Guns Save Lives by John Stossel

So you keep your gun unlocked? A criminal will always have the element of surprise--unless you sleep with your gun unlocked, beside you, good luck getting it out of a gun safe in time to do much good.

unless you sleep with your gun unlocked, beside you...

I happen to keep a loaded .45 in the drawer next to my bed while I sleep. Keep in mind it is locked up in my safe or on my hip during the day, so there is no danger of the weapon ending up in the wrong hands. So yes, my gun will help me defend myself.

The Swiss have the right idea; a militia consisting of a large portion of the population. Most men over a certain age are issued a rifle and are required to maintain a certain stock of ammunition and to be proficient with their weapon. This solves a couple problems at once; first, a large portion of the population understands gun handling and shooting safety. Second, the fact that most households would contain at least one automatic weapon should deter crime.

Carrying a weapon into the wild is a very smart idea. Having backpacked all over the US (including AK) and seen my fair share of black and brown bears, I'd say having a pistol around isn't a bad idea just in case. And sadly, more recently you have to protect yourself from crazy rapists out in the woods.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are no dangerous guns; just a lot of stupid people.

Shaman, I assume that you have no children? If the gun is kept unlocked at night, there is a chance that children could get hold of it.

Also, consider that the criminal entering your home in the night will be wide-awake, any weapon in hand. You will be woken from sleep and possibly groggy. The chances are high that you could misfire and hit a family member or be over powered before you fully wake and reach for your gun.

TJG,

A locked up and unloaded gun is not much use as a personal defense weapon.

Typically people who keep firearms for personal defense will keep them loaded and somewhat available; whether that be on the night table or in the nightstand drawer in a quickly and easily opened safe.

Having children in the house does not preclude you from having a loaded gun readily available for defense; it just means you need to educate your children and take some reasonable precautions.

Consider that if an armed intruder ever enters into my house, he will most likely wake me before he even gets in, and he will be in a darken house that he is unfamiliar with. Adrenaline wakes a person up very quickly, and any intruder will be facing a person on familiar terrain, who is proficient with his weapon of choice. Chances are I will not hit a family member or be overpowered.

Regardless, I will rather have those chances than accept being a helpless victim while hoping the police will arrive before my wife or children are raped or murdered.

And if your children or their friend gets to the gun? Kids are kids--they could be taught respect and still become curious, or dared by a friend, then tragedy strikes.

Keeping a loaded, unlocked gun around kids is just (pardon the frankness) stupid, in my book, as is having a pool with no gate/lock on it in a yard where there are kids.

or god forbid Kitchen Knives and string!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and pointy sticks. When I was married, we had children in the house, so all the trees within three blocks were forbidden to grow pointy sticks.

Also, consider that the criminal entering your home in the night will be wide-awake, any weapon in hand. You will be woken from sleep and possibly groggy. The chances are high that you could misfire and hit a family member or be over powered before you fully wake and reach for your gun.

So basically, you have some twisted wish (fantasy?) to become a victim, right? What you're saying is: "If someone comes into my house in the middle of the night to murder my family and I, I'd rather them do that than me stop them from doing so, just in case by some far fetched chance I happen to shoot my own kid."

Brilliant. Apparently logic is lost on you...

My 12 gauge Mossberg is unloaded and in a locked cabinet. I like to carry my .357, but I've let my permit expire so I haven't been carrying, and it is locked up right now, too. It's a revolver, and rather bulky. I keep a loaded .38 next to my bed. I don't have children in the house.

Regardless of whether guns are necessary, that isn't the point. It's about rights and choices. Having them is my choice, and my right.

And if your children or their friend gets to the gun? Kids are kids--they could be taught respect and still become curious, or dared by a friend, then tragedy strikes.

This assumes that the child has been into my room with out my permission AND that I'm already being irresponsible in allowing my child to be in a room of the house with out my knowing where he or she is. My son isn't allowed in my room.. I don't even take my friends into my bedroom. I wasn't allowed in my parents room growing up, at least not with out a parent in there and obviously without them knowing. It wasn't a trust thing, it was a respect thing.

Yes. Kids are kids and they do get curious. I had a gun at 8. It was a BB gun, then at 10 I got a rifle. Before I got a BB gun my father took me to about 6 months full of gun safety courses. Not once have I ever been curious about what a gun can do to flesh. I knew then becuase it was explained. I know now because I've seen it. My son will also take safety courses, irrespective of if he ever owns a gun or not.

and the 'what if's' never end. Seriously. What if my kid gets my gun cabinet key and finds the trigger locks, loads it and then shoots himself. Apparently any gun in the house causes me to fail no matter how it's viewed.

That's why I have a secret underground bunker with a mote full of ill tempered sea bass, retinal scanners, and video displays of Barney to deter any kind of wacky accidents. The down side to all fo that gun security is that, if in the event someone breaks into my apartment I'll be quickly shot in the back trying to secure a defense weapon (because a knife requires I actually get within 2 feet of a man with a gun - and we know all about knives to gun fights), while my wife pleads for the life of my son while she tries to shield him with her body... all for a TV... if someone thinks that whatever I have in my home with worth killing me over, then they're worth killing to defend it. More importantly, my wife and son are worth killing for...

my point is that the what ifs can go either direction...and both have a very negative outcome. As Kevin pointed out, it isn't so much about power or justification. Its about rights and choices.

If I were to inadvertently kill my son with my own gun by leaving it in a place that he can kill himself or hurt himself with it, then... I'm a bad father.

If however I've not taken every conceivable action to prevent someone else from killing my whole family... I'm worse.

That's just how I feel. Is the wellbeing of my son less important then the feeling of security? No, unless that security is also for the wellbeing of my son. I bear the responsibility of it and no one should have the right or ability to tell me that I can only protect myself from a criminal with pointed sticks and words. they've likely already got a gun and if not, then great - I do.

and pointy sticks.

just release the tiger

So you keep your gun unlocked? A criminal will always have the element of surprise--unless you sleep with your gun unlocked, beside you, good luck getting it out of a gun safe in time to do much good.

Yes, indeed, my magnum is loaded by me UNLOCKED with 6 gold point bullets in it at night. During the day, it is right here near me.

The shotgun is also close by with 10 bullets in it.

I am not going to play around with anyone, Jonesy. We live in a freaky world. I have too many children to not be able to offer some force if anyone were to try to overpower our safety.

This assumes that the child has been into my room with out my permission AND that I'm already being irresponsible in allowing my child to be in a room of the house with out my knowing where he or she is

Because kids always do what they are told, right, Shawn?

I have no fantasies about becoming a victim and i feel quite safe without a gun.

Festive, how would you feel if your kids hurt themselves or others with your guns? The freakiest part of our world is all of you out there with guns, thinking you'll save yourselves. Talk about fantasy.

Oh, and for all of you--I'm not the one living in fear with a gun at my side at all times, thinking there are bad guys waiting to get me somehow, and I live in an urban area. All of you with your loaded weapons at the ready are the ones living in fear, expecting to be victims. Think about it.

It's fear that leads you to want a gun, let alone keep one loaded by your side. I'd rather not be that fearful, looking for a bogeyman. But your mileage may vary and does, it seems.

Well, JG, when children grow up around guns in a responsible setting, they aren't seen in the same way as households that have no guns and never shoot them.
We train our children on gun safety. They go through classes and they learn to shoot.
They know what guns can do as well as what they should never do.
They go out on the range with us and they shoot them.
There is no curiosity that needs quenched about our firearms because they are completely aware of their functions.
I don't worry about them being hurt by them because guns don't hurt people. People with guns who want to hurt people is what hurts people.
They know you never pick up a gun unless you intend to shoot and that you never point it at anything you don't intend to destroy forever.

And their friends? Do the friends of your children and their parents know that you keep loaded guns nearby? I'd be incredibly angry if I were a parent and my children were in a home with loaded, unlocked weapons and I didn't know about it.

In CA, you can be held criminally liable for having unlocked guns in a home with kids. I hope for your sake nothing happens, but kids are kids and things do happen. At least in my home growing up my parents didn't have to worry about any kids finding a gun.

BTW, if guns make us safer, why does Europe, with all its gun laws and restrictions have less violent crime and fewer incidents of gun-toting people shooting up a school/office/etc.? You guys realize you are arguing against common sense and proven records of countries with strict gun control, right? By all of your logic, Europe should be full of all sorts of violence and gun-mad criminals. But it's not.

I am just curious how do people keep their kids away from the hot oven? electrical outlets, knives? I mean I have never been in a kitchen where the knives were all locked up. How bout meat thermometers? My sister put one through her hand when she fell on it. she was about 5 years old. she was lucky it went through her hand and not her head or her heart.

My point is that there are LOTS of dangerous things in the household and we can't lock them all up. Proper parenting will limit (not eliminate) those risks. I am not convinced that any of you that want to take all the guns away are any better at parenting then those that keep them around and teach their kids about them. the problem ones are the ones where parents keep guns and don't lock them up AND don't teach the children about them.

All of those things you listed have other uses. Guns have one use--to kill and kill quickly. Also, most parents keep an eye on the oven when in use, cover electrical outlets, keep knives high on a counter. Yet you guys will keep an unlocked gun, loaded where a kid can get to it?

Keeping a loaded, unlocked gun around kids is grounds is irresponsible at best.

All of those things you listed have other uses. Guns have one use--to kill and kill quickly.

What about to deter?

Yet you guys will keep an unlocked gun, loaded where a kid can get to it?

First, I do not currently own a gun or keep one in my home. Second I have no children. Third who says that people are keeping a guy out where kids can get to it? Sounds to me like that is your imagination.

Keeping a loaded, unlocked gun around kids is grounds is irresponsible at best.

Baloney. it certainly can be irresponsible, but to claim that it is at best irresponsible is just hogwash. I declare shenanigans.

Target shooting is one heck of a lot of fun. Guns do have uses besides killing.

Oh, and for all of you--I'm not the one living in fear with a gun at my side at all times, thinking there are bad guys waiting to get me somehow, and I live in an urban area. All of you with your loaded weapons at the ready are the ones living in fear, expecting to be victims. Think about it.

It's fear that leads you to want a gun, let alone keep one loaded by your side. I'd rather not be that fearful, looking for a bogeyman. But your mileage may vary and does, it seems.

That is a convenient assumption to make Gretchen, but a fallacious one.

Owning or carrying a firearm does not mean that a person is living in fear, yet I see this assumption constantly leveled by those who are against firearm ownership. All it is, in my opinion, is a tactic intended to discredit those who do support responsible firearm ownership. It not based upon facts or logic.

Does wearing a seatbelt mean you are driving in fear? Does having life insurance mean you are living in fear? We know that people have accidents and die, and we take what we feel are the necessary precautions to protect ourselves and our families. Owning or carrying a firearm for self defense is no different.

I do not live in fear. My gun does not make me feel safe. I do not expect to be a victim. In fact the exact opposite in true.

You think about it.

All of you with your loaded weapons at the ready are the ones living in fear, expecting to be victims. Think about it.

Actually, it's not living in fear anymore than purchasing Health Insurance is living in fear of getting sick, or purchasing auto insurance is living in fear of getting in an accident. This is a sick world. It's, as Chris Rock would put it, just "In Case @!$%#" In case @!$%# happens, I know it's there, just like insurance.

Oops, Roan beat me to that point. Oh well. I second it then.

I do not live in fear. My gun does not make me feel safe. I do not expect to be a victim. In fact the exact opposite in true.

Either gun owners live in fear, or/and they expect others to live in fear of them (as evidenced by the views expressed here). Either way, it seems f***ed up to me.

Either gun owners live in fear,

Black

they expect others to live in fear of them

And White.

Two kinds of people, either one or the other. No room for debate, no gray area, no room for individual personalities, no acceptance of an individual's explanation. That seems f***ed up to me.

Because kids always do what they are told, right, Shawn?

Did I say that? no. its a stupid question that you asked even though you know the answer. What was your point in wasting my time with it, then?

Having a gun in my house around my child is my choice and with it comes a responsibility that is mine. Who are you or anyone to make attempts to remove either from me. If something happens, it's on my shoulders, not yours, so why fight against guns if what I choose to do with them in my house doesn't effect you in any way? Is it becuase you don't WANT to see a child hurt? I agree, I don't either, but what you want in this case doesn't trump what I want - when it is with my family in my home. If it were the other way around, and a gun in your house with your children, then what I want equally has no bearing. My point is that what it seems to boil down to is that you push what YOU want in MY life because you THINK things SHOULD be a certain way... sorry, tough.

No, I wont go bitching and complaining about it if something bad happens, as I said, I know the risks and having made my choice I've chosen to live with the consequences of my own action or inaction.

Either gun owners live in fear, or/and they expect others to live in fear of them (as evidenced by the views expressed here). Either way, it seems f***ed up to me.

What is really @!$%#ed up, is that I'm being told the choice I made is wrong bsed on what someone else wants for themselves... THATS @!$%#ed up.

Target shooting is one heck of a lot of fun. Guns do have uses besides killing.

exactly! not all guns owners keep handguns and shotguns. Rifles are used for hunting, and while I don't' really like hunting there is a need for it on many levels. I don't even agree with barring fully automatic rifles - an M247 or M60 being owned isn't a guarantee that anything bad will happen. Yes, its sort of pointless to have one on a civ. level, but when criminals have easier access to an AK47 than I do...there is a problem. .

All of you with your loaded weapons at the ready are the ones living in fear, expecting to be victims. Think about it.

Do your teeth get gritty down there with your head in the sand?

Two kinds of people, either one or the other. No room for debate, no gray area, no room for individual personalities, no acceptance of an individual's explanation.

OK, I'm listening. What other reasons are there to carry a gun? Is it because you like the way the gun makes you look? Is it because it matches your shoes?

Having a gun in my house around my child is my choice and with it comes a responsibility that is mine. Who are you or anyone to make attempts to remove either from me.

I could make the same argument for drugs in the house, or running a brothel in a house with kids, or having S&M gear around kids. Something tells me you'd be all for removing the kids in any of those situations, Shawn. Why waste my time with such a stupid remark (to use your reasoning).

What is the need for hunting? And if you can have a fully automatic machine gun, I want a nuclear weapon...it's my right, correct?

Where do you guys think the guns in the black market come from? Usually, they are stolen from well-meaning gun owners such as yourselves.

And I notice you've all ignored my point about Europe and gun control. If what you say is true, that gun control = criminals having guns, then any country with strict gun control laws should be a hotbead of crime, right? Facts don't bear that out.

I agree, MightyMait. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with antique and modern firearms and those who love them, but my opinion is that guns should be rare, registered and the person owning them should be licensed every few years. And I see no reason why a person needs a machine gun.

OK, I'm listening. What other reasons are there to carry a gun? Is it because you like the way the gun makes you look? Is it because it matches your shoes?

I carry it concealed. So it matches nothing. And, as I stated, right now I don't carry at all as I have let my permit lapse and I obey that law. When I do have my gun with me, it is as I said, Insurance. I have car insurance in case I get into an accident. People have health insurance in case they get sick.

I have my gun in case I get robbed, in case someone else is getting robbed. I'm realistic. I understand that if someone pulls a gun on me, it is unlikely that I would be able to reach for my gun, get it out, and be on a level playing field in that event. In that instance it wouldn't do me much good, but there are many hypothetical situations in which it would do me good, or could do someone else good. And it's not just for killing people. Someone robbing you, or someone else, at knifepoint is likely to go away after having the gun pulled on them. No need to use it. Situation diffused.

Also, It is fun to take the gun to firing ranges. It is a valid and worthwhile past time, at least as much as archery or golf.

But it is all summed up with the word insurance. It is insurance against the unknown. Who knows what I may need it for. Who knows who I may be able to help. I may be able to someday stop a woman from being raped. I may someday be able to stop a person from being robbed. And if that day ever occurs, I bet the beneficiary of my having a gun would be damned glad that I had it.

My permit, when I have it, is to carry concealed. Nobody knows that I have it. I don't want anyone to be afraid of me. And I am not afraid of anyone. I would never pull out my gun in a fist fight. I would, however pull it, if I had a weapon pulled on me, if I had time. Insurance. Sometimes Insurance doesn't cover a certain situation. Other situations, it will cover.

I agree, MightyMait. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with antique and modern firearms and those who love them, but my opinion is that guns should be rare, registered and the person owning them should be licensed every few years. And I see no reason why a person needs a machine gun.

I agree TJG, except for the rare part. I am a collector. Mine are registered. Licenses do expire and need to be renewed frequently, and I have no machine guns. I would not object to more intense licensing scrutiny.

As rational as some of the people in this debate can be in other regards, when it comes to their guns, you might as well be asking them to cut off their penises

Try taking a golfer's clubs away from him. Try taking an archer's bow, an artist's brush, a musician's instrument, a geek's computer. By the way, I am a geek, and you can have my computer when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Gun owners and gun enthusiasts are interested in guns. It is a past time, like any other. They can be dangerous in the wrong hands, yes, but many things are dangerous in the wrong hands and they aren't banned. There are restrictions placed on us, and we accept them. We get up in arms, pardon the pun, when people speak of taking them away from us. They are one of my many interests. Nobody has the right to take that away from me.

Drugs and prostitution are illegal. Guns are not. S&M gear isn't, either. And no, nuclear weapons are not legal; fully automatic machine guns ARE, in very specific situations after people jump through a lot of hoops to get a legal license; otherwise they're illegal too.

Calling Shawn's comments stupid just because you hate guns and he doesn't is very rude of you. I don't think much of your snide analogy, but I'm not calling them stupid.

Why does there have to be a NEED for hunting? Some people enjoy it. I'm not one of them, but just because I don't like to hunt, they shouldn't be allowed to?

BEWARE: the argument of 'what do you NEED it for' is a specious one at best and is also used to seperate people from hard earned money if it is deemed to be 'unneeded' by others...

But it is all summed up with the word insurance. It is insurance against the unknown.

It's both insurance and a liability.

You say you'd never draw your gun in a fist-fight. However well-designed your holster may be, what assurance is there that your gun would not become dislodged in a fistfight and fall to the floor?

Gun owners and gun enthusiasts are interested in guns.

OK. That's fine. As JonesGirl asks: where do we draw the line? Currently we draw the line at assault weapons. If somebody is a true enthusiast, why can't they be satisfied with antique muzzle-loaders?

As for target practice, what's wrong with using a pellet gun for that? Some are quite accurate. Or is the big noise, the flash and the recoil an integral part of the fun?

when it comes to their guns, you might as well be asking them to cut off their penises (for which the gun just might some sort of compensation).

Mighty, if you expect to be listened to here you should avoid insulting those you are arguing with. This is not only considered rude, it is a violation of the CoH. You may recall having to agree to abide by this code when you signed up...

They are one of my many interests. Nobody has the right to take that away from me.

If your interest was sexually molesting children or torturing kitties, the authorities would certainly have the right to take away that from you. Maybe your hobby could be blowing things up.

Saying something is an interest of yours doesn't trump public safety.

And I notice you've all ignored my point about Europe and gun control. If what you say is true, that gun control = criminals having guns, then any country with strict gun control laws should be a hotbead of crime, right? Facts don't bear that out.

I've noticed you have ignored every one of my points Gretchen.

Regardless, I will be happy to address yours. Firstly, your initial point about Europe and gun control was:

BTW, if guns make us safer, why does Europe, with all its gun laws and restrictions have less violent crime and fewer incidents of gun-toting people shooting up a school/office/etc.? You guys realize you are arguing against common sense and proven records of countries with strict gun control, right? By all of your logic, Europe should be full of all sorts of violence and gun-mad criminals. But it's not.

I, for one, ignored it because it is a straw-man. I have seen no one here claim that guns make us safer. In general, Western Europe has always had lower rates of violent crime than the US. Take a look at what happened to the levels of gun violence in the UK following the 1997 gun ban. Is that the proven record of gun control you are talking about?

Gun control does mean that only the criminals and the government have guns. Please show me a developed industrial nation where the criminals do not have guns.

You are making an illogical assumption to support your beliefs. Just because only the criminals have guns, does not mean that the country would then necessarily be a hotbed of crime. It just mean that the law abiding citizens who do not have guns have no way of defending themselves against the criminals who do.

No, Gretchen, the facts do not bear you out.

As for target practice, what's wrong with using a pellet gun for that?

Blowing holes in stuff is fun. Trying to shoot the stems off pumpkins as fun. Semi-automatic weapons are really fun to shoot. Fully automatic weapons are even more fun, although the ammo gets really expensive. And yes, the big noise and the flash are part of the fun.

Of course, I like fireworks too. The funny thing is that it's legal for me to blow up pumpkins with guns, but not for me to shoot fireworks. Not even a sparkler, in the county where I work. So I'll have to stick to shooting guns.

If somebody is a true enthusiast, why can't they be satisfied with antique muzzle-loaders?

Um, maybe for the same reason a Corvette collector isn't satisfied with a Chevette? It's called personal preferance. You should try not enforcing yours on other people.

TheJonesGirl, I don't think they will have any answer for your points about Europe. As rational as some of the people in this debate can be in other regards, when it comes to their guns, you might as well be asking them to cut off their penises (for which the gun just might some sort of compensation).

See above MightyMait. Now you are bringing penis sizes into the discussion? Why?

They'll find all sorts of convenient statistics to back up their emotionally-charged positions while ignoring anything that fails to support their contentions.

Show me something that I am ignoring and refute my statistics if they are convenient. So far I have seen little in the way of a substantive argument from you.

See above MightyMait. Now you are bringing penis sizes into the discussion? Why?

Did I say anything about penis size? That's what *you* read into my comment.

If anything, guns let one give somebody the ultimate "pearl necklace", don't they?

There's no denying that there is a psychological factor involved here. Gun ownership is not just a practical issue as some would try to paint it.

why can't they be satisfied with antique muzzle-loaders?

I have many of those. But they do not totally satisfy me for the same reason my antiquated Commodore 64 does not satisfy me as a computer geek.

As for target practice, what's wrong with using a pellet gun for that? Some are quite accurate. Or is the big noise, the flash and the recoil an integral part of the fun?

No, it's being able to fire in the face of massive recoil, and the big @!$%#ing hole in the target that ensues.

You say you'd never draw your gun in a fist-fight. However well-designed your holster may be, what assurance is there that your gun would not become dislodged in a fistfight and fall to the floor?

Well, I don't actually make a habit of going around and getting into fist fights. And if you saw my holster, you would understand that even if I did, there is no way that baby is getting out unless I decide it's coming out.

If your interest was sexually molesting children or torturing kitties, the authorities would certainly have the right to take away that from you. Maybe your hobby could be blowing things up.

But my interest isn't sexually molesting children, or torturing kitties, or blowing things up. It's owning and carrying firearms, which is in no way comparable to those other things you mentioned, which all infringe on someone, or something, else's rights.

And no, you are wrong. My owning and carrying a gun is not a liability to me or anyone I have ever come in contact with or to anyone I am likely to come in contact with unless they are threatening the life of myself or someone else, in which case it would be the opposite of a liability. You believing that me carrying a gun is a liability is an opinion, and it is one that is not based in fact, but in emotion.

What is fact is that it is my second amendment right to keep and bear arms. And the constitution of this fine country should only be amended when it allows for more freedom, not more restrictions on the citizens of this country.

If your interest was sexually molesting children or torturing kitties, the authorities would certainly have the right to take away that from you

You and TJG like to compare illegal acts with legal ones. You want to prevent someone from following a legal interest. What the heck does child molestation have to do with this issue?

Show me something that I am ignoring and refute my statistics if they are convenient.

Well, Roan, I looked through this discussion and found precisely two statistics that you quoted.

Here's the first:

According to a study by criminologists, there are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens in the US.

It's not even convenient since it says nothing about the necessity or outcome of these instances. All it says is that there are lots of folks out there with guns and that they use them. Nothing there to indicate that lives were saved.

The other one was to point out that there are more gun deaths in Brazil than in the U.S., which is not surprising to anybody who knows anything about Brazil and the slums of Rio. I'm not sure how that supports anybody's claims that guns save lives.

You and TJG like to compare illegal acts with legal ones. You want to prevent someone from following a legal interest. What the heck does child molestation have to do with this issue?

Legality is flexible. Laws can be changed. Guns could be outlawed. Gun laws differ in various jurisdictions. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, but the Constitution has a provision for ammendment. These issues are up for discussion. The right to own a gun is not an inalienable right, just as the right to drive is not inalienable.

Did I say anything about penis size? That's what *you* read into my comment.

Please. I didn't need to read anything into your comment. The implication is crystal clear.

Let's revisit your little immature comment:

when it comes to their guns, you might as well be asking them to cut off their penises (for which the gun just might some sort of compensation).

No need to read anything into that; and you still did not answer my question. Why?

How is taking freedoms and choices away from the American people in any way progressive? The government is in place to protect us from people with malicious intent. Accidents will happen, with or without guns. It is a matter of rights, freedom, and choice, and nothing else. You are proposing the kind of nanny government for which the right hates us.

OK, I'm listening. What other reasons are there to carry a gun? Is it because you like the way the gun makes you look? Is it because it matches your shoes?

Hunting maybe. Farms have terrible times with wild hogs. Deer can cause serious and lethal car accidents.

and no... it matched my platinum grill. I also have those bullet hole stickers on my car cause I think that looks cool too.... seriously?

I could make the same argument for drugs in the house, or running a brothel in a house with kids, or having S&M gear around kids. Something tells me you'd be all for removing the kids in any of those situations, Shawn. Why waste my time with such a stupid remark (to use your reasoning).

What would tell you that? I've given no indication that I'm against any of that. If a woman wants to use her assets to gain money i.e. be a prostitute, okay... I dont have to have personal respect for her, but I respect her choice of lifestyle. I'm not going to tell a parent how to be a parent. they'll live with their choices - its part of personal responsibility. If someone wants to have a butt plug with a horse tail around their kids... stupid, yes - but thats my opinion and it honestly has no bearing on or shoudl influence how someone lives their life.

Why waste my time with such a stupid remark (to use your reasoning).

likewise...

What is the need for hunting? And if you can have a fully automatic machine gun, I want a nuclear weapon...it's my right, correct?

I can't believe you seriously asked that question... rather than give you along comment on it I'll provide you with a link that will better explain it... here

Like I said, I'm not one to go hunting, so I don't. Here in GA a LOT of people hunt, and they use the meant from the animal they kill so it isn't all about a bunch of backwoods white guys with guns terrorizing small woodland creatures. To think that is... bigoted

Where do you guys think the guns in the black market come from? Usually, they are stolen from well-meaning gun owners such as yourselves.

untrue.

While the ATF published a report in 1994 that indicated 60% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns and 3/4 of those are with guns that had been reported stolen, it means that a total of 45% (75% or 3/4 of 60) are with guns reported as stolen. In truth, less than half of all gun crimes are with weapons that were stolen from law abiding citizens. To make it even more clear, most of those weapons were most likely kept in stupid places and in an illegal fashion (in a car you're not supposed to have a loaded hand gun - your'e supposed to have the gun, and clip in different locations unless you have a CCW - and then with a CCW most of those people keep it on them always so it cant be stolen) - this further depletes the percentages to much less than half.

The truth is that most black market guns are imported from Mexico and are typically Russian made. A majority of the black market weaponry on a global level are from Russia, with Germany and Lithuania high on the list as well

And I notice you've all ignored my point about Europe and gun control. If what you say is true, that gun control = criminals having guns, then any country with strict gun control laws should be a hotbead of crime, right? Facts don't bear that out.

followed by MightyMait:

TheJonesGirl, I don't think they will have any answer for your points about Europe.

Ijsut hadn't seen the point yet... but I'm going to get to it... believe me.

If I recall correctly, Hitler had a rather easy time in Europe to start with... since they de-armed themselves. the NRA rounded up and collected a lot of weapons to give to them so they could fight back... I guess Europe didn't learn from that.

my view and point I'd make are better explained here and here

United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league, with the worst record for 'very serious' offenses."

from the first source

Gun-control advocates fequently ignore another inconvenient fact: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the U.S.S.R's homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S.

from the second.

So... TJG... in a sense, yeah... you're asking to be a victim. Maybe not directly, but...

and no... it matched my platinum grill. I also have those bullet hole stickers on my car cause I think that looks cool too.... seriously?

That's funny, Shawn! :)

The problem with statistics (as much as I like them myself) is reporting. Crime is not reported uniformly in all places. Often there is a bias of some sort or another. So, to compare crime rates in a totalitarian regime with few (if any) privacy assurances and informants everywhere to a "free" society like ours isn't really a fair comparison.

Also, bringing up Nazi Germany, 40+ years ago in response to the situation in Europe to today is disingenuous.

The problem with statistics (as much as I like them myself) is reporting. Crime is not reported uniformly in all places. Often there is a bias of some sort or another. So, to compare crime rates in a totalitarian regime with few (if any) privacy assurances and informants everywhere to a "free" society like ours isn't really a fair comparison.

So we can throw out TJG's call to use Europe as a point then...and it needs not be addressed. We can also quit asking for where we get our claims and why we think what we do on a factual basis. Forgive me here, but I think you're pulling an escapist tactic...

Also, bringing up Nazi Germany, 40+ years ago in response to the situation in Europe to today is disingenuous.

only if it were false.

So we can throw out TJG's call to use Europe as a point then...and it needs not be addressed. We can also quit asking for where we get our claims and why we think what we do on a factual basis. Forgive me here, but I think you're pulling an escapist tactic...

No, but any statistics cited ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Presumably the number of police officers killed by their fellow officers would tend to be a more accurate figure than the number of rapes reported.

only if it were false.

It's called comparing apples to oranges.

and again, the number of police officers killed by fellow officers is a miniscule number compared to the number of police officers in the USA.

and again, the number of police officers killed by fellow officers is a miniscule number compared to the number of police officers in the USA.

And, even here, the numbers may be subject to underreporting.

I remember a recent case where an officer died. The person the officers were trying to get was blamed for the death, though there were some questions regarding who actually shot the officer.

nice, again with the anecdotal evidence.

Officer involved shootings are very well investigated.

It's called comparing apples to oranges.

Europe de armed itself and later got invaded by Germany. It was unable to initially defend itself . The people had two options... surrender and live on their knees, or throw rocks... and call names... come at them with a hand full of berries... and spoons.

Today, with a disarmed society, such as Europe has now, what will keep them from being invaded or deter a criminal who has a gun (which Europe continuously cites as a problem beause they can never stop the smuggling or even decrease it)?

I recall a Monty Python skit that, poked a little bit of fun at the idea of a disarmed society

I firmly feel that my analogy compared apples to apples... or.. point-ed sticks

There are a few points I'd like to make.
1. Correlation is not causation. There are a lot of differences between Europe and the US. The status of guns is just one of those differences. The cultures are different, the justice systems are different, there are just too many differences to say that guns are the cause.
2. Hunting is not necessary. That is true. There is an argument to be made though that if you're going to eat something, you should know where it comes from, you should be consciously aware that you are eating something that had life. What more direct way to understand this than to kill it yourself?
3. As far as having guns in the house, there are some really amazing safety technologies these days. I know because my husband wants a gun and he's been showing me all of the mechanisms to allay my concerns. He also took me to a shooting range and showed me how to use the gun. I have to say, target shooting is a blast.

Today, with a disarmed society, such as Europe has now, what will keep them from being invaded or deter a criminal who has a gun (which Europe continuously cites as a problem beause they can never stop the smuggling or even decrease it)?

So, you're saying it's the responsibility of civilians to defend a nation from invaders? Isn't that what the military (and military alliances) is for? After all we give them so much money (in *this* country at least).

So, you're saying it's the responsibility of civilians to defend a nation from invaders?

That is what I'm saying...becuase that is hte point of the 2nd Amendment. But it extends beyond invaders in a sense of people trying to take over the country.

sn't that what the military (and military alliances) is for? After all we give them so much money (in *this* country at least).

I take it you've never heard of a Coup d'etat? Some times simple called a coup or military coup. What stops the military from taking over the government? we do.

Christ, what is it with people that they think the government will, should, and must always protect the citizens. We're in charge of also protecting ourselves and OUR interests.

1. Correlation is not causation. There are a lot of differences between Europe and the US. The status of guns is just one of those differences. The cultures are different, the justice systems are different, there are just too many differences to say that guns are the cause.

I'm sure. However, I responded to:

And I notice you've all ignored my point about Europe and gun control. If what you say is true, that gun control = criminals having guns, then any country with strict gun control laws should be a hotbead of crime, right? Facts don't bear that out.

So the whole Europe thing was one person trying to equate Europe to the US or compare the two systems even though there are two systems of government and so on, and I was pointing out how that fails... but I still never figured out what a 'hotbead' was

I take it you've never heard of a Coup d'etat? Some times simple called a coup or military coup. What stops the military from taking over the government? we do.

Who makes up the military? If a country has any sense, they are sons and daughters of that country and not foreign (or even domestic) mercenaries.

If those sons and daughters are raised to be conscientious people with a greater allegiance to the Constitution and the people they are commissioned to serve, rather than blind obedience to superior officers, we would have nothing to fear from them, would we?

This is why I'm starting to think that it would be a good idea to eliminate the professional military and police and institute *true* militias and police forces of the people, not a class of professional soldiers.

So the whole Europe thing was one person trying to equate Europe to the US or compare the two systems even though there are two systems of government and so on, and I was pointing out how that fails.

One reason the comparison fails is that Europe doesn't share (to the same extent) in the juvenile macho gun culture that pervades the U.S.

Who makes up the military?

Citizens make up a military.

If a country has any sense, they are sons and daughters of that country and not foreign (or even domestic) mercenaries.

True.

Though, you should read through military doctrine. I get the feeling you believe a coup is not possible. Yes, I'm sure many in the military would stand down at such an order, but orders can be vague and given only in bits. No one will pass down "we're going to coup, gear up and roll an ass pile of tanks towards the white house"... it'll be slow and calculated and many military personnel would be unaware of what it i was they were about to do. Though, I still very much trust the US military and I don't think one will happen./ I'm saying it COULD happen as in it is possible.

This is why I'm starting to think that it would be a good idea to eliminate the professional military and police and institute *true* militias and police forces of the people, not a class of professional soldiers.

how then do you check them? I'm sorry I think that is a bad idea.

One reason the comparison fails is that Europe doesn't share (to the same extent) in the juvenile macho gun culture that pervades the U.S.

Really? You shoudl really watch more foreign films. Might I suggest a film called 'HATE'.

how then do you check them? I'm sorry I think that is a bad idea.

If every adult male (and female, to be equitable about it) is a member of the militia (or a non-violent service corps), who is there to check, the kids?

Really? You shoudl really watch more foreign films. Might I suggest a film called 'HATE'.

Because, of course, films are always representative of the culture which produces them. You noticed the parenthetical qualifier "to the same extent"? I'm not saying there is no gun culture in Europe, but it strikes me as not being as pervasive as the gun culture in the United States. These are, of course, generalizations.

If every adult male (and female, to be equitable about it) is a member of the militia (or a non-violent service corps), who is there to check, the kids?

huh? I don't get what you're saying. Are you negating your own argument?

Because, of course, films are always representative of the culture which produces them. You noticed the parenthetical qualifier "to the same extent"? I'm not saying there is no gun culture in Europe, but it strikes me as not being as pervasive as the gun culture in the United States. These are, of course, generalizations.

they are, so why make them if you know that generalizations aren't a mark of true representing anything

huh? I don't get what you're saying. Are you negating your own argument?

Which argument is that? I've been saying all along that anybody who wields a gun ought to undergo rigorous and regular training to ensure competence.

I say get rid of guns and bullets entirely, but, if that is not possible, make sure anybody who might come in contact with a gun knows how to handle one safely.

Also, a militia-based military would be less likely to be used in an offensive fashion to further imperialist aims. It would be a more defensive formulation.

Are you trying to say a member of the militia could not take care of kids?

It's not even convenient since it says nothing about the necessity or outcome of these instances. All it says is that there are lots of folks out there with guns and that they use them. Nothing there to indicate that lives were saved.

The other one was to point out that there are more gun deaths in Brazil than in the U.S., which is not surprising to anybody who knows anything about Brazil and the slums of Rio. I'm not sure how that supports anybody's claims that guns save lives.

MightyMait, that is not refuting anything; it is merely dismissing them because they do not support your argument. Please refute them, if you can.

MightyMait, that is not refuting anything; it is merely dismissing them because they do not support your argument. Please refute them, if you can.

What's to refute? All these statistics are showing that guns are killing lots of people (if not as many as cars do).

Are you trying to say a member of the militia could not take care of kids?

I'm saying, if all adults are militia members, the only non-militia people the militias would be trying to "check" would be kids, since they wouldn't be members of the militia. Clear enough?

What's to refute? All these statistics are showing that guns are killing lots of people (if not as many as cars do).

What's to refute? Read the context in which the statistics were used, and then refute them if you can.

What's to refute? Read the context in which the statistics were used, and then refute them if you can.

Frankly, Roan, you're starting to bore me.

My girlfriend thinks it's silly of me to be doing this sort of thing, regardless of any excuses I make about "refining my thinking in dialog with those having differing viewpoints". I think she may be right.

That's to be expected, I am not here for your entertainment; and I am challenging you to provide a real argument based upon facts and logic, instead on one based upon personal feelings and insults.

My girlfriend thinks it's silly of me to be doing this sort of thing, regardless of any excuses I make about "refining my thinking in dialog with those having differing viewpoints". I think she may be right.

I think it's silly of you too. I'd at least have a better excuse to bow out than my girlfriend though... like... my gun jammed...

I think it's silly of you too. I'd at least have a better excuse to bow out than my girlfriend though... like... my gun jammed...

OK, how about, it's Friday, my sun has soccer practice at 3:30, and I have some work I need to get done before I leave for the weekend? Maybe I'll see you here next week (or on a similar thread).

Cheers!!

That's to be expected, I am not here for your entertainment; and I am challenging you to provide a real argument based upon facts and logic, instead on one based upon personal feelings and insults.

That sounds too much like work. I come here to goof off (and, occasionally troll). I even end up learning a thing or two from time to time.

Have a good one!!

OK, how about, it's Friday, my sun has soccer practice at 3:30, and I have some work I need to get done before I leave for the weekend? Maybe I'll see you here next week (or on a similar thread).

Cheers!!

sounds good.... bring your thinking cap next time. ;)

I come here to goof off (and, occasionally troll).

we can tell

I'll bet there are at least 18 people who wish the shooter didn't have access to guns in the first place.

Oops. Didn't see comment below.

No, they're wishing they hadn't been shot. They wouldn't have been shot if:

1. The shooter didn't have a gun,
2. The shooter wasn't crazy as a bedbug, or
3. Somebody had been there to protect them.

Well, it's a constitutionally protected right to have guns. Sorry, end of song. Your ability to restrict that is severely limited; and even if you could, he would have found it no more difficult to obtain a gun on the street corner than to buy crystal meth.

It's a shame he was crazy, and somebody should have helped him or gotten him locked away. The obvious problem is that he hadn't done anything wrong before. Kind of limits your legal options.

Which leaves us with #3. Sorry. It just does.

It's a shame he was crazy and STILL managed to get his hands on guns.

Why? Because they are cheap and plentiful.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

Can someone point me toward the cheap and plentiful ones? The ones around here are damned pricey

Well, if you're going to let quality interfere with your decision, then they're not so cheap.

There were probably a lot more people wishing some of the good guys DID have guns that day. Funny how criminals always manage to get guns into places they're banned, but the good guys don't.

I was kinda making a comment about the fact that this shooting would never have occurred if the shooter didn't have a gun.

Exactly. One shot from the crowd would have ended the whole thing.

Ask yourself: why do you never hear about these shooting rampages at a police stations, firing ranges, or gun shows?

Or Chuck Norris book signings...

Or Ted Nugent concerts!

Exactly. One shot from the crowd would have ended the whole thing.

Or, if everybody was armed, a bunch of innocent bystanders might have been shot in a hail of "defensive" gun-fire.

Heck, even the highly-trained police end up killing one another with some regularity.

The only people who have said "everyone" should be armed were either joking or being facetious. Everyone should not have been armed. Only those who chose to be and were comfortable with being armed. Most of us who are comfortable with being armed know how to use our weapons, and those who aren't comfortable would likely not be comfortable pulling theirs out. I wouldn't oppose tougher licensing laws, forcing us to prove our competence. I wouldn't mind a trip to the shooting range being a part of obtaining a license, but that is another issue.

Heck, even the highly-trained police end up killing one another with some regularity.

For me to claim that this never happens at all would be daft on my part ... but "some regularity"? It happens occasionally. Rarely.

Or Chuck Norris book signings...

mentioning Chuck Norris to a criminal makes them field strip their weapon on the spot and hand cuff themselves...

Or, if everybody was armed, a bunch of innocent bystanders might have been shot in a hail of "defensive" gun-fire.

You may want to look into the crime rates of Arizona. A LOT of people have CW permits and there area a lot of reports of people stopping crime with it. You assume that everyone with a gun would freak out and start blindly shooting. Life isn't all Hollywood, and people wont just paint someone with lead. As I said in an earlier post, take a moment and stare down the barrel of a 50 cal or a 44....you'll think 5 or 6 times about what you are about to do. Now if on the receiving end of the gun you'll be prone to listen to the person holding it, if however 5 or six guns are pointed at the guy holding a gun, then... he's less likely to have any kind of leverage on someone. It doesn't guranatee that he or anyone will fire that weapon, and to assume that is, aside from stupid, false.

the other thing is, people think about certain things when in that kind of situation. The only time someone will truly fire in that case if all of the 'good' guys are out of the friendly line of fire - you wont see firing squads set up on a circle... they know what happens.

I wouldn't oppose tougher licensing laws, forcing us to prove our competence. I wouldn't mind a trip to the shooting range being a part of obtaining a license, but that is another issue.

Really, that is what would satisfy me. That's all I'm asking for. Some persons seem to interpret this request as a call to disarm them. They seem to feel this is an unbearable onus.

For me to claim that this never happens at all would be daft on my part ... but "some regularity"? It happens occasionally. Rarely.

"Regularity" is not a precise term. It certainly happens more than once every 20 years. I came across a statistic in another discussion. Let's see if I can find that.

Here we go. I made the comment here:

On the second page, there *is* this:

A look at the numbers tells us that that there have been 180 cases of police officers being killed by a colleague between the first such incident in 1893 and Officer Young's death in January. Of that total, 32 of the cases involved the accidental discharge of a firearm, 24 were caught in crossfire with criminal suspects or were hit by stray bullets, and 14 were killed accidentally during training exercises. In 82 of the cases, there is simply not enough information to determine which of these classifications might apply.

Here's the link to the source of that quote.

I'd say an average of more than one per year qualifies as "some regularity".

Well, "some regularity" is quite a relative term. You are welcome to your opinion that once a year is regular, I call that same statistic rare. Out of all the training that is done, that is a very low number.

Really, that is what would satisfy me.

Some states already have that requirement. Ohio, for example, requires one to attend a two week training course before obtaining a permit to carry concealed, but then, a permit to carry is meaningless in that state as nearly every building prohibits guns ... so what's even the point of getting a license, because you can't take it anywhere.

If that's all you're arguing, then people like me have misunderstood. I only get upset when people say that guns should be banned and that those of us who have them should not have that choice. I contend that we should have that choice, living in a "free" country and all. We have to take a test to drive a car, I would not object to certain testing for getting a gun license.

You are welcome to your opinion that once a year is regular, I call that same statistic rare. Out of all the training that is done, that is a very low number.

out of all the training that is done, and all the instances where officers might use their guns across this country, that is practically non-existent.

Some states already have that requirement. Ohio, for example, requires one to attend a two week training course before obtaining a permit to carry concealed, but then, a permit to carry is meaningless in that state as nearly every building prohibits guns ... so what's even the point of getting a license, because you can't take it anywhere.

That's interesting to know, Kevin. Thanks.

As for banning private ownership of guns, I support that in principle, but I also believe it to be impractical (as impractical as banning the use of alcohol or marijuana). Also, I have a healthy suspicion of government and law enforcement.

I think mandatory military service and auxiliary military service (a la Switzerland and Israel) isn't such a bad idea--provide conscientious objectors could satisfy their service requirements in a non-violent manner. Reserve military personnel could be required to keep a service weapon in the home.

out of all the training that is done, and all the instances where officers might use their guns across this country, that is practically non-existent.

Nice try, but I've heard that many police officers can go through their entire career without ever firing their weapon outside of training.

Nice try, but I've heard that many police officers can go through their entire career without ever firing their weapon outside of training.

another hard statistic from you. "I've heard" Give me a break. If you are too lazy to even look up basic stats then why are you bothering to argue? I suspect it is purely an emotional argument with you and suggest you do your due diligence. it would only make sense.

An officer that has never had to draw his weapon that drops it while changing and it goes off and kills his partner would be included in your stats so the one that never drops it and hurts anyone should also be included. Don't cherry pick.

If you are too lazy to even look up basic stats then why are you bothering to argue?

You're assuming that such statistics exist. I heard this particular bit of anecdotal evidence from a police officer.

In this case, however, a quick search *did* turn up an interesting stat.

What makes that disturbing is that while the city says that more than 90 percent of New York's police officers never fire their guns, three of the four officers in this case have been involved in shootings before, with two found to have acted properly and one incident still under review by the Brooklyn District Attorney.

That stat is from the City of New York. Now, if 90% of New York City cops never fire their guns in the line of duty, you can just imagine what the rates must be in rural areas.

You think I'm just making things up? I try to be clear when I posit something that is just my opinion.

An officer that has never had to draw his weapon that drops it while changing and it goes off and kills his partner would be included in your stats so the one that never drops it and hurts anyone should also be included. Don't cherry pick.

Think you may have missed this...

Think you may have missed this...

No, I caught that. The statistic I quoted accounted for that.

What difference does it make if a gun death is accidental or not? The debate is whether guns save lives or not. It seems to me that they take as many, if not more, lives than they save.

No, you did NOT address it. you want to eliminate 90% of the police force and the time they spend with a gun. UNLESS that gun accidentally causes an injury or a death. then regardless of how or why you want to include it. that is cherry picking.

Check here for documented statistics etc. it is merely another post here in this seed.

Bodhi @ 4.4

Is it any wonder mass shootings happen [in schools] so often?

Actually, such shootings are very rare; they are widely reported in order to sell advertising in newspapers and television, however, which makes them appear more common than they are and also has the unfortunate side effect of influencing other unbalanced individuals to commit suicide in similarly dramatic fashion.

The truth is that, as violent as America is made out to be, your chances of being involved in a violent crime if your household income is greater than $50K/year are vanishingly small. Most folks like Festive Warrior keep a gun for self defense for the same reason people buy lottery tickets: not because they really think they'll win, but because they enjoy fantasizing about the possibility.

No, you did NOT address it. you want to eliminate 90% of the police force and the time they spend with a gun. UNLESS that gun accidentally causes an injury or a death. then regardless of how or why you want to include it. that is cherry picking.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your line of reasoning.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your line of reasoning.

I noticed.

Look, it doesn't matter if they never use their gun in the line of duty. they still use it, manipulate it, carry it and therefore they are used when figuring statistics.

Look, it doesn't matter if they never use their gun in the line of duty. they still use it, manipulate it, carry it and therefore they are used when figuring statistics.

OK. I'm following so far. The point is?

Police end up killing each other with guns, for whatever reason. Whether it's due to poor aim or accidents isn't really relevant. If police, with all of their training do so, it stands to reason that an armed and less highly-trained populace would tend to do so at an equal or higher rate.

and they do so at a miniscule rate. a number that is statistically nearly 0

And my kids dying from gunshot wounds (should that happen) might be statistically insignificant to you as well.

My Grandpa is one of the gun suicide statistics from 2007.

don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that the victims did not matter. I said you don't eliminate all guns in the USA for a single case.

A very close personal friend is a suicide by gun statistic from 2004. it doesn't change the overall view. you can't look at this from an anecdotal point of view. take the emotion out of it.

And my kids dying from gunshot wounds (should that happen) might be statistically insignificant to you as well.

My Grandpa is one of the gun suicide statistics from 2007.

Understand that none of this debate should devalue anyone that we know or dont know that has died. for any reason. Bringing up someone you know as a reason why tho, is an attempt to bring emotion into the argument. In a perfect world no one would die from anything other then old age. We are not in a perfect world and we need to look at the evidence impartially and take emotion out of it in order to make a correct decision...

A friend of mine in high school hung himself with a scarf given to him by an unrequited love. Another friend of mine leapt from a seven story window. Both died. Let's ban scarves and tall buildings while we are at it.

I don't see why we should try to become emotionless Vulcans. We can be guided by our emotions without being blinded by them.

As I've said all along here, while I'd happily get rid of *all* guns right now if I could do it by just snapping my fingers, I don't see prohibiting private ownership of guns in an otherwise gun-filled world as practical.

I agree that education, registration, and licensing are perfectly reasonable ways to hold people accountable and try to ensure a basic level of competency and common sense in gun-owners.

What I don't see is how guns save more lives than they take. There's no doubt in my mind regarding that--whether or not we paint suicides as criminals.

I don't see why we should try to become emotionless Vulcans

Good, because I have not suggested that.

What I don't see is how guns save more lives than they take. There's no doubt in my mind regarding that--whether or not we paint suicides as criminals

Well you have been shown a number of studies that have shown just that. I believe the problem is that it goes against what you 'feel' is correct.

Well you have been shown a number of studies that have shown just that. I believe the problem is that it goes against what you 'feel' is correct.

A problem with studies is that researchers often set out to mathematically "prove" what *they* feel is correct. They often look for the data that supports their theory.

You're right, the count would have been much higher, due to lack of accuracy and panic.

Forget shotguns, if those with CCW permits could carry their weapons on school grounds there would be less deaths. Responsible citizens who are good with weapons should be able to carry them ANYWHERE and defend themselves and those around them from aggressors.

How do ensure that everyone who is carrying a concealed weapon is responsible? We can't even ensure that driver's are responsible.

How do ensure that everyone who is carrying a concealed weapon is responsible? We can't even ensure that driver's are responsible.

Vetting and training. The are millions of people who carry concealed in the country every day.

You could be vetted and trained at 21 and then end up with a mental disorder or injury that could affect judgment. Even the vetted and trained can be a danger.

Vetting and training you say. How many NRA members are in support of the vetting part of your plan? Anything that even lets the government know who has guns and how many is suspect to them.

We "vet" potential drivers (we don't really train them). Many of you arguing on this thread will say "Well, there are more people getting killed in auto accidents than killed by guns." Maybe so. But there are MANNNNY more people driving at any given point in the day than there are people using guns. Of course there are more accidents.

Now, to me, an interesting statistic would be, how many people were killed as the result of a homicide using a gun (not an accident) vs. how many people were killed as the result of a homicide using a car (not an accident).

TheJonesGirl got the point I was trying to make - good show TJG! Even the calmest of us will, in an intense situation, get confused. In a shooting like NIU there's mass panic, the more guns firing means there's more confusion meaning more fatalities. Even the professionals, the military, have high rates of friendly fire casualties - and these are the most highly trained folks on the planet. More guns?! More fools is more like it.

You could be vetted and trained at 21 and then end up with a mental disorder or injury that could affect judgment. Even the vetted and trained can be a danger.

Correct. In fact the training could make them more of a potential danger.

You cannot ensure that everyone is always going to be responsible, which is why we have the legal system to handle those who are not.

Vetting and training you say. How many NRA members are in support of the vetting part of your plan? Anything that even lets the government know who has guns and how many is suspect to them.

I don't know, but considering that the NRA support the majority of CCW laws, I would imagine many of them. However I am unsure of how the NRAs opinion is at all relevant.

n a shooting like NIU there's mass panic, the more guns firing means there's more confusion meaning more fatalities.

Not necessarily. Not everyone reacts the same.

Even the professionals, the military, have high rates of friendly fire casualties - and these are the most highly trained folks on the planet.

My personal experience shows otherwise, do you have some data to support your claim?

Jonesgirl, based on what I'm seeing here from you; I see your problem.

Even the vetted and trained can be a danger.

You sound like quite the liberal minded person. Do you feel that the government, or someone, should look over and control the actions of all us citizens? This isn't a bad idea, except it's impossible to put into action because of the rampant corruption that derails the morality train that is the US government. Instead of relieving responsibilities upon the gov't, why not take actions to control your own life?
-
I hate to sound harsh, but we really need to stop protecting others from themselves. Basically, in this modern day in age we have nullified the influence of 'survival of the fittest' (to steal a line from Herbert Spencer). By negating its effect we are diluting the gene pool with the offspring of less desirable people.

Social Darwinism <-- research

we are diluting the gene pool with the offspring of less desirable people.

Eugenics, eh?

Are you blaming the person who is shot for being shot? It sure seems like it.

And yes, I am liberal. Guns should be regulated and a person should be licensed to have one, just like with a car, with regular license renewals. There should be a waiting period on buying firearms and a background check before one may purchase one. This will insure that only those competent have a gun.

Where do you think criminals get guns? A neighbor in my childhood neighborhood, kept guns. Someone broke in and stole them from where he kept them unlocked. Happened 3 more times before the guy wised up. That's 4 guns in the hands of criminals thanks to someone thinking they needed it for protection and keeping it unlocked.

Roan, I see your point and you are right there will be some cool heads but I really think that's nothing to count on. No one knows how they, much leas someone else, will react in such a situation until they are actually in the situation. A situation like NIU is not a normal part opf our reality and hopefully never will be. While training may help curb one's impulse to panic, it's no guarantee. I remember that one scene from "Boys in the Hood" where the Fishburn character chases an intruder out of his house - he ends up shaking, angry and scared - a bit of acting yes - but I think it's close to the truth. Couldn't find much on military FF incidents but that is not surprising either - a mistake in your command means bad things. Here's a short article I found, though:

Are you blaming the person who is shot for being shot? It sure seems like it.

Nope, I'm blaming them for not being throughly prepared for what happens. We live in a world where there are a lot of bad people, and just as many if not more good people. Be it the government or your local police, there are people positioned to give you a false sense of safety. Though if someone wants to go shoot up a school, they very well can. We've seen it happen numerous times recently.
-
As for guns and children. As a parent it is your responsibility to prepare your children for this world we live in. No matter how many laws are instilled, there will always be guns around. Therefore you must teach your children gun safety and also practice it yourself. If your guns are stolen b/c you didn't lock them up, that's your fault. Firearms should be secured and stored unless in use; i.e. being carried, shot, or say in your nightstand while you sleep.

No one knows how they, much leas someone else, will react in such a situation until they are actually in the situation.

I definitely agree. I have seen the most GV guys freeze or panic when faced with opposing fire.

A situation like NIU is not a normal part opf our reality and hopefully never will be. While training may help curb one's impulse to panic, it's no guarantee.

I hope not. Training only helps if it is reinforced and repeated to the point that the reaction becomes second nature rather than deliberate. However, that does not mean that a person without the necessary training cannot successfully fight back.

I remember that one scene from "Boys in the Hood" where the Fishburn character chases an intruder out of his house - he ends up shaking, angry and scared - a bit of acting yes - but I think it's close to the truth.

Sounds pretty realistic. Everyone, even highly trained individuals, experience the effects of adrenal stress. Loss of fine motor control (shaking), auditory exclusion, and tunnel vision. The fear is normal and not necessarily bad, it is how you respond to the fear that will determine whether or not you survive the contact.

Couldn't find much on military FF incidents but that is not surprising either - a mistake in your command means bad things. Here's a short article I found, though:

You link is missing. In my experience, the occurrence of friendly fire incidents in the military have a lot more to do with a lack of reliable or accurate intelligence, rather than confusion or panic.

or say in your nightstand while you sleep.

Where do you think my neighbor kept his?

Kids can be taught all the respect and use of guns in the world, it doesn't change that they are curious, or have a friend over who finds the gun which leads to tragedy.

Nope, I'm blaming them for not being throughly prepared for what happens.

So unless they are armed and ready at all times, too bad for them?

Roan, Links get omitted

Here's the article:

Friendly-fire incidents prove hard for military to eliminate
By Aaron Mackey
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.04.2008
The U.S. military can put a missile within a few meters of a target and has a computer and satellite networking array that can track multiple enemy and friendly units.
Yet despite having the world's most advanced military, the United States has not been able to develop a foolproof system for distinguishing between friendly forces and enemies on the battlefield, experts say.
"We've never really licked that problem," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Johnston.
While he wouldn't speak directly about the incident that killed Spc. Alan McPeek, a Tucsonan, and Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, Johnston, who served as chief of staff for Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Persian Gulf War, said most friendly-fire incidents result from inexperienced troops losing situational awareness in battle.
Retired Lt. Col. Charles R. Shrader, who wrote a book on friendly fire in modern warfare, said what happened to McPeek and Zeimer is sadly typical of most similar incidents.
"In the heat of battle, (troops) just don't pay attention," he said.
Friendly-fire deaths captured the nation's attention in 2004 when Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan.
General inexperience on the part of Army Rangers led to the death of the former Arizona Cardinals football player, an investigation found.
Investigations showed that the Army knew within hours that Tillman was killed by members of his own unit, but didn't tell his family for more than a month. A full account of the incident wasn't released for more than two years.
In the aftermath of the Tillman fallout, the Army vowed to strengthen efforts to investigate friendly fire and try to be more open when similar incidents occurred.
But after the deaths of McPeek and Zeimer, family members initially were told that the two men were killed by enemy fire. It wasn't until a month later that they learned Army officials suspected friendly fire.
There were differing accounts of what occurred when McPeek and Zeimer were killed, which required investigators to find evidence of friendly fire, said Army Lt. Col. James Hutton, a spokesman for the Multi- National Corps based in Iraq.
Statistics on friendly-fire casualties have proved elusive because of the nature of the incidents and the fact that past records weren't as detailed.
Shrader estimates in his book that roughly 2 percent of combat deaths are due to friendly fire.
The Marines have recorded six deaths as a result of friendly fire stemming from incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army figures on deaths weren't available by deadline, with the Navy and Air Force recording no such deaths.
There have been dozens of injuries as a result of friendly fire, military figures show.
While it would be easy to examine a friendly-fire incident and point to one mistake as the cause of a particular death, that's usually never the case, Shrader said.
"There's seldom just one thing that goes awry," he said.

How do ensure that everyone who is carrying a concealed weapon is responsible? We can't even ensure that driver's are responsible.

Statistics and Facts, that's how.

For example, this Lott-Mustard Study (pdf) indicates that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. Also, The number of legal CCW holders that have committed crimes with their weapons is so ridiculously low its almost irresponsible to suggest giving someone a gun increases the chances they'll go on a spree.

For example, here are just a few facts based around a few state CCW statistics. The rest of the CCW-honoring states are just the same: CCW holders abide by the law, and are not criminals.

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense.

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

In summary, CCW holders are extremely safe and law-abiding citizens. Just to receive a CCW license in the first place, you can rest assured that the person:

Has never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
Has never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Has never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
Was not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
Was not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
Hasn't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
Hasn't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
Has never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
Has never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions Has never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
Has never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."

How do ensure that everyone who is carrying a concealed weapon is responsible? We can't even ensure that driver's are responsible.

Invert the question. How can we ensure that people with guns aren't? how do we know drivers are responsible? More people have been killed by guns in that hands of criminals than in the hands of the law abiding who also own guns.

Kids can be taught all the respect and use of guns in the world, it doesn't change that they are curious, or have a friend over who finds the gun which leads to tragedy.

But what this does is say that all kids will misuse a gun if it is presented to them. Its being controlled by fear and I know by your comments in other articles you abhor the idea that people allow themselves to be controlled by fear.

It's being controlled by reality Shawn. Even one kid killed by a well-meaning person's gun kept unlocked and loaded is too many.

Even one kid killed in an unguarded pool, unseatbelted schoolbus, unlocked knife, unlocked scissors, unlocked ball point pen, unlocked baseball bat, unlocked electrical outlet, unlocked rat poison, unlocked liquor cabinet, unlocked detergent/solvent, unfenced street etc, etc, etc... is too many. I think our kids need to grow up in a bubble until they are of an age to be responsible...

um, yeah, that makes sense.

More people have been killed by guns in that hands of criminals than in the hands of the law abiding who also own guns.

That's an assumption. Do you have any credible statistics to back that up? Murders tend to make the news, while accidental shootings tend not to, so there certainly would be a *perception* that criminals kill more people than incompetents do. Also, how would you categorize gun suicide? Are people that kill themselves with guns "criminals"?

I'd wager that accidental killings are on a par (if they don't surpass) the number of intentional killings.

I'd wager that accidental killings are on a par (if they don't surpass) the number of intentional killings.

I am seeing a lot of 'I'd wager' and 'I imagine' and 'I bet' from you Mighty, how bout you put the time in as Bodhi1 has and do some research. come back with actual figures that demonstrate what you are so sure of. Just imagine how much more impact that would have and if it is as obvious as you claim, it should be easy to find to, huh.

accidental shootings tend not to

Are you serious, man? Accidental shootings make the news more often, "I'd wager", than murders. Accidental shootings are always news when they happen, because it is ammo for the anti-gun lobby. That's one of the things that causes the right to call it "the liberal media".

As a liberal, I wholly object to gun control being a liberal issue. It is NOT a liberal idea. Liberals are supposed to be FOR freedom. It is these issues which give liberals a bad name. This is one of those issues that is an example of "liberal" politicians actually taking rights away from people, it is not good for our movement, and it is not good for America. America is about freedom. Liberalism is about freedom. This crosses the line into the "too much control" territory.

It's being controlled by reality Shawn. Even one kid killed by a well-meaning person's gun kept unlocked and loaded is too many.

And the responsibility for that rests with those who own guns, not by you. trying to stipulate that these things shoudl not happen becuase its what you want... isn't right. The laws are in place and as have been repeatedly pointed out, show that guns in the hands of people who are responsible yield almost no negative side effects. Kids getting their hands on a gun happen very very infrequently and while it is sad that it happens, they'll still get a hold of a gun and hurt themselves - unless of course, you think that criminals don't have kids, assault kids, or at times ARE kids. If I remember right, the Columbine shootings were with weapons NOT from their parents...oh and Marylin Manson made 'em do it.

Now, I can understand the debate about keeping the weapon unlocked and loaded, but again it falls to the owner, not you or I and certainly not the law.

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

This is very true. See.... people often continue to do right in this area, even if tempted to do wrong because they know that there is a very long, fluorescent orange paper trail to their residence should they do something stupid. Most of us CCW holders know that if we shoot someone, we'd better have a damn good reason - simply doing it points a finger right at ourselves... serial numbers, rifling, GSR...finger prints and eye witnesses - its pretty easy to figure out who shot who if the one shooting in on file.

I am seeing a lot of 'I'd wager' and 'I imagine' and 'I bet' from you Mighty, how bout you put the time in as Bodhi1 has and do some research. come back with actual figures that demonstrate what you are so sure of.

Shawn made an assertion. I was asking him to back that up with credible statistics.

Shawn made an assertion. I was asking him to back that up with credible statistics.

How by making guesses about stats? LOL

How by making guesses about stats? LOL

I clearly stated my guess as such. Shawn made his pronouncement with a sense of authority.

Shawn made an assertion.

I assert many things. If you wish for me to back one of them up, do me a favor and cite which assertion you'd like me to clear up

I assert many things. If you wish for me to back one of them up, do me a favor and cite which assertion you'd like me to clear up

I did, here.

More people have been killed by guns in that hands of criminals than in the hands of the law abiding who also own guns.

That's an assumption. Do you have any credible statistics to back that up?

I also asked if you consider folks who commit suicide by gun as criminals.

Here are a few interesting stats:

Children and Gun Violence

* America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
* In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

America and Gun Violence

* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Here are some more interesting stats:

I can't copy the charts here without losing the formatting, but the US is the leader in the countries cited in gun ownership percentages, homicide rates, and gun suicide rates.

More on guns and suicide:

Most of us are aware of the grim statistics. Someone dies by suicide in the United States every 17 minutes, for a total each year of more than 30,000. Few of us, however, are aware that 57 percent of those who kill themselves do so with a gun. This group includes about 60 percent of suicides of persons aged 25 years or under and 70 percent of those aged 26 or older.

And even more:

With the homicide rate down sharply since the early 1990's, the number of Americans who commit suicide with guns each year now far surpasses those who are killed by others with firearms, Government statistics show.

In 1997, the last year for which statistics are available, guns were used in 17,566 suicides, compared with 13,522 homicides, according to the National Vital Statistics Report.

I also asked if you consider folks who commit suicide by gun as criminals.

I'd have to wouldn't I? I mean, suicide is illegal, right. But suicide is the perfect crime.You cant be convicted of it.

More people have been killed by guns in that hands of criminals than in the hands of the law abiding who also own guns.

that's common sense. Homicide is illegal right? you can't be law abiding and kill someone...

The only problem with that is self defense, which is not illegal and it now give the assertion weight in that it made room for the self defense. More people get shot during a crime committed against them than people shooting others committing a crime.

OK. It seems you're right about suicide being illegal.

Be that as it may, the fact that your statement is sound regarding more people having been killed by guns in the hands of criminals would tend to controvert the assertion that guns save lives, wouldn't it?

Also, one might consider how many of the "criminals" who killed with a gun were criminals prior to killing.

Also, one might consider how many of the "criminals" who killed with a gun were criminals prior to killing.

well... if they own an assault rifle, at the time of procurement, they're criminal... the semantics can tear this up quickly.

Be that as it may, the fact that your statement is sound regarding more people having been killed by guns in the hands of criminals would tend to controvert the assertion that guns save lives, wouldn't it?

No. The statement that "A gun saves lives" has not quantitative or comparative prefix or suffix. It does not stipulate 'more', 'less', 'many', 'few'... nothing definitive. Demonstrating how a gun can save a life or demonstrating that a gun has saved a life is the only thing that is needed to qualify the assertion. While it is true that more people have been killed with guns by criminals, it still doesn't remove the fact that they can and do also save lives.

What it does do is also state that if the criminals are the ones killing, the chances are that the ones dying are unarmed. So, in turn you can say that lack of guns is just as responsible for the death of people.

well... if they own an assault rifle, at the time of procurement, they're criminal... the semantics can tear this up quickly.

As far as I know (feel free to point out where I'm wrong), the killers in all of the most notable recent school shootings (U. of Illinois, Virginia Tech, etc.) did not have significant prior criminal records. Otherwise law-abiding people snap and go on gun rampages with "some regularity".

So, in turn you can say that lack of guns is just as responsible for the death of people.

Maybe it's the lack of body armor and helmets that are responsible for people being killed by guns with such frequency.

You can twist and turn and do the limbo, but, the fact remains that, if there was a way to make guns disappear tomorrow, a good number of people would not die needlessly.

Maybe it's the lack of body armor and helmets that are responsible for people being killed by guns with such frequency.

well then we all revert to knives,a nd then the argument turns to "we dont need sharp kives - we can sell pre-sliced meat and use only butter knives for condiments" outlaw guns to day, knives tomorrow, pointed sticks next week.... bats the next.... we'll eventually commit murder with plastic bags, but kids die from those too so... I guess we'll get rid of those.

we'll eventually commit murder with plastic bags, but kids die from those too so... I guess we'll get rid of those.

Argumentum ad absurdum again.

As has been pointed out a number of times in this discussion, many items that have practical uses can also be used to kill. Guns, aside from the aforementioned recreational uses of a dubious nature, have no purpose other than to cause damage and intimidate.

Keep flailing though. It's entertaining.

Argumentum ad absurdum again.

Actually, its proper name is reductio ad absurdum, and it is when you make your argument by showing that your opponent's argument leads to an absurd conclusion. As Shawn has pointed out, your argument leads to absurds conclusions.

As has been pointed out a number of times in this discussion, many items that have practical uses can also be used to kill. Guns, aside from the aforementioned recreational uses of a dubious nature, have no purpose other than to cause damage and intimidate.

No, it has been pointed out a number of times in this discussion, that firearms do have other uses.

Thanks for the Latin tip, Roan.

No, it has been pointed out a number of times in this discussion, that firearms do have other uses.

I must have missed them. Kindly point them out? I suppose a gun could be used with a scarf to fashion a tourniquet if somebody was bleeding to death from a wound to their extremities.

I must have missed them.

Then I suggest you actually read the thread.

As Roan pointed out, my reductio ad absurdum was only to point out how absurd your argument was. I'm distressed that you'd actually think I'm that obtuse as to make serious such an argument.

Guns, aside from the aforementioned recreational uses of a dubious nature, have no purpose other than to cause damage and intimidate.

and therefore is bad, and mostly bad. In fact, the counter argument being made by those who oppose guns in the hand of civilians is that the negativity of guns, irrespective of how isolated the incidents are, outweighs the possiblity of anything good. It removes the idea that there could or will be a proper and good use to guns based on the aforementioned isolated incidents.

Forbid guns because they are made to kill, and on occasion kill the wrong people. Abortion kills something 100% of the time, or depending on your viewpoint it can alternately be said that it prohibits the progression of something 100% of the time... ban that. Then we'll talk.

I must have missed them. Kindly point them out? I suppose a gun could be used with a scarf to fashion a tourniquet if somebody was bleeding to death from a wound to their extremities

Hunting. But Mait, you're obviosuly intelligent, so here are som 5 second searches on 'guns good', 'good use of guns', and got this, this.

so in closing I'll just add. You can have my gun.... but you need to come get it.

Forbid guns because they are made to kill, and on occasion kill the wrong people. Abortion kills something 100% of the time, or depending on your viewpoint it can alternately be said that it prohibits the progression of something 100% of the time... ban that. Then we'll talk.

I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion. The way to end abortion is to make them unnecessary.

Similarly, I'd love to snap my fingers and send all guns into space, but, failing that, I'd like to see guns made unnecessary. Failing that, I'd like to see some assurance that the people wielding guns do so in a responsible manner which is verifiable.

As Roan pointed out, my reductio ad absurdum was only to point out how absurd your argument was.

The thing about reductio ad absurdum is that it can be applied to almost any line of reasoning.

For instance, JonesGirl's "why stop at guns, why not bazookas".

After all, the second ammendment says the right to bear "arms". Knives, guns, stones, and missiles all qualify as arms. I could interpret the second amendment as giving you the right to carry a pocket knife but not a gun. Someone else could interpret the second amendment to give them the right to own dynamite (while not engaged in mining operations).

baseball bats can be used to kill. there is no useful use for baseball bats. Don't give me they are part of the equipment of a competitive sport because so are guns.

could interpret the second amendment as giving you the right to carry a pocket knife but not a gun.

but to stop that, it is written that the rights we have are ours so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others or their observance of that right.

but to stop that, it is written that the rights we have are ours so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others or their observance of that right.

So, you want the right to own a fighter jet with armaments?

I really gotta go now. Have fun storming the castle!!

So, you want the right to own a fighter jet with armaments?

actually... I've always wanted an armed Leopard 2 and an A1 Abrahams as sort of gateway lions at the end of my drive...and an A-10 and an F4 Phantom. How'd you know?

actually... I've always wanted an armed Leopard 2 and an A1 Abrahams as sort of gateway lions at the end of my drive...and an A-10 and an F4 Phantom. How'd you know?

God told me. ;)

Maybe you can find them on eBay.

The real difference is that a car is made to take you from point a to point b. A gun's only purpose is to kill people! That's all they do. That's all they're used for.

And as I have said before, no one has ever been killed in a drive-by knifing.

A gun's only purpose is to kill people! That's all they do. That's all they're used for.

Guns are used to deter crime from happening in the first place. In the US, shooters know that they can go to a school and not have to worry about students or teachers being armed, while in malls they don't have that same guarantee. In the UK, violent home break-ins are much more common because criminals know that those at home won't have access to a gun. If someone is threatening my life, there is a better chance they won't attack if I'm holding a gun.

A gun's only purpose is to kill people!

Actually, you are mistaken. A firearms main purpose is propel a projectile down its barrel towards the target of choice with a certain degree of accuracy.

Typically the target of choice is not a person.

shooters know that they can go to a school and not have to worry about students or teachers being armed

Yeah, that's good idea. Give a bunch of hormonal adolescents firearms. Nothing bad can come from that. No way.

And before you say, "I'm not talking about arming high school kids." there's some NRA member out there who thinks that armed high schoolers could have prevented Columbine. So it is really just a matter of degree.

But forget about the high school kids. I went to college. I went to a college with "good Catholic kids" with high SAT's. Doesn't mean I didn't see a lot of drunken numnutz behavior. Now, let's throw guns into that mix. Nothing bad can come from that. No way.

And as I have said before, no one has ever been killed in a drive-by knifing.

Yes, but plenty of people are still killed each year by knives and miscellaneous blunt instruments.

Yeah, that's good idea. Give a bunch of hormonal adolescents firearms. Nothing bad can come from that. No way.

My high school had an armory, a shooting range, and an official shooting team. No one was ever shot.

But forget about the high school kids. I went to college. I went to a college with "good Catholic kids" with high SAT's. Doesn't mean I didn't see a lot of drunken numnutz behavior. Now, let's throw guns into that mix. Nothing bad can come from that. No way.

We best either change the enlistment age to 30, or get all guns out of the military then.

We best either change the enlistment age to 30, or get all guns out of the military then.

I would have no problem with that. :-)

However, since we do not have a real problem of all those drunken numbnutz college-age kids in the military killing each other, I don't think we need to do either.

In all the states that have issued me a CCW, it is illegal to carry a weapon while intoxicated.

In all the states that have issued me a CCW, it is illegal to carry a weapon while intoxicated.

Great. I nominate you to enforce that particular law. Go get 'um, Tiger. A small tip...try to stay away from the direction the drunk is pointing his/her gun.

As for Bodhi1's comment -- there's no way to tell from the information you provide that the gun law was a direct cause of the drop in crime. Also, a small town is usually not an analog to the gun violence one might see in a major city.

If Kennesaw had 2 murders one year and 1 after the law was enacted, that is a 50% drop. Show me a major city that has had a law legalizing concealed weapons for its residents en masse that has shown a statistically significant drop in gun related crime (that cannot be attributed to other factors) and you might have a case.

Douglas, why don't you show me that there is a problem with people carrying while intoxicated?

Douglas, why don't you show me that there is a problem with people carrying while intoxicated?

Roan, I think it is called common sense. Intoxication changes judgment, can increase paranoia, slows reflexes, increases emotions.

If you are ok with intoxicated people carrying a weapon, then you should also have no issue with the same intoxicated person driving a car. It's the same trust with a potential deadly item.

I think I may have not been clear about my question. I understand the issue of an intoxicated person carrying a firearm. I was asking Douglas to show that it is an issue that occurs with enough frequency that it is realistic to consider it a current problem.

Great. I nominate you to enforce that particular law. Go get 'um, Tiger. A small tip...try to stay away from the direction the drunk is pointing his/her gun.

Well then lets ban people from buying cars, since they cannot be trusted not to drive if they are drunk.

Roan was saying that it is illegal for someone to carry a weapon while intoxicated.

My point is that if there are more people carrying weapons, statistically, even if it is a small percentage, there will be more who are carrying their weapon while intoxicated.

According to Roan, that is no problem, since these people are not abiding by the law and shall be dealt with accordingly.

I was simply nominating Roan to be the one to go up an take the gun away from the drunk person...because somebody has to.

When I was 12 yrs old, I got a .22 rifle for my birthday. My grandfather took me out back to teach me how to shoot and care for the gun. In my exhuberence at having a firearm of my own I was waving it around--and it was momentarily pointed at him. My hand was no where the trigger. He took the rifle from me and knocked me back about 5 feet into the dirt. After removing the shells, my grandfather wiped the blood off my busted lip and warned me--"do not ever point a loaded gun at a man unless you plan to use it". He handed the rifle back to me and --stupid me--ended up pointing the barrell back in his direction--I knew it was unloaded--and for the second time I ended up sitting on my back side seeing stars and bleeding from my lip--"A gun is always loaded!" he told me.

I have never forgotten those lessons.

Guns are dangerous in the hands of the uneducated or the mentally ill--just as anything else, cars, knives poison or blunt instruments.

No matter how many years I may live I will not forget those lessons and all the hypothetical "if" questions and circumstances will not change that--I will never point a gun a person unless I intend to use it. If I become mentally ill and dangerous my family would not let me near a weapon for my own safety--that is the way families are supposed to be.

The question is not so much where did the "nut" get the gun as much as where was the family of the person who could have helped long before he ever picked up a weapon with the intent to kill?

Hell, I'll volunteer to take the gun away from the drunk. Done it before, will end up doing it again. Seems like a once a month thing in my life.

I was simply nominating Roan to be the one to go up an take the gun away from the drunk person...because somebody has to.

Sure Douglas, you point them out to me, and I'll disarm them.

Hell, I'll volunteer to take the gun away from the drunk. Done it before, will end up doing it again. Seems like a once a month thing in my life.

And that doesn't seem too often to you?

nah, people get drunk and do stupid things. You just deal with it, no need to involve other people.

Bodhi, let's bear in mind at all times that douglasq has a point. This is a very small town according to my research. Not only that it was 17 years ago.

Well said

There will always be fearful people and they will always take measures that attempt to allay those fears.

There will also always be people who are unprepared or unwilling to confront the hazards of life, and rely on others to protect them and their families. These people are not victims, they are volunteers.

Understand that being vigilant is not the same as being fearful.

So it's bad to rely on law enforcement?

The safety you feel your weapon gives you is an illiusion. The gun you tote has a greater chance of harming you or a loved one than it does of protecting you from that bogey man that haunts your thoughts.

Roan lets also bear in mind that if you kill someone that you feel is putting your life in danger you aren't being vigilant. You're acting as a vigilante.

Not quite, if you kill someone to preserve your life you are involved in self-preservation. Vigilante's try to dole out punishment/justice without the law involved.

So it's bad to rely on law enforcement?

So you think it's realistic to expect that the police will be able to protect you and your family from all threats?

The safety you feel your weapon gives you is an illiusion.

My firearms do not make me feel safe. A firearm is a tool, not a bodyguard.

The gun you tote has a greater chance of harming you or a loved one than it does of protecting you from that bogey man that haunts your thoughts.

Unfortunately for your argument, a bogey man does not haunt my thoughts, and my gun has less chance of harming me and my family than someone who is attacking us.

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens in the US, and approximately 100,000 gun death or injuries.

Most people who are injured or killed by firearms know or knew their assailants. Therefore, I don't want guns myself or to even have friends who do.

I'd bet that most people killed or injured by knives or blunt objects also know or knew their assailants. You better only makes friends with people who don't possess such objects; and make sure there are nonein your house.

Really Jimster, it sounds like it is you who is the fearful one here.

Knives and blunt objects aren't as immediate as a gun and they require being quite close to the victim.

Knives and blunt objects aren't as immediate as a gun and they require being quite close to the victim.

That is quite correct, and totally irrelevant to the context in which the original statement was made.

However, do you know the distance at which the majority of shootings occur? Do you know how quick it takes a person to travel 10 feet if they intend to kill you?

I just don't see it. For a handgun the effective range is mostly 5 feet to 30 feet. For a knife you have pretty much the same range and about the same time investment to get the required skill. For over 30 feet the marksmanship gets much harder for guns and knives. I like guns and knives, but for home defence I still just use two bayonets. Admittedly I live in a small place, but I don't think that would change based on square footage.

Those who are in fear for their lives 24/7 and feel justified in using any means necessary to protect themselves, regardless of the social impact caused by their various protection methods. And..

I think that is the group you've got me in, but I'm not sure that is a very accurate description of me. I do not fear for my life 24/7 or ... ever really. I don't feel like I am being threatened or that someone is constantly trying to harm my family or me. I choose to keep a gun in the house for protection from an unlikely intruder just as I keep canned food in the basement for an unlikely multi-day power outage. I wear full protective gear when riding my motorcycle even when it is 90 degrees outside just in case I were to lay it down (unlikely).

The danger that gun owners pose to society is ...

:) I really think you've got this wrong. My handgun in my safe in my bedroom does not increase danger for any person. If I were to carry my pistol concealed through a hospital it would not increase the danger for any person in that hospital. Do you know why? Because I am a law abiding citizen. It is as simple as that.

I have small children so my handgun is kept in a quick combination safe that they are unable to get into (plus I doubt there has ever been a 4 year old who could cycle a .45...). For me having children has increased my sense that being able to provide security to my family above and beyond local law enforcement is a good idea. That doesn't put others in danger.

I am a lefty when it comes to most social issues - I took one of those political tests recently and apparently my views were closest to Kucinich out of all the folks running for President. My point is that for me, the Dems have it wrong on guns.

If 5 or 10 of the students in that room were carrying handguns it would be difficult to predict what would have happened. All 15 of them could have stayed hidden behind the seats in front of them. They could have pulled out their handguns and accidentally shot several students. One of them may have taken a few shots at the assailant and turned him around and out of the room. When none of the students are allowed to have a handgun, you can safely predict the outcome.

Roan@11.6-

So you think it's realistic to expect that the police will be able to protect you and your family from all threats?

I never said that Roan.

My point is- what is it that makes you afraid and me not? I'm not saying that all fear is bad. It has helped the species survive I just don't know why people are walking around so scared that they feel the need to carry guns. I just don't feel the need and I never have.

I suppose from your point of view I appear wildly foolish for not considering all the dangers you seem to think are all around me. Maybe I'm more fatalistic or something. It's not that I don't take precautions, I do. But a gun? Never.

Unfortunately for your argument, a bogey man does not haunt my thoughts, and my gun has less chance of harming me and my family than someone who is attacking us.

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Most homicides with known victim/offender relationships involved people who knew each other

Those who tote guns for protection have a distorted view of the actual danger they are in and where that danger comes from, in my view.

I'm not trying to lobby for gun control as I said above. I'm just trying to understand what I see as a basic difference between the two sides if this argument, apart from the legalities that is normally center of gun discussions.

Bodhi1@-11.11-

That's called a straw man.

No attempt here to create any sort of straw man arguments. Just trying to share how I see things. Sadly it seems that my attempts to approach this on deeper level appears to have failed. Pretty much par for the course these days.

I never said that Roan.

I never claimed you did, I just asked you a question.

My point is- what is it that makes you afraid and me not? I'm not saying that all fear is bad. It has helped the species survive I just don't know why people are walking around so scared that they feel the need to carry guns. I just don't feel the need and I never have.

My point is that you have no point, because your assumption that I am afraid because I chose to carry a firearm, is fallacious.

I suppose from your point of view I appear wildly foolish for not considering all the dangers you seem to think are all around me. Maybe I'm more fatalistic or something. It's not that I don't take precautions, I do. But a gun? Never.

No, I do not consider you wildly foolish. That is just another incorrect assumption on your part.

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Most homicides with known victim/offender relationships involved people who knew each other

How does that prove your claim that, The gun you tote has a greater chance of harming you or a loved one than it does of protecting you?

Those who tote guns for protection have a distorted view of the actual danger they are in and where that danger comes from, in my view.

Unfortunately, your view appears to be based upon some incorrect assumptions.

I'm not trying to lobby for gun control as I said above. I'm just trying to understand what I see as a basic difference between the two sides if this argument, apart from the legalities that is normally center of gun discussions.

Whether you are lobbying for gun control or not, does not change the logic of your argument, nor will it make you assumptions correct.

No attempt here to create any sort of straw man arguments. Just trying to share how I see things. Sadly it seems that my attempts to approach this on deeper level appears to have failed. Pretty much par for the course these days.

I am sorry Jimster, but making negative assumptions about my feelings and motivations for owning firearms, is not approaching things on a deeper level. It is frankly insulting.

If you really would like to understand why I and many other people support the responsible ownership of firearms; then ask, not tell me, why. I will be very happy to have a normal, rational discussion.

I would rather be killed by a gun than beaten to death.

this goes without saying, but sounds by the company you keep mr. bodhi, that is indeed more likely to happen to you than someone who does not subscribe to gun culture.

for the record, i support the right to own rifles, but i think handguns should be for the most part eliminated from the general population.

when defending ones liberty from a tyrannical government, a handgun is next to useless. a .50 on the other hand can help you with just about anything.

in my world, concealed weapons would be outrightly illegal and if caught packing, judge dread rules would be applied. you can carry your rifle wherever you so desire.

when defending ones liberty from a tyrannical government, a handgun is next to useless. a .50 on the other hand can help you with just about anything.

Dessert Eagle

ah... mmmmm. DE50s. heavy, expensive to shoot... and has the potential to make a spaghetti mess.

I've always chuckled at the image on the bottom right where the lady is holding the 50 cal with one hand... in my mind I dare her to fire it like that.

this goes without saying, but sounds by the company you keep mr. bodhi, that is indeed more likely to happen to you than someone who does not subscribe to gun culture.

Still, having taken a 5 iron to the ribs... I'd rather have been shot in the leg... and I don't run with a gun crowd as it were. I don't ask who does and does not have a gun. I don't get asked either.

when defending ones liberty from a tyrannical government, a handgun is next to useless. a .50 on the other hand can help you with just about anything.

I'd actually argue that a 50 cal hand cannon is impractical for anything but deterring. Its got a small clip, its heavy, its got a lot of kick, and its got a low rate of fire - making it very inaccurate when fired quickly.

Id also argue that if handguns were useless they'd not issue them to officers. handguns are good for close range combat and if you've never been pistol whipped I suggest you try it... you'll remember all sorts of things you never did.

shawn-

the desert eagle is not the .50 i was talking about. a hand held .50 might well be the most useless weapon on the planet. (i challenge anyone here to get something that resembles a 3 shot group in as many seconds) the same goes for most any large cal. handgun. if you dont get them with the first shot, you are probably already dead.

the essence of rock and roll lives in the chamber of a .50 machine gun. i've sent thousands of rounds downrange from the crew door of my ch-46 and that gun gets er done.

shawn-

the desert eagle is not the .50 i was talking about.

were you thinking of the revolver then? cause... that's a beat and a half too...

if you dont get them with the first shot, you are probably already dead.

well Id argue that center mass isn't exactly a needed thing with a very large caliber hand gun. shoulder - chest... its all a matter of time...

the essence of rock and roll lives in the chamber of a .50 machine gun. i've sent thousands of rounds downrange from the crew door of my ch-46 and that gun gets er done.

ah... thats what you're talking about...

well then in terms of personnel... you don't really have center mass, just... bits and pieces.

According to a study by criminologists, there are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens in the US.

Thanks for the insight, Roan. I had no idea there were that many.

I have one more statistic to add. "The Brady campaign" cites the following statistics from 1998:

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths

Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=firefacts

Here's a really good site for crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Yes, because before the advent of firearms we all lived in a land of harmony; filled with peace, love, and rainbows. Particularly nice, were the pink fluffy clouds.

I never said that, I am saying that it is harder to kill someone with a sword than a handgun. Any idiot can handle a gun. Thats not even my point. My point is that if the fact that everyone had guns would stop people from killing each other then America would be the safest place on Earth. The fact is however that there are more gun deaths in the US then the rest of the world combined. (I am not including warzones in here obviously) Therefore having guns does not make us safer.

What is an automatic weapon used for if not to kill people?

Without realizing it, your question only illustrates your ignorance on this subject.

To further prove it, give me a guess how many automatic weapons have been used in murders since 1934? Here's a hint... you could count them on two hands.

...and you most likely still don't get what I'm talking about.

I think it is precisely the pervasiveness of these weapons of death in our society that leads people to kill their peers.

Wrong. Violence and crime are a dark part of human nature, and have been for many thousands of years. To assume there is crime in the US simply because inanimate objects happen to be here is just ignorant.

To further prove it, give me a guess how many automatic weapons have been used in murders since 1934? Here's a hint... you could count them on two hands.

Semi-automatic is still a type of automatic.

Violence and crime are a dark part of human nature

Violence over our evolutionary history is the primary reason human beings have hard skulls and enlarged frontal lobes. The majority of what makes human beings at all worth talking about derives from the evolutionary pressures arising from our own intra-species tendency to violence. To the extent that we see at all, it is because of an innate disposition to look for danger.

I never said that, I am saying that it is harder to kill someone with a sword than a handgun. Any idiot can handle a gun.

No, you said I think it is precisely the pervasiveness of these weapons of death in our society that leads people to kill their peers. In other words, you think the spread or existence of firearms causes people to kill.

Any idiot can handle a sword, in fact far less skill is required.

Thats not even my point.

It's not? Okay...

My point is that if the fact that everyone had guns would stop people from killing each other then America would be the safest place on Earth.

I don't believe that anyone on this thread has attempted to make that argument.

The fact is however that there are more gun deaths in the US then the rest of the world combined. (I am not including warzones in here obviously) Therefore having guns does not make us safer.

The fact is however that you are absolutely incorrect. In 2005, there were 30,000 gun deaths in the US. There were 40,000 in Brazil. Imagine what the number would be if you had to add the rest of the world combined?

Can cite your data souce(s) with a link?

It would help.

It's okay Jimster, I didn't bother asking alexander-nelson for the source of his stat, as it is quite obviously imagined.

My stats on US gun deaths come from the CDC, and here is the source for the Brazil stat.

Violence-plagued Brazil holds referendum on gun sales

Semi-automatic is still a type of automatic.

Not entirely. Automatic weapons, as they're talked about and understood are weapons that will fire continuously with a single trigger squeeze. A semi-automatic weapon will automatically load the next round but fires one time per trigger squeeze. There are exceptions to this as with the M-16... they have burst fire which fires three rounds per squeeze.

if you wanted to equate semi-auto as a kind of auto (which is true but weak) then 90% of handguns would be considered 'automatic'... most rifles and some shot guns would also then be considered 'automatic'... there is a very big and distinct difference between semi auto and auto, most of that difference has to do with purpose.

The last time I needed to use my sidearm to protect myself was....hmmm...never.

but you still have one...

The last time I needed to use my sidearm, baton or fists to protect myself was . . . hmmm, never!

The last time I needed to use my fire extinguisher or smoke detector to save me from a house fire was . . . hmmm, never!

The last time I needed to use my seatbelt, airbag or safety glass in a collision to protect myself was . . . hmmm, never!

The last time I needed to use my personal flotation device to protect myself from drowning when my boat sank was . . . hmmm, never!

And yet, yes I do have all those things. I've been a lucky guy so far - should I just go on trusting to luck? Or should I continue to take responsibility for my own personal safety and the safety of my friends and family?

and by law some of those things are required to be present....why? becuase (and here's the kicker), its a good idea!

I can swim just fine, but I'd like to know that if inthe event my boat sinks I have a way to stay afloat. I'd especially love to be able to put out a fire or know when there is one - particularly if I'm asleep.

And yet, yes I do have all those things. I've been a lucky guy so far - should I just go on trusting to luck? Or should I continue to take responsibility for my own personal safety and the safety of my friends and family?

Exactly. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

you know, I have never had a virus infection on any of my computers. (currently I am running 4 desktops, 2 servers, 3 laptops at home) Guess I dont' really need to be runnning antivirus huh. I still will mind you.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Another fave, "A handgun is something no one needs . . . until you need one very, very badly!"

If every Tom, Dick and Harry weren't carrying theirs guns around with them, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

That's strange Lulu, I could of sworn there are incidents of rape, murder, and robbery that do not involve firearms.

If every Tom, Dick and Harry weren't carrying theirs guns around with them, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

Not true. I live in Canada, where it is relatively hard to get a gun legally. However, I can get a gun through my less savory friends in a day, flat. Criminals will still have guns.

If every Tom, Dick and Harry weren't carrying theirs guns around with them, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

Please stop equating criminals who use guns to commit crimes with law abiding citizens who carry concealed.

When I carry my gun concealed you do NOT have to protect yourself from me.

When I carry my gun concealed you do NOT have to protect yourself from me.

Unless, perhaps, you have one too many beers.

but having a fire arm and being drunk is no more a reason to fear someone who is drunk and without firearms. There are more rapes stopped at gun point than started.

you are assuming that he would carry his gun while drinking beyond his limit. Heck he could leave his gun home, drink too much and run you over in his car too. I know, Ban CARS!!

you are assuming that he would carry his gun while drinking beyond his limit. Heck he could leave his gun home, drink too much and run you over in his car too. I know, Ban CARS!!

Isn't that called "argumentum ad absurdum"? I'd be happy to ban cars, though. I think they lose out in a cost-benefit analysis. Let people walk and ride bikes and take public transportation. Let delivery trucks deliver furniture and appliances.

There are more rapes stopped at gun point than started.

Source? Or is this yet another "fact" pulled out of thin air?

Let people walk and ride bikes and take public transportation.

I guess we should also live in dorms. No need to all live in single family homes. too much waste, right? lets also get rid of designer clothes. instead get a commission set up to approve a basic uniform. all this waste and unnecessary stuff happening in this utopia of ours...

[/sarcasm]

I guess we should also live in dorms. No need to all live in single family homes. too much waste, right?

This is a diversion from the point under discussion, but there are many more efficient ways of building homes than the currently popular methods. Building "earth" homes that are partially underground would be much more efficient. Living in dorms isn't necessary.

I'd rather move towards utopia than continue living in this nightmare world.

First, sorry you think this is a 'nightmare world'. I love the world in which we live.

Second, you may have missed my end sarcasm tag. it is there. look again, you may notice it...

Living in dorms isn't necessary.

Nor is taking away people's guns.

Unless, perhaps, you have one too many beers.

:) You wouldn't know, but I am not the violent drunk type. Besides, it is illegal to carry in bars or if you are intoxicated and I mentioned above that I was law abiding.

gun carrying criminals != gun carrying law abiding citizens

"Tom, Dick, and Harry" attempts to paint the two categories above to be the same and that is wrong.

Guns create jobs.

Guns screw girls and have sons.

Guns are irresponsible.

guns talk back?

Guns brook no dissent.

Guns screw girls and have sons.

Would those be son-of-a-guns?

Guns don't kill people, blood loss kills people.

Gun owners kill people and not necessarily the right people!

Guns don't save lives, having unbroken blood vessels preserves lives.

Gun owners kill people and not necessarily the right people!

My gun has killed quite a few pumpkins, but no people.

Guns take lives!

cigarettes kill more people a day than guns... Cancer kills more people a day than guns - but the greatest killer of all, is stupidity, and ironically its not a silent killer either.

ban kids...

oh wait... abstinence doesn't work according to some sources... abort today for a safer tomorrow.

Interesting stats, DAWeb. I won't (for now) address each one, but the second strikes me as particularly meaningless. Correlation does not equal causation. For it to be meaningful many or all other factors (variables) in those counties would need to be eliminated.

I guess I *will* also mention that rape is a crime which, in particular, tends to be underreported.

it is hardly meaningless. No study presented by you or I (wait, have you actually presented anything approaching a study?) has occurred in a vacuum. These are all legitimate numbers and unless you can prove them wrong...

it is hardly meaningless. No study presented by you or I (wait, have you actually presented anything approaching a study?) has occurred in a vacuum. These are all legitimate numbers and unless you can prove them wrong...

Numbers are numbers--they are interesting and sometimes (but not always) indicative of reality. All I know is I'd rather not have my kids end up as numbers on the wrong end of some study.

Like the studies I cited here.

I am sure you like them but at least one of them is not really a study, it is just a collection of numbers.

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

Lets look at this one.

3012 children die. - This strikes me as a pure attempt to illicit a specific emotional response. It does not tell us how many children there are in the year mentioned. they do not mention how many die from other causes in the year mentioned. these are all things that would allow us to put this number into perspective. I would like to know how this compares to the number of children that die in auto accidents each year. how many die from falls, how many from poisons. Do you understand why it would be helpful to have that additional information? How many of these children were killed by accident as opposed to intentionally murdered? How many were killed by legally registered weapons fired by their owners, compared to how many were killed by criminals?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you quote statistics that show that the US is the leader in the countries cited in gun ownership percentages, homicide rates, and gun suicide rates?

It appears to me that you are saying that the correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates implies causation. But when confronted with statistics you do not like, you say that correlation does not equal causation.

You can't have it both ways.

Good points, Roan. There certainly are stronger and weaker correlations, though. That is, in the case of concealed weapons and crime, there are so many factors. When it comes to gun ownership rates and gun deaths, what other factors are there? Alcohol consumption maybe.

DAWeb, forgive me, I ought to have said "studies and statistics", or maybe just "statistics".

Have a safe and pleasant evening. Time to go get the kids and play with them at the park for a bit. Hopefully, we won't split our heads open on the monkey bars.

If so you might start wanting to ban monkey bars next! I certainly hope based on your earlier comment tho, that you are not taking a car. I would expect you are walking, biking, or taking public transportation. right?

If so you might start wanting to ban monkey bars next! I certainly hope based on your earlier comment tho, that you are not taking a car. I would expect you are walking, biking, or taking public transportation. right?

The intended use of monkey bars (cars, scarves, etc.) is not to put holes in things or deter anybody from anything. I walk and bike when I can (I was biking to work almost every day until my bike got stolen). I also make it a point to live close to where I work to minimize the amount of driving I do.

Let's cut the crap here, shall we? We can go back and forth trading studies (which often support the positions of the people funding them) and statistics. Here's what it comes down to for me:

As a child, I shared in the fascination with guns that many children do. I had my little green soldiers and acted out battles with them. I had my toy guns and put on cammo pants and ran around the neighborhood back-yards playing Rambo. I asked my Dad if I could have a gun, and he, presciently, told me I could have one when I turned 18. You know what, somewhere in my early to mid-teens, my juvenile fascination with guns went away. I matured a bit and fond more worthwhile (to me, at least) interests.

The sensible folks who never outgrew their obsessions with guns grew up and joined law enforcement agencies. I happen to work in a building with a bunch of them, and, every training day, I see them walking through the halls with their MP5s (and their handlebar mustaches that look curiously like the ones worn by gay bikers) in their cammo fatigues on their way to play Rambo. While they look a bit ridiculous to me, having worked with them (at least some of the higher-ranking ones), they've managed to earn a modicum of my respect.

Now, what typifies, to me, American gun culture at large? It's the calendars with babes in bikinis brandishing large-caliber fire arms. Gun fanatics ("gun nuts") are largely a bunch of macho over-grown babies with an infantile obsession with proxy phalluses to help them get hard.

While gun nuts whine about how gun-control denies them their Second Ammendment right, I suggest that reasonable people everywhere exercise their *First Ammendment* right to shame and mock gun nuts, so that their infantile, thumb-sucking fascination with guns becomes as fashionable as wearing a mullet. If we can't manage to pass some reasonable gun laws, let's at least make it so gun-addicts are as likely to talk about their fascination in public as men (who aren't paid celebrity spokesmen) are to proudly declare the medication they are taking for their erectile dysfunction.

The intended use of monkey bars (cars, scarves, etc.) is not to put holes in things or deter anybody from anything.

but the reported injuries and hospital reports make them no less dangerous to children.

While gun nuts whine about how gun-control denies them their Second Ammendment right, I suggest that reasonable people everywhere exercise their *First Ammendment* right to shame and mock gun nuts, so that their infantile, thumb-sucking fascination with guns becomes as fashionable as wearing a mullet. If we can't manage to pass some reasonable gun laws, let's at least make it so gun-addicts are as likely to talk about their fascination in public as men (who aren't paid celebrity spokesmen) are to proudly declare the medication they are taking for their erectile dysfunction

Actually.... I like guns becuase I admire fine craftsmanship and am fascinated with machinery. I drool over big bore engines, a 40mm gatling gun, and a 5 cyl DOHC Yahama engine equally. To lump someone together who happens to like guns and also sees a very valid point in it is preetty unfair. Aside from that... where as anyone outside of your apparent conjecture ever hinted that they one a gun 'because they think its cool'. (1)

To be precise, "think it's cool' (2) appears three times on this entire article, and I've said them both right here... and if you look... even those in favor is guns have in a way condemned those who are irresponsible with them, and 'thinking they're cool' (3) or owning them for the sake of inflating your penis isn't anything we've condoned.

Good try. It might have worked on those less astute.

Good try. It might have worked on those less astute.

You're pretty unflappable, Shawn. You just might be somebody I'd trust to responsibly own a weapon. I voted for your comment.

Sadly, I'd say a large percentage of gun-owners are not the types of people who would frequent Newsvine. Newsviners, from my experience, tend to be a bit more thoughtful and educated that even internet users in general.

There is obviously a large market for "gun porn" given its prevalence.

I matured a bit and fond more worthwhile (to me, at least) interests.

are you equating maturity with not caring about guns or did you put that in in spite of it having nothing to do with the subject for emotional effect?

every training day, I see them walking through the halls with their MP5s (and their handlebar mustaches that look curiously like the ones worn by gay bikers) in their cammo fatigues on their way to play Rambo.

you have asked them and they have told you that they are going to play Rambo or is that merely your immature interpretation? I know lots of gays that bike and don't have handlebar mustaches. Does that have any purpose other then to elicit an emotional response again? Could it be a backhanded attempt at an insult? pretty poor attempt...

Now, what typifies, to me, American gun culture at large? It's the calendars with babes in bikinis brandishing large-caliber fire arms. Gun fanatics ("gun nuts") are largely a bunch of macho over-grown babies with an infantile obsession with proxy phalluses to help them get hard.

sounds to me like you don't know any real gun fanatics and instead need to get out more.

I suggest that reasonable people everywhere exercise their *First Ammendment* right to shame and mock gun nuts, so that their infantile, thumb-sucking fascination with guns becomes as fashionable as wearing a mullet.

in otherwords you want those that agree with you to get together and throw a temper tantrum till you get your own way?

Is there any specific reason for your fascination with penis size and functionality? Is it true you are calling out for attention and help? I sure sounds that way.

You're pretty unflappable, Shawn.

thank you. Though, I do now wonder if you've tried to upset me? I wouldn't me mad if you had, its vital in some forms of debate by way of trying to make someone understand their own flaws.

Newsviners, from my experience, tend to be a bit more thoughtful and educated that even internet users in general.

we try and make that a point here... for and from everyone.

There is obviously a large market for "gun porn" given its prevalence.

there are a LOT of things that people find 'sexy'.... given the option what s out there... gun porn is pretty "G" rated.

are you equating maturity with not caring about guns or did you put that in in spite of it having nothing to do with the subject for emotional effect?

Yep. I was trolling here. Trying to see if I could elicit a death threat from a gun-toter. You guys (in this discussion) are pretty cool cats, I must admit.

I've known a few gun nuts, though. While they are good people overall, I do see their preoccupation with guns as immature. Maybe that's me projecting my own immaturity, though.

Happy, happy, joy, joy!!

God's in control. What will be will be.

Let me just add: I've often found that insulting somebody and working/fighting through things can lead to mutual respect and even lasting friendships. I guess it's a guy/macho thing. I have my own brand of machismo, I suppose, which has nothing to do with guns (though it might have something to do with taunting folks with guns).

in otherwords you want those that agree with you to get together and throw a temper tantrum till you get your own way?

One last thing for now...really, I mean it.

Shaming can be a very effective method of exerting social control. Observe that very few people pick their noses in public.

Now, what typifies, to me, American gun culture at large? It's the calendars with babes in bikinis brandishing large-caliber fire arms. Gun fanatics ("gun nuts") are largely a bunch of macho over-grown babies with an infantile obsession with proxy phalluses to help them get hard.

While gun nuts whine about how gun-control denies them their Second Ammendment right, I suggest that reasonable people everywhere exercise their *First Ammendment* right to shame and mock gun nuts, so that their infantile, thumb-sucking fascination with guns becomes as fashionable as wearing a mullet. If we can't manage to pass some reasonable gun laws, let's at least make it so gun-addicts are as likely to talk about their fascination in public as men (who aren't paid celebrity spokesmen) are to proudly declare the medication they are taking for their erectile dysfunction.

I'm a 23 year old male. I'm a college student, studying Computer Science. I don't own a bikini babe calendar, or have a car on cinderblocks in my front yard.

I've been mugged. I've been assaulted. I've known and dated women who had been raped. I know people who have been shot. I live in an area where a little girl was recently abducted. I have feared for my life. I don't buy into the false sense of security that the Police provide. I own a gun because I feel that its my responsibility to protect myself and the people I love from the people out there that cause it. I know dozens of people like me, that carry a firearm to keep them, and much more importantly, the people they love, safe. Me, and every single one of those people, spend every day praying that they won't have to shoot. I have no desire to take another human's life, or to show off my guns to impress anybody. I own guns because I want to live free of harassment, of assault, of rape, of murder. I own guns because my ancestors used them to fight oppression, slavery, fascism. I own guns because I accept that we are, individually, responsible for our own safety and freedom.

I don't really care if society tries to shame me, or people call me immature. I've made a decision to do what I think is right. What is right is so much more important then whats accepted. That is, I think, something that the people that try to take our liberties from us will never understand. I'll give up a socially unacceptable habit, like cursing or picking my nose. But right is always right. And if it came to it, I would kill to save someone I love, because its the Right thing to do. I really, really hope I never have to.

Thanks for your thoughtful, measured reply, JordanG. It commands respect.

I own guns because I want to live free of harassment, of assault, of rape, of murder.

Here's where I find wishful thinking. To me, the solution to mundane issues is not mundane. I don't see a gun freeing anybody from anything. Rather, they further bind people to the mundane.

To me, spirituality (please, folks, spare me the jibes about "wishful thinking") is the answer to *everything*. Only when we find peace within our hearts, and make peace with the world and all of creation, can we truly live in peace.

I tried to stay away, but the usual Friday afternoon workload is lighter than normal.

you are right. if only we just prayed as a nation rather then utilizing our military...

To me, spirituality (please, folks, spare me the jibes about "wishful thinking") is the answer to *everything*. Only when we find peace within our hearts, and make peace with the world and all of creation, can we truly live in peace.

I won't make fun of you for it, but it is wishful thinking. I'd love to live in peace. I think that, I do. I'm worried about the people out there that don't give a damn about it. I refuse to stand idly by while someone evil DOES evil. I refuse to allow someone to commit murder, or rape, if its within my power to stop it, because I believe that the people you're describing: the peaceful, the innocent, are inherently worth more then the people that do evil. Like I said, I hope I never have to use deadly force to stop someone, but I know that I'd never hesitate to do so because my life, and the lives of the people I love, are more precious then that of the criminal trying to deprive us of our lives.

That is, I think, why gun-grabbers will never win. They want to take away guns because of the accidents, the school shootings, the tragedies. Those that want to keep guns do so because they realize that guns are the embodiment of the power to protect the people they care about. Tragedies are rare, but I'm reminded why I want that power ever time I see my friends, or my family, every time I turn on the news and see what happens to people just like them when they're powerless to prevent it.

A world without violence or tragedy is a Utopia, one which I hope for and will do what I can to create. We sure aren't there yet, though, and there is plenty of evil in this world, and I'll do what I can about that, too.

you are right. if only we just prayed as a nation rather then utilizing our military...

I sense sarcasm.

You know, the Estonians had a "Singing Revolution."

you are correct. you did detect sarcasm. Look, I am all for spirituality, but there comes a time when you have to be willing to stand up for yourself as well. that is all.

Remember Kent State?

Those were American soldiers killing American civilians.

Now, while the students had foolishly been taunting and throwing things at scared young men with guns, imagine how things would have played out differently in the national psyche had the students been armed with guns and engaged the National Guard in a gun battle?

Also, I'd hardly say the US military is kicking the insurgents butts. What the US military is doing effectively is spending lots of the US taxpayers' money. We're also killing a fair number of civilians and sewing enduring ill-will with many people in the world.

sure, whatever you say mighty...

Do not feed the troll.

Truth hurts when one is living in delusion, doesn't it, DAWeb?

What is the cost in dollars for each insurgent killed? What is the cost in international ill-will?

How much will we end up spending on caring for our veterans? How much will they end up suffering? A friend of mine who was injured by an IED in Iraq is a gun-suicide statistic from 2006.

Keep on living in your Rambo fantasy-world, if you like.

A story about my childhood friend who could no longer take the pain after coming home injured from his third tour in Iraq.

25TH STREET — When Army Sgt. Ananda das McClure volunteered for his third tour of duty in Iraq — often referred to as the "jinx tour" by the enlisted — he sold off all of his belongings and gave up his Santa Monica apartment, thinking he would never make it out of the war-torn country alive.

McClure, 37, did return home, but not before suffering a serious, career-ending injury in a roadside bomb attack. An ordinance disposal specialist, McClure was escorting a convoy through hostile territory when his unit was hit by an improvised explosive device, or IED. The force of the explosion slammed McClure into the wheel well of his Humvee, crushing several vertebrae.

He was the lone survivor.

Following his recovery, McClure, who enlisted when he was 21, was sent home, never to serve again with the men who became his brothers. That was in April 2005. Just over a year later, on May 11, McClure would take his own life in the one-bedroom apartment in the north of Wilshire neighborhood that he shared with his new bride.

While he wasn't on active duty at the time of his death, McClure's widow, Laura Hanson, still considers the love of her life to be a casualty of war. She believes her late husband — like countless other soldiers returning home from battle zones overseas — committed suicide to escape the emotional and physical pain that comes with fighting a war — pain that torments one so much that they will take extreme measures to end it.

Whatever you do: don't feed the troll.

sure, whatever you say mighty...

Do not feed the troll.

Exactly. While most here have maintained a respectful tone throughout their discussion, MightyMait has insulted and taunted those who do not agree with his submit to his opinions; and he outright admits to trolling and attempting to bait others into making death threats. This appears to be his standard modus operandi from what I have seen of his behavior in other discussions.

He talks about spirituality is the answer to *everything* out of one side of his mouth, and then spews purposely inflammatory statements out the other.

Don't feed the self-admitted troll, who has no intention of engaging in a respectful discussion.

exactly Roan. MightyMait has made no bones about having no interest in a true dialogue and that he/she is only trolling. Why would anyone want to respond to that.

Enjoy talking amongst yourself about how awful I am.

Meanwhile, ignore the historical fact that the Black Panthers carried shotguns into the California State Legislature in 1967 (which was legal at the time). What did that get them, but a lot of publicity, a lot of scared legislators, and a law banning weapons from the Legislature?

Many of the Black Panthers carried guns, but Seale said the weapons were for self-defense against police brutality and they all were carried legally.

"Then we needed those guns," he said. "Those guns were important."

Seale recalled an incident on May 2, 1967, that brought the group worldwide notoriety.

"This is the thing that hit the front pages on newspapers around the Earth," he said.

While then-Gov. Ronald Reagan was addressing a group of 200 children, Seale and 30 other Panthers walked up the steps to the California Legislature. The Black Panthers were at the building to protest a law that would ban carrying guns in city limits.

When the press saw the Black Panthers, all clothed in black, 26 of them carrying guns, they ditched Reagan and went with Seale.

The Black Panthers wanted to go to the spectator section of the Legislature to watch discussion on the bill, but in the confusion, the press led the Panthers onto the Legislature floor.

Before the group realized their mistake and left the floor, Seale said many of the legislators ducked under their desks as the Panthers walked in.

Later, members of the legislature went on television claiming the Black Panthers owned bazookas, semi-automatic rifles and grenades. Seale said the only weapons the Panthers had were pistols, shotguns and rifles, which were all legally purchased and owned.

"We knew more laws about guns than the police did," he said.

Don't feed the self-admitted troll, who has no intention of engaging in a respectful discussion.

The discussion was over long, long ago. All the reasonable people left when they saw there was no point discussing things like this with gun zealots. I have a masochistic streak, it seems.

The discussion was over long, long ago. All the reasonable people left when they saw there was no point discussing things like this with

trolls, perhaps?

engh, he's generating small amounts of money for Bodhi1...

Last night, I realized what God put me on this Earth to do. I realized that, as an irritating, self-righteous, pompous, know-it-all, I can unite people in despising me.

If it wasn't for my catalyzing influence, the gun zealots would still be arguing amongst themselves about whether a .50 caliber handgun is practical, whether dum-dum bullets are better than full-metal jacket (or are they the same thing?), etc., etc., etc.

In any case, guns sure helped resolve this labor dispute:

The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. According to unnamed and unidentified witnesses,[citation needed] Pinkertons shot first. According to witnesses that gave their names and identities, unionists shot first[21].

Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons, and William Foy, a worker, were both wounded. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes.[22]

The strikers then huddled behind the pig and scrap iron in the mill yard while the Pinkertons cut holes in the side of the barges so they could fire on any who approached. The Pinkerton tug departed with the wounded agents, leaving the barges stranded. The strikers soon set to work building a rampart of steel beams further up the riverbank from which they could fire down on the barges. Hundreds of women continued to crowd on the riverbank between the strikers and the agents, calling on the strikers to 'kill the Pinkertons'.[23]
The Carnegie Steel Works. Showing the shield used by the strikers when firing the cannon and watching the Pinkerton men.
The Carnegie Steel Works. Showing the shield used by the strikers when firing the cannon and watching the Pinkerton men.

The strikers continued to sporadically fire on the barges. Union members took potshots at the ships from their rowboats and the steam-powered launch. The burgess of Homestead, John McLuckie, issued a proclamation at 6:00 a.m. asking for townspeople to help defend the peace; more than 5,000 people congregated on the hills overlooking the steelworks. A 20-pounder brass cannon was set up on the shore opposite the steel mill, and an attempt was made to sink the barges. Six miles away in Pittsburgh, thousands of steelworkers gathered in the streets, listening to accounts of the attacks at Homestead; hundreds, many of them armed, began to move toward the town to assist the strikers.[24]

The Pinkertons attempted to disembark again at 8:00 a.m. A striker high up the riverbank fired a shot. The Pinkertons returned fire, and four more strikers were killed (one by shrapnel sent flying when cannon fire hit one of the barges). Many of the Pinkerton agents refused to participate in the firefight any longer; the agents crowded onto the barge farthest from the shore. More experienced agents were barely able to stop the new recruits from abandoning the ships and swimming away. Intermittent gunfire from both sides continued throughout the morning. When the tug attempted to retrieve the barges at 10:50 a.m., gunfire drove it off. More than 300 riflemen positioned themselves on the high ground and kept a steady stream of fire on the barges. Just before noon, a sniper shot dead another Pinkerton agent.[25]

After a few more hours, the strikers attempted to burn the barges. They seized a raft, loaded it with oil-soaked timber and floated it toward the barges. The Pinkertons nearly panicked, and a Pinkerton captain had to threaten to shoot anyone who fled. But the fire burned itself out before it reached the barges. The strikers then loaded a railroad flatcar with drums of oil and set it afire. The flatcar hurtled down the rails toward the mill's wharf where the barges were docked. But the car stopped at the water's edge and burned itself out. Dynamite was thrown at the barges, but it only hit the mark once (causing a little damage to one barge). At 2:00 p.m., the workers poured oil onto the river, hoping the oil slick would burn the barges; attempts to light the slick failed.[26]

engh, he's generating small amounts of money for Bodhi1...

I hear Bodhi1 is so rolling in it he doesn't need Newsvine Money... LOL

I hear Bodhi1 is so rolling in it he doesn't need Newsvine Money... LOL

He's got so much he hasn't bothered to respond here since 2/27, the day he seeded this. I realize he might not be a daily Newsvine junkie like some of us.

Also, with a handle like "Bodhi", you'd think he'd be enlightened enough to realize that guns can't solve any of life's *true* dilemmas.

Then again, maybe his parents were hippies (like mine).

or he just doesn't see a reason to waste time. i.e. see his NV tag line.

I, however, enjoy debate.

Also, with a handle like "Bodhi", you'd think he'd be enlightened enough to realize that guns can't solve any of life's *true* dilemmas.

You know... you're right sometimes words solve a problem too... words like nuclear strike and carpet bombing. Guns just don't quite do it....

In any case, guns sure helped resolve this labor dispute:

but they sure did a hell of a job in the Halls of Montezuma.

To the southwest, 40 Marines led Captain Casey's storming party followed by James Shields' brigade of volunteers north towards Chapultepec. Again the storming party stalled while waiting for ladders, and the rest of Shields' men halted in the face of Mexican artillery. The scaling ladders arrived, and the first wave ascended the walls. In fact so many ladders arrived that 50 men could climb side by side. George Pickett (later famous for "Pickett's Charge" and the Battle of Five Forks during the American Civil War) was the first American to top the wall of the fort, and the Voltigeurs soon planted their flag on the parapet. Colonel Trousdale's column supported by Lieutenant Thomas J. Jackson's artillery faced superior numbers of Mexicans in a spirited defense. Newman S. Clarke's brigade brought new momentum to the fight on Pillow's front. General Shields was severely wounded when his men poured over the walls, but his troops managed to raise the U.S. Flag over the castle. Caught between two fronts, General Bravo ordered a retreat back to the city. Before he could withdraw, Bravo was taken prisoner by Shields' New York volunteers. The Mexicans retreated at night down the causeways leading into the city. Several Mexican cadets wrapped themselves around Mexican flags and jumped from the walls disregarding height to prevent the seizure of the Mexican flag from the attackers. Santa Anna watched disaster befall Chapultepec while an aide exclaimed "let the Mexican flag never be touched by a foreign enemy".

Yep. Sounds like typical gun nut behavior.

At least the Marines got a good song lyric out of the event.

yeah, that's me... a gun nut. I've got cinder blocks for wheels on all the cars in my front yard. I get my beers from the fridge on the porch not my kitchens, I have a hoosier in the kitchen, and I just can't get enough of NASCAR. ANd, though I probably need to change it out, I've got 'washing women' yard ornaments that the children my sister and I have can play ARMY and use em as cover....yehaw

You've already covered that one MM...

I didn't realize that "gun nut" is synonymous with "white trash". The Mexicans jumping off the walls wrapped in flags sound like gun nuts as well.

I didn't realize that "gun nut" is synonymous with "white trash".

you made that equivocation a few days ago on here (or a week ago)

The Mexicans jumping off the walls wrapped in flags sound like gun nuts as well.

Democrats will tell you that its more inline with fascist nationalism driven by a nazisit propaganda machine embedded by Rupert Murdoch...

to me it sounds more like just plain Mexican patriotism.

you made that equivocation a few days ago on here (or a week ago)

With the gun porn comment, perhaps?

to me it sounds more like just plain Mexican patriotism.

Ha ha!! That's funny Shawn. You know how macho Mexicans can be. My Mom lives near a Spanish-language video store. I swear, every poster in the window has a picture of a guy in a cowboy hat pointing a big gun.