even Dvorak is clueless when it comes to
copyright. He says you have to add "Copyright 2005" to something to
copyright it. You don't. It's automatically covered (you can still do the
paperwork and register it, but in principle you don't). So here's a guy
writing an article related to copyright who doesn't know the law,
criticizing Creative Commons under the assumption everyone already knows the
copyright laws."
You might want to consider reading the creative
commons licence itself. This is the groklaw version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
There is slight biased article followed by some fairly
balanced replies at groklaw about Dvorak doing his usual missing the target
by a whole hemisphere:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050722013820636
You probably will want to miss the rabid but amusing
replies on slashdot.org:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/19/199227&tid=166&tid=149
Andrew Orlowski has taken up reviewing some of the
responses to his first article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/29/creativity_computers_copyright_letters/
Followed by the slashdot.org "corrections":
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/29/2128256&tid=98&tid=17
-- Ben Baylis (ben@velvetbug.com)
Do you think I am a megalomaniac ? Just give me a
ZX81, and I'll control the world !
I do not read slashdot as I have never
found it worth the time invested. I confess I do not understand all the
furor of this creative commons thing: in fact I don't understand what it is.
Is this a voluntary association? A proposal for legislation? What is the
enforcement method?
Writers have sold and given away certain
rights and retained others for a very long time. Beam Piper gave to me (but
me exclusively it is not transferable nor something I can license to others)
permission to write stories in his universe, and his publishers and estate
have recognized that. I intended to do that at one time but I probably will
not.
Many writers have given fans permission to
write fan stories set in their universes. Many fans have written stories in
the Falkenberg universe, some quite good; I have never given permission and
sometimes I have sent pro forma letters reminding them I have not given
permission but that is to protect rights.
So I do not seem to grasp the purpose of
Creative Commons; and no one has yet explained it to me in any way I
understand. How is this different from copyright law and carefully drafted
releases of rights?
==
Subject: Francis Hamit on Creative Commons
Dear Dr Pournelle,
Mr Hamit's efforts to receive proper compensation for
his copyrighted works are admirable. I'm not one of those who despise
copyright - as a fan of the GPL I would be a fool to do so. Like you it
seems to me he is "fighting the good fight" on that matter.
His description of those who advocate a Creative
Commons licence however is another matter. As an engineer trying to complete
a law degree precisely to better informed on what rights I have to my ideas
(and the best licence for their expression), I bitterly resent being told
that I "haven't really thought through all of the implications." On the
contrary.
But that's just common abuse. What really ticks me off
is that many of the outcomes he decries are to me, positive. There is no
place in the Common Law for example, for any notion of "moral rights of the
author". Such rights are strictly a Roman (Civil) law notion, and a recent
invention at that, only lately grafted onto common-law jurisprudence by such
international conventions as the TRIPS agreement.
It is not a thought crime to deprecate such "rights".
I'm even familiar with some of the examples he quotes - the George Lucas
Star Wars "extended" universe for example is divided in various levels of
canonicity, with the films at the top, through games to various licenced
books at the bottom. The games especially, necessarily depart from a unified
vision because LucasArts is required to allow users to choose a light or
dark path.
Fanfic doesn't rate a mention on the Wikipedia site
dealing with Star Wars. I might add that one reason no-one gets sued is that
in many jurisdictions they can't be sued. The most one could get from a suit
over such matters is an "accounting for profits" and what is free can't be
clawed back. In such places fanfic is simply a derivative work - since there
is no common-law moral right of authors, and no copying of expression, there
is no basis for a copyright suit. At least until patents on literature
become law.
The CC licence is under attack frequently by a crowd I
have come to think of as "the usual suspects". John Dvorak is prominent
among them. For anyone who wants a thoughtful discussion on the implications
by people who are neither ignorant nor fanatical, start with this response
to Dvorak by Joe Gratz, who as Groklaw pointed out is a law graduate
himself:
<http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/07/19/dvorak-on-creative-commons-humbug>
Excerpt: "...Dvorak worries that Creative Commons
licensing might limit users’ fair use rights. This is a misunderstanding of
the license. The very first substantive paragraph of every Creative Commons
license says, “Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or
restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations
on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other
applicable laws.” How any license that so prominently and so explicitly
preserves users’ fair use rights could pose a threat to those rights is
difficult to imagine."
Anyone who wants to see a really committed CC advocate
in action need look no further than any of the Groklaw columns, like this
one:
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050722013820636#c341727>
Pamela Jones licences all her material using CC.
Contrary to Mr Hamit's assertion, not all CC advocates are so bored by
licensing requirements as to despise them. PJ is not afraid to look up
licensing terms and pay for material where required. I'm holding in my hand
a (paid for) copy of a French article on European legal affairs I need to
translate for her, which cost her a considerable sum in Euros.
Regards, TC
-- Terry Cole System Administrator, OU Physics
Once again, I fail to understand
just what is the controversy here? Clearly a misunderstanding on my part,
but if an advocate of "Creative Commons" would like to explain it better I'd
be interested.
Subject: Creative Commons
Francis Hamit wrote:
> Creative Commons is a scheme to undermine
traditional copyrights
> put forth by Lawrence Lessig, ...
Hi Jerry
That is pretty much the opposite of my understanding.
Creative commons is a set of licenses that you can use
to give away a subset of your copyright rights. It relies on the
copyright laws to work.
Let's say that I write an essay and I want to give
readers blanket permission to reproduce it so long as it is unedited and
retains my copyright and license stipulations. I can choose an appropriate
license and release the essay under that license. There are a variety of
licenses to suit different levels of permissions that people might want.
By using a boilerplate license, I'm (hopefully) less
likely to include errors that might make the license unenforceable.
It doesn't weaken anybody else's rights, it just
allows me to selectively give away some of mine -- and gives me good
control over what rights I want to retain.
I don't know who is making Mr Hamit may feel pressured
to release his work. That is, of course, unfair. So, while I like the idea
of Creative Commons licenses, I certainly don't support anybody being
pressured to use such a license.
Much more info available at
http://creativecommons.org/
Regards
Michael J Smith
[emphasis added by ed]
I have been to that web site and came away
less informed than when I entered. It seems to be full of hype and short on
definitions. That may be a failing on my part. But I have yet to be told how
it accomplishes its goals. Is this something to be proposed to legislatures?
Voluntary compliance (which like an oral agreement in general isn't worth
the paper it's written on...)
It is probably a failing on my part, but I
do not grasp the subject.
=
Subject: Creative Commons
Francis Hamit has the gist of it on Creative Commons,
albeit from a very negative viewpoint. CC can be useful in cases where a
person wants to make their material available for reincorporation into other
works on specific, universal terms. In my opinion CC works best for computer
code (it can be thought of as an algorithmic approach to choosing an open
source license).
I think it would also likely work well for, say,
someone creating online textbooks if the motivation was wide distribution
rather than profit. I think that homeschoolers, for example, could pool
their resources virtually this way and create a website filled with homework
and tests that other homeschoolers could use freely, licensed under a
Creative Commons approach.
Hard cheese for textbook authors, of course.
Steve Setzer
Leaving me in as much confusion as ever.
It might help if their web site had less flash and more information.
=
Subject: Creative Commons
Creative Commons is a set of standard PERMISSIONS for
other people to use your copyrighted work.
Basically by using this form
http://creativecommons.org/license/
They can show you a license that you can you use to
grant the permissions you want to give.
That is the technical explanation and it is simple as
that.
But the motives of the people behind this are not so
simple. In general they view the current term of copyright as extremely
damaging to our culture and only serves the interest of big media
corporations. They took the concepts from Stallman and open source software
and made set of license that work for text, and other traditional media.
These licenses are the core of the creative media. (For example a
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative license
Whether you agree with this or not; Creative Commons,
like open source, take advantage of copyright law to permit reuse of a
copyrighted work rather than restrict the use as normally done.
The whole movement is based on convincing people to
contribute their works under a creative common license.
One of the hopes is that a critical mass will be
reached that it would be more advantagous to use a work under a creative
common license and contribute back than try to make a new work out of whole
cloth.
The other hope that the mass of works under the
creative commons will allow people that are more than just what the author
would be able to do by himself.
Rob Conley
It must be me. I find their "license"
enormously confusing, in part because I don't see any clear statement of the
point of it all. Nor do I understand the difference between "commercial" and
other such uses. If someone writes a story in the Falkenberg universe and
posts it on a web page, is that commercial? Suppose he requests donations?
Sell subscriptions on the public radio model as I
invite here? Charges a fee for access to his page, of which my story is
a small part? What is commercial?
=
Subj: Creative Commons is *voluntary* dammit!
I have great respect for Francis Hamit, and I sent him
money to support his efforts to defend the rights of authors.
But his description of "Creative Commons" at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail377.html#creative
is far different from my understanding thereof.
My own understanding is that creativecommons.org
provides a collection of licensing patterns, in the same way that the Free
Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative provide patterns for
software licensing at http://www.fsf.org/licensing and http://opensource.org/licenses/
, plus explanations of why each of the patterns might be more or less
appropriate for particular purposes.
Now, I'm not a published author, and maybe if I ever
became one, I'd see immediately what Francis Hamit means by "considerable
social pressure is applied to enable these schemes and make them a virtual
mandate." As things stand, I have no clue. But I find it very hard to
understand why promoting an agenda by lobbying Congress is preferable to
trying to generate public support for that agenda -- especially if that
agenda consists more of promoting *voluntary* use of existing copyright law
in particular ways than of getting that law changed.
The rest of this note contains
wannabe/aspiring-creator thinking, so if you're not interested in that sort
of thing, or find it annoying (as I understand some published authors do), I
won't be offended if you don't bother reading further.
I am creating a shared simulated universe. If
successful, my platform will support the creation of a variety of artistic
works, which I fancy will have certain distinctive characteristics I've not
seen in other works.
Now, one way to approach the publication of my
creation would be to reserve all rights to myself, and either create all
content myself or rigorously vet and individually license all others who
might want to contribute. I'm nowhere near creative enough (not to mention
young enough) to do it the first way, and I too well remember Dr.
Pournelle's reports of his dissatisfaction with the rate of return on his
investment in his "War Worlds" series to be enthusiastic about trying the
second way. If what I'm trying works at all, my *automation* will give me
all the control I want or need over the way other contributors'
contributions interact with my own.
A "creative commons" license seems to me to give me my
best chance to succeed.
And, just as I'm happy to have the benefit of the Free
Software Foundation's lawyers' work on the GNU General Public License, to
check that the words of which the license is made really implement the
notion of "Free Software", I can imagine that authors who grant Creative
Commons licenses might be happy to have the Creative Commons lawyers
checking that the licenses in that collection really implement the ideas
*they* want implemented.
Of course Mr. Hamit, Mr. Dvorak and any other authors
so inclined are at complete liberty to ridicule my licensing choice, or even
to lobby for legislation to cripple it -- "for my own good", perhaps? --
just as successful capitalists are at complete liberty to ridicule the
choices of prospective new entrants into their markets, and to lobby for
legislation to erect barriers to new entrants -- "in the public interest",
of course.
As for the "Creative Commons License: Public domain"
tags that so incense Mr. Dvorak: I can see why someone who finds the
Creative Commons notion annoying would find those tags annoying. Their
purpose is to inject a little advertising, for a set of ideas the author or
distributor of the material wants to promote, into what would otherwise be a
purely utilitarian lack-of-copyright notice. Their purpose is to prompt
someone reading the notice, who hasn't heard of "Creative Commons" before,
to ask "What is that?" and maybe Google up an answer. I wonder whether Mr.
Dvorak really doesn't understand that? Or are his fulminations just another
aspect of *his* campaign to ridicule Creative Commons? (Sinister Covert
Purpose theories are *so* easy to conjure, don't you think?)
Are some of the Creative Commons advocates "over the
top"? I don't doubt some are, though I've not really bothered to read much
advocacy. Richard Stallman, the Father of the Free Software movement, is
most certainly somewhat ... obsessive. And so what? As for those who are
*really* Far Out, like the Civilization-will-collapse-if-I-can't-remix
crowd: was it not Mr. Niven who said, "There is no cause so noble that it
will not attract fuggheads?"
Is a Creative Commons license the right license for
*every* work? Hell no!
But does that mean that it's *wrong* for every work?
Or that someone who thinks it's right for *his* work is deserving of
ridicule, or ostracism, or accusations of being mentally deranged, or In the
Service of Sinister Forces?
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
I think this is a "Let's you and him
fight" situation for me, so far.
Regarding worlds and bibles: I made enough
out of War Worlds and There Will Be War (two different series we did
simultaneously) to pay most of Mr. Carr's fees; what I got out of that was
the services of an intelligent man who would never have worked for me as a
"personal assistant" or secretary (and I could hardly blame him) but who was
content to be an editorial consultant.
Robert Asprin, as I understand it, did
well enough out of the Thieves World anthologies (I never contributed but he
had a stellar cast in the first couple of books, and some pretty good
regulars); but I am not familiar with just how much "good enough" is in the
context.
In any event the anthology market is
languishing now, and that includes shared world anthologies. I make no doubt
I could, with enough work including personal contributions, get a maximum of
$20,000 out of another War World original anthology, of which I would
get half with which to compensate myself and pay someone to do the
administration and editorial work (the rest going to the authors of the
stories).
Mr. Carr worked with beginning and
aspiring writers in War
World, and developed some pretty good authors, but that was in part a labor
of love and in part an investment; in any case I would not have time to do
that. Note that War World stories can't really be sold outside the War World
anthologies; it's not because my license prevents it, but because who would
buy them? My anthology buys first rights (the only way we can get a decent
advance), and later anthology rights are just plain hard to sell.
I might also be able to do another There
Will Be War for somewhat less per volume. (There Will Be War only paid for
reprint rights, although some stories in the anthologies were first printed
there.) With enough work and time investment I might be able to keep TWBW
going, but it would take time I don't have, and require someone like John
Carr, whose fees would consume just about all of my share; and I just don't
have the time or the creative energy. My contributions to those were not
trivial even if Mr. Carr did the majority of the work including
administration.
If "creative commons" is a set of
predefined license agreements I cannot see that it does any great harm, nor
all that much good either, and I really do not see what all the shouting is
about, either pro or con; or why either Dvorak or Hamit pay it much
attention. Clearly Francis Hamit pays more attention to such matters than I
do, and he has done yeoman service for all of us in this business; but so
far I find it hard to see why Creative Commons is anything to pay attention
to at all.
This is probably a failing on my part.
And see below
============
Subject: It's not unusual
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cycle.html?ei=5065&en=9e0e24b0c5ee1d90&ex=1125979200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
August 30, 2005
Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts
Say
By KENNETH CHANG <http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=KENNETH
CHANG&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=KENNETH CHANG&inline=nyt-per>
Because hurricanes form over warm
ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and
ferocity is because of global warming.
But that is not the case,
scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with
cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent
onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of
atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for
the hurricane season.
From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic
was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year
and none at all in three of those years. <snip> In 1995, hurricane patterns
reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32
major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater,
stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three
of them struck the United States at full strength.
Historically, the rate has been 1
in 3.
<snip>
"We were very lucky in that
eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.
Global warming may eventually
intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.
<snip>
Jim Woosley
Yet there are articles about Katrina and
Global Warming all over the newspapers.
====
From
August 30, 2005 Current Mail:
A 22-year-old man traveled from Nebraska to Kansas and
married a 14-year-old girl, with their parents' blessing, according to the
article. They have one child. He has now been arrested in Nebraska.
Roman boys and girls came of age at 14.
In 1915 the man who was to become my paternal
grandfather was a 22 year old "hired hand". The farmer for whom he worked
had a beautiful 14 year old daughter. Being a gentleman, William T. Smith of
Hughesville, Missouri asked Ora to marry him and then sought her father
Otis' permission.
They had eight children, nine grandchildren and lived
to see three great-grandchildren. I suppose I ought now be thankful there
was not a headline hungry State Attorney General in office in the State of
Missouri in 1915. Failing that it would be that I would not be.
What was that about "husband high"?
File under "no rest for the wicked, as they expend
effort endlessly"
Petronius The Arbiter Of Taste
"Boredom accounts for ninety-per cent of history. The
other ten-percent is too boring to study"
Careful lest you be arrested for
advocating child molesting; or for that matter, perhaps they will dig up Mr.
Smith and his father in law and have their bones cast in the river by the
common hangman. They can do the same with Mr. Durant. Did you expect The
State to mind its own business?
Incidentally, if the Full Faith and Credit
clause protects anyone... Was not the marriage legal in the state where it
was performed? In both cases? (But see below)
==================
Subject: Looting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131493/
Dr. Pournelle,
Perhaps I'm naive, but I was under the impression that
the police are not allowed to steal from private businesses? No?
Regards,
Mark Achord
When I was a lad there was a tornado in
Tupelo, Mississippi, and one of the first headlines I can remember (I must
have been about 4 at the time) was about National Guard and Army bayoneting
and shooting looters. I didn't understand it, and my father had to explain
the headline to me: what looters were, and why it was the job of the Army to
stop people like that.
But that was in the 30's and it would not
be politically correct now.
========
Oops.
http://www.newutah.com/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&file=article&sid=63269
- Roland Dobbins
Oops indeed. It's pretty awful so why am I
laughing...
==================
Subject: 2nd Ammendment Comment
Afternoon Jerry,
I couldn't let the sideswipe at the 2nd Amendment by
one of your 'enlightened' European correspondents to pass unchallenged. The
'conventional wisdom' that arms in the home are more likely to be used
against you, than used against an intruder, has been repeatedly debunked. If
you readers (or you) are interested, I'll be happy to provide detailed
references refuting those erroneous statements.
What prompts me to write is a more basic issue - it's
MY choice, not the government's or anyone else's business if I own a
firearm. Our own life is our one incontestable possession, and defending
that life is a fundamental right - not a civil right, a human right. Your
correspondent has the right to not own a firearm - that's his business. Yet
he has no right to tell a college student that she has to accept what
happens when a rapist breaks down the door, a driver that they have to 'call
the police' when a carjacker sits down beside them, or a wife that she can't
defend herself and her children from an estranged husband when he arrives at
2 in the morning and grabs a butcher knife.
In the best case, police response is 12
minutes...assuming that the phone lines weren't cut, that the criminal gives
the victim time to call the police, and that E911 works and sends the
response to the correct address. More often the police prevent a second
murder by catching someone after they commit the first one. Don't even
mention restraining orders - someone bent on committing a capital crime,
doesn't give a hoot about ignoring a piece of paper that the Police
(according to a recent Supreme Court decision) aren't even obligated to
enforce.
Take a look at the statistics: The states (and
countries) with the most restrictive firearms ownership laws have the
highest, and rising, crime rates. The violent crime rate in Great Britain
has grown so far, so fast since confiscation occurred that there's now a
growing call to return the human right of self defense to the subjects of
the crown. The states with shall-issue carry laws have enjoyed lower, and
declining violent crime rates. A good friend of mine comments 'An armed
society is a polite society'.
When Washington, D.C., New York or California has the
same violent crime rates as Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, or New Hampshire,
then the control advocates might - just might - have something to talk
about.
Until then, how dare they tell me that I have to be a
victim. How dare they!
Best Regards,
Doug
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
I see that from the Brits and other
Europeans so often I don't notice any longer. We can also keep and arm
bears... I am a bit astonished that Britain, where yeomanry was important in
winning and keeping civil liberties -- the barons didn't dare be too
oppressive, and remember Robin and the Greenwood -- has allowed itself to be
so thoroughly disarmed. Actually it's the Brits who are disarmed. The
invaders are armed well enough.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
