3-14-00
What about the arms makers?
"...we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."
- Frederick T. Gates. Chairman of the General Education Board, forerunner of the Rockefeller Foundation
At long last, I've finally received a pro "gun control/seizure" comment that merits a response.
The writer reminds me of the active role arms makers have played in undermining peace and pushing countries towards war. He also points out that gun makers support the NRA.
Both of these statements are true, though I'm not sure how they lead to the conclusion that private citizens should have their firearms legislated away from them.
Krupp, DuPont, Vickers, Bethlehem Steel and to a lesser extent Colt, Remington, and Winchester were actively involved in pushing the world towards World War One as was documented in two 1930s bestsellers "Merchants of Death" and "The Private Manufacture of Arms." Arms manufacturers also did much to destroy the enormous post-World War One peace movement, the largest in this country until the Vietnam War.
In support of World War One and other wars, the United States government conscripted millions of young men who were compelled by law to not only carry arms, but also be placed in situations where they will were killed and seriously wounded in huge numbers. How does this fact lead to the conclusion that private citizens should therefore be deprived of their firearms so that this same entity can have a total monopoly on them?
But there's more.
You would think that Colt would be one of the staunchest gun control/seizure opponents. Oddly, they are not. Not only have they recently given the impression that they are phasing out sales to the public (a suggestion they now deny), they have also contributed significant amounts of money to pro-control/seizure politicians.
What's going on?
Head back to the Vietnam War. In previous wars, the manufacturing of weapons and other equipment was divided among numerous companies. This probably had as much to do with pork barrel politics as it had to do with common sense. Why be dependent on one vendor for anything, especially in the middle of a war?
Common sense rules were thrown out for Vietnam. Robert "the penitent" McNamara, former Ford executive and Secretary of Defense oversaw the handing over of 100% of the military's light and medium all-terrain vehicle business to...Ford.
There was another US firm that received an unusual military monopoly: Colt. At the beginning of the Vietnam War, the M-14 was the service rifle carried by all US troops and it was manufactured by a variety of subcontractors. By 1967, the M-14 was phased out in favor of the notoriously unreliable M-16. Sole contractor: Colt Firearms.
What does this mean? I'll be the first to say I haven't the faintest idea, but there is something unusual about this company's relationship with the government.
One last thing to chew on:
"According to U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics for 1998, http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm, "Victimizations involving a firearm represented 23 percent of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault." That means over 2,200,000 people in America were raped, robbed, or just beaten half to pieces without the use of a firearm of any kind."
So EVERY DAY 6,200 people are killed, raped, beaten, violently robbed, and maimed in this country WITHOUT THE USE OF GUNS. These crimes will still go on *after* gun control.
The only people who will have guns then are the criminals who won't turn them in and the cops who at least 2,200,000 times in 1998 were nowhere to seen when these crimes were going on. And if Dr. John Lott, Jr of the University of Chicago is correct and private gun ownership interrupts over 2,000,000 crimes per year... well you do the math.
-- suzy (suzy@nowhere.com), March 15, 2000