RE: Moscow surplus and seized weapons policy

[sec@moscow.com]

> At 03:57 PM 9/17/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear Visionaries,
> > What would keep the City of Moscow from deciding to destroy surplus and
> >seized weapons under its control as a token of our community's commitment
> >to reducing handgun and automatic weapons violence? Steve Cooke
> >
> I would think that wanting to have a workable budget would be a priority.
> As a "token of our community's commitment to reducing handgun and
> automatic weapons violence", it would be token at best.  It would express
> no commitment other than finanical foolishness.  This would be about the
> same as telling Walmart that if they wanted to reduce handgun violence
> then they should take some weapons off the wall in their store and destroy
> them. After all, those guns have the same chance as surplus ones as being
> used in crimes.  (Or should I say 'causing crimes' as the term 'handgun
> violence' would suggest.
> 
> And, just out of curiosity, exaclty how much "automatic weapons violence"
> do we have?  

about as many as drive by Bayonettings. (gotta ban those deadly 
bayonet lugs!)

> As a token of our community's commitment to reducing ANY violence, I think
> we should lock up violent people.  I realize this is a somewhat
> old-fashioned approach, but it does seem to work.  To me, this is like
> when the feds made carjacking a crime.  If the carjackers would get locked
> up for assault, theft of auto and other items in auto, battery, kidnapping
> and other crimes that they did commit, there would be no reason to waste
> time and money making the collective group of crimes, carjacking, a crime.
> 
> Marc

but Marc, if we actualy put REAL criminals in jail for REAL 
sentances (like the over 400,000 that tried to violate the brady bill, 
who are SUPPOSED to be serving time for TRYING to legaly 
purchase a handgun), or KEPT them there for the 25 years instead 
of 25 to life, out in 6 years), then where would the know nothings 
get things to cry about?

stan