...should be illegal, no matter what your stance on gun control.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/21/national/a173639S13.DTL<i>(03-21) 17:36 PST RED LAKE, Minn. (AP) --

A student went on a shooting spree Monday, killing his grandparents and five people at his high school on an Indian reservation. The gunman himself was later found shot to death, authorities said. It was the nation's worst school shooting since the Columbine massacre in 1999.

Before the shootings at the school, the suspect's grandparents were shot in their home and died later.

He declined to talk about a possible connection between the suspect and the couple killed at the home, but Red Lake Fire Director Roman Stately said they were the grandparents of the shooter. Stately told several media outlets that <b>the grandfather was a police officer whose guns may have been used in the shootings</b>.<i>

I'm not a big fan of guns in the home, however, I know plenty of people who have guns and children in their houses. With the appropriate gun safes, used properly, I think it's possible to own guns with children in the house safely. Unfortunately, most gun owners don't bother with gun safes, whether they have children or not.

More children die(injured or paralyzed) in swimming pool accidents than gun accidents each year.

Are you willing to make swimming pools illegal?

...should be illegal, no matter what your stance on gun control.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/21/national/a173639S13.DTL

Yes, that way noone with children can protect themselves /eyeroll

More children die(injured or paralyzed) in swimming pool accidents than gun accidents each year.

Are you willing to make swimming pools illegal?Three points:

1) If there are 10 times as many homes with swimming pools as there are homes with guns, then guns would be more dangerous nevertheless. You need statistics with a percentage, not absolutes, to compare.

2) Swimming pool injuries are accidents limited to those in the home. Guns can also be used as a weapon against the public at large (such as in the school massacre I quoted).

3) The primary function of each is different. The primary function of a swimming pool is recreation, a peaceful use. The primary function of a gun is to kill people, a dangerous use. Automobiles, for example, are probably the most dangerous instrument in the home if you just look at the number of accidents per year, but their practical use outweighs their danger.With the appropriate gun safes, used properly, I think it's possible to own guns with children in the house safely.If <i>you</i> can undo the safety, what makes you think your child won't be able to? They are very curious and can be quite resourceful.Yes, that way noone with children can protect themselves /eyerollAhem:

http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/facts.asp<b>A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.</b>
Journal of Trauma, 1998

http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/guns/stats.html<b>The Self-Defense Myth</b>

In 1997, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides, of which 8,503 were committed with handguns. Only 193 (2.3 percent) handgun homicides were classified as justifiable homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php#n9Thinking of buying a gun to protect your home? You may want to remember that...
* Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.[9]
* The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[10]
* The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[11]

I don't own a gun, yet I don't feel like unprotected. I have a home with security lights, a barking dog motion detector thingie, a security system. I wouldn't want to leave my security to a gun because it can be used against me, it might not be in my hand or loaded when I need it.

Making guns illegal was also one of the first actions of the Natzi party....

Kalest.

If you can undo the safety

A gun safe is not the same as a gun safety lock. A gun safe is a storage device pretty much like any other safe used to store valuables, only big enough for long guns to fit into.

The problem with gun safes is that most people don't use them, or don't use them properly.

I grew up in a house full of guns, but would not have been able to use any of them even if I had a desire, because of the way my dad stored them and their ammo. Most of them were black powder, but the ones that were modern guns were always kept in such a manner that they could not be easily used.

The problem doesn't lie with the ownership of the gun, it lies with the appropriate storage of the gun. Had the gun used in your example been locked up in a gun safe, and the child not had the combination or key to the safe, he would not have been able to use the gun.

Making guns illegal was also one of the first actions of the Natzi party....So? I'm sure the Nazis also ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but those actions aren't inherently bad. Most countries with benign governments also ban guns.The problem doesn't lie with the ownership of the gun, it lies with the appropriate storage of the gun. Had the gun used in your example been locked up in a gun safe, and the child not had the combination or key to the safe, he would not have been able to use the gun.Even if they had a safe, most people are pretty clumsy with combinations and passwords and write them down, and kids can figure it out if they really want to by spying or looking through their papers.

True, if the gun owner takes a ton of precautions, it can be relatively safe. But you could say the same thing about bombs, drugs, toxic chemicals, and other banned items. The fact is, most owners don't take the precautions, and guns are so dangerous, they should simply be banned.

How many people would hunt deer if the hunters thought that the deer had guns?

How many people would hunt deer if the hunters thought that the deer had guns?Well, if the deer in question were carrying tons of valuables instead of just their flesh and organs, and they could be attacked easily while sleeping, I'm sure many hunters would risk it.

The statistics I cited show that the risks of owning a gun are far more serious than the supposed self-defense benefits. If you have statistics to the contrary, I'd like to see them. Otherwise you're just speculating.

How many people would hunt deer if the hunters thought that the deer had guns?

People used to hunt boars which were dangerous and they did kill. I know there were famous people who died boar hunting, but unfortunately they were so famous that I've forgotten who they were ;).

I'm not sure how this case is particularly relevant to gun control, as even if gun controls were in place then this policeman's gun could still presumably have been taken and used. I see no good reason though that guns shouldn't be licensed with owners having to show responsible ownership.

Well...

A general fear of getting shot keeps people out of your home right now.

It is not your dog, I can feed, love, kill your dog.

It is not your alarm system, I can circumvent 99.9% of all home alarms.

It is not your locks on your windows or sliding glass doors, I know how to get past them.

It is not your locks on your doors, I can pick most residential locks and deadbolts.

It is not my morality, I have no god, and I don't really care about you.

It is not about getting caught and going to jail, you would never catch me.

It is the possibility that you may be home, and have a gun, which keeps me out of your home. That small chance that you will kill me, keeps me out of your home.

There are no statistics for that, I could not find them if I wanted to. No one could. But I do remember a John Stossel piece where he interviewed dozens of convicted inmates in prison-and virtually every one of them conveyed that exact same deterrent effect. How would you get statistics on something like that, such common sense?

But if statistics are what you want, I am 1 person kept out of your home right now, with only the slightest of chances that you have gun, know how to use it, know how to get to it, and are willing to shoot me. 1 real person. I have no other data set that would be acceptable to you. But that number is real, objective, scientific, and not speculative, I assure you.

Perhaps you could compare burglary rates in the US compared to other industrialised countries with gun controls? I expect other social factors and overall crime levels will have a larger impact than gun ownership.

How would you get statistics on something like that, such common sense?Compare burglarly/violent crime statistics in the United States (where roughly a third of households have a gun) with other countries such as Japan and those in Western Europe (where, except for Switzerland, only a tiny percentage of households have a gun). A quick Google search could answer that, and I think you'll find that Japan, for example, has only a tiny fraction of the crime rate of the United States despite strict gun laws. Other countries certainly have a much lower gun-related homicide rate.

Your argument also cuts both ways. A criminal might be deterred from breaking into a house because of the fear of a gun. However, if he has very easy access to guns, he might feel "safer" and thus be encouraged to break in.

I am a firm believer in gun control, but I don't believe that gun control can only happen by eliminating the presence of guns in homes.

There are many ways to lock/secure guns. My father, a retired Sheriff, kept his gun in a gunsafe, that was completely secure, for most of his career. So, for all of my childhood, my sister's and 10 years of my brother's, we never had a problem with safety. There are also safety locks that can be attached to the trigger of guns that are proven to be very secure.

I do not currently have a gun, but in the past when I did, I kept the ammo locked up and my weapon secured. But, the greatest deterent of all was that my child knew if he was curious about my gun, all he had to do was ask me and with my supervision, he could look at it. Most children who play with guns do so because they are told to never touch and most parents treat the weapon as some secret thing. Children are going to be curious about those things that they are denied. By taking away the curiosity of it, by allowing my son to view the gun, he didn't need to get it without my knowledge...alleviating the possibility of him hurting himself or someone else.

Statistically speaking, as Tudamorf said, guns kept in homes for 'home security' are usually found to be responsible for more harm than good.

I don't see how the knowledge of someone having a gun in their home is a deterrent. First, how would the random thief even know there was a gun there? And, I would wager, if the thief wanted to break in and did know of the gun, he would just make sure to bring a bigger gun...which makes the situation a heck of alot worse. There are safer ways of securing a home that have a much less fatality rate than guns. That work much better.

Your argument also cuts both ways. A criminal might be deterred from breaking into a house because of the fear of a gun. However, if he has very easy access to guns, he might feel "safer" and thus be encouraged to break in.

So does yours.

Compare crime stats in American cities and states with strict gun control. Just because it is illegal in New York and Washington DC to own guns does not mean that bad guys don't have guns...and that crime, especially gun crime is diminished in any way.

My contention is that the bad guys already have guns if they wish to have them. And if you are saying that bad guys are itching to get into gun fights with gun toting homeowners, I would consider that next to ludicrous. The opposite effect actually, they would be emboldened by prey which is completely defenseless.

It is not your alarm system, I can circumvent 99.9% of all home alarms.

It is not your locks on your windows or sliding glass doors, I know how to get past them.

There are no statistics for that,

I'm fairly sure insurance companies don't give cheaper insurance if you have these things because they're nice.

But if statistics are what you want, I am 1 person kept out of your home right now, with only the slightest of chances that you have gun, know how to use it, know how to get to it, and are willing to shoot me. 1 real person.

I don't have a gun. PM me and I will give you my home address. I expect it burglarized shortly. No? You don't want to break into my house even though you KNOW I don't have a gun? Well, then that's not your deterrent, and your statistics are incorrect. :P

hehe

Geography is a pretty good deterrent too, Tinsi.




And in all fairness, you are correct, most bad guys do not know how to circumvent an alarm system nor pick locks. In all my years in the industry, I only had one customer whose system was overcome.

Bad guys who have those skills are not breaking into your homes because there are other targets which have greater reward than your grandmother's wedding ring and your DVD players. I was not unaware of that fact when I posted that first post.

Bad guys who have those skills are not breaking into your homes because there are other targets which have greater reward than your grandmother's wedding ring and your DVD players.

Exactly. So remind me again what I need a gun for?

http://www.ssaa.org.au/iladec98.html

Three points:

http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/guns/stats.html

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php#n9[/quote]

Who said anything about crime?

I said defend yourself. The primary purpose of weaponry in the hands of the citizens is so the people may rise up against a tyrranical government. Something that may yet become necessary if all three branches of our Government ends up in the hands of the Republicans.

And didn't you say something about statistics in the first part of your post?

So? I'm sure the Nazis also ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but those actions aren't inherently bad. Most countries with benign governments also ban guns.

Most tyrannical governments also ban guns in the hands of citizens.
The fact is, banning guns will never ever remove them from the hands of criminal elements, but it will help the Body Politic keep its people under an iron grasp.

Even if they had a safe, most people are pretty clumsy with combinations and passwords and write them down, and kids can figure it out if they really want to by spying or looking through their papers.

True, if the gun owner takes a ton of precautions, it can be relatively safe. But you could say the same thing about bombs, drugs, toxic chemicals, and other banned items. The fact is, most owners don't take the precautions, and guns are so dangerous, they should simply be banned.

So everything dangerous should be banned? Explosives, drugs, nor toxic chemicals are banned, by the way. While we're at it, lets ban knives, bows, axes, etc. Because if you ban guns, people will just use those to defend themselves (as evidenced recently in an african nation I can't recall off the top of my head. The government banned guns, do to the number of killings done by firearms. The criminals kept their guns...the citizens are buying non-firearm weaponry now).

Just to comment on the England and Wales statistics, we have a lot of influences outside of gun control that affect crime. We have prisons that are universities for cirme, very high reoffending rates for prisoners released from jail, growing amounts of drug crime, high offending rates for under 16's, the breakdown of local commmunities, etc. I would rather all those causes of crime were fixed first before looking at gun controls as a source of problems.

What we didn't have in the UK until very recently is a gun culture. The gun culture has come mainly from young men trying to immitate US gangster rappers and the like and use guns as status symbols. We are now seeing a lot more shooting between criminal drug gangs too, confrontations escalated by guns rather than being prevented.

I don't own a gun, yet I don't feel like unprotected. I have a home with security lights, a barking dog motion detector thingie, a security system. I wouldn't want to leave my security to a gun because it can be used against me, it might not be in my hand or loaded when I need it.OMIGOD! BAN KITCHEN KNIVES! :p (Not meaning to single you our, Pan. It's just that this statement hit me as pretty elitist when I first read it because guns are not solely or primarily a suburban issue.)

I know! Let's use tax dollars to add security systems in all inner city housing projects, mandate their installation in all apartments and hotels, put dogs in every home and ban guns? Let's ban abortions for ANY reason including brain damage, mongoloidism, rape and incest. Let's mandate that all people in PVS be kept "alive" by any means possible. Let's make sure that every house has a government representative to live with the inhabitants... or better yet! Just a 24/7 TV camera with a monitor spewing "news" nonstop and a TV camera on every street corner and in every public and private building! Let's make it illegal to turn off the TV and incarcerate anyone who disables a monitoring camera! Oh! And let's make sure that anyone who breaks the rules gets thrown in jail with the serial rapists and murders who will never receive the death penalty. Oh! And let's reconfirm to society that parents have NO RESPONSIBILITY for their upbringing by removing them to the state upon birth.

And after all this, let's call a "free and democratic" election to see which political party our household governmental representative comes from.

The answer to gun "control" is education just like most of our societal ills. The real problem is that over the last century our Federal Government has been telling us that "THEY" will fix everything in our lives for us. The problem is, "THEY" don't really seem to be "US" any longer... If "they" were, people would understand that it's a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to contribute positively and actively to our society and their own children. We've been letting "the government" take OUR responsibilities for years and if something goes wrong we blame "them" for not passing a law to fix every human behavior.

I missed that clause in the Constitution that said "right to bare arms, unless you have children."

If the grandparent who was a police officer survived, I betcha he'd be in for a whole lot of trouble if that was his gun that the kid used. Police officers and military personnel above all should know how to properly secure a gun. If grandpa just left his .357 holstered in his belt on the dining room table, well there's not much that can be said about that.

These days when you buy guns, most good merchants will automatically provide a free gun lock (if yours didn't already come with one). Most people I know also keep their ammunition, clips, and guns in separate safes, but these are also what they consider "recreational" guns. If a home safety gun is the one we're talking about, most of my friends keep them, unloaded, of course, in a fingerprint safe. It's usually the only gun+clip+ammo box together in the entire house.

I missed that clause in the Constitution that said "right to bare arms, unless you have children."

You know, it's just a law, not the Bible - it can be changed, ammended and subject to rather extreme interpretation. Change for the better isn't stopped by something being written there, nor should it be.

The founding fathers knew this. :)

(Not that I'd argue that changing it to "..unless you have children" is nessesarily a "change to the better", mind you. I just had to point out that the constitution-argument isn't all it's cracked up to be.)

I missed that clause in the Constitution that said "right to bare arms, unless you have children."

Uh... I'm sure you and your children both have the right to bare arms or leave them fully covered. Here where I live people bare arms and a lot of other body parts when the weather permits... and sometimes when it doesn't. We're not Amish!

OMIGOD! BAN KITCHEN KNIVES! (Not meaning to single you our, Pan. It's just that this statement hit me as pretty elitist when I first read it because guns are not solely or primarily a suburban issue.)

I was responding to the people posting that they felt their gun offered them security and demonstrating there are other ways to secure yourself. I doubt the person I was replying to lives in a bad inner city neighborhood.

I sincerely doubt a gun is going to make someone living in the worst sort of neighborhood safer. It isn't going to help you if you're caught in a drive-by shooting. It isn't going to protect you against random bullets going through your walls. You can't carry it concealed or when you're out shopping. If you're making dinner and the gun is upstairs, it isn't going to help you. Basically if you store it in a manner your kids can't get to it to hurt themselves, and others, you can't really get to it convienently either.

You know residential burglaries have actually gone down dramatically in the last decade or so. It isn't because of guns, its because of the precautions people are taking to make it harder to get inside and easier to get caught.

The primary purpose of weaponry in the hands of the citizens is so the people may rise up against a tyrranical government.

Like... in the Ukraine when the people had to break out their muskets and force a new election at gunpoint.

Like in the old Soviet Union where people overwhelmed the military with their superior fire power and over threw the old tyrannical government.

Like in Lebanon where people had to storm their government and kill the politicians and demand that Syrian troops start to withdraw.

Like in France when extremely well-armed peasants over threw their government.

There's a lot of powerful dictators in control in a lot of countries, is there any relationship to gun-ownership and succesful government over throws?

I know! Let's use tax dollars to add security systems in all inner city housing projects, mandate their installation in all apartments and hotels, put dogs in every home and ban guns?

Actually, my city has very bad burglary rates, some of the worst in Europe. After someone is burgled the local council do send a locksmith round to give advice on home security and he will install good locks, for free. My niece was burgled at new year and when she received that offer I could only think it was an absolutely fantastic public service, just what she needed at the time. It is even probably more cost effective in reducing crime to pay for a city locksmith through public money than an extra policeman.

Don't mock these ideas so quickly.

Bear, bare, whatever, I'm on sudafed this morning :P

There's a lot of powerful dictators in control in a lot of countries, is there any relationship to gun-ownership and succesful government over throws?

Well there might be some evidence, but the governments that take control through the gun often continue to use the gun to maintain their power. I think almost universally, the worst governments in the modern world have all come to power through use of force (like Hitler burning the Reichstag).

I'm surprised so many Americans still believe that public gun ownership is needed to keep their government honest. Any future revolutionaries would need cars just as much as guns, but nobody seems to mind those being licensed for use. Moreover a future internal terrorist organsation, similar to the IRA, ETA, or KKK, is surely as realistic a modern threat as government oppression. Tight gun control is a simple lawful measure against internal terrorism.

Bear, bare, whatever, I'm on sudafed this morning :P

Personally I'd like the right to bare butts at all the bare arms people.

I missed that clause in the Constitution that said "right to bare arms, unless you have children."There <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/>is no general right to bear arms</a>, no matter how much the NRA tries to invent one. (Even if you don't realize this is true, surely you've wondered why all the gun control legislation today hasn't been long ruled unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.) Even if the Supreme Court someday finds that there is, it would only apply to the federal government.

The mythical "right to bear arms" is irrelevant to this discussion.

The mythical "right to bear arms" is irrelevant to this discussion.

It isn't irrelevant if a sizable portion of the US population want a right to bear arms, even if it isn't unequivocally defined in the constitution. That right should be valid on its on merit though and not dependent on clauses in documents. People tend to be hypocritical about law nowadays, picking and choosing legal and constitutional arguments to suit their purpose while refusing to accept the legal and constitutional arguments against them.

A typical example of that hypocrisy is the recent fox hunting laws in the UK. I couldn't care less what people do to foxes on their own property to be honest, but after hearing all the claims of the hunt supporters I lost sympathy with them. They claimed that hunting was the only way to control fox populations and then said that the foxes would become extinct when more effective controls came in. They claimed that jobs would be lost as the hunts would closed but then claimed that the law would be irrelevant as the hunts would continue anyway. The same politicians who are wanting to remove the UK from the European court of human rights are the same ones supporting a legal appeal that hunting with foxes and hounds is a human right. Hypocrisy abounds.

(sorry for the thread derailment but I felt the need to vent)

You know, it's just a law, not the Bible - it can be changed, ammended....)

Yup, and so can all the other rights that it(the Constitution) gives you.

Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, search and seizure, self incrimination. et. al.

It is only because of the Second Amendment Right that you enjoy any of the others.

So when you start thinking that you don't need it(the right to own a gun if you choose), think about the other rights that you don't really need. Because there will be people like me who will be glad to take them away from you. And without a gun in your hand, it will be VERY easy to take.

And for that matter, people change and have changed the Bible all the time.

You know, it's just a law, not the Bible - it can be changed, ammended and subject to rather extreme interpretation. Change for the better isn't stopped by something being written there, nor should it be.

The founding fathers knew this. :)

(Not that I'd argue that changing it to "..unless you have children" is nessesarily a "change to the better", mind you. I just had to point out that the constitution-argument isn't all it's cracked up to be.)

Any change to the Bill of Rights, to make make them less restrictive on the Government, is so bad as to be dismissed out of hand. Even more than the Constitution itself, does the Bill of Rights represent those aspects which make our Country what it is. Those 10 restrictions on the power of the Government ought be held almost sacrosanct.

There <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/>is no general right to bear arms</a>, no matter how much the NRA tries to invent one. (Even if you don't realize this is true, surely you've wondered why all the gun control legislation today hasn't been long ruled unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.) Even if the Supreme Court someday finds that there is, it would only apply to the federal government.

The mythical "right to bear arms" is irrelevant to this discussion.

Its hardly mythical. Its written, right there.

As for this idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government... All state laws, or constitutional amendments, must fall within the scope of the federal constitution. It trumps all.

To suggest that the 2nd amendment would only apply to the federal government is akin to suggesting that indivual states are permitted to restrict its citizens freedom of speech and dictate which religion they must be.

The story continues...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/index.html

<i>FBI Special Agent in Charge Michael Tabman said Tuesday that Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, Daryl Lussier, and his grandfather's girlfriend, Michelle Sigana, with a .22-caliber gun Monday before going to Red Lake Senior High School.

Tabman said authorities believe Weise stole his grandfather's police-issued pistol and a shot gun as well as a bulletproof vest. Authorities said he had three guns in all.

At the school, Weise shot and killed 28-year-old Derrick Brun, an unarmed security guard, then saw teacher Neva Winnecoup-Rogers in the hall, Tabman said.

According to Tabman, Weise, wearing the police vest, followed Rogers into her classroom where he shot and killed five students -- Thurlene Stillday, 15; Chase Lussier, 15, Chenelle Rosebear, 15, Alicia Spike, 14, Dwayne Lewis, 15. </i>

To suggest that the 2nd amendment would only apply to the federal government is akin to suggesting that indivual states are permitted to restrict its citizens freedom of speech and dictate which religion they must be.Constitutional protections don't automatically extend to everyone. The only reason the First Amendment applies to state action is because the Supreme Court held long ago that certain rights, including free speech and freedom of religion, are "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, which does expressly apply to states. Without the incorporation doctrine, the First Amendment would only apply to acts of Congress, as it is expressly written. Of course, the state constitutions would probably allow separately allow it, but that's another matter.

The Second Amendment itself isn't mythical, however the NRA's "right to bear arms" position is. It simply does not exist, except in the minds of the NRA and their followers.

The shooter was clearly disturbed:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/22/national/a113034S57.DTL<i>Weise, whom authorities described variously as 16 or 17, who had been placed in the school's Homebound program for some violation of policy, said school board member Kathryn Beaulieu. Students in that program stay at home and are tutored by a traveling teacher. Beaulieu said she didn't know what Weise's violation was, and wouldn't be allowed to reveal it if she did.

There was no immediate indication of Weise's motive. But several students said he held anti-social beliefs, and he may have posted messages on a neo-Nazi Web site expressing admiration for Adolf Hitler.

A writer who identified himself as Jeff Weise of the Red Lake Reservation posted the messages under the nickname "Todesengel" — German for "angel of death." An April 2004 posting by him referred to being accused of "a threat on the school I attend," though the writer later said he was cleared.

Tabman said it hadn't been determined if the writer was actually Weise.

Relatives told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that Weise was a loner who usually wore black and was teased by others. Relatives told the newspaper his father committed suicide four years ago, and that his mother was living in a Minneapolis nursing home because she suffered brain injuries in a car accident.</i>
Another sad thing is that I'm sure the blame will eventually be placed on something stupid, like video games, instead of looking at the real issues.

Illegal drugs are banned from homes with children, and I must say, because of this ban I have never ever seen anyone in high school with drugs. /sarcasm off

What are we going to have random checks on houses with kids? Farewell 4th Amendment. Are we going to prosecute the dead parents?

One of my relatives owns a gun safe, his house was broken into 3 times, one of which they spent over 8 hours trying to break into his gun safe. Dispite an arsonel of tools they didn't even come close. Guns can be properly secured. Even something as simple as a trigger lock can do the trick.

Maybe we need to license people to have sex. I mean no need to punish responsible gun owners for the actions of stupid ones. So you can't have kids unless you know the proceedure with dangers items in the house, you know how to teach them the diffrence between right and wrong, and you are able to get involved with them.

Another sad thing is that I'm sure the blame will eventually be placed on something stupid, like video games, instead of looking at the real issues.

Indeed.

The Second Amendment itself isn't mythical, however the NRA's "right to bear arms" position is. It simply does not exist, except in the minds of the NRA and their followers.

The NRA has been pulled to the extreme end of the spectrum. As such it serves a purpose by keeping the center closer to where it should be.

The vast majority of gun owners, or people who believe that they have a right to own guns are not NRA members.

In terms of PR purposes if they resorted back to publically supporting gun safety, gun responsibility, and even gun manufacturer quality control they would be better regarded. I distinctly remember the PSAs they did back when about the "Gun Rules"(with that red head from Head of the Class); If they voluntarily spent less lobby and fundraising money and more on PSAs. If they publically supported gun locking requirements. If they stood up against Saturday Night Special manufacturers, not even from a gun control standpoint, but a quality control and customer rights position. I believe that they could achieve greater goals than if they qualify the government as "goose stepping Nazis"(even if they are).

Liberals like big nanny government, they do not like when an organization threatens that vocally. If the NRA stood more for the individual gun owner instead of appearing like a puppet of gun manufacturers(evil corporations that need to be torn down) then I think that public opinion about guns and gun owners would honestly change.

One of the things about the original story to keep in mind, is that the guns used were taken from law enforcement employees. These people above all else should be allowed to keep guns, and it just shows, even if all other guns are outlaws, that bad guys would still get their hands on them. Unless, of course, one were to advocate the British heritage of chasing after bad guys with night sticks. Additionally, about even that, is the fact that those in law enforcement should know how to keep guns safely away from children.

Moreover, until the Luby's Massacre(1991), the biggest single mass murder(by of comparison only) was commited with a 5 gallon tank of gasoline. 87 people were killed...

NFPA (http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=735&itemID=20057&URL=Publications/NFPA%20Journal%AE/March%20/%20April%202003/Columns&cookie%5Ftest=1)

...the 1990 blaze that killed 87 people at the Happy Lands Social Club in the Bronx differed from The Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, in many ways. Happy Lands was an unofficial, unlicensed club and its owner had been cited for several fire code violations in the past. The Station fire wasn't deliberately set and the lack of sprinklers due to grandfathering provisions in the Rhode Island fire codes contributed to the tragedy...
The man who set the fire, Julio Gonzalez, was found guilty of murder, arson, and assault (176 counts) and sentenced to 174 concurrent sentences of 25 years to life. Before September 11, 2001, this was the largest mass murder in New York City.

People will find ways, in these headline generating cases, to kill lots of people with all sorts of means other than guns.

In conclusion, I still feel that an armed society is a polite society. It enforces the Social Contract more than any other deterrant. It can be, and has been, argued that the solution is lot less, or no, guns, but more guns in the hands of responsible citizens. If just one of the teachers, parents, or administrators were carrying, in Stockton, in Lindhurst, in Columbine, at Red Lake, were trained to use it-it is completely logical that those tragedies would have been averted at most, and minimized at the least.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow for armed militias that could defend the colonial states if Britain or other foreign invaders ever tried to assault the country. The 2nd Amendment was certainly not originally designed as a way to allow people to protect themselves from thieves and murderers. A musket would not have been very effective at accomplishing this.

I also hate when people say that banning guns will tread on their right to hunt, a recreational activity. Using the exact same logic, marijuana and other drugs should all be legal because, while they certainly have the potential to harm people, they are primarily used and intended to be used for recreation.

So if you are pro-gun...you can't logically be anti-drug.

Both are safe when used responsibly and unsafe when abused or used carelessly.

I guess that means I have to be pro-gun :( Which is fine as long as drugs are legal as well, and as long as people are taught how to be safe with both.

Oh right, I also can't go Walmart and buy weed. Time to change that as well it seems?

If just one of the teachers, parents, or administrators were carrying, in Stockton, in Lindhurst, in Columbine, at Red Lake, were trained to use it-it is completely logical that those tragedies would have been averted at most, and minimized at the least.

I'm sure that you know that is a faulty piece of logic. If the guns used in those massacres were not so readily available to the kids who used them, then those tragedies would have been averted at most (no guns, no shooting), and minimized at the least (kid settles for a machette and hacks off some guy's limb).

ALSO, whoever said that the kids are going to find other means to do these things if guns aren't available, think about it. I doubt a kid has as easy access (not to even mention ease of use) to a 5-gallon tank of gasoline as these kids have had to semiautomatic weapons or worse. And if he is forced instead to use a knife, a machette, a baseball bat, or anything else (other than a bomb...which should also be illegal and harder than **** to obtain), the idea is that he won't be able to thoughtlessly kill 10 people in 5 seconds, but maybe rather injure one or two people in a few minutes and requiring the far more difficult and conscious action of pushing a blade through human flesh, muscle, and bone, by which time even an unarmed person could have subdued him.

-Noir

I don't even bother to argue over what the 2nd amendment means any more because I realize there is no stuffing the genie back in the bottle with guns.

I think the best that we might hope for is getting gun sellers to be more vigilant about background checks and hope that gun owners stop being so careless with their guns around kids.

What is wrong with weed?


I will tell you the reason why it is illegal, of course. Because it makes you question your motives, makes you apathetic, and makes you an unproductive worker.

You tell me all the things wrong, all the real things that is, and it comes down to being unproductive and eschewing the insect mentality that our system requires of you to fit in.

Slacker Burnout is what you are. But what is that really? Someone who is too ****ing lazy to get up in the morning and go to their **** job flipping burgers, selling you your National Enquirer at Walmart with pictures of Britney Spears fat ass on it, or making Decaf Mocha Lattes for you in your SUVs, your Volvos, or your Honda eco-friendly Hybrids. Someone who does not give a **** about you and your profit line, your managerial prowess, your house, your trophy wife, or your PDA or Laptop.

I wish one could go down to Walmart and buy weed. By the bale. And I don't even smoke the stuff. You can count on my name on that petition right now.

We need more people hanging out in their parents' basements and garages with guitars and keyboards making kick ass music anyway. Flipping the bird at your productive worker automaton rat-race and blowing skunky blue smoke in your face.

Haha, nice reply Fyyr.

Although I have to say that not all potheads are lazy, apathetic, or unproductive.

I smoke more or less every day, but I hold down a solid corporate job at Yahoo! (for now ;p), pay my own rent in Manhattan, am currently writing a novel, and do all sorts of worldly activities. And I'm good at Everquest! ;)

The act of laziness comes from a mental state, it is not a direct result of smoking marijuana. Sure while you are high you feel lazy, but all it takes is a minimal effort of mental willpower to get up and go get your **** done. And whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Once you get in the habit of overcoming that laziness, it's easy, no matter how much you smoke.

And I guess we agree that flipping the bird at the automaton rat-race and societal expectations is a good thing, because of the way it makes us question our system and fix it when we can. That's the best way for people and our society as a whole to progress. Woo Ayn Rand.

Anyway. Carry on. :)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


Anti-gun people like to argue the point that since we have an army, that is to say a regulated Militia, that the second clause of that sentence does not really apply to individuals. This is an easy argument to make. It sounds rational and logical on the surface...because it is rational and logical.

But I include the First Amendment as an example of where the framers had no issue with completely different and even opposing issues separated by comas. What anti-gun folks will say is connection in their amendment, anyone else could label as merely a literary affectation.

That is to say, that if the framers construed that the only people who have a right to bear arms are those who are in the Militia from the Second...then it would be equally valid to say that the framers intended those same people are the only ones allotted rights in the First.

The first 10 Amendments were written at the same time. The interpretation by some here that the framers did not mean YOU(and me) when they said people is foundationally unsound. For then when they said people in every other section of the Constitution, your interpretation can be equally capricious.

If you carry the idea that the people are limited, in the scope of the Second, then people can be and is limited in the scope of the entirely. That would be bad. Very bad.

ALSO, whoever said that the kids are going to find other means to do these things if guns aren't available, think about it. I doubt a kid has as easy access (not to even mention ease of use) to a 5-gallon tank of gasoline as these kids have had to semiautomatic weapons or worse.

I dunno about the rest of you, but we had a gasoline lawn mower growing up. Hell, I think our spare fuel tank was more like 10-gallons, by the feel of it. And as an interesting aside, my dad has a dozen guns, ranging from pistols to a remake of the tommy gun. But they're under lock and key. Two keys to the gun safe (kept in different places, I only found one, lol) and one for the ammunition. So if one day I decided to kill a ton of people, I would've gone the gasoline route. Or the bomb route, the Anarchist's Cookbook was cool, and much easier to use than getting a gun.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state any more? Is it? How many free states have proper militias, not part time professional reservists? Has the Pentagon even the vaguest plans to draw up militias for national defence in an emergency? Aren't armed militias being disbanded in the new free states of Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than being encouraged?

At the time of writing, the US did not have the military capability to defend its borders with a standing army. The country was just too big. The militia was definitely necessary at the time. Now that the US has the three largest air forces in the world, a nuclear arsenal, and enough troops to occupy multiple foreign countries without harming national defence, is a militia necessary to the security of the state?

(I don't think it matters whether the arms holders are part of a reservist force or not. The whole point of a militia is that civilian personel would form the militia at time of need, with or without training and prior enlistment.)

I'm not sure, but weren't militias always part timers? They were farmers, tradesmen, you name it, then once a week or so they'd do some training. Isn't that basically the system our state national guards use, only minus the "militia" title?

Either the national guard is the US militia, suggesting civilians outside the national guard don't need to bear arms ... or ... the national guard isn't the US militia, suggesting a civilian militia is unnecessary as the national guard performs the tasks of a militia. I'd go for the second option.

But I include the First Amendment as an example of where the framers had no issue with completely different and even opposing issues separated by comas. What anti-gun folks will say is connection in their amendment, anyone else could label as merely a literary affectation.

Well, "Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble" makes litterary sense. Take the people and guns-part out of the second and you get "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", which makes zero sense. It leaves the reader hanging, going "yeaaa... where's the rest of that?" Had "is" been there instead of "being" at least it'd be a complete sentence, but with "being" it begs a continuance.

Either the national guard is the US militia, suggesting civilians outside the national guard don't need to bear arms ... or ... the national guard isn't the US militia, suggesting a civilian militia is unnecessary as the national guard performs the tasks of a militia. I'd go for the second option.

Again, I'm not too familiar with the way it works, so if I'm wrong, plz tell me. When we had militias like in the revolutionary war, they were split up by colony and stayed in said colony, and during times of war, they were used to augment the army (or in the revolutionary war, since there was no army, they created the basis of it), and were then sent other places. Isn't that how it works now? I go down the street to the TEXAS National Guard post, and my friends in it are stationed only in Texas, unless they are called to a battlefield (like in our "war" in Iraq now). How is it the US militia, and not the state militia?

Sorry about being so contradictory in my previous posts, I do see the point you were trying to make. And while I can't say what the Founding Fathers meant (who can, really?), I intepret the 2nd Amendment as a failsafe, just in case a tyranny strikes the US, it gives the citizens the power to defend themselves and win back their freedom. And I admit the militia-national guard system is no longer just mr. joe diddle with his hunting rifle instructing troops before he goes and plants his crops. That's where the second part comes in, the right of the people. People still possess the power to defend themselves against tyranny. It may be a little archaic, but if you think about it, some would say the same thing about equal rights amendments, and look at what would probably happen if some of those were removed.

It may be a little archaic, but if you think about it, some would say the same thing about equal rights amendments, and look at what would probably happen if some of those were removed.

All it would take is one real nutjob in the White House to make it no longer archaic. A failed impeachment and a military coup by those wishing to stay in power would do it. The right to bear arms was not in there for hunting, it was in there because prior to our independence, armaments were banned in some states by their English appointed governors.

We're a long ways from those days, but I don't know if it's archaic at all. There's always the threat of a whacko. Quite a few people were concerned that Richard Nixon would resort to a military coup if impeachment proceedings were to attempt to remove him from office.

Actually, the military is set up with a similar set of checks and balances about when it is acceptable to disobey a direct order or go against your commanding officer.

I don't own guns myself, however, I fully support the right to own them, kids or no kids. That being said, I do wish that people would be more responsible about storing them in gunsafes and keeping things locked up so the people who shouldn't have access to them can't get to them.

That's what I was trying to say. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. I agree people should have the right to own guns. The archaic point was just to show the people who say we no longer need it that just because its old, doesn't mean we don't need it. For instance, if freedom of religion was removed, because its so "implied" these days that its safe, there would probably be quite a few of the more "action-oriented" religious people who would jump on the chance to expand. Jeez, imagine what Bush would be making us do if he could dictate religion.

When it comes to the second amendment things are always very tricky. I don't believe in disarming citizens when in all reality it just leaves the innocent unprotected, and with previous experience I don't trust cops with my life for a damn. The reason the constitution was written the way it was is because one of the acts of parliament against the american colonies was because citizens with guns would kill soldiers who would force families into submissive acts against their will and defend themselves.

As for militia's, the definition may not have changed but the reality of what a militia is has changed. It used to be militia were considered "minute man" much like what the national guard was intended to be, but has never been.

Now for my view on gun control I don't think a partial ban isn't such a bad thing but total disarmament of the citizens ( the law abiding ones anyways) is the first signs of oppresion. I have shot many different guns before, including automatics and even a muzzle loader. Why anyone would need an automatic or semi-automatic that can unload 30rounds in 10seconds is beyond me. If you have that much lead leaving the chamber there's nothing left to eat, however neither is there any ways you can make out the victims face.....

And for a post I read earlier about how peaceful demonstrations have worked.... Just look up Tianiman square massacre.

Kalest.

I don't believe in disarming citizens when in all reality it just leaves the innocent unprotected

Therein lies the myth, I suppose. There's a case in Sweden right now, btw, where the police for a long time have been lobbying in an attempt to get non-lethal, efficient weapons. They -do- exist, and hell, if the cops want it and feel safe with it, then it can't be all crappy. (Of course, the story in Sweden goes "budget people say "no, keep your guns", and now a kid is dead, shot by cops. Which in turn are "Hey, we TOLD you"." And so on.)

Constitutional protections don't automatically extend to everyone. The only reason the First Amendment applies to state action is because the Supreme Court held long ago that certain rights, including free speech and freedom of religion, are "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, which does expressly apply to states. Without the incorporation doctrine, the First Amendment would only apply to acts of Congress, as it is expressly written. Of course, the state constitutions would probably allow separately allow it, but that's another matter.

The Second Amendment itself isn't mythical, however the NRA's "right to bear arms" position is. It simply does not exist, except in the minds of the NRA and their followers.

Pfft, the right to bear arms does exist, on an individual level, while there is no Supreme Court decision specifically stating so, neither is there one saying it is not. The closest to the matter, as I've stated before, indicates that so long as the weapon type could have valid military use, and was in use by militaries, an individual has the right to bear it. Given the broad spectrum of weaponry used by modern militaries, most weapons people would own are protected by that decision.

As a matter of course, states are not permitted to infringe upon the rights conveyed upon the people by the Constitution of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow for armed militias that could defend the colonial states if Britain or other foreign invaders ever tried to assault the country. The 2nd Amendment was certainly not originally designed as a way to allow people to protect themselves from thieves and murderers. A musket would not have been very effective at accomplishing this.

A musket is better than a stick. Its not like the thieves were armed with automatic weaponry. Further, even if the sole reason for the 2nd amendment was, indeed, to allow for armed militias (which, rest assured, it was not) the reason is still valid today. If we are being invaded (and don't think it won't happen someday), if the populous has no weaponry, they cannot defend their land, and ultimately, the National Guard cannot be everywhere. Having an additional 50 million people with weapons is a good thing.

I also hate when people say that banning guns will tread on their right to hunt, a recreational activity. Using the exact same logic, marijuana and other drugs should all be legal because, while they certainly have the potential to harm people, they are primarily used and intended to be used for recreation.

So if you are pro-gun...you can't logically be anti-drug.

I'm not anti-drug. I think most recreational drugs should be legalized, its just another means of the Government imposing its moral will on the conduct of the People.



I'm sure that you know that is a faulty piece of logic. If the guns used in those massacres were not so readily available to the kids who used them, then those tragedies would have been averted at most (no guns, no shooting), and minimized at the least (kid settles for a machette and hacks off some guy's limb).

Pfft, and how hard is it for you to obtain illegal drugs? It's only slightly more difficult to obtain an illegal firearm.

ALSO, whoever said that the kids are going to find other means to do these things if guns aren't available, think about it. I doubt a kid has as easy access (not to even mention ease of use) to a 5-gallon tank of gasoline as these kids have had to semiautomatic weapons or worse.

When I was his age, I could have made pipe bombs easier than I could have obtained firearms. I certainly could have set the school aflame with ease...to suggest a kid can access a firearm easier than accessing gasoline is plain silly. Instead of blaming guns, perhaps America should look into why it is kids seem to feel the need to become mass murderers over the past 10 years...

And if he is forced instead to use a knife, a machette, a baseball bat, or anything else (other than a bomb...which should also be illegal and harder than **** to obtain),

You can make a decent little pipe bomb out of household materials easily aquired.

the idea is that he won't be able to thoughtlessly kill 10 people in 5 seconds, but maybe rather injure one or two people in a few minutes and requiring the far more difficult and conscious action of pushing a blade through human flesh, muscle, and bone, by which time even an unarmed person could have subdued him.
-Noir

Or, he could just get in a car and mow a few kids down as school is let out, for instance.

Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state any more? Is it? How many free states have proper militias, not part time professional reservists? Has the Pentagon even the vaguest plans to draw up militias for national defence in an emergency? Aren't armed militias being disbanded in the new free states of Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than being encouraged?

And think of why armed militas are being disbanded in Afghanistan and Iraq...Because they are shooting at (what they view as) the invading force.

Just think how much easier we'd have it right now if Iraq wasn't rife with weaponry...or think how much easier, say, China would have if there were no weapons in the US.

At the time of writing, the US did not have the military capability to defend its borders with a standing army. The country was just too big. The militia was definitely necessary at the time. Now that the US has the three largest air forces in the world, a nuclear arsenal, and enough troops to occupy multiple foreign countries without harming national defence, is a militia necessary to the security of the state?

When Rome was sacked, the first time, they were the mightiest empire on Earth...viewed as unassailable.

When Rome was sacked, the first time, they were the mightiest empire on Earth...viewed as unassailable.

I'm not an expert on Rome but... it occurs to me that Rome might have had too many of its legions off adventuring in foreign lands and lots of political unrest at home. Those ancient guys were always biting off more than they could chew. Sound familiar?

Anyone see the thing on Sparta last night on the History Channel? I kept thinking to myself, "what a bunch of noobs"! I mean, really, they were. They probably didn't have the luxury of reading history and military history to realize what follies they were committing.

And think of why armed militas are being disbanded in Afghanistan and Iraq...Because they are shooting at (what they view as) the invading force.

And look what good it did them? Would you really prefer to be hold out militiaman in the Afghan hills or a Georgian protester singing songs in the streets with hundreds of thousands of compatriots? Eastern europe has shown that modern governments are essentially impotent when their citizens refuse to be governed.

Some arguments are too ridiculous to argue against.

Having children is a reason *to own guns*, not a reason NOT to own them. It just means you have to:
1. Teach your children about guns, and
2. Keep them in a safe palce.

Having children is a reason *to own guns*, not a reason NOT to own them. It just means you have to:
1. Teach your children about guns, and
2. Keep them in a safe palce.You're far more likely to <i>cause</i> your child's death with that gun than to prevent it in some hypothetical burglarly scenario. From the statistics I cited earlier:<ul><li>Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
<li>A gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.
<li>The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
<li>Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death for teenagers and young adults. Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in 1996 (59%) were committed with a firearm. In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.</ul>You may have in your head an image of saving the day by pointing a gun at the big, bad burglar, but in reality having a gun makes it far more likely that your child will use it to kill himself or someone else, or that an accidental injury will occur because the child is "curious" or because you mistake someone for a burglar.

And if you believe that you can simply tell your children (especially boys) not to use the gun and be done with the matter, or that you can find a safe hiding spot where they won't find it, you're just being naive.

Who said anything about telling your children not to use guns?

Nine children have grown up in our household, 5 are still there, and the house is full of guns. Id estimate 12. How many accidents have we had? Zero.

Applying your statsitics in this case in a predictive manner is as ridiculous and misleading as citing traffic accident statistics and trying to preidtc my own personal accident history. YOU CANNOT CITE STATISTICS TO PREDICT OUTCOMES WHERE SKILL DETERMINES THE OUTCOME. I drive well, and dont ever ahve accidents. We treat guns with respect, so we dont ever have accidents.

The one and only way a gun can ever cause an unintenional death is through misuese. Statistics of accidents are meaningless here, since we use ours properly.

Applying your statsitics in this case in a predictive manner is as ridiculous and misleading . . .Obviously statistics can't predict actual outcomes in particular situations, only the probability of such an outcome. However, just because you, personally, have had zero gun injuries in your household does not mean the probability of a future injury is zero, or that the overall probability is zero.

Stated differently: Millions of households have guns, and yet only thousands of gun-related injuries happen each year, so therefore the probability of any particular household having a gun injury in any particular year is low. However, the risk of having a gun still greatly outweighs the benefits.

Best defense against home burglary type situations is actually a shotgun rather than a handgun. The sound associated with a loading a shotgun is something that many people have a hardwired response too. Putting a bullet into the chamber of a handgun <i>can be</i> loud, especially if you intend it that way (think of putting the magazine into the pistol) but it doesn't have the visceral reaction that the pumping of a shotgun does. Plus, should you actually come to a point where you have to fire, a shotgun is a more "general direction" type of weapon, rather than a handgun where you have to actually aim. Also since a shotgun uses scattershot ammunition, it will cause less penetration damage than say, a .45cal, which have been known to go through concrete walls. While it all sounds rather cold and analytical when written down in black and white, all of the above mentioned items have been proven themselves in "stressful" situations (ie: I personally know people who have scared off burglars in their living rooms by cocking a shotgun in their bedroom).

That being said, in my opinion, the shotgun doesn't hold a candle to the fun of firing a handgun at a range. Being from Texas, I would say that the majority (easily 90%) of my friends (both current, and while growing up) either hunted, or had parents who did recreational shooting, handgun or rifle. I also knew quite a few who participated in parent/kids marksman tourneys. No one at my school, much less my district, shot themselves accidentally or otherwise. The *only* shooting incident that we had was when I was in high school, and it was on a weekend and it was just a bunch of kids who decided to put a few holes in the glass of the doorway to the school (no kids were there, no staff, it was vandalism not "attempted murder"). In fact, the only real "shootings" that we heard about while I was in school were in the poorer parts of South Dallas and were usually gang related.

In the time that I've been in New York, I would say that many of the kids I knew growing up knew more or just as much as the adults here in the state - probably more than some of the police officers I've met. I would feel safer with a ten year-old Texan with a gun than a forty year-old New Yorker.

As I said earlier, I am for gun control, but not by removing guns. Guns don't kill...bottom line. Its the person behind the gun that kills. Anything can be used as a weapon if it is handled dangerously. So, blaming the weapon rather than the idiocy of the person holding the weapon doesn't make sense to me. I do believe in gun control in the manner that anyone who owns a gun needs to be properly and thoroughly trained not only on the use of the gun, but on the storing and keeping of guns.

Gun Control Statistics/Report (http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml)

Here are a few of the quoted statistics from Law Enforcement and Victim surveys that can be viewed in detail on the above link.

Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999. Firearm fatalities from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For juveniles, they de-creased by 40%, from 1993 to 1998.
Reports submitted by state and local law enforcement agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and published annually in the Uniform Crime Reports indicate that both the crime rate and the violent crime rate have declined since 1981. Of the homicides in which the type of weapon could be identified, from 60% to almost 70% have involved firearms each year. The number of homicides and the proportion involving firearms have declined in recent years. In 2000 of the 12,943 homicides reported, 66% (8,493) were committed with firearms. Of those committed with firearms, 79% (6,686) involved handguns. From 1993 to1999, the number of firearm-related homicides decreased by an average rate of nearly 11% annually, for an overall decrease of 49%. In 2000, firearm-related homicides increased slightly (by 13 homicides) to 8,493.
The other principal source of national crime data is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted by the Bureau of the Census and published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The NCVS database provides some information on the weapons used by offenders, based on victims' reports. Based on data provided by survey respondents in calendar year 1999, BJS estimated that, nationwide, there were 6.3 million violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault). Weapons were used in about 1.6 million of these criminal incidents. Firearms were used by offenders in about 533,000 of these incidents, or roughly 8%.
Youth crime statistics have often been used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14-to 24-year-old age group increased sharply from 1985 to 1993; they have declined since then, but not to the 1985 level. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1985 to 1993, the number of firearm-related homicides committed by 14-to 17-year-olds increased by 294%, from 855 to 3,371. From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm-related homicides committed by persons in this age group decreased by 65%, from 3,371 to 1,165.
From 1985 to 1993, firearm-related homicides committed by 18-to 24-year-olds increased by 142%, from 3,374 to 8,171. From 1993 to 1999, firearm-related homicides committed by persons in this age group decreased by 43%, from 8,717 to 4,973.
Firearm fatalities have decreased continuously since 1993. The source of national data on firearm deaths is the publication Vital Statistics, published each year by the National Center for Health Statistics. Firearm deaths reported by coroners in each state are presented in four categories: homicides and legal intervention, suicides, accidents, and unknown circumstances. In 1999, a total of 28,874 firearm deaths occurred, according to such reports. Of this total, 11,127 were homicides or due to legal intervention; 16,599 were suicides; 824 were unintentional (accidental) shootings; and 324 were of unknown cause. From 1993 to 1998, firearm-related deaths decreased by an average rate of 5% annually, for an overall decrease of 27%. Also in 1999, there were 1,776 juvenile (under 18 years of age) deaths attributed to firearms. Of the juvenile total, 1,010 were homicides or due to legal intervention; 558 were suicides; 158 were unintentional; and 50 were of unknown cause. From 1993 to 1999, firearm-related deaths for juveniles have decreased by an average rate of 10% annually, for an overall decrease of 46%.

I will agree with some on the point of keeping a gun for home security. IMHO, a weapon that is going to be used for home security, by definition, would need to be readily accessible and loaded. That is not safe. And, if a weapon that is being kept under the pretense of home security is properly stored, in all honesty, in the event of needing that weapon, would you really be able to get it in time? So, I don't think that is a valid reason to keep weapons. Hunting, recreation, work-related...yes. Home security...no.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCVS data from 1987 to 1992 indicate that in each of those years, roughly 62,200 victims of violent crime (1% of all victims of such crimes) used guns to defend themselves.

As this statistic shows, very rarely is a weapon used as self-defense.

As Stormhaven said:
I would feel safer with a ten year-old Texan with a gun than a forty year-old New Yorker.

I am soooo with you on that one Stormhaven. The difference is a respect for firearms. Plain and simple. If you respect and know how to use a gun, then I don't see a problem. Its all the stupid, John Wayne wannabes that terrify me.

How many accidents have we had? Zero.

As Tuda said, the fact that your family has had no accidents yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, and it definitely doesn't mean that other families will have similar luck or "skill."

I drive well, and dont ever ahve accidents. We treat guns with respect, so we dont ever have accidents.

Someday when you're in an accident you'll realize that your own skill at driving has extremely little to do with whether or not you'll be in an accident. Your "skill" has nothing to do with someone else falling asleep and drifting over the median to slam you head-on at 60 mph, or with somebody rear-ending you, or any number of other types of the most common accidents. While driving carefully and skillfully certainly make it less likely for you to be in an accident caused by yourself, they have very little impact on the overall occurrence of accidents because of the fact that you are only 1 person in 1 car out of the millions that you drive the same roads with throughout your life.

The suicide/murder thing is pretty valid also. Severe emotional reactions to a spouse cheating, depression, or any other number of things can only become fatally violent when a deadly weapon is accessible. The more accessible it is, the more likely somebody who is not thinking rationally will be able to get to it and use it before they settle down. And before you say that "well, gasoline is available and we can just get in our cars and run people over" understand that that kind of logic could be equally applied to saying that chemical weapons should be legal and available, since we already have easy access things to kill each other with. The quicker we start to eliminate the abundance of deadly weaponry of any kind in this country, especially weapons that don't have other primary purposes (i.e. cars, baseball bats, kitchen knives), the quicker we will be able to reduce the number of violent fatalities in this country.

For reference, you need look no further than similarly populous and developed nations as Canada and Britain (and the rest of Europe) where gun laws are far more strict and crime levels remain extremely low, while concurrently having tens of thousands of fewer gun-related fatalities.

I'm not completely opposed to the right to bear arms, I just think that we need to acknowledge there is a serious problem in some places rather than saying everything is fine.

Finally, if the US is invaded I doubt that the deciding factor in the war will be made by civilians with handguns, especially when the nuke drops on your city hall.

And look what good it did them? Would you really prefer to be hold out militiaman in the Afghan hills or a Georgian protester singing songs in the streets with hundreds of thousands of compatriots? Eastern europe has shown that modern governments are essentially impotent when their citizens refuse to be governed.

Do you think a nation mighty enough to invade the US will care if I wear an orange scarf to show my dissent? No, they'll take me and my orange scarf and throw me in an alaskan gulag.

China has shown that a modern government, if its militarily powerful enough, can do whatever it wants to its dissedents and noone on the planet will do anything but mouth words.

For reference, you need look no further than similarly populous and developed nations as Canada and Britain (and the rest of Europe) where gun laws are far more strict and crime levels remain extremely low, while concurrently having tens of thousands of fewer gun-related fatalities.

Conversely you can look at places like Israel and Switzerland, with relatively liberal gun laws and they have virtually no internal gun violence (I say internal because, obviously, Israel has violence...but its imported by foreign entities who obtain their weapons from foreign sources).

You can look at Vermont (I think its vermont...vermont or new hampshire), where technically, ever male of military age must own a weapon and it has a much lower rate of crime than New York City where it is difficult to own, weapons.



Finally, if the US is invaded I doubt that the deciding factor in the war will be made by civilians with handguns, especially when the nuke drops on your city hall.

Its a moot point if nukes are used on a broad scale against the US, there will be no world left, don't bring them into the argument.

Without nukes...well, I'd suggest that if we're being invaded, civilians with weapons (Be they long barrelled or handguns), will indeed play a significant role, if permitted.

In 1982, the small town of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring all heads of housholds to own a gun(with certain exceptions).

Despite increasing in size from 5000, to 22,000 today, the rate of percapita crimes have plummeted, and the actual number of all crimes overall has fallen dramatically since the passing of the law.

Crime statistics today:
Crime in Kennesaw (2002):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 2 rapes (8.8 per 100,000)
* 4 robberies (17.6 per 100,000)
* 19 assaults (83.8 per 100,000)
* 60 burglaries (264.7 per 100,000)
* 426 larceny counts (1879.6 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (105.9 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 133.6 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.6)


Crime in Kennesaw (2001):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 0 rapes (0.0 per 100,000)
* 7 robberies (31.5 per 100,000)
* 15 assaults (67.6 per 100,000)
* 51 burglaries (229.8 per 100,000)
* 370 larceny counts (1666.8 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (108.1 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 117.1 (higher means more crime)


For comparison, a city with a high level of gun control:
Crime in Stockton (2002):

* 36 murders (14.2 per 100,000)
* 141 rapes (55.8 per 100,000)
* 1,171 robberies (463.3 per 100,000)
* 2,345 assaults (927.9 per 100,000)
* 2,965 burglaries (1173.2 per 100,000)
* 11,003 larceny counts (4353.7 per 100,000)
* 3,453 auto thefts (1366.3 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 753.4 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.6)


Crime in Stockton (2001):

* 30 murders (12.1 per 100,000)
* 144 rapes (58.0 per 100,000)
* 1,030 robberies (414.8 per 100,000)
* 2,092 assaults (842.5 per 100,000)
* 2,871 burglaries (1156.3 per 100,000)
* 10,558 larceny counts (4252.1 per 100,000)
* 3,003 auto thefts (1209.4 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 688.6 (higher means more crime)

A town close to me, of similar size to Kennesaw
Crime in Galt (2002):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 6 rapes (29.7 per 100,000)
* 14 robberies (69.4 per 100,000)
* 40 assaults (198.1 per 100,000)
* 126 burglaries (624.2 per 100,000)
* 448 larceny counts (2219.3 per 100,000)
* 140 auto thefts (693.5 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 269.8 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.6)


Crime in Galt (2001):

* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 7 rapes (35.3 per 100,000)
* 4 robberies (20.2 per 100,000)
* 35 assaults (176.5 per 100,000)
* 119 burglaries (600.0 per 100,000)
* 392 larceny counts (1976.4 per 100,000)
* 87 auto thefts (438.6 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 215.5 (higher means more crime)


City Data (http://www.city-data.com/)

I think that instead of comparing the US to other cultures, with different cultural influences on crime, how about comparing US cities, especially a US city which has mandatory gun ownership and some in California which has moderate to high level of gun control.

Feel free to run your own studies of cities where you live.(it would be cool if there are similar sites, search engines of cities in the countries mentioned England or Canada).

Someday when you're in an accident you'll realize that your own skill at driving has extremely little to do with whether or not you'll be in an accident.
Number one, I commend you on your backhanded jibe. Seriously, too many people flame overtly on messageboards. Comments like that one are much better - all the insult, none of the danger of moderation.

But anyway, Ive been in many accidents - none of which I was driving for. In fact, I was left in critical conditions for over a week from one. I've seen more car accidents than I care to remember.

All of them were preventable. All of them could have been avoided had the driver taken different actions.

It is my experiance that bad drivers have multiple accidents on their records, and claim none were really their fault, and somehow good drivers have clean records. Now of course there are exceptions, but yes, overall, driver skill is the biggest factor in car accidents.

A part of driver skill is learning to drive defensively - i.e. prevent other BAD drivers from being able to affect you.

England is not as safe as I imagined.

United Nations Crime Reports (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html)

I don't know if the telegraph is a reputable news source, fyi.

US Department of Justice Stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm)

With England having a population of 52 million, and the US at 265 million,,,
The number of total burglaries in England seems pretty high.

Police-recorded burglaries totaled 2,501,500 in the United States and 1,164,583 in England

Number one, I commend you on your backhanded jibe. Seriously, too many people flame overtly on messageboards. Comments like that one are much better - all the insult, none of the danger of moderation.


I didn't see any jibe in that whatsoever. A lot of people credit their driving "skill" with their lack of accidents. I've never caused an accident, but I have been in a couple. Not much I can do to prevent other people from doing dumb-ass things.

I think his point was, it doesn't matter how good you and your family is with guns because there are plenty of them out there that aren't, as we saw demonstrated yet again my a psychopath 16 year old with a gun just day before yesterday.

Its like saying, "I drive carefully, obey the laws, I'm responsible. Therefore cars aren't dangerous". They are dangerous because a good portion of the people driving them are nut cakes. Same with guns. If you can figure out a way to keep the guns out of the hands of the nut cakes and the people likely to use it in a rage then I'd have a lot less problem with gun ownership.

Dont get me wrong Panamah - guns are incredibly dangerous, and so are cars.

This is precisely why both should be licensed far more strictly than they currently are, and no one should be allowed to use either without demonstrating TRUE proficiency. As a starting point, the new and improved driving test should be so hard that half the currently licensed drivers fail it (since thats roughly how many of them obviously dont deserve to drive, based on their inability to use such a simple safety device as a turn signal).

Guns in MY house arent a danger to people in schoolyards. Therefore guns in MY house arent the problem. Its guns in the hands of the wrong people that are the problem.

Banning all guns is exactly as ludicrous as banning all cars - what we need is to create very strict licensing requirements for both.

Burglary rates in the UK are very high. There are a very large number of petty thefts and sneak thieves, often kids, who will walk past a house and snatch just one item maybe and run off. A lot of crime is drug related or, for assualts, alcohol related. Repeat offending rates for thieves released from prison is something like 90%.

Having said all that, we record crime very officiously now. We might have the same level of crime as many other countries that don't record it as well.

This is precisely why both should be licensed far more strictly than they currently are, and no one should be allowed to use either without demonstrating TRUE proficiency. As a starting point, the new and improved driving test should be so hard that half the currently licensed drivers fail it (since thats roughly how many of them obviously dont deserve to drive, based on their inability to use such a simple safety device as a turn signal).

Well, certainly background checks for gun owners really needs to be done, that includes private sales and gun shows and the like. I think guns should be recorded to their owners just like cars are. If someone else ends up with your gun and does a crime and its found you transferred ownership without the legal checks... you should be in hot water.

But the problem is the NRA will never, never, never allow that sort of thing.

And finally... as far as tests are concerned, I don't know that they prove all that much. They prove you aren't drunk, in a rage, a total dimwit or a frothing lunatic at the time you take the test. That doesn't mean you're going to continue in that state indefinitely.

Therefore guns in MY house arent the problem. Its guns in the hands of the wrong people that are the problem.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. But in general I don't think we're doing enough to make sure that those people don't get a hold of guns.

If anyone was curious -
<a href="http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/txlaws.htm">Summary of Texas Gun Laws</a> (Pro-Gun control site, so the explanations are a bit biased)

I was looking for gun crimes by state but haven't found anything yet. If anyone sees something, post it!

I was looking for gun crimes by state but haven't found anything yet. If anyone sees something, post it!Try the Dept. of Justice statistics site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm#regionweap. You can click on each "region" graph to see actual state information, plus a billion other types of data.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4379441.stm

Another example of a bloodless revolution, where guns weren't necessary to defend the people from tyranny? I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Guns in MY house arent a danger to people in schoolyards. Therefore guns in MY house arent the problem. Its guns in the hands of the wrong people that are the problem.

I wonder if this is how the poor old geezer in the news report felt, too.

Compare crime stats in American cities and states with strict gun control. Just because it is illegal in New York and Washington DC to own guns does not mean that bad guys don't have guns...and that crime, especially gun crime is diminished in any way.

Do you suppose the root of the problem of gun violence in America may lie somewhere else? Chance could be that a tightening of gun license regulation may serve only to shift this problem onto another level. If you're a malcontent individual, and you can't get your hands on a gun, chances are that you'd reach for something else, for example a dagger. The gun is purely a tool, as is the dagger.

Perhaps the root of the problem may be a general conditioning of the American public by politicians and their media. How many Americans out there keep their doors locked, even if they're at home? How many locks does the average American have on his/her front door? How often does the average American worry him/herself with home security?

Keeping weapons in the home in order to secure safety...Not one person I know over here in England has a certain weapon in their homes in order to secure their safety, let alone a rifle or a pistol, yet they seem to get along relatively well in life.

As for keeping a personal gun in order to keep a particular government in line, you need only look back in history to see examples of peaceful revolution, the first that springs to mind being Gandhi's peaceful efforts against the then imperialist British occupation of India - ironic in a sense that he himself was assassinated by Godse...with a gun, no less.

Whilst I'm on the topic of Gandhi,

"Destruction is not the law of humans. Man lives freely only by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him. Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on another is a crime against humanity."

"Non-violence and cowardice go ill together. I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness."

and you can't get your hands on a gun, chances are that you'd reach for something else, for example a dagger. The gun is purely a tool, as is the dagger.

Yes, but a gun is ever so much more effective. And I think to really follow through and kill someone with a knife it is a lot more close contact, you'll definitely get splatter with blood, a gun is more like... killing neatly from a distance. Of course, given enough time and the right circumstances, you could probably kill someone with paper-cuts.

The sniper kid, Malvo, couldn't have done much damage without a gun. I doubt he would have bothered.

I ask myself, is it really worth the crazies, loonies, skin-heads, criminals and everyone being armed because of a really nebulously phrased bit in the constitution? And as always my answer is "no". I'd vote to jettison or at least clarify that amendment in a heart-beat as long as it could be enforced. However, I have a feeling it'd be like trying to "win the peace" in Iraq. Probably start a civil war.

Yes, but a gun is ever so much more effective. And I think to really follow through and kill someone with a knife it is a lot more close contact, you'll definitely get splatter with blood, a gun is more like... killing neatly from a distance. Of course, given enough time and the right circumstances, you could probably kill someone with paper-cuts.

I suppose, in essence, my point here is that if you're malcontent and you're out for blood, you have your own reasons and issues - reasons and issues which a law restricting gun ownership would not address. Address the issues that matter to the offender, the issues that drove him/her to commit the act in the first place, and you get closer to the real problems. Were I to go loopy a few days from now and I couldn't get my hands on a gun, I'd likely go for the next best thing - anything to achieve a twisted determination.

Can one seriously believe that, if the boy mentioned in the report was not able to get a gun, he would have shrugged and not bothered? Whatever drove him to this, isn't curable by stricter gun licensing regulations. That said, one can't help but wonder if it's curable at all - perhaps it would be wiser to ask "why?" instead of "how?" this event even occurred.

I suppose, in essence, my point here is that if you're malcontent and you're out for blood, you have your own reasons and issues - reasons and issues which a law restricting gun ownership would not address. Address the issues that matter to the offender, the issues that drove him/her to commit the act in the first place, and you get closer to the real problems. Were I to go loopy a few days from now and I couldn't get my hands on a gun, I'd likely go for the next best thing - anything to achieve a twisted determination.


Yes, I understood this was your point, but I disagree with it. I don't think we would have even a fraction of the murders we currently do if there were no guns. Guns allow you to react to your crazy impulses much, much faster. You're harder to stop with a gun, you can kill more people more quickly with a gun. The crazy teenagers who kill handfuls of people might be able to hurt or kill 1 person before they could be grappled.

You probably only have to look as far as statistics for murder in countries, similar to ours in government and standard of living, where private citizens can't own guns, to see that correlation.

It just simply isn't as easy to kill people with other things as it is with a gun and you're easier to stop if you don't have a loaded gun.

Pana, you seem to have this idea that all gunfights are at this long range in a KO Corral type of standoff. Actually most gunfights take place at a 7 to 10 foot range. That's pretty up close and personal.

I agree that restrictions on gun ownership in the US would likely solve the particular problem of gun deaths, and make an attractive statistic figure that would be less embarrassing on official levels, but I can't help but feel that prevention in this method purely channels the problem into another form that might just happen to be less noticeable to the general public and easier for us to ignore. What I'm trying to say here is, are we looking at the issue from the wrong perspective?

Restrictions are all well and good, but far better to examine the cause as to why these particular people take actions like this in the first place - don't you think?

I'm shocked by the number of people that think banning guns will actually do something.

Look at things the goverment already "regulates" but has 0 control over, alcohol, drugs, some guns, illegal aliens, emissions... the list goes on and on. Like I said before, drugs are banned, and all though high school obtaining drugs wouldn't of been a problem. Those that are pro-gun aren't going to take theirs down to the local incinerator, and those that are anti-gun don't have guns anyway. Guns in the hoome with children would be ludicrous, a misdemeanor to tack onto those 10 life sentances.

Pana, you seem to have this idea that all gunfights are at this long range in a KO Corral type of standoff. Actually most gunfights take place at a 7 to 10 foot range. That's pretty up close and personal.

No, not really. Stabbing someone just takes a lot more intent and is a lot more difficult to kill someone than with a gun. There's a guy I have listened to on the radio, he's a former profiler for the FBI and talked about the different state of minds that people have when they're feeling murderous. The real sick-o's like the really brutal, bloody stuff and would prefer a knife or strangling or something liek that. Casual murderers or emotional murderers probably couldn't do that. I just think its a hell of a lot easier to pick up a gun and kill than use a knife for the same thing. For instance, how many women would commit murder using a knife versus using a gun? I bet very few would use a knife, especially against another adult.

7-10 feet with a gun, its more like 1 foot with a knife.

For you hunters... would you enjoy killing an animal with a knife? I could conceivably shoot an animal. Its fast, they don't suffer -- unless you're a bad shot, there isn't blood gushing out everywhere... but with a knife? Yeech!

Conversely you can look at places like Israel and Switzerland, with relatively liberal gun laws and they have virtually no internal gun violence (I say internal because, obviously, Israel has violence...but its imported by foreign entities who obtain their weapons from foreign sources).

The Israeli's invented the Uzi. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905706.html) I have absolutely no clue about crime rates in Israel, but you really don't think that the availability of Uzi's has had ANY impact on the ability of terrorists/freedom fighters to act out violently? I can't say definitively, but it seems like it would.

You can look at Vermont (I think its vermont...vermont or new hampshire), where technically, ever male of military age must own a weapon and it has a much lower rate of crime than New York City where it is difficult to own, weapons.

New York City has far lower crime rates than most people think and it has been decreasing steadily for a while now. Until you do some heavy and complicated research I doubt you can say whether or not gun control laws have had an impact. Look, other people are discussing this too! (http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/t3206.html)

Its a moot point if nukes are used on a broad scale against the US, there will be no world left, don't bring them into the argument.

You can't call it a moot point that doesn't belong in the argument just because it renders your point meaningless. There is a virtually ZERO % probability that any invasion of the US in the future would be conducted with non-WMD's. Chemical, Biological, Nuclear. The US is not going to be invaded by infantry.

Number one, I commend you on your backhanded jibe. Seriously, too many people flame overtly on messageboards. Comments like that one are much better - all the insult, none of the danger of moderation.

Thanks, but I was just trying to make a point, not insult you. I do see that it could have come across as condescending, and I apologize for that. The meaning of my words was intended to be that even if you are the world's best driver, it does not rule out, or even significantly decrease your chances of being in a car accident caused by somebody else. You may think that things could be done to avoid them, but when two objects are headed at each other at 120 mph (60mph each way) and you have less than a second to react, skill is not usually going to be enough. Look at NASCAR, professional drivers that have accidents all the time. And yes, I acknowledge they are traveling at very fast speeds, but 120mph (two cars on a highway driving in opposite directions) ain't a crawl. Besides, are you CONSTANTLY paying the utmost attention to everything while you are driving? I can't imagine that 100% of the time you are completely on guard and driving with your maximum level of "skill."

As a starting point, the new and improved driving test should be so hard that half the currently licensed drivers fail it (since thats roughly how many of them obviously dont deserve to drive, based on their inability to use such a simple safety device as a turn signal).

Woo we finally agree on something! ;) While we're at it, can we make voters take a current events/policies test to see if they actually know any god damn thing about the person they are voting for other than their name and appearance? Otherwise, what are these people being elected for?

As for the argument of what these malcontent homicidal/suicidal children would do if they didn't have easy access to guns? Sure maybe they would try something else, but there are few weapons (I acknowledge your point about bombs Aidon, but some kids still don't know how to make C4 with Drano) that can kill as many people as easily and in as short a time as guns. That increases the chances for the kid to be subdued and arrested and jailed before he kills more people. And I'd rather see 1 dead person than 10.

Panamah! You are my Druid'sGrove soulmate! :hit:

-Noir

The UZI is a beautiful machine, the pistol too.

Clean and simple. Reliable.

It is in the class of the Glock as one of the best firearms ever invented and manufatured.

Remember, that it only fires a 9mm round, a small class handgun round, though.

Up until the California and Federal ban of semi-automatics, one could purchase one.

Yet, I have heard of non of these mass murders ever being commited by one.

If they were not so expensive, I would love to own one.

States with heavy gun control have the same amount of murders by firearms as states with lose regulation laws. Of the murders where the relationship between the murderer and victim were known, 77% knew the person who killed them. 2/3s of murders are committed by firearms, but that still leaves a solid 1/3 by other means - which leads me to believe the opposite, if they're committed to murdering someone, they'll find a means.

Murdering someone, but not 10 people. It is harder to murder 10 people than one, and guns make it easier. That's all I'm saying.

Individual murders can be accomplished with any number of weapons...even your bare hands. I doubt you will stay standing long enough to murder 10 people with your hands in one sitting.

Get my point?

I think there is a valid argument that a premeditated murderer would use any weapon to kill. There are however many other confrontations where people don't know what they're going to do. Typically this might be a drunk person who wants to strike at something, anything, or anyone. If they've got a glass they might smash it and wave it about. If they've got a gun they'll shoot it. That is one danger of guns.

Also whenever there is a confrontation with guns, there is an immediate escalation of danger. Half measures are no longer an option. It is immediately a life or death situation. This is why the British police don't want to carry guns except in emergencies. The police want to diffuse the tension in all confrontations, not escalate it, and guns always escalate tension.

As an example for anyone who has seen Resevoir Dogs, just remember the scene where Tim Roth shoots the woman in the car. That is how guns escalate situations, in a nutshell, whatever the intent of the gun owner.

No, not really. Stabbing someone just takes a lot more intent and is a lot more difficult to kill someone than with a gun. There's a guy I have listened to on the radio, he's a former profiler for the FBI and talked about the different state of minds that people have when they're feeling murderous. The real sick-o's like the really brutal, bloody stuff and would prefer a knife or strangling or something liek that. Casual murderers or emotional murderers probably couldn't do that. I just think its a hell of a lot easier to pick up a gun and kill than use a knife for the same thing. For instance, how many women would commit murder using a knife versus using a gun? I bet very few would use a knife, especially against another adult.

7-10 feet with a gun, its more like 1 foot with a knife.

For you hunters... would you enjoy killing an animal with a knife? I could conceivably shoot an animal. Its fast, they don't suffer -- unless you're a bad shot, there isn't blood gushing out everywhere... but with a knife? Yeech!


If they can't buy handguns, they'll build zip guns, or use rifles and shotguns, or build a bomb, or buy a bow.

Instead of walking into the school, they'll sit on the roof of a tall building and shoot people as they come out of school.

The Israeli's invented the Uzi. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905706.html) I have absolutely no clue about crime rates in Israel, but you really don't think that the availability of Uzi's has had ANY impact on the ability of terrorists/freedom fighters to act out violently? I can't say definitively, but it seems like it would.

Yes, actually, the fact that most people in Israel have a weapon in their home does, indeed, have a positive impact on the ability of terrorists to act out violently. Just in the past four-five years, a good half dozen suicide bombings have been stopped by civilians shooting the bomber before he could activate his bomb.

Then there is is the protection of border settlements and towns, where the terrorists walk in, shoot at some women and children and are subsequently gunned down by members of the town.

As for crime rates in Israel...You're safer walking alone at night in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem than most US towns or cities. When I lived there for six months at age 16, not once did I hear of a mugging, or of an Israeli breaking into a house. Hitchhiking was a safe and commonly used mode of transportation.



New York City has far lower crime rates than most people think and it has been decreasing steadily for a while now. Until you do some heavy and complicated research I doubt you can say whether or not gun control laws have had an impact. Look, other people are discussing this too! (http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/t3206.html)

I'd suggest the reduction in crime has more to do with Giuliani turning the city into a police state, for all intents. Whether that was a good or bad thing is a debate for another time and place, and ultimately a debate for New Yorkers.

A better example than New York would be Washinton D.C. Handguns (or any firearm, afaik), are banned in D.C., yet it perenially is in the top three cities for per capita murders and other violent crimes.


You can't call it a moot point that doesn't belong in the argument just because it renders your point meaningless. There is a virtually ZERO % probability that any invasion of the US in the future would be conducted with non-WMD's. Chemical, Biological, Nuclear. The US is not going to be invaded by infantry.

Believe that if you will. On the other hand, only a fool attacks the US with WMD's. At that point guns won't make a difference anywhere in the world, because some 70% of the worlds people will die during the nuclear winter that ensues. It renders the argument moot. Its like saying "we don't need guns to defend ourselves against aliens because they'll bring death rays".

The only way to successfully invade the US is conventionally. Otherwise you may as well not invade because you won't have a nation to return to.

You can't call it a moot point that doesn't belong in the argument just because it renders your point meaningless. There is a virtually ZERO % probability that any invasion of the US in the future would be conducted with non-WMD's. Chemical, Biological, Nuclear. The US is not going to be invaded by infantry.

I have to agree with Aidon on disagreeing with this comment. First, 9/11 proved that we as a nation are vulnerable to attacks. If the terrorists could have been even more organized then they already were, we could have been in trouble. Conventional attacks are going to be our downfall, as a country.

Second, the US has an arrogance (brought about by our belief in our 'superiority') that opens us up for weakness. Most of the people in our country don't know how to protect themselves and have fostered a strong dependence on technology. We have spread our forces thin and opened ourselves up to anger from other nations/nationalities.

Of the overall population, how many would know what to do in the event that an enemy stormed our cities? Probably not enough to prevent it. Again, 9/11 showed us that. The chaos and subsequent disarray afterwards was evidence that there are a lot of people who couldn't survive such a possibility.

Do I believe it will ever happen? I hope not, but to say that there is zero percent chance is a bit too naive to me. We've said it before and were shown how wrong we (as a nation) could be

*Excuse the derailment from current topic, but had to add my two pennies.*

As for crime rates in Israel...You're safer walking alone at night in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem than most US towns or cities.On theory to explain this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htmThe interplay between desire, ability and feasibility makes for some unique case studies. One example is Israel, whose entire population is armed, and yet has a low murder rate. However, their desire to commit murder is low, because Israel is usually either at war or the threat of war, and criminologists have long known that the crime rate drops during wartime. (One could say that the desire to kill is externalized in the case of war.)The link has some interesting statistics and analysis and concludes that gun ownership is correlated with a higher murder rate.

The most interesting statistic to me is the following:<pre> Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05</pre>The United States and Switzerland, the most "pro-gun" countries, have an outrageously high handgun murder rate. Japan, one of the most "anti-gun" countries, has a mere 60 murders despite having half the population of the United States.

Clearly, the easy availability of guns <i>does</i> affect the number of criminals who use them.

I'd like to see murders per capita too for those countries. That would conceivably answer whether or not its just as easy to pick some other method to commit murder.

Ok, the criteria is:

Stable democracy, standard of living relatively close to the US.
source is http://members.fortunecity.com/multi19/homicide.htm

50.14 South Africa :eek:
21.40 Russia (1999)
10.00 Lithuania
_9.94 Estonia
_6.22 Latvia
_5.64 U.S.A.
_2.94 Spain
_2.86 Finland
_2.84 Northern Ireland
_2.72 Czech Republic
_2.65 Slovakia
_2.58 New Zealand
_2.50 Romania
_2.31 Turkey (1999)
_2.23 Poland
_2.11 Scotland
_2.04 Hungary
_1.97 Sweden
_1.81 Australia
_1.79 France
_1.76 Canada
_1.61 England & Wales
_1.54 Belgium
_1.50 Greece
_1.48 Ireland (Eire)
_1.42 Netherlands
_1.42 Italy
_1.41 Slovenia
_1.24 Portugal
_1.17 Germany
_1.10 Japan
_1.09 Norway
_1.09 Denmark
_1.06 Malta
_1.01 Austria
_0.96 Switzerland
_0.60 Cyprus
_0.23 Luxembourg

Now which ones have strict gun laws?

I'd like to see murders per capita too for those countries. That would conceivably answer whether or not its just as easy to pick some other method to commit murder.From the same link:Murders per 100,000 of population, 1991 (21)

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
France 4.60
Portugal 4.50
Australia 4.48
Germany 4.20
Belgium 2.80
Spain 2.28
Switzerland 2.25
Italy 2.18
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Austria 1.80
Greece 1.76
Sweden 1.73
Turkey 1.45
Japan 1.20
Ireland 0.96
Finland 0.70

Some great on Japan VS US.

Linkage (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm)

the claim that fewer guns correlates with less violence is plainly wrong. America experienced falling crime and homicide rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1980s, all periods during which per capita gun (p.40)ownership, especially handgun ownership, rose.[127] And Japan, with its severe gun control, suffers no less murder than Switzerland, one of the most gun-intensive societies on earth.[128]

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.

Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.

Simply put, the Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than Americans. America's non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the two nations.[129] Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in American prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons.[130] Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.[131]

As a general matter, gun control does not take a great deal of police time to enforce because the Japanese voluntarily comply. The Japanese have acceded that gun control protects them effectively. There was and is little need for individual self-defense guns.

Even if gun control were resisted, it would be relatively easy to enforce in Japan. Police freedom to search and seize would help, and so would Japan's status as an island, which makes control of illegal imports such as drugs or guns easier than in the United States.[132] The civilian stock of gun ownership was always small. Hence, civil disarmament was easy to enforce. In Japan, the police set records in a year when they confiscate 1,767 handguns from gangsters.[133] It is not uncommon for that many illegal handguns to be seized by the police in a single American city in one year. Some of the Japanese tour groups in Hawaii take their customers to local gun clubs to do something that the customers have never done before: see, hold, and shoot a real gun.[134]

In short, while many persons may admire Japan's near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the (p.41)Japanese model. Japan's gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.

Tudamorf, I found one that's 10 years newer. Canada isn't nearly so high on the one I found. Hmmm.... either Canadians went through a bad patch or these numbers are suspicious.

Ozmodiar, I have no doubt some cultures are just more obedient. Take France... a country full of scofflaws. They flout their law all the time. Smoke on the subway... sure! Traffic laws? Make me! But they still have a much lower murder rate.

The three of us are getting radically different numbers for murder rates, perhaps we should see which source is the most accurate.

Tudamorf, I found one that's 10 years newer. Canada isn't nearly so high on the one I found. Hmmm.... either Canadians went through a bad patch or these numbers are suspicious.

Ozmodiar, I have no doubt some cultures are just more obedient. Take France... a country full of scofflaws. They flout their law all the time. Smoke on the subway... sure! Traffic laws? Make me! But they still have a much lower murder rate.

That's because the French have been afraid of firing guns since WWI =P

The three of us are getting radically different numbers for murder rates, perhaps we should see which source is the most accurate.

I don't have a lot of trust in mine. I was hoping to find something at the World Bank or the CIA web site.

I have to agree with Aidon on disagreeing with this comment. First, 9/11 proved that we as a nation are vulnerable to attacks. If the terrorists could have been even more organized then they already were, we could have been in trouble. Conventional attacks are going to be our downfall, as a country.

First off, I live in New York City and was living 4 blocks from the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Second, I hardly think you can call 9/11 a conventional attack.

Third, even if you can, homeowners with guns would have had absolutely no impact on 9/11, so it doesn't really refute my point.

Fourth, the U.S. has never been attacked on its home soil since the war of 1812 (200 years ago), aside from Pearl Harbor where again civilians with guns would not have made a difference.

Of the overall population, how many would know what to do in the event that an enemy stormed our cities? Probably not enough to prevent it. Again, 9/11 showed us that. The chaos and subsequent disarray afterwards was evidence that there are a lot of people who couldn't survive such a possibility.

There actually wasn't a whole lot of chaos and disarray, in NYC at least. In fact, a reason why so many more people died in the WTC than had to was because they were told to stay calm and they just remained at their desks until the buildings collapsed. Outside of the WTC, everyone just sort of swarmed uptown and there were tons of places you could get free food and shelter. I went and played pool. Regardless, again civilians with guns would have had no impact on 9/11, unless they were on the plane and I absolutely do not think we should be allowing people to carry guns on planes, other than air marshalls.

Do I believe it will ever happen? I hope not, but to say that there is zero percent chance is a bit too naive to me. We've said it before and were shown how wrong we (as a nation) could be

You can call it naive if you want but it is my opinion and I have thought it out, I'm not just flinging it out there carelessly. You can't call 9/11 a conventional attack or an invasion of the US, and civilians with know-how and guns had no impact. It was not an attempt to invade, it was an attempt to murder.

I'll back off from my 0% chance and say there's a 0.0001% chance. Of course this could all change when China develops Mechs and sends a billion robots at us. But with today's weaponry and political climate, there is no way the US is going to be invaded conventionally, regardless of whether or not that is the only way to conquer the US without nuclear winter.

And remember, 9/11 was not a country invading or attacking, it was an organization on a suicide mission.

-Noir

Fourth, the U.S. has never been attacked on its home soil since the war of 1812 (200 years ago), aside from Pearl Harbor where again civilians with guns would not have made a difference.

Ah the pride of the mighty. Pride goeth before the fall, as they say. Those who say "Its can't happen here" pave the way.

You can call it naive if you want but it is my opinion and I have thought it out, I'm not just flinging it out there carelessly. You can't call 9/11 a conventional attack or an invasion of the US, and civilians with know-how and guns had no impact. It was not an attempt to invade, it was an attempt to murder.

No, 9/11 was not a conventional attack nor an invasion.

I'll back off from my 0% chance and say there's a 0.0001% chance. Of course this could all change when China develops Mechs and sends a billion robots at us. But with today's weaponry and political climate, there is no way the US is going to be invaded conventionally, regardless of whether or not that is the only way to conquer the US without nuclear winter.

Today's political climate can change swiftly. If China decided, tomorrow, that it was going to sail across the Pacific with a couple three million soldiers, there, ultimately, is little we could do about it.

While it may not behoove them to do so, now, things can change. The world has been known to go from peace to war within as little as 5-10 years.

If China decided, tomorrow, that it was going to sail across the Pacific with a couple three million soldiers, there, ultimately, is little we could do about it.

How about sink all their ships? Given you've got the biggest navy, nearly all the worlds aircraft carriers, and the naval air force is larger than any country's entire air force, you might have a decent chance.

One point about armed resistance, is that you can't easily mix an armed resistance with civil disobedience. Once the resistance takes up arms it will lose any support it might collect from within the army and police, as they as individuals would be the front line targets of the resistance. We've seen a messy coup in the last week with beatings, muggings, and looting. If the rebels had been armed with guns it's almost certain that the police and army would have stiffened their defence and not melted into the background.

How about sink all their ships? Given you've got the biggest navy, nearly all the worlds aircraft carriers, and the naval air force is larger than any country's entire air force, you might have a decent chance.

It would be a given that prior to an invasion of the US, China would beef up its naval power...

One point about armed resistance, is that you can't easily mix an armed resistance with civil disobedience. Once the resistance takes up arms it will lose any support it might collect from within the army and police, as they as individuals would be the front line targets of the resistance. We've seen a messy coup in the last week with beatings, muggings, and looting. If the rebels had been armed with guns it's almost certain that the police and army would have stiffened their defence and not melted into the background.

Thats a political issue, part of any successful revolution against a standing government is dealing with their military and police. The military and police melt into the background, or stand and fight, based on their opinions as to the righteousness of each side's cause. They will stand and shoot the rebels if they feel their government is correct. They will stand aside, or join the rebellion, if they feel the rebels are correct. No resistance will automatically loose support of standing armed bodies simply by taking up arms.

Ah the pride of the mighty. Pride goeth before the fall, as they say. Those who say "Its can't happen here" pave the way.

I didn't say it can't happen, I said it won't happen. There are reasons why we haven't been invaded by a country for 200 years, not just luck. The main reason being that the United States is in a very good strategic geographic location and also possesses more or less the best military technology in the world (and we pump trillions more into our defense budget for R&D and to keep ourselves on top in that category). It would be nearly impossible for any country other than Canada or Mexico to invade the United States...it's very difficult to sustain a war without nearby bases (as we have all over the middle east and china has nowhere in north america), let alone get enough soldiers over here in the first place. This is not the Iraqi Royal Guard here...our military would be difficult to overcome on even grounds, let alone with the disadvantage of being an invading force. It is always easier to defend a position than assault one.

Sure, China may invest heavily in their navy and other military capabilities, but we'd most likely know that they were doing so. Spying and intelligence gathering is still an American specialty, despite the failures so glaringly highlighted by 9/11. Now if we could just get a president who would act swiftly but sensibly on the intelligence he or she is given...

I'm not saying the US is invincible. I don't think that pride goeth before the fall remark is really applicable here. I'm not being arrogant or gloating or saying we are the Titanic. I'm just saying that logically with the current technologies there isn't much of a chance, if any, that we will be invaded in a conventional sense. Blown the **** up? Sure, maybe. Invaded by infantry? Sorry, I just don't see it happening. I'm pretty sure if Iraq had our Air Force they could have done a much better job of blowing up our aircraft carriers on the way over to invade their country...if not in a complete destruction sense, at least in a crippling sense that would have seriously decreased our capabilities and our sense of inevitable victory.

-Noir :frocket:

I didn't say it can't happen, I said it won't happen. There are reasons why we haven't been invaded by a country for 200 years, not just luck.

For most of that time we weren't invaded simply because it wasn't worth the effort..and the rest of the world was busy fighting amongst itself.

As natural resources, the world over, are consumed, we begin to provide a juicier target.


The main reason being that the United States is in a very good strategic geographic location and also possesses more or less the best military technology in the world (and we pump trillions more into our defense budget for R&D and to keep ourselves on top in that category).

Yes, we do maintain the the best military technology in the world. So did Germany during WWII. We beat them with lesser equipment, but more of it.

It would be nearly impossible for any country other than Canada or Mexico to invade the United States...it's very difficult to sustain a war without nearby bases (as we have all over the middle east and china has nowhere in north america), let alone get enough soldiers over here in the first place. This is not the Iraqi Royal Guard here...our military would be difficult to overcome on even grounds, let alone with the disadvantage of being an invading force. It is always easier to defend a position than assault one.

Of course our military is also scattered about the Globe. Much of it is still based in Europe, a legacy of the Cold War. And no, we're not the Iraqi Royal Guard...but neither will any nation which feels itself capable of invading us.

Sure, China may invest heavily in their navy and other military capabilities, but we'd most likely know that they were doing so. Spying and intelligence gathering is still an American specialty, despite the failures so glaringly highlighted by 9/11. Now if we could just get a president who would act swiftly but sensibly on the intelligence he or she is given...

You can rest assured that we would not attack China, regardless of its military build-up. And you are making the assumption that the US is still capable of maintaining a massive ultra-modern military twenty, or fifty years in the future. The fortunes of a nation are fickle. We've been a super-power for less than three-quarters of a century, that is a drop in the bucket.

I'm not saying the US is invincible. I don't think that pride goeth before the fall remark is really attributable here. I'm not being arrogant or gloating or saying we are the Titanic. I'm just saying that logically with the current technologies there isn't much of a chance, if any, that we will be invaded in a conventional sense. Blown the **** up? Sure, maybe. Invaded by infantry? Sorry, I just don't see it happening. I'm pretty sure if Iraq had our Air Force they could have done a much better job of blowing up our aircraft carriers on the way over to invade their country...if not in a complete destruction sense, at least in a crippling sense that would have seriously decreased our capabilities and our sense of inevitable victory.

-Noir

Iraq was a third world nation with a pissant military the first time we attacked them. To compare our ability to crush them with our ability to withstand invasion from a true military might, is an excercise in denial. Could we win any war, currently, today? Probably (but it is by no means a certainty). In the current world environment, it benefits none of the major military powers to wage war on each other, the cost would be prohibative compared to any conceivable gain. Tomorrow? Who knows. History shows that no Empire stands forever, and no land unassailable. To ban firearms because we are safe today is to pave the path of defeat tomorrow.

No resistance will automatically loose support of standing armed bodies simply by taking up arms.

Take out the word "automatically" and you'd be completely wrong. Sorry.

I don't think so. Its a circular argument. A rebellion doesn't necessarily need arms, if the armed forces and police are not willing to support the government. If they are not willing to support the government, as it is, then they certainly won't care if the rebels show up with weapons.

If some or all of the armed forces and police are willing to support the government, as is the case in most revolutions, then attempting an overthrow w/o weapons is pointless, you'll loose.

Ultimately, however, its a moot point for this discussion, since primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide the people with the means to overthrow the Government, should it become tyrranical. Regardless of whether you or I feel it is necessary or not.

Physicians vs Gun Owners (http://www.holbrooksportsmensclub.org/firearm_statistics.htm)

Found this site while doing research for a school paper. :lol:

It'd be more interesting if it were per gun-owner rather than per gun. Otherwise perhaps a better comparison would be between tongue depressors and guns.

Pool related accidental deaths and injuries (http://www.personal-injury-lawyer-referral.com/pages/diving_accidents.html)

Far greater than either of those. But that is from a trial lawyer site, so I have no idea of the accuracy.

The other issue I have is that it shows accidental gun deaths rather than gun deaths. I would imagine that there are quite a few gun deaths that are not accidental at all... in fact, the biggest majority.

I posted it more on the humor of it rather than its accuracy. Thought it was funny to see a comparison between the two topics.

Guess I forgot to hold up my *sarcasm* sign.

:p

The other issue I have is that it shows accidental gun deaths rather than gun deaths. I would imagine that there are quite a few gun deaths that are not accidental at all... in fact, the biggest majority.

Regardless of accidental or purposeful, there aren't 100-120k gun deaths a year, period =P

Regardless of accidental or purposeful, there aren't 100-120k gun deaths a year, period =P

I suppose I should just take your word for it... but I think not. Show me the numbahs! And don't be giving me no NRA stastic... get one from the gummint.

I am pulling up 30K gun deaths(accidents, murders, and suicides totalled) from public tv channels, harvard, and cdc statistics.

I can't get to any real data yet. And I can't actually find the numbers from cdc yet.

Regardless of accidental or purposeful, there aren't 100-120k gun deaths a year, period =PAccording to the CDC, there were <a href=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_21.pdf>29,573 firearm deaths in 2001</a> (look at the table on page 7).

The analogy to doctors is flawed, however, on two levels. First, people who see doctors often have a health problem already, so they're more likely to die than a healthy person regardless of the physician's ability. So even assuming that 120,000 figure is true -- and I can't find it on the Department of Health & Human Services web site -- it tells us nothing, because we don't know how many of those people would have died regardless of the doctor's intervention. Perhaps statistics about doctor negligence causing wrongful death might be most useful. Anyway, this is almost never true in the case of firearm deaths: the victim usually would have lived had he not had a chunk of lead lodged in a vital organ.

Second, you're forgetting the number of lives that doctors <i>save</i>. I'd like to see that figure (which is probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not more) and compare it to the number of lives that guns save (which is probably much closer to zero).

When you do the real analysis, you'll see that guns are far more than dangerous than doctors.

Ack...guys, its a joke. The page is picking fun at best. I did not post it because it was an intelligent source of information. More because it was funny. If you read the bottom, it even picks on lawyers...(sorry Aidon :whistle: )

*sigh* :banghead:

that's what I get for trying to be funny textually (is that a word?)

According to the CDC, there were <a href=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_21.pdf>29,573 firearm deaths in 2001</a> (look at the table on page 7).

The analogy to doctors is flawed, however, on two levels. First, people who see doctors often have a health problem already, so they're more likely to die than a healthy person regardless of the physician's ability. So even assuming that 120,000 figure is true -- and I can't find it on the Department of Health & Human Services web site -- it tells us nothing, because we don't know how many of those people would have died regardless of the doctor's intervention. Perhaps statistics about doctor negligence causing wrongful death might be most useful. Anyway, this is almost never true in the case of firearm deaths: the victim usually would have lived had he not had a chunk of lead lodged in a vital organ.

Second, you're forgetting the number of lives that doctors <i>save</i>. I'd like to see that figure (which is probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not more) and compare it to the number of lives that guns save (which is probably much closer to zero).

When you do the real analysis, you'll see that guns are far more than dangerous than doctors.


Of course guns are more dangerous than doctors. They are a tool of violence. That is not to say they should be banned. There needs to be tools of violence available to the people as a whole, so they do not become victims to those who do take up tools of violence.

Once the genie is out of the bottle...only through presenting a strong response does a people maintain their safety.

Look at it this way. Nothing would have been more dangerous for the world had the US been the only nation to develop nuclear weapons. When the Soviet Union managed to match the nuclear might of the US, it kept us in a state of relative peace through mutual respect and fear of the consequences of war.

Those without power...who live within the confines of their societal laws, must have the means to present themselves as a dangerous target for those who would exploit them.

Look at it this way. Nothing would have been more dangerous for the world had the US been the only nation to develop nuclear weapons. When the Soviet Union managed to match the nuclear might of the US, it kept us in a state of relative peace through mutual respect and fear of the consequences of war.It's fortunate that the the Cold War didn't result in our mutual destruction. But there were close calls (e.g., the Cuban missle crisis), not to mention half our economy unnecessarily devoted to the military, and constant fear of attack (at least in the U.S.).

An arms race is not the only solution to violence. The peace and arms reduction we now have is infinitely preferable.