In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
GOA Says Brady Campaign 'Grasping at Straws'
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Pro-Gun Group Says Brady Campaign 'Grasping at Straws'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
August 30, 2002
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - A press release issued Thursday by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) shows just how desperate the group is to claim support for its position, according to one of the country's leading advocacy groups for gun owners.
"They're totally grasping at straws here," said Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA). "They've got the news 'fact' that gun sales may be down and so they're trying to put the best spin possible on this. It's just laughable."
The Brady Campaign referred to a report published by "Shooting Industry," the firearms manufacturing industry's "business magazine since 1955." In the report, editor Russ Thurman noted a six percent drop in the manufacture of new firearms by U.S. companies between 1999 and 2000.
"While gun manufacturers like to claim 'victory' after a short-lived spike in handgun sales after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the data shows otherwise,' the Brady Campaign claimed. "The truth is, despite industry hype following Sept. 11, fewer Americans bought handguns in 2001 than in previous years."
The press release noted that the FBI reported performing fewer background checks for gun purchases in 2001 than in 2000. But Pratt says that only means there were fewer government monitored transactions, not fewer sales.
"You're always going to have a certain percentage of the gun buying population that simply does not want to put their names on a government list," he explained. "Many law abiding citizens will purchase firearms privately to avoid a background check, which they fear only provokes harassment and intimidation by anti-gun bureaucrats in the government.
"The fact is that guns are very plentiful in this country," Pratt noted. "Over 40 percent of the households have guns in them."
He said the Brady Campaign engaged in "Enron-style massaging of the numbers" to support its case, failing to mention significant data from the Shooting Industry report.
Of the top three handgun manufacturers in 2000, two saw an increase, not a drop in sales. While Smith & Wesson's sales fell by 21 percent, sales of Ruger handguns increased 11 percent and Bryco Arms saw a 71 percent increase in its sales.
The number of firearms imported to the U.S. also rose five and a half percent from 2000 to 2001, accounting for an additional 1.4 million new firearms available to U.S. consumers.
Even if the Brady Campaign's claims were true, Pratt insisted, they would still not support the conclusion that fewer Americans were choosing to arm themselves against criminals.
"If there were fewer refrigerators sold last year because we were in an economic downturn, and fewer cars sold, and fewer stereos," he asked, "what does that then suggest about the claim that there were fewer guns sold? Is there some kind of 'victory' in fewer of everything being sold?"
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for the years 1999 and 2000 indicate that consumer spending was, in fact, down in 28 of the 45 discretionary spending categories monitored by the government.
Pratt said the most contentious claim made by the Brady Campaign was its accusation that gun manufacturers tried to capitalize on the terrorist attacks on the United States.
"After Sept. 11, the gun industry took advantage of a [sic] understandably fearful public to try to sell more guns," said Mike Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign.
Pratt told CNSNews.com he was not surprised that the group would make such a claim.
"They can be shameless," Pratt said, arguing that both gun dealers and their customers were "responding logically" to the threats made evident by the attacks, and by videotapes showing al Qaeda members armed with only firearms practicing attacks on civilian targets.
"People didn't know what was going to be next," he explained. "One day it was airplanes, the next day it could be office buildings or homes. They just wanted to be able to defend themselves."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200208\NAT20020830a.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
August 30, 2002
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - A press release issued Thursday by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) shows just how desperate the group is to claim support for its position, according to one of the country's leading advocacy groups for gun owners.
"They're totally grasping at straws here," said Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA). "They've got the news 'fact' that gun sales may be down and so they're trying to put the best spin possible on this. It's just laughable."
The Brady Campaign referred to a report published by "Shooting Industry," the firearms manufacturing industry's "business magazine since 1955." In the report, editor Russ Thurman noted a six percent drop in the manufacture of new firearms by U.S. companies between 1999 and 2000.
"While gun manufacturers like to claim 'victory' after a short-lived spike in handgun sales after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the data shows otherwise,' the Brady Campaign claimed. "The truth is, despite industry hype following Sept. 11, fewer Americans bought handguns in 2001 than in previous years."
The press release noted that the FBI reported performing fewer background checks for gun purchases in 2001 than in 2000. But Pratt says that only means there were fewer government monitored transactions, not fewer sales.
"You're always going to have a certain percentage of the gun buying population that simply does not want to put their names on a government list," he explained. "Many law abiding citizens will purchase firearms privately to avoid a background check, which they fear only provokes harassment and intimidation by anti-gun bureaucrats in the government.
"The fact is that guns are very plentiful in this country," Pratt noted. "Over 40 percent of the households have guns in them."
He said the Brady Campaign engaged in "Enron-style massaging of the numbers" to support its case, failing to mention significant data from the Shooting Industry report.
Of the top three handgun manufacturers in 2000, two saw an increase, not a drop in sales. While Smith & Wesson's sales fell by 21 percent, sales of Ruger handguns increased 11 percent and Bryco Arms saw a 71 percent increase in its sales.
The number of firearms imported to the U.S. also rose five and a half percent from 2000 to 2001, accounting for an additional 1.4 million new firearms available to U.S. consumers.
Even if the Brady Campaign's claims were true, Pratt insisted, they would still not support the conclusion that fewer Americans were choosing to arm themselves against criminals.
"If there were fewer refrigerators sold last year because we were in an economic downturn, and fewer cars sold, and fewer stereos," he asked, "what does that then suggest about the claim that there were fewer guns sold? Is there some kind of 'victory' in fewer of everything being sold?"
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for the years 1999 and 2000 indicate that consumer spending was, in fact, down in 28 of the 45 discretionary spending categories monitored by the government.
Pratt said the most contentious claim made by the Brady Campaign was its accusation that gun manufacturers tried to capitalize on the terrorist attacks on the United States.
"After Sept. 11, the gun industry took advantage of a [sic] understandably fearful public to try to sell more guns," said Mike Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign.
Pratt told CNSNews.com he was not surprised that the group would make such a claim.
"They can be shameless," Pratt said, arguing that both gun dealers and their customers were "responding logically" to the threats made evident by the attacks, and by videotapes showing al Qaeda members armed with only firearms practicing attacks on civilian targets.
"People didn't know what was going to be next," he explained. "One day it was airplanes, the next day it could be office buildings or homes. They just wanted to be able to defend themselves."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200208\NAT20020830a.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Charles Seibel
boca raton
Posted August 29 2002
Email story
Print story
MORE HEADLINES
PLAY BALL!
Reno fashions folksy campaign, says she won't dodge controversy
Dolly has hurricane experts kind of `scratching our heads'
Polling changes anger voters
South Florida records first case of West Nile
Thomas Sowell's vitriolic Aug. 16 column makes four claims, all of which are false or misleading.
1. Rent control does work. Of course, New York's rents are higher than other cities, but they would be even higher if it weren't for rent control.
2. Gun control does work. Houston, with lax laws, has more gun-related deaths every year than Japan and Great Britain combined, both of which ban handguns.
3. How dare Sowell suggest that the purpose of AIDS education is to "propagandize in favor of accepting homosexuality and adopting the gay political agenda"? No further comment needed.
4. Sowell lumps all "nonprofit" organizations together, decries the salaries paid to their heads and accuses them of being "fountainheads of propaganda." Is he prepared to list, "Some of the biggest and phoniest scares of our time have come from nonprofit organizations, crying wolf in order to raise money."
Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Has he told the head of that worthy organization that he is overpaid?
While I seldom agree with Sowell's politics and opinions, heretofore, I have found him to be rational. The same cannot be said of this column.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-pbmail716aug29.story?coll=sfla-news-letters
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by
Larry Pratt
In a previous column I wrote about the blatantly un-Constitutional program known as Project Exile which has been enthusiastically endorsed by Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich, a Republican, who is running for governor in Maryland.
Ehrlich has said that Project Exile has "worked" in Richmond, Virginia; thus, it will work in Maryland. And, in a letter-to-the-editor in the Roll Call newspaper (1/28/02), Jim Kessler, Policy and Research Director of Americans For Gun Safety, says Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, has "reduced gun crime dramatically."
Well -- you guessed it -- none of this is true.
An article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper (4/01/02) says that, according to a study by the liberal Brookings Institution, "the highly touted Project Exile had little to do with a decline in Richmond's firearm homicide rate.... The researchers found that the drop in gun homicide rates after the implementation of Project Exile in 1997 was not unusual. They say it would have been likely to occur without it."
In other words, enforcing the existing gun laws -- the core of Project Exile -- has no impact on crime.
In fact, GOA found that the murder rate in Richmond began to decline two years before Project Exile began -- when a concealed firearm carry law went into effect.
Now, what's exceptionally interesting about the Brookings study -- which examined gun homicides in Richmond and other East Coast cities from 1990 to 1999 -- is that it was done by two pro-gun-control individuals: University of California at Berkeley Professor Steven Raphael and Jens Ludwig, a professor at Georgetown University.
The Times-Dispatch quotes Professor Ludwig as saying, about Richmond's Project Exile: "I'm actually surprised that we didn't see an 'Exile' effect. I thought there would be something there.... The question is, did the crime trend in Richmond look any different than what you would have expected in the absence of 'Exile'?.... Did crime go down by more in Richmond than you would have expected by looking at what was going on in other cities at the same time?" The answer to that, says Professor Ludwig, is: "No."
OK. So, what is Rep. Ehrlich's evidence that Richmond's Project Exile has "worked"? Well, when asked this question, one piece of evidence supplied by his Congressional office is a copy of an article written by Austin Banks about Project Exile in New Orleans, Louisiana. In this piece, Banks, Public Information Officer for the ATF's Field Division in New Orleans, says: "Local authorities credit Project Exile with playing a big role in knocking down the crime rate in New Orleans."
But, alas, there's nothing in Banks' article about the "crime rate" in New Orleans. So, we contact Banks and ask him: "What data do you have, before and after Project Exile, which shows that this program has played 'a big role' in reducing crime committed by people with guns?" Banks replies, incredibly, that he has no such data.
Q: "Are you aware of anybody who has any data to support what you wrote?"
A: (pause) "I don't know. You can do your own research."
OK. So, we do our own research. We call and interview Sgt. Paul Accardo who works in Public Affairs at the New Orleans Police Department. We ask him about crimes committed with guns in two categories: murders (98 percent of which are with guns) and armed robbery. We ask for data before and after Project Exile in his city which began in early 1999. Here's what he told us:
Murders: 1994, 425; 1995, 364, down 14.35 percent; 1996, 350, down 4.37 percent; 1997, 266, down 24 percent; 1998, 230, down 13.53 percent; 1999, 159, down, 30.87 percent.
Hmmmmmm. Do you see any "big role" played here by Project Exile in "knocking down the crime rate"? Nope. For five years prior to Exile, the murder rate was in a steady decline.
OK. Now, armed robberies: 1994, 3916; 1995, 4267; 1996, 4509; 1997, 2999; 1998, 2195; 1999, 1981.
Again, do you see any "big role" here played by Project Exile? Neither do I. What I do see is armed robberies declining before Project the same as the murder rate.
Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich, the Republican candidate for governor in Maryland, says that Marylanders have told him they are worried about "the quality of leadership" in the Free State. He says Marylanders are looking for "a new direction" in the way their state government is run. He says he believes the citizens of his state "want to be able to trust their leaders."
If all of this is true -- and who can disagree with such glittering generalities -- then Ehrlich ought to forget about Project Exile. The program has been an un-Constitutional flop. And by enthusiastically advocating Project Exile, and vowing to bring it to Maryland, Ehrlich has certainly not shown a "new direction" for Maryland.
Hopefully Ehrlich will find a truly new direction and put Project Exile in File 13.
http://www.gunowners.org/op0239.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Go directly to the AutoEmail
Get this alert in PDF format If you do not have Adobe Reader
Click here to get Yours FREE
Americans for Gun Safety is at it again, this time concerning HB 1744 and SB 1434, the Medical Records Disclosure Act. Their puppet organization, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (www.ncgv.org), is distorting a recent shooting in Roanoke Rapids to pressure the General Assembly.
In the incident, a man depressed over a recent marital separation, stole a rifle from his father and goaded the police into shooting him. His family believes it to be a "suicide by cop" incident.
NCGV says of this incident, "A fatal shooting in Roanoke Rapids this past weekend in which a mentally ill man was in possession of firearms demonstrates that we need to modernize our background check system to insure that the dangerous mentally ill cannot obtain firearms."
There are several problems with their argument:
There is no evidence that he had ever been involuntarily committed to an institution as would be required for HB 1744 to apply.
According to WNVN TV 20: "Family members say he was in a state of depression from a recent separation from his wife."
This would seem to indicate that this was a situational depression rather than an ongoing mental illness for which he would have been previously involuntarily committed.
The firearm he was in possession of was stolen from another individual. THE GUN WASN'T EVEN HIS!
WNVN TV 20: "It all started when his mother called 9-1-1 to alert them that Bennett had taken a bottle of painkillers and was armed with his father's rifle."
There is no way that any background check system could have prevented this act of suicide!
WNVN TV 20: "I think he wanted this...he wanted police to shoot him to put him at peace." said Bennett's father Roy Thomas.
Tell the NC General Assembly that NCGV is lying to them and you know it!
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
At a minimum, contact the following leaders in the NC House and Senate:
Speaker Jim Black
Jimb@ncleg.net
919-733-3451
Representative Phil Baddour,
Majority Leader
Philb@ncleg.net
919-715-0850
Representative Bill Culpepper,
Rules Chairman
Billc@ncleg.net
919-715-3028 Senator Marc Basnight,
President Pro Tem
Marcb@ncleg.net
919-733-6854
Senator Tony Rand,
Majority Leader
Tonyr@ncleg.net
919-733-9892
Senator Kay Hagan,
Judiciary II Chairperson
Kayh@ncleg.net
919-733-5856
Deliver this message: (or go to the AutoEmail)
Dear Representative:
Do not be drawn in by the falsehoods being promoted by North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV) concerning the death of Tommy Bennett in Roanoke Rapids. HB 1744 and SB 1434, the Medical Records Disclosure Act, would not have prevented him from stealing his father's rifle and goading police into shooting him.
NCGV and their parent organization, Americans for Gun Safety, are lying to you. Show them that you are not as gullible as they take you to be. Do NOT give a committee hearing to HB 1744 or SB 1434.
Respectfully,
Copyright c 2001 Grass Roots North Carolina P.O. 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605
Non-commercial reproduction and distribution is permitted so long as this statement is included. All other uses prohibited.
Every 13 seconds
an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal.
Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: 1610089
Gun defenses since January 1, 2002.
Date and Time Now: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:12:46 AM
http://www.grnc.org/alerts/alert8_29_02.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
c St. Petersburg Times
published August 30, 2002
Re: Big gun, bigger controversy, Aug. 27, and A startling arsenal, editorial, Aug. 28.
First off let me make it clear that I in no way support the activities of Dr. Robert Goldstein. But at the same time I am 100 percent against any further restriction on firearms purchases. What needs to be investigated is where Goldstein got the explosives and (especially) the light anti-armor weapons (both of which are illegal). There is no need for further restrictions on law-abiding citizens owning firearms whether it be a .50-caliber rifle or a BB gun. Gun owners who have these rifles use them for long-range target shooting not, as the St. Petersburg Times would have you believe, shooting Bank of America building windows from Raymond James Stadium.
This arsenal of Goldstein also goes to show that laws restricting items, i.e. explosives, don't always work because the black market always exists as long as there is a buyer. Why not change focus and make stiffer penalties for individuals found possessing or dealing in these restricted items and leave law-abiding gun owners (hunters, those interested in self-defense, and target shooters) alone to enjoy their hobby.
-- Craig Smith, Clearwater
Trying to frighten people
Re: Big gun, bigger controversy, Aug. 27.
I can only guess from this article that you are trying to frighten the citizenry or to provoke anger toward those who choose to have weapons. Before I go any further I believe that bombs or rocket launchers have no place in our neighborhoods whatsoever, but your discourse seems to center around the .50-caliber weapon. I saw nowhere in your article any statistics on how many citizens in the United States were killed or maimed in the last year by a .50-caliber weapon, but I would guess that more people were killed or maimed by fireworks. By the way, fireworks are against the law in the state of Florida, but our powers that be let people buy and sell them with no apparent repercussions.
Any kind of a weapon is not a threat in itself. It is only a threat when man exercises his evil and wicked intentions. That's when harm comes to his fellow man. If you could manage to change a man's inner self (soul) then his intentions would change.
I don't propose to say that aircraft are evil and should be abolished merely because some demented human beings chose to use them as tools of destruction as was done on Sept. 11.
You are right about one thing: It is a big gun. So what?
-- Bud Trill, Palm Harbor
Firearms are already very restricted
Re: A startling arsenal, editorial, Aug. 28.
This hyperbolic response to the recent discovery of a cache of military weapons in Seminole is illustrative of the way in which liberals and gun-control advocates react. I suspect that Dr. Robert Goldstein's case is more one of man-bites-dog.
Times editors fear that privately owned arms of this sort represent a horrific risk to the community -- I maintain that this sort of cache is an anomaly. Because the image of these weapons brings to mind the ugliness of 21st century barbarism, they make great fodder for journalists who'd prefer no private arms ownership at all, or at least much greater restrictions than those already in place.
The fact is that firearms already rank among the most restricted products available to consumers -- despite the clear intent of the Bill of Rights. The weapons owned by Seminole's infamous podiatrist require special federal licensing already; the plastic explosives he possessed are not available for private ownership under any legal standard I'm aware of.
Gun ownership by the mentally unfit is already illegal. No amount of paper-pushing or new legislation will protect us entirely from the risk of someone such as Dr. Goldstein.
The much greater risk to Floridians, and all Americans, is the daily threat that some miscreant released early from our prison system will inflict violence on unsuspecting citizens again. Today's criminal recidivism is a much more likely threat than a podiatrist run amok. The NRA has been alerting the public to this for years, but the Times is more concerned about the weapons owned by a mentally unstable doctor.
-- Jim Parker, Tampa
Weapon shouldn't be sold to the public
Re: A startling arsenal.
Dr. Robert Goldstein's very dangerous arsenal also had a very dangerous firearm that the Times only briefly mentioned. The Barrett .50-caliber sniper rife is literally a weapon of mass destruction. Specialty ammunition for various military purposes is available at most gun shows, including incendiary rounds that can explode the fuel tanks on an airplane from thousands of yards. Helicopters have been shot down by this weapon -- to only mention a only few of the things it's capable of. This is a military weapon that should not be sold to the public, where it can easily migrate into the hands of people with evil intent.
This weapon is the darling of the militia and other antigovernment groups, including those who collect guns such as Robert Goldstein. It can be purchased at many Florida guns show for about $2,500, and in some cases without a background check. The National Rifle Association continues to fight efforts to ban this very dangerous weapon.
During the 2003 Legislature, my organization will sponsor legislation to ban this weapon in Florida. If we don't do something to bring some sanity back into how we allow the public to arm themselves, we will one day have a tragedy much like the one Goldstein was planning.
-- Arthur C. Hayhoe, executive director, Floridians for Gun Safety, Inc., Wesley Chapel
Prejudice is revealed
The news of the alleged plot by podiatrist Robert Goldstein to blow up 50 mosques and Islamic centers in Central Florida is undoubtedly horrifying. What is more horrifying, however, is the scandalous complacency, indifference and insensitivity with which the news was handled by our government officials and our news media.
President Bush, who has been so vocal and prompt in expressing strong condemnation whenever a civilian Israeli is killed, responded with total silence. Or is it unrealistic to expect such concern since the potential victims would have been only a few thousand Muslim worshipers and schoolchildren?
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is ultimately responsible for assuring the safety and security of all Americans, showed similar disregard to innocent human lives by choosing to remain silent. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, as Ashcroft's actions since Sept. 11 show that his definition of terrorism is any criminal act committed by someone with Middle Eastern features or a Muslim name.
Equally appalling is the way the news media have responded to the news of the planned terrorist attack. If the name of the perpetrator had been Ahmed or Ali instead of Goldstein, we would have seen this story on the front page of every major newspaper and every TV station every day for the next month. Speculations would have been rampant about the possible connections to terrorist organizations and possible ties to foreign countries. But since the suspect is called Goldstein, this very serious planned act of terror was reduced to an isolated action by a mentally deranged man.
The St. Petersburg Times was quick to report that this man is not a practicing Jew and that recently he was seen wearing a cross on his chest. If this man's name was Mohammed, I am very sure the Times would not have hesitated to brand him as an "Islamic terrorist."
This event has uncovered the depth of prejudice and bigotry against Islam and Muslims in America today.
-- Amy Mahmaljy, Spring Hill
Acts of violence cannot be tolerated
Re: Robert Goldstein.
The Florida Holocaust Museum opposes anyone who intentionally targets innocent men, women and children for death. Therefore, we denounce in the strongest possible terms the recently discovered alleged plot by Robert Goldstein to harm Muslim houses of worship.
Any plan to use violence against another faith or ethnic group -- indeed, a house of worship, is terrorism, plain and simple. The Florida Holocaust Museum cannot remain silent on the issue of racism, bigotry and prejudice, a promise we have made to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust.
The alleged act for which Goldstein is charged does not represent a legitimate form of political expression and we condemn it without equivocation. We commend local and federal law enforcement agencies for their prompt and vigorous actions, which have averted a possible tragedy.
-- Lawrence D. Wasser, executive director, Florida Holocaust Museum, St. Petersburg
Security: Assess all or none
Re: Authorities look deeper into alleged plot, Aug. 27.
The thought of Gov. Jeb Bush implementing an assessment of security on mosques is at least alarming. It should be all houses of worship or none. There have been many instances when Baptist churches and Churches of the Later Day Saints have been defaced or burned without the state becoming involved.
It is interesting to see the division of church and state requiring the removal of prayer and the pledge of allegiance from public gatherings and schools and then to see the state attempt to enact the use of tax dollars provided by citizens of all faiths to implement security measures for the shrines of a single faith. Churches now, private industry tomorrow? How about security assessments for all townhouse owners who have apparently normal neighbors? Do all podiatry patients need flak vests provided at government expense?
There are many private companies that provide consultation and security for private industries such as convenience stores. In a job market and economic atmosphere such as exists today, should the state be competing with companies that provide security?
-- Tommi Houston, Dunedin
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/30/Opinion/Doctor_s_arsenal_is_n.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878