You see in my hand, a Colt

Advertisers and Sponsors of Sixgunner.Com™
Belt Mountain - Bowen Classic Arms - Cheyenne Pioneer Products - Cosby Custom Guns - Deep South Equipment
Freedom Arms - Garrett Cartridges - Power Custom - Reeder Custom Guns - Sixguns - Sixgun Sites
Sixgunner.Org - Single Action 45's

Gun Control

Shortly after Marcia and I married, she asked me to write a speech for her classes. The kids had been bugging her to get an outside speaker to give them some examples of speech making, getting out of some class time probably figured into the equation also. Needless to say, I decided to make a speech on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and it was a persuasive speech. After the speech, there was always a question and answer period. Students would ask about what to do in certain situations and what they could legally do. During the course of the Q&A, various pistols would appear, as if from no where to drive home certain points, mainly never take your eyes off a person you are holding for the police, and never assume a person is unarmed. On speech days, I opened the speech by pulling my Colt Officer's ACP from under my coat. During the Q&A period , various other firearms would appear. A derringer from the shirt pocket, a 5.5" Super Blackhawk from opposite the Officer's ACP, a 4" M-686 from the small of the back with one hand and a 3" .44 Bulldog from the small of the back with the other hand. My old Iver Johnson TP-22 usually found it's way into a coat pocket, and an ancient S&W .32 Hand Ejector would be in the other. the front pants pockets would have S&W J-frames, an M-49 in one and an M-640 in the other. In one boot top would be an 8" M-1851 Colt Navy revolver and in the other would be a Ruger Single-Six. And somewhere, usually the inside coat pocket, there'd be an old Hungarian .32 ACP clone of the Walther PP. I gave the speech five to seven times per semester for five years to classes averaging about 30 people. All told, my cumulative audience amounted to a little under 2,000 people. I don't fool myself into thinking I made lots of converts to the cause, but I did sway some who were on the fence, and I had a lot of fun doing it.

The speech was written in 1990, so some of the figures are out of date, and all the studies are getting a bit long in the tooth, but I will stand by the facts and the general sense of things even today. I have not updated the figures for things like the number of police on patrol, nor have I updated things like the British ban on handguns. The speech is pretty much as I gave it 1990-1995. If nothing else, this ms will prove I've always been a long winded old fart.

Larry "Doc" Hudson

You see in my hand, a Colt .45 ACP caliber semi-automatic pistol. It is a variant of the pistol which has faithfully served millions of American servicemen, and lawmen through two world wars, two major "police actions", and countless lesser actions and gunfights for the last 80 years and more.

It is nothing more or less than a tool of carved wood and forged steel. What is inherently evil or fear inspiring about this piece of wood and steel?

In this hand, I hold another tool of wood and steel, an ordinary ball-peen hammer. Is it any less fearsome than the pistol I just showed you? Yet a few blocks from here, a man was brutally murdered with a hammer just like this one.

For many years, Pro-Gunners have responded to Anti-Gunners with the slogan "Guns don’t kill people – People kill people." There is a lot of truth in that tired old cliché. Over the years I’ve heard of murder weapons that range from items as mundane as the hammer I showed you, to things as exotic as a sausage, frozen and sharpened, used to stab a person to death, the murderer then ate the murder weapon. Then there was the fellow operating a crane in a zoo that intentionally dropped a sick elephant on a former employer. Or the woman, I won’t call her a lady who bludgeoned her husband to death with a frozen turkey. Then there is the man who accidentally dropped his bowling ball on his wife’s head…sixteen times.

No firearm has ever injured or killed anything of it’s own volition, without outside action by someone, either intentionally or through negligence.

The controversy surrounding the new law allowing concealed weapons permits – the so-called "Gunslinger Bill" – especially the attacks by law enforcement officials, elected officials, and the media has moved me to speak out in defense of what our Founding Fathers considered to be a "God-Given Right" -- the right to keep and bear arms.

Some of you may well be what is widely known as "Gun Nuts" I am not addressing my remarks to you. That would be like preaching to the choir. Some of you may have some deeply held emotional or philosophical abhorrence about firearms. I am not talking to you either. I could no more change your minds in a few minutes than you could change mine. My remarks are directed to the larger group, those of you who have no strong feeling one way or the other -- the great undecided majority.

In the next few minutes, I shall address three points in the Gun Control Debate. First I will briefly address the Anti-Gun concept that most murderers are ordinary citizens. Second I will examine the myth of police protection. And third, I will give some examples of Gun Control at work. I would like to end my speech by offering a course of action that you can take. This course of action will allow you to take control of your rights and allow you to a have a say in what happens to you.

You may be wondering what my sources and qualifications are for such a speech as this. Most of my facts and figures come from the published works of Gary Kleck, a well-known criminologist from Florida State University. Other information comes from articles by Don B. Cates, a writer, civil liberties attorney, criminologist, and professor of Constitutional Law. Still other information comes from over twenty years of personal study and research in the field of firearms, firearms laws, and the application of lethal force.

Now lets jump into the Gun Control debate. We will start with the Gun Control advocates contention that murderers are ordinary citizens with a weapon and a temper.

For years, Gun Control advocates have said that most murder victims either know or are related to their murderers. Unfortunately, this is true – most murder victims do know their murderers. That does not mean however that most murderers are ordinary citizens "rather than hardened criminals – unless you happen to think that hardened criminals do not have families or acquaintances." In fact, FBI records show 67.7% of arrested murder suspects have prior arrest records, many for a previous murder.

In family homicides, a recent study by the Department of Justice has found that in 85% of domestic homicides, police had been called at least once in the preceding two years to stop a beating or other family disturbance. In 59% of the cases, the police had been called in FIVE or more times.

The term "acquaintance homicide" is so broad as to include (far more typically) an addict killing his dealer to rip him off, loan sharks killing non-paying customers, and gang members and drug dealers killing each other in turf disputes. Many of the remaining murderers in this group have long histories of violence even if they did not have an actual police record. We all have known bullies and tough guys. These are the sort of folks who often push someone too hard and their victim dies, or they push the wrong person too far and they end up dead.

So much for Joe Cool – Ordinary Citizen as a depraved would be murderer just waiting for a chance to blast someone with his "Magnum."

The second point we will examine is the Gun Control Advocates theory that we do not need firearms for self-defense. They claim the police are there to protect us.

The greatest lie offered to the American Public by Gun Control Advocates is the myth of Police Protection. Let us examine this myth both by physical and legal limitations.

Have you ever asked yourself, "Where the heck is a cop when you need one?" Here is the answer to that question.

To begin with, there are roughly 550,00 policemen in this country. That includes local, county, state, and Federal law enforcement. To get an idea of how many are available at any time, lets divide that number by four – for three shifts plus officers on leave, out sick, in court, regular days off, etc.

That leaves us with 137,500 policemen on duty at any one time. This still does not give us an idea of how many are available at any one time for patrol, so lets divide that number by two – that takes into account administrators, clerical workers, jailers, lab techs, juvenile officers and any of a dozen or more specialties that take people off the streets and keep them in offices. That leaves us with 68,750 officers on patrol.

68,750 officers to patrol and protect a population of more than 225 million citizens. That amounts to ONE officer for every 3,272 people.

Now you know why you can never find a policeman when you need one.

I know that there are some jurisdictions with higher police to population rations, and there are some with even lower police to population ratios, but this is the National Average, One cop to police and protect 3,272 citizens.

But even if there were 50 times more policemen, a call to the police can’t result in protection as fast as an armed citizen can protect himself. Criminologist Edward Leddy, a former NYPD officer recounts the occasion when he waited 20 minutes for backup in response to an "officer needs assistance" call. This is the highest priority of any radio call of all, and within the city with the largest police department in the country. How long would it take for help to arrive if you call to report a burglary in progress, especially in a rural area?

You may not know it, but in the United States, the police have no legal duty to protect individuals. Under our system, police do not prevent crime directly, but indirectly through patrol and apprehension after a crime has occurred. Furthermore, states and cities are legally relieved of the duty to protect citizens either through statute law, or through legal precedent , case law.

Let us first look at Statute Law and the protections offered cities, states and police departments. Most states, which have enacted statutes in this matter, follow the form of California Government Code Section 821,845, 846 and Illinois Revised Statutes 4-102, which provides that:

Neither a public entity nor a public Employee (may be sued) for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, or failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.

Those states that do not have such statutes are provided protection through precedents set in cases such as Riss vs. City of New York and Warren vs. District of Columbia. Let’s look briefly at these cases.

The first case is, Riss vs. City of New York. Linda Riss’s rejected suitor terrorized her for six months with threats of murder or mutilation if she did not yield to him. "Linda, if I can’t have you, I will make it so no one else wants you. I’ll slash that pretty face or throw acid in it and make you so ugly no one else will want you. You are mine, and I won’t let anyone else have you." Her repeated and "almost pathetic" pleas to the NYPD for aid "received little more than indifference." "He ain’t broke no laws yet lady. We can’t do anythin’." On June 14, 1959, while attending a party to announce her engagement to another man, Linda Riss received a phone call warning her that it was her "Last Chance." "If I can’t have you I’ll make sure no one else wants you." Fearing for her life, she again begged the police for help. Again, she was refused. "He still ain’t broke no laws. We can’t do nut’in’." The next day, June 15, 1959, a hired thug threw a bottle of lye in her face, blinding one eye, seriously impairing the vision in her other eye, and permanently and horribly scarring her face.

Linda Riss sued the City of New York and its police department. The case went all the way to the State Supreme Court, where a majority opinion dismissed the case "because the police have no duty to protect individuals."

Now let’s examine a second case, Warren vs. District of Columbia. Here we have two young women upstairs listening to their roommate being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. They called the police for help. In fact, they called for help three times. After half an hour, their roommate’s screams ceased, they assumed the police had arrived and apprehended or scared off the intruders. They went downstairs to help their roommate. But they were wrong Ladies and Gentlemen. They were terribly, terribly wrong. You see, in the hustle and hurry of a busy precinct, their desperate cry for help had been lost. For the next fourteen hours, these three young women, and the ten-year-old son of one, were held captive. They were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other and to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.

Following this terrible ordeal, the three young women sued the District of Columbia Police Department for negligence and failure to protect. The US District Court for the District of Columbia, in a unanimous opinion, exonerated the District of Columbia and its Police department, "following the fundamental principle of American Law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

So Ladies and Gentlemen, if any elected official, sheriff, or chief of police tells you that a private citizen does not need a firearm for self-protection, they are telling you a bald faced lie. They are lying, either through unforgivable ignorance or they are lying intentionally in order to deceive.

You see Gun Control does not work. No if’s, and’s, but’s or maybe’s about it, Gun Control flat does not work. Here are a few examples of the results of Gun Control from across the country and around the world.

1. We will start with Massachusetts – famous for Kennedy’s, baked beans and Dukakis. In 1976, Massachusetts enacted the Bartley-Fox Act, which among other things provides for a mandatory one-year prison sentence for any one carrying a firearm without a license. In that year, 1976, Massachusetts ranked as the 19^th Most Violent State, and Boston was the 5^th Most Violent City in the USA. By 1981, after Bartley-Fox had been in effect for five years, Massachusetts ranked as the 11^th Most Violent State, and Boston was ranked as THE MOST VIOLENT CITY IN THE COUNTRY. Bartley-Fox sure made the streets safer

2. Now on to New York City, The Big Apple -- Since the passage of the Sullivan Act in 1911, New York City has had one of the toughest gun control laws in the country. I don’t think I need to say anything about the legendary proportions of New York’s crime problems. However, I can’t help mentioning the recent incident in which a young visitor attending the US Open Tennis Championships was stabbed to death in the subway resulted in Mayor David Dinkins calling for stricter gun control. The young man was stabbed to death with a knife, and Mayor Dinkins called for more gun control. If you can figure out how stricter gun controls will prevent muggers from stabbing people, I’d appreciate an explanation.

3. Washington, D.C. – our Nations political and murder capitol. Effective on January 1, 1976, no firearm not registered in the city prior to December 31, 1975 could be brought into the city. Furthermore, no legally owned firearm may be kept assembled or loaded for the purpose of defense in any home or business in the city. In the period 1976-1982, violent crime in the District of Columbia increased by 43% and the murder rate increased by 14%. During the same time period, National Crime Statistics 20% and 3% increases respectively. Crime has run rampant, with drugs being sold in the shadow of the White House, and for over a year the city hovered on the verge of martial law.

4. On now to California – the land of nuts, cults, whackos, Charlie Manson, and serial killers. There, in spite of their stringent 15 day waiting period, and background investigation before every firearm purchase, gangs and individual criminals rule the night in many areas, and honest law abiding citizens walk in fear even by the light of day.

5. Crossing the Pacific, we come to Taiwan, home of cheap electronics and even cheaper clothes. Some ten years ago, Taiwan banned private ownership of handguns. Since that time, their handgun murder rate has grown to be twice that of the United States.

6. The United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, also known as England or Great Britain has long been pointed out by Gun Control Advocates as an ideal. Even the police don’t carry guns. Handguns cannot be legally kept in the home, and long guns (rifles and shotguns) must be disassembled. The Gun Control Advocates point to these tough gun control laws as the reason for Britain’s low crime rate. They fail to mention three points. First, the crime rates were even lower prior to the imposition of the first gun control laws in 1920. Secondly, the gun control laws were not intended to lessen crime, but to limit access to firearms by Irish Revolutionaries. Thirdly, they fail to mention Britain’s growing violent crime rate. The firearms homicide rate doubled between 1960 and 1975. And handgun related robberies increased by 700% from 1974 to 1986, compared to a 17% decrease in the US during the same period.

7. And finally, to Jamaica, a tropical paradise according to the travel guides. Their Travel and Tourism Council invites us to, "Coom ta de islands mon!" Go if you can, enjoy your self. But before you go, double, triple and quadruple check your luggage. Make sure there is not one single shotgun shell or .22 LR cartridge left in the lining from your last hunting trip. You see, in 1974, Jamaica outlawed private ownership of all firearms and all ammunition. Possession of a single cartridge may be punished by life imprisonment. A couple of years ago, a young American visited Jamaica. While riding one of the back roads in a jeep with a Jamaican, the jeep was stopped. Both occupants were arrested and locked up because the constable spotted a single shotgun shell in the floorboards. It took two months and over $20,000.00 to pry the young man out of a filthy Jamaican prison and get him back to the USA. By 1980, after six years of this draconian gun prohibition, Jamaica had six times as many handgun homicides as Washington, D.C. How things now stand in that unhappy land, I do not know.

But what about the other side of the coin, what about the countries that allow gun ownership? The four countries with the highest firearms ownership per capita – Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Israel – have very low crime and murder rates.

Switzerland, where nearly every home has a fully automatic assault rifle in the closet, has one of the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world. It is even lower than either Great Britain or Japan, were firearms are prohibited and even knives and swords must be registered.

In Israel, which not only allows private firearms ownership but encourages its citizens to carry concealed weapons in public, the armed citizens have frequently thwarted attacks by would-be terrorists as well as ordinary criminals. One case in point took place in April, 1984. A group of terrorists planned a series of attacks on crowded public places in Jerusalem. Their intention was to enter, shoot up the place and take off to their next target before police or Military forces could arrive. They figured they’d be able to hit half a dozen targets before encountering serious opposition. Their first target was a popular café in downtown Jerusalem during morning coffee break. Four terrorists walked in and took positions along the front wall of the café. On a signal, they pulled their submachine guns from under their coats and opened fire. Unfortunately, they did manage to kill one innocent bystander, but before they could inflict more casualties, those pistol-packing Israelis shot the terrorists to pieces. The following day, the Military displayed the sole surviving terrorist to the news media. The terrorist was indignant. He complained that it was unfair for victims to be armed and to shoot back. He considered such action to be barbarous.

Now you’ve had a look at both sides of the coin, and you might be sitting there thinking, "When is this guy going to shut up?" Or you might even be thinking, "What he is saying is interesting, but what can I do?" At the beginning, I said I’d offer you a course of action if you wanted to influence the future and prevent further erosion of your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Here are some things you can do.

You can write for one thing. You can write the mayor, your city councilman, your state representative, the governor, you Congressman, your US Senator, you can write the president of the United States. Tell them all that you are mad as hell that the government is interfering with your Second Amendment Rights and you will not tolerate it any longer. If that doesn’t work, use your Ultimate Weapon. I’m not talking about the newest product from Smith & Wesson, Colt, or Ruger. I am talking about your vote. Vote the scoundrels out of office, run for office your self. Don’t let them sit comfortably and unopposed. Another thing you can do is to join an organization such as the NRA (National Rifle Association), GOA (GunOwners of America), the CCRKBA (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), or any of half a dozen other groups. Membership in these groups will amplify your voice in the State Houses and the halls of Congress. And believe me Ladies and Gentlemen, if 80 Million American Gun Owners speak with one voice, the politicians WILL listen.

But please DO SOMETHING! Even if you don’t care for guns or don’t want to own one, please do not interfere with those of us who wish to exercise our rights as Free Citizens.

The day may come, sometime in the future, when you are fighting some drug-crazed madman for your life, and the lives of your loved ones. You are fighting and you would trade your very soul for a weapon to defend your self. What do you want to be able to reach for? This? (hold up Colt) Or do you want to have to settle for this? (hold up hammer)

Write Doc