From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Letter to a Liberal Colleague -- L. Neil Smith
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 147

Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith

                   LETTER TO A LIBERAL COLLEAGUE

[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  "Adrian" -- name changed to protect the guilty -- 
and the author are science fiction novelists who once worked with 
the same editor at a famous New York publishing house.]

Dear Adrian:  

I'm way behind schedule on my current book again, so this reply to 
your note -- criticizing the recent magazine interview I gave and 
generally attacking gun ownership -- will necessarily consist 
mostly of assertions you're free to believe (or not) I can back 
with evidence and logic I've neither time nor energy to present 
now.  I've written fully on this topic before and will again in the 
future.  When I do, I'll make sure you get copies.  

There are many arguments I might make, from the futility and danger 
of delegating self-defense to the police (see Don Kates in the Jan. 
10, 1985 WALL STREET JOURNAL) to the real effect of prohibition, 
shifting consumers from newly-outlawed handguns or semiautomatic 
rifles to items like sawed-off shotguns or homemade bombs, but I'll 
limit myself here to commenting on the newspaper clipping you sent 
with your note.  

First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Second, publication of some latter-day "scientific study" doesn't 
alter the fact that the gun prohibitionists I discussed in my 
interview -- annoying you so much in the process -- were lying.  

Third, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Fourth, as often happens with these things, the "study" doesn't 
support the gun prohibitionists' original numerical contentions 
anyway, but simply adds a new layer of spurious claims to an older 
body of lies, omissions, and distortions.  

Fifth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Sixth, the fact that gun prohibitionists have been caught lying on 
countless occasions (Carl Bakal, author of NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND 
BEAR ARMS, even confessed to it publicly) makes the value of this 
present "study" dubious, to say the least.  

Seventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Eighth, given your own lifelong service as a federal bureaucrat 
(not to mention the cynical sophistication of your fiction), you 
should be better aware than most people how "progress" -- in 
designing "studies" to prove whatever you want -- outstrips our 
ability to collect meaningful data.  A case in point we might agree 
on is the fact that it took another kind of prohibitionist 20 or 30 
years to create "studies" "proving" that pornography causes crime.  
More naive (and probably more honest) efforts in the 50s and 60s 
clearly indicate the contrary.  

Ninth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Tenth, another reason to doubt all such "studies" is that human 
behavior (as the Austrian School of economics demonstrates) is far
too complex and unpredictable to be meaningfully quantified.  The 
attempt to do so -- and then create public policy based on the 
resulting pseudo-information -- is wrecking our civilization.  

Eleventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Twelfth, the "study" is also worthless because it incorporates 
figures for suicide, which is not necessarily a tragedy but 
basically another individual right, sometimes with ancillary social 
benefits.  If anything, perhaps suicide INTERVENTION should be a 
criminal offense.  

Thirteenth and finally, the National Rifle Association officials 
quoted in the article, whatever their shortcomings (and they are 
many), are correct in this instance:  the "study" is meaningless 
because the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

And because of that, Adrian, even if the "study" were valid, it 
wouldn't deter me from a lifelong personal objective of seeing that 
anyone can own any weapon he or she prefers and carry it however, 
whenever, and wherever he or she desires without asking anybody's 
permission. In this I'm ably assisted by gun prohibitionists 
themselves, whose yawping invariably moves previously unarmed 
people to go out and buy their first gun "while they still can".  
Before the '68 Gun Control Act, most of the "shooting fraternity" 
viewed handguns (incorrectly, as it turned out) as inaccurate, 
ineffective toys.  There probably weren't six million of them in 
the whole country.  Now, thanks to Kennedy, Metzenbaum, the Bradys, 
and their ilk -- AMERICA'S GREATEST SPORTING GOODS SALES TEAM -- we 
probably manufacture at least that many every year.

The fascinating datum is that Handgun Control, et al. are perfectly 
aware of this -- so I guess you'll have to ask them yourself what 
their real motives are.  

Look:  gun-making isn't an arcane or difficult art (and by the way, 
it's easier to make a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic; 
the fact that I can still obtain my own weapon of preference, the 
self-loading pistol, is the only thing which keeps me from pursuing 
this further).  Even if it were difficult, there are already a 
quarter billion firearms in America, with an estimated "half life" 
of 1000 years -- possibly more for stainless steel.  Guns are gonna 
be around a long time, Adrian, whether you like it or not.

As for me, to paraphrase Elmer Keith, regardless of what the law 
provides or any court decides, I'm always going to be armed.  And I 
will always work to see that others are, as well.  The bad news is 
that there are thousands more -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands 
-- where I come from.  We can't be stopped by passing laws, we can 
only be forced to arm ourselves and others secretly and -- given 
both the practical and alleged differences between full automatics 
and semiautomatics -- perhaps more efficiently.  

So what's the point?  

L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.

