Response to NO response from Holden, governor of Missouri

�We�ve got to protect the safety of citizens and ensure the protection of law enforcement,...�

This is a statement by Governor Bob Holden of the State of Missouri. He is, however, opposed to concealed carry. This opposition indicates that he either has not reviewed facts, or is not interested, in the facts concerning concealed carry and its positive effects on protecting not only citizens from crime, but, also, the lives of law enforcement personnel.

With this in mind, I wrote the governor concerning an article I wrote several months ago in which I compared the area with the most stringent controls, Washington, DC. to Missouri (does not have concealed carry) to Vermont which has concealed carry.

In the article the facts concerning concealed carry clearly show the benefits of having an armed populace while stringent controls are indicative of the dangers inherent with disarming or limiting the arming of the populace. Although I know most who want no restrictions nor tracking of firearms know this information, it is important to review it for new readers or those new to the cause.

First, here are the basics of the District of Columbia�s laws on firearms. No handgun may be possessed unless it was registered by 1977. Many rifles and pistols are defined, quite wrongly, as machine guns and are prohibited. Firearms kept at a business may be kept operable but firearms kept at home must be disassembled and are unusable for self-protection.

Thus, firearms for self-protection by law-abiding citizens are effectively done away with. This is completely contrary to the Constitution but - one must remember the Constitution is essentially an agreement between the people of the States made to create the US Government (the District of Columbia) and to designate limited duties of the government thus formed.

In other words, the government housed in the District of Columbia may make any law it wishes as it has near plenary power over this area, the States of the United States (which include only Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and, I believe, American Samoa), territories, and federal enclaves (such as military posts).

If one believes then that stringent controls will reduce crime and protect citizens, Washington, DC, should have the least crime. It should be added that Washington also has the most armed body guards and law enforcement organizations (3600 on the Metro PD for a population of just over 500,000), and, of course, many other armed government agencies, including military troops at the ready, and, more recently, armed EPA troops.

The figures are taken from The FBI�s Uniform Crime Reports which reports the incidents of crime in numbers. Also, the figures are per 100,000 of population and rounded to the nearest whole number. For review purposes, the 5-year average from 1994 to 1998 was used. This first set of numbers is concerned with RAPES, a concern of millions of women.

District of Columbia - - - - - - 5-year Average - 48

Missouri - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - 31

Vermont - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - 27

One can also see that if women wish to prevent rapes, that they should arm themselves and forget passive resistance or screaming or blowing whistles or whatever. In fact, it is possible that the most effective deterrent would be to train and arm every woman or at least have concealed carry permitted by those who wish to do so.

Regardless, it doesn�t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the number of rapes decrease as concealed weapons increase, that an effective deterrent to rape is provided through concealed carry. But, how about other crimes?

Let�s examine the same 5-year period concerning MURDER. This is rather shocking but the figures were checked and re-checked several times. Again, this is per 100,000 of population.

District of Columbia - - - - - - - - 5-year Average - 63

Missouri - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - 8

Vermont - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - 2

It would appear that one of the most dangerous ten-mile areas to live is Washington, DC. One would think that the members of Congress would want to increase the odds the people there not being murdered since the same potential (roughly 31 to 1 over Vermont) exists for them without factoring in other variables, such as people getting dangerously upset over corruptness in government.

What about the last two categories considered as �violent� crimes, ROBBERY and ASSAULT. Remember, the government and its media lackeys present the myth that both will decrease with increased gun control. In other words, these organizations are presenting that police forces, armed federal agencies, 911 systems, and so on are enough to protect the public and cause violent crimes to decrease into virtual non-existence. You know, get rid of guns and no more crime. Once again, the figures are per 100,000 of population.

District of Columbia - - - - 5- year Average - Robbery - 1013; Assault - 1183

Missouri - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - Robbery - 405; - Assault - 924

Vermont - - - - - - - - - - - -5-year Average - Robbery - 13; - Assault - 72

My, my, my, if this isn�t really strange. If gun control will control crime, why does Vermont only have 1.2 percent of the number of robberies that Washington had during the same time period? A person has nearly 90 times greater odds of being robbed in Washington as in Vermont. Hmm, something doesn�t add up.

And, in regards to assault, Vermont had 6.8 percent of the number that occurred in the nation�s capitol. This means that a person has 17 times greater odds of being assaulted in the nation�s capitol as in Vermont. How can this be if gun control works?

My gosh, you would think the people who live in Washington would wake up to the facts. Even though they are under plenary control, they still have basic human rights which the feds cannot take away regardless of the Constitution not securing these rights for them. They are God-given just as ours are and, if they refused to comply en masse, what would Congress and its armed marauders do - declare war on its own citizens, put them all in prison, or shoot them all?

One will also notice from the above facts that a state such as Missouri which does not have concealed carry, that, although its crimes are not nearly as numerous as in the capitol, they are far more likely to be killed, robbed, raped, or assaulted than in Vermont. This again shows the effect of concealed carry on crime reduction since Missourians can have all the loaded weapons they wish inside their homes.

It is glaringly obvious that the closer gun control approaches that of the 2nd Amendment (NONE), the greater the decrease in crime. And, conversely, the more stringent controls placed on citizens concerning arming themselves, the greater the increase in crime.

The effects of concealed carry fully support that in order to decrease crime, we must increase the number of armed citizens. The basis for this is simple. If a person intent on committing a crime doesn�t know whether or not his intended victim is armed, he is much less likely to proceed. Most of them don�t wish to die or be shot any more than their intended victim wants to be victimized. This is well supported by the above and many other sources of facts.

Is this too difficult for legislatures to understand? If so, they need replaced as being too ignorant to understand and use facts in making decisions that affect the people of the 50 States or their respective state. When confronted with such legislators, one must question if he/she has a hidden agenda since this would be indicated by ignoring the facts and subsequent falsification of gun control and crime reports given to the media.

Anyway, this writer has made the offer to the new governor of Missouri to supply him with the facts. Now, the interest is in whether or not he will respond and, if he does, whether he will want the facts concerning the effects of concealed carry in preventing crime. At this juncture, no prediction can be made.

However, based on Governor Holden expressing his anti-concealed carry beliefs during his campaign as he did, then the most probable response is either no response or a line of BS about how gun control saves lives. This stands to reason if he spoke truthfully concerning his beliefs during his campaign and wasn�t just blowing smoke to get himself elected.

To that we will shall see -- eventually, that is. And, perhaps, for once, this concerned citizen will not be disappointed.