L. Neil Smith's

Number 16, October 15, 1996.

Letters to the Editors

Editor's Note: Due to several heavy issues of the Enterprise, we are catching up on a few months' worth of reader's comments. We are always pleased to hear from our readers, and do not hesitate to print any well-written argument, whether for or against us.

It's the GUNS, stupid!

         In response to the incisive piece There Is No Allow by L. Neil Smith (Issue 13) I have one small, but sharp, bone to pick. While the overall gist of the article is inarguably correct, one point needs to be clarified lest we be drawn into a terrible error in perception.
         When Smith notes that right to carry advocates "wonder why the hairsprayheads have decided, unprecedentedly, to tell the truth" he appears to have fallen for the media's subtle, last-ditch effort to mislead the public about concealed carry. This is completely in keeping with both the ignorance and the proclivities of the mainstream media. Sadly however, the National Rifle Association has abetted this dishonesty - either through its own self-deception or a thinly-repressed regard for government regulation.
         Smith, on the other hand, isn't beset by either characteristic which makes it all the more important that this media spin be unwound. The real point of the study, which was either missed or papered-over by the media, is best illustrated as follows:
         A concealed carry permittee, when going downtown on business, chooses to leave his gun at home. Shortly after sundown, upon concluding his business, he walks the block or so back to his car. He is suddenly confronted by a mugger, pervert, or what have you. What should he do?
         Well, if you believe the media spin concerning what has caused the reduction of violence in this man's CCW permit-enabled state, the answer is obvious. He need only present his permit to the criminal who will promptly flee in fear. While it's not inconceivable that this could happen - depending on the credulity of the perpetrator -- it's not the outcome I'd bet my life on.
         Conversely, a woman in the same state chooses to illegally (sans permit) carry a concealed weapon while going about her (otherwise legitimate :) affairs. When confronted by the same would-be robber she promptly presents her trusty .38 Special. Which of these people has done the most to reduce the crime rate in this CCW permit-enabled state? Which was more instrumental in achieving this desired crime-rate reduction -- the permit or the gun?
         That's right. It's the gun, stupid! If legislators and NRA leaders were really serious about fighting crime they would be issuing guns to people. Though this would be more effective than issuing permits, it would still be less effective than the proven and delightfully simple "non-system of Vermont Carry" Smith, myself and increasingly more people advocate.
         The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Therefore, the shortest route from a high rate of violent crime to a low rate is for government to stop trying to mediate the relationship between the criminal and the victim -- and simply to define it.

Mike Dugger mongoose@indirect.com
aka Miguel Cartero
Gun Owners Liberation Front
------------------- Chairman ------------------------------------------
Mike Dugger                                            When in doubt, vote 'em out
Armed and SAFE!                 Legalize Freedom - ELECT Libertarians
----------- Arizona Libertarian Party ---------------------------------

Ms. Boardman,

         Please enter my subscription for The Libertarian Enterprise. I have downloaded and read Issue 13 and those previous to it.
         Thank you for a publicational with guts!
         BTW, I was thinkin'. The cost of a few cruise missiles -- wouldn't that pay for the arming of each Kurd with an SKS with 500 rds of ammo, 3 LAW rockets and a stinger plus the cost of shipping and airdropping them?
         Just a thought -- not that it's any of our business.


From: pwatson@utdallas.edu

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Yiing Boardman wrote:

> "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
> under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
> being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
> consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
> realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
> not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

         Consider this a letter to the editor.
         We have a case here in Dallas of a man who had his daughter taken away by CPS child protective services because the standard MD doctors want to treat her condition by removing her colon. The father wanted to exhaust alternative MD treatments, as apposed to witch doctor types, before they did the surgery. He is a local precinct chairman for the Republican party of Fort Worth but is a conservative Christian who's wife is home schooling 3 kids.
         This has made me repugnant to CPS, by way of the courts, taking away ones kids by force. I assume the Libertarian position would also be against such actions. How would the Libertarians handle the case of really "criminal" parents who are physically abusing kids to the point of needing medical treatment or sexual abuse like the rape of the Daughter by the Father.


From: Paul M Watson

______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct - Market Place
Updated: Thursday, Oct. 3, 1996 at 23:42 CDT

Rachel Stout needs surgery fast, doctor says

By Joe Swickard

FORT WORTH -- Rachel Stout's Dallas doctor testified yesterday that the 10-year-old child's diseased colon is killing her and that her condition is eating away her bones.

"Not having a colectomy places this child's life in danger," said Dr. Robert Squires of Dallas Children's Medical Center, adding that Rachel has the bones of a 90-year- old.

"She needs a colectomy, and she needs it soon," Squires testified yesterday at a custody hearing with the child's parents looking on.

"Her colon is rotting in her abdomen, and it needs to be removed," he said.

Squires said X-rays indicate that the Fort Worth girl's condition has robbed her body of calcium. "She could fracture her hip just walking the hall," the physician said.

Squires said discussion about a secondary eye condition is irrelevant.

"Right now, her eyes aren't killing her; her colon is," Squires said.

Squires and a Canadian doctor testified yesterday before Family Court Judge Jean Hudson Boyd, who must decide whether Rachel will remain in the custody of state Child Protective Services or return to her parents' care.

The slow-moving hearing ended at 7:30 p.m. without a decision, and testimony is to resume at 9 a.m. today at the Scott D. Moore Juvenile Justice Center.

Rachel's father, Steven Stout, has resisted the advice of doctors at three hospitals in two countries that a colectomy is the only effective treatment for the girl's acute ulcerative colitis. Stout wants to try alternative treatments.

At times during his testimony, Squires appeared frustrated and disheartened, rubbing his head and sighing loudly.

"I have reconciled myself to her death because this has gone on long enough," he said. "I'm trying to be her best steward right now."

The search for a cure other than surgery has reached cruel proportions, he said.

"That makes me an agent of this child's abuse, and I don't want to continue in this child's abuse," he said.

At Stout's request, Boyd ordered this week that Rachel's records be sent to the world-famous Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., to determine whether Dr. Jean Perrault will accept her as a patient. Stout said he will admit Rachel for surgery if that is what Perrault recommends. Perrault has not made a decision about Rachel's case.

Stout family lawyers have indicated that doctors at Duke University and the University of Miami may also be willing to evaluate and possibly treat her without surgery.

Dr. Peter Drury, a physician who examined Rachel at Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto, said she appeared "toxic and disoriented" when she was taken to the hospital after receiving alternative therapy treatments from Dr. Ravi Devgan.

In addition to the colitis, she was suffering from a staph infection caused by bacteria entering through an intravenous chest tube that Devgan had used to administer dextrose and vitamins, Drury said.

"In my professional opinion, they had no role in the treatment of her condition. My concern is that it was being used inappropriately," Drury said.

Under cross-examination by Steven Stout's attorney, Lawrence Friedman, Drury said, "It is not in Rachel's best interest for this whole situation to be dragged out."

Drury said Rachel had received proper care under Squires and other doctors at the Dallas hospital.

"Her treatment in both centers [Fort Worth and Dallas] was entirely appropriate," he said.

But he said other measures are now needed to help the child.

Rachel's mother, Patricia Stout, spoke briefly with reporters after the hearing, saying that her daughter is doing well.

"She was very cheerful when I left [the hospital] . . . joking and teasing," Patricia Stout said. "She was so much better than when I saw her a month ago."

Patricia Stout has been living in an undisclosed location since her husband went to Canada with Rachel to seek treatment other than surgery. She and her husband embraced and held hands during a recess in the court proceedings.

She said her daughter was passing time in the hospital by reading the book `Superfudge.'

Child Protective Services issued a statement yesterday saying the family has the right to oversee a child's treatment "when it does not endanger the life of a child."

Squires' "credible and sincere" testimony, the statement says, confirmed "that Rachel continues to be endangered the longer surgery is delayed."

Rachel was readmitted to the Dallas hospital Tuesday night, one month after her father spirited her away to Canada in order to avoid the doctor-recommended surgery. She is in stable condition and is being treated with antibiotics to control a fever and ward off infection, hospital officials said.

Acute ulcerative colitis is an inflammation of the colon that causes bleeding, diarrhea, cramps and other serious problems. If the inflammation is bad enough, the colon could rupture, flooding the body with toxins.

Staff writer Ginger D. Richardson contributed to this report.

© 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback.

         I'd like to subscribe, please.
         On other subjects...
         When I was younger, my Mom wanted me to read more than I did. Cookie boxes apparently didn't count. I found the Science Fiction section of the libraries and (since they don't get the cool new stuff fast enough) the bookstories. Therefore, my libertarian indoctrination was by stealth. It was quite a shock to me to go to civics classes during the raving Reaganomic years. So insane was their Righteous Right thinking, that I was confused. Little did I know that they had undergone a very different educational process. Thankfully, a professor pointed that there was a place for nuts like me, the Libertarian Party. I have been quite happy being "total wrong" for some time now. I blame Mr. Smith, completely.

         Thank You,
         Stephen D. House

Previous to return to the previous article, or Index to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 16, October 15, 1996.