You have greater confidence in my impulse control than I do in retrospect.

Actually, there's a certain amount of scary violence to gun suicide that puts the less committed off a bit. It would seem to be why mostly men choose guns, and I think bridges and cars would adequately satisfy a fleeting impulse. Girls mainly do things like pill overdoses and hangings. Car exhaust is also effective. But poisoning remains the most popular suicide method. New techniques imported from Japan every day on that front too. If you were serious, you'd have done it. I'm pleased you weren't :)

Far as I can tell, this is a myth. Over in the forums, we recently had an immigration debate. One point being brought up was the crime rate associated with illegal immigrants. So, I did some looking into it. While there’s not a ton of research done on the topic, the studies I was able to find stated pretty clearly that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native citizens, and that illegals do not offend at a higher rate than legal immigrants.

Immigrants are highly motivated. If they've no particular ambition, they stay home. I use to live in an area with a high concentration of illegal agricultural labor immigrants, and I'd say the most prevalent crime and annoying behaviors mainly revolved around goofy drunken things young men do when they're away from their families for the first time - not unlike college students. But in the main? More motivated than the average college student. (This is, however, why I'm opposed to immigration policies that don't favor bringing family of current immigrants over other qualified people - people just behave much better when their parents, siblings, spouses, aunties, etc are living near them. Nothing kills your inappropriate harassment of the opposite sex like your mama watching.)

You have greater confidence in my impulse control than I do in retrospect.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I doubt access to a gun would have been a particular disaster for you, for all the same reasons traffic, knives, pills and forth-story windows did you no harm.

99% of kids who are bullied at school never turn to a gun as a means of rectifying the situation. Are you saying you would?

More likely would have turned it on myself.

Just as I was sorely tempted to steer my bicycle into oncoming traffic on the way home on more than one occasion. Fortunately, no car ever came along at the right moment and by the time one appeared I would usually have reminded myself that it would hurt my parents more than anyone else and that they loved me. Access to a gun would have been a disaster for me.

Empowering? I was bullied at school, and I am so glad nothing like that sort of “empowerment” was ever at my disposal back then.

99% of kids who are bullied at school never turn to a gun as a means of rectifying the situation. Are you saying you would? ;)

I personally was angry when the assult rifle ban was allowed to lapse. There is no valid reason for someone to own one unless you’re in the army. No hunter is going to mow over a fawn and if you need an Uzi to defend yourself, I’d suggest moving. Because sooner or later you’ll be dead.

Angry? You do realize that before, during and after the assault rifle ban, assault rifles accounted for something like less than 1% of firarm-related crime, right? This number did not decrease significantly when the ban went into affect, nor did it increase significantly when the ban was lifted.

Try to avoid getting angry about non-issues. It's bad for the heart. ;)

Furthermore, while I realize that the guns-as-self defence point is focal, it shouldn't mean that the guns-as-recreation point is entirely without merit. Why should my ability to own a gun hinge on whether or not it's practical for self defense? In my own experience, my time with a gun spent recreationally outweighs my time with a gun being used for self defense a million-to-one.

It applies to illegal aliens also. When you have no chance to get an above board job, you’re left with very few options. Keep picking lettuce or look into the wide field of crime.

Far as I can tell, this is a myth. Over in the forums, we recently had an immigration debate. One point being brought up was the crime rate associated with illegal immigrants. So, I did some looking into it. While there's not a ton of research done on the topic, the studies I was able to find stated pretty clearly that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native citizens, and that illegals do not offend at a higher rate than legal immigrants.

So, while I agree that economics are a big factor in ones potential to commit crime, it's far from the only factor. There may very well be genetic predisposition associated with race.

Empowering? I was bullied at school, and I am so glad nothing like that sort of "empowerment" was ever at my disposal back then.

It still begs the question why ordinary citizens need to be able to purchase and keep an object in their house something which has only one possible purpose: To kill people.

In order to have the ability to kill people of course! It's a very empowering feeling, I understand. Isn't that the debate - whether the government ought to curtail access to our most effective means of killing people in the current age? I mean, people don't hunt with hand guns... and I was never under the impression the founding fathers were attempting to preserve our right to be able to skeet shoot and hunt, heh.

I think you make the mistake of assuming that knives are the answer in the absence of guns. By choosing a less-dangerous weapon you fabricated a question that had the precise answer you were looking for. This is the old fallacy of “begging the question”.

I do believe I was addressing two issues at once, which of course is messy.

The knives and scissors argument still stands for the impulsive reaching for anything that can inflict damage (to self or to others) in the heat of the moment. What does one have available at short notice in the home? Nobody is going to run to the garage to mix their own explosives from fertilizer and petrol for use in a domestic dispute. What they will do is reach for the kitchen knives, or - if they have them - their guns.

In the real world we find that people can kill readily with something as simple as fertilizer. Or you can go to the local Shell station and pump one hell of a bomb at $2.13 a gallon. The Oklahoma City bombing comes to mind. About 100 years ago someone did the same thing on Wall St. with a WAGON full of dynamite. It killed 38 people! Look at what they do in Iraq and Palestine.

And obviously you are right that terroristic mass-shootings can easily be replaced with explosives. It still begs the question why ordinary citizens need to be able to purchase and keep an object in their house something which has only one possible purpose: To kill people. Fertilizer can be used in the garden, petrol will go in the car, knives are useful in the kitchen, axes for chopping up wood. What is an assault rifle good for? Deterrent? I realise that criminals will always be able to get their hands on stuff they shouldn't have, but it only gets easier if there is a lot of it around in society in general.

For an extreme example, look at what a dozen camel jockeys did with a few box-cutters back in 2001. And then go look at my stats above for the number of people that die from FALLING DOWN and drinking poison.

Which part of my comment made you think I did not look at your stats?

Now, several months after the election of their messiah, many are beginning to realize that their savior is a complete and total fraud. Jimmy Carter’s long lost second term. Their hope and optimism have turned to despair and hate. So expect to see a crime wave. Much like gambling, they’ll chance getting caught vs. being taken care of by the State.

Oh come on - I live in the bluest area of a blue state in a black majority area and this bit just makes you sound like a crack pot who listens to too much right wing radio and isn't actually familiar with people who vote the dem ticket. Ignoring the aetheist have dogma bit and the general hyperbole, I don't necessarily disagree though, lol.

The problem with this theory is that Hispanics are coming into this country and lifting themselves out of poverty in a single generation. They work hard, they combine resources by keeping their families together, and they invest in their children with good parenting.

That happens. I know any number of African immigrants for whom the same is true though (African immigrants where I live don't identify with African Americans much either.) I've also seen, while not intimately aquianted with, barrios where this is not true, and where there's the same lack of opporunity, hopelessness, danger and dead end feel as an urban African American neighborhood with endemic poverty.

Push their atheist world view (which is a religion by any standard)

Atheist. Without a belief in a god.

Religion. Belief in a god.

These words already have meanings. You'll have to make up your own.

It is not a racial standard. It has mostly to do with economics. It applies to illegal aliens also. When you have no chance to get an above board job, you’re left with very few options. Keep picking lettuce or look into the wide field of crime.

The problem with this theory is that Hispanics are coming into this country and lifting themselves out of poverty in a single generation. They work hard, they combine resources by keeping their families together, and they invest in their children with good parenting.

The Hispanic neighborhoods I go through are marked by their immaculate yards and work trucks. The fact that they do this without the benefit of speaking our language (at first) and without the social welfare that we think is going to somehow motivate blacks to do better, says something as well.

No doubt that rich people have an easier time of it. That's what being RICH means. But poor people can get out of poverty with hard work. They do it all the time. Some of our wealthiest throughout American history were dirt-poor immigrants and drop-outs.

The inevitable "gun" conversation! People have and will argue this topic for years. My personal opinion.... Its a right we have as Americans. Its the joy of living in a free country. If we want to hunt, to have means of self defense, or to shoot for sport, WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DO SO! Little by little this country attempts to make America less and less of a free country. When the Constitution is being questioned, I think we need to take a look at what is really going on with our government. Will you allow the government to tell you how to raise your children? What color to paint your house? When you can and cant use your telephone? What days your fingernails can be painted? Really guys..... how far will it go?

I guess growing up in the country, I already have a bias pro guns. My friends and I all have shot guns and like to go out into open feilds and shoot skeet (orange clay disks ejected from a thrower.) Our activity is 100% safe. We are all very familiar with our weapons, we dont point them at eachother, and we are all trained in gun safety. My family also hunts. All of our guns are very legal and accompanied by law obiding owners with permits.

Outlawing guns will accomlish nothing but piss A LOT of people off. Why? Because of the LAW OBIDING CITIZENS- its rare that any of us use our weapons in rampage. If you look at stats on people to who commit mass murders, next to none of them have obtained their weapons legally. So what would outlawing them do for us? Nothing but strip the rights from the citizens who have guns for moral reasons. Guns dont kill people- guns dont just shoot you because your black, gay, fat, ugly, or whatever the motive may be. They need to be loaded, cocked aimed, and fired to kill someone. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Now when it comes to children- as a mother to be, I concern myself with the safety of my kids. Just because we have kids, though, doesnt mean we cant still own guns- we just need to me smart about where they are stored. Guns should be stored in locked cabinets where children cannot get to them. That is one case that I do take very serisously- but if parents are responsible with where their weapons are kept- there is no need to worry.

Im also firm believer that concealed weapons are also justifiable. All it takes is for a crazy gunman to walk into Walmart and unleash and the "redneck' next to you could just draw the gun on his side. blow the assholes head off, and save God only knows how many lives. If you do research into Gun laws... Im sure people will understand what Im saying.

In the real world we find that people can kill readily with something as simple as fertilizer. Or you can go to the local Shell station and pump one hell of a bomb at $2.13 a gallon. The Oklahoma City bombing comes to mind. About 100 years ago someone did the same thing on Wall St. with a WAGON full of dynamite. It killed 38 people! Look at what they do in Iraq and Palestine.

And I agree with that statement. So whats next? Guns can be used as a weapon, well so can razors, and box cutters, and scissors, shit....my nails are long enough to be concidered a weapon... are my nails going to be illegal next?? It starts out small and it ends messy. We cant let the government take our rights from us!

We dont legalize guns for the Columbine shooter, or for the Virginia Tech shooter, or for the Binghmamton shooter.....we keep guns legal for you and me who have the right to defend ourselves and our prosperity! Afterall, 9 times out of 10, the gunman hasnt even obtained his weapons of choice legally. So dont strip my rights from me, when it wont even effect those assholes....

What's the percentage floating around? 50% of all African American males have been or currently are in prison. I do not know if that is true or not. Might be a stormfront type statistic.

It is not a racial standard. It has mostly to do with economics. It applies to illegal aliens also. When you have no chance to get an above board job, you're left with very few options. Keep picking lettuce or look into the wide field of crime.

When you get out of prison, what kind of job are you going to be able to get? What's that, you don't want the guy who is a felon for GTA parking peoples cars? You can't even get a basic job in a Casino due to the criminal record. You're fucked. So what are your options? Rob, Rape and murder.

Now, several months after the election of their messiah, many are beginning to realize that their savior is a complete and total fraud. Jimmy Carter's long lost second term. Their hope and optimism have turned to despair and hate. So expect to see a crime wave. Much like gambling, they'll chance getting caught vs. being taken care of by the State.

Funny how both the left and the right try to get into peoples business. The right wants to ban abortion, criminalize homosexuality, ban stem cell research and propagate the Christian religion into every aspect of society. The left responds emotionally. Ban the ability to self preservation based on the actions of a microscopic few. Push their atheist world view (which is a religion by any standard) push multiculturalism even when it is diametrically opposed to some of their other principals. Such as womens' Suffrage. Force affirmative racism down our throats.

Basically, people need to stay the fuck out of other peoples business and learn not to whine so much about trivial bullshit. Quit trying to be a victim. Realize that no one cares. They just pretend to in order to use you.

Do black people really commit a higher percentage of violent crime, or is it that they are incarcerated at a higher rate? From what I’ve understood, or thought I did, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be convicted of a crime than whites. Conviction being the operative term.

I'm sure that in this country, african americans face discrimination in the justice system, and certainly that has impact on the extreme disproportion we see in incarceration. But victim surveys would seem to support that there are still a disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by african americans. The whys are the main point of debate. Poverty, urban blight, culture, fractured social structure tracing back all the way to slavery? Things like lower GDP on an international level. To reduce it all to a question of genetics is probably the most inflammatory line of thought on the subject.

I said that same thing when I read the post. It’s one of those things you just can’t say out loud isn’t it? But refusing to acknowledge it ignores a big chunk of reality. We can argue about why blacks commit a higher percentage of violent crime as compared to those of european or east asian descent in countries like the US, Canada and Britain, as well as internationally, but we can’t just pretend the glaring reality isn’t so.

Do black people really commit a higher percentage of violent crime, or is it that they are incarcerated at a higher rate? From what I've understood, or thought I did, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be convicted of a crime than whites. Conviction being the operative term.

Maybe it's a little of both...

Being Yurpean I should probably keep my trap shut on this subject; but while people do kill with knives and axes when they have no guns, it is a darn sight more difficult to kill many people quickly that way.

I think you make the mistake of assuming that knives are the answer in the absence of guns. By choosing a less-dangerous weapon you fabricated a question that had the precise answer you were looking for. This is the old fallacy of "begging the question".

In the real world we find that people can kill readily with something as simple as fertilizer. Or you can go to the local Shell station and pump one hell of a bomb at $2.13 a gallon. The Oklahoma City bombing comes to mind. About 100 years ago someone did the same thing on Wall St. with a WAGON full of dynamite. It killed 38 people! Look at what they do in Iraq and Palestine.

For an extreme example, look at what a dozen camel jockeys did with a few box-cutters back in 2001. And then go look at my stats above for the number of people that die from FALLING DOWN and drinking poison.

I said that same thing when I read the post. It’s one of those things you just can’t say out loud isn’t it? But refusing to acknowledge it ignores a big chunk of reality. We can argue about why blacks commit a higher percentage of violent crime as compared to those of european or east asian descent in countries like the US, Canada and Britain, as well as internationally, but we can’t just pretend the glaring reality isn’t so.

I was trying to be facetious, but you probably have a point to suggest that I have a point.

For some reason it is OK to say that one group of a species, which has more in common genetically than another (IE Asians) are shorter, on average than those other groups. Or that they are more or less susceptible to certain diseases. Or that their bone structure or facial features or skin color is different. But even though we are learning that much of our emotional and intellectual abilities are tied to our genes, and NOT to our environment still has not given us the ability to admit that various groups of genetic relatedness in humans results in different sorts of behaviors and mental faculties.

I've seen some studies which seem to show that people of Asian descent are, on average, smarter than white people. It doesn't bother me at all. Mostly because I know that these curves represent entire populations, and I could very well lie to the right of the white curve, past the major body of the Asian curve. That is, I could very well be smarter than 80% of Asians. The graph has meaning for a group, but it says nothing about me, individually.

(Full disclosure: I have yet to actually meet an Asian person dumber than me, but this might be due to sample size, so it is anecdotal at worst, inconclusive at best)

The part of our brains that prevents us from taking risks and mediating our violent natures is in the frontal lobe. What if we one day learn that the Out of Africa theory doesn't give Africans the primacy they think it does. What if it means that the rest of us have evolved more of what we (with our bias of NOT being African) consider "civilized"?

It could explain the glaring inability of Africa to get its shit together, the problems they seem to cause wherever they go, and the fact that we only celebrate the ones that are half-black (Go Tiger!, Go Obama! Go The Rock!).

Of course, this is all a bunch of racist blithering from a cracker. If we have any Asian members, perhaps they can set me straight on where I went wrong. And if we have any negros here that can wade through my big words... PUT DOWN THE GUN!

I do believe that everything possible should be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those suffering from mental health issues. Again, criminals will still find a way to buy them and mental health is not always apparent. If someone wants a gun, there will always be someone ready to sell one.

Sounds rather defeatist, if you don't mind me saying so.

The fact that mental health issues are not always apparent shouldn't stop us from trying to keep guns out of these people's hands, surely?

And if all legal guns were kept locked up like the ones mentioned in this thread, criminals would have a much harder time gaining illegal access to guns.


Being Yurpean I should probably keep my trap shut on this subject; but while people do kill with knives and axes when they have no guns, it is a darn sight more difficult to kill many people quickly that way. The cases mentioned in the article above are only the tip of the iceberg. There was that man from Vietnam who had been a citizen for more than 20 years who killed a whole lot of people who were sitting their citizenship examinations the other day, and the father who shot to death his five children today. They might have tried to do the same with knives and axes, and the father might even have succeeded; but I sincerely doubt he would have found it as easy.

That is my gripe with guns: They make it too easy for people, - whether it is murder or suicide. Impulse is one thing, follow-through is much harder without a gun available.

I said that same thing when I read the post. It’s one of those things you just can’t say out loud isn’t it? But refusing to acknowledge it ignores a big chunk of reality. We can argue about why blacks commit a higher percentage of violent crime as compared to those of european or east asian descent in countries like the US, Canada and Britain, as well as internationally, but we can’t just pretend the glaring reality isn’t so.

I agree. It just caught me offguard.

And lord knows, we ain't exactly PC 'round these here parts. :)

You seriously just said that?!

I said that same thing when I read the post. It's one of those things you just can't say out loud isn't it? But refusing to acknowledge it ignores a big chunk of reality. We can argue about why blacks commit a higher percentage of violent crime as compared to those of european or east asian descent in countries like the US, Canada and Britain, as well as internationally, but we can't just pretend the glaring reality isn't so.

As a gun owner and carrier, I prefer not to be "an innocent victim". I believe in gun control in so far as what type should be owned. Fully automatic firearms have NO PLACE in a residence, IMO. In contrast, I believe that to remove our right to own and carry would simply put the common, law-biding citizen at a serious disadvantage with the criminals who will ALWAYS have firearms no matter how illegal you make them. How many stories have we read of excons, who, by law are, not allowed to possess firearms, using said firearms to commit more felonies? Laws do not stop criminals, they only allow us to punish criminals.

Finland doesn’t have many blacks, does it?

You seriously just said that?!

Yet gun crime rate is much lower. People use guns sometimes to rob places, but killing people with guns is much much more rare. Over here people own guns for hobby shooting or hunting - we seem to kill each other with axes and other more primitive ways.

Finland doesn't have many blacks, does it?

Probably a coincidence.

Probably.

Laws really don't mean squat when it comes right down to it. The old saying "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" is correct. Do you really think that most of the gun crimes are committed by folks who lawfully own and register their weapons? I don't think so. My husband, sister, and brother-in-law all own guns, mostly for hunting. They also own handguns that are used for target shooting competitions. I was nervous the first time I went to a target shoot but when I saw the care and safety precautions every member used I was completely at ease. My husband's guns are locked in a safe, the ammo is locked in another safe and I have no idea where the keys are kept, nor do I need to. I assume my sister and her husband do something similar as in 30+ years of spending (lots) of time at their home, I've never seen them. Our children have only seen Daddy's hunting rifle, unloaded, if they happen to see him coming or going from hunting. I took a firearms safety course a few years ago, it was very impressive.

I do believe that everything possible should be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those suffering from mental health issues. Again, criminals will still find a way to buy them and mental health is not always apparent. If someone wants a gun, there will always be someone ready to sell one.

Just my 2 cents.

My husband own's guns b/c he hunts. I actually have never even seen his guns. He keeps them in a locked safe. I think he keeps the key in his truck. We don't use them for protection. We have one of those metal batons by the bed and an alarm system plus my mad MMA skills...for protection. I did not form my opinion on statistical data. I believe I have a right to own a gun. Honestly, it's not the gun that scares me...it's knowing my husband can skin a deer. :)

In my opinion the kill rate/gunrate comparison also needs to look at why people own the guns. Over here (Finland) we have according to some sources 45 guns per 100 people, apparently we are placed 3rd or 4th on the list on the personal weapons per capita. (I can't find the list atm and the sources seem to disagree even though they are from same area of time.)

Yet gun crime rate is much lower. People use guns sometimes to rob places, but killing people with guns is much much more rare. Over here people own guns for hobby shooting or hunting - we seem to kill each other with axes and other more primitive ways.

It's also better when a person commits suicide if they drive their car into incoming traffic rather than just shooting themselves. If someone wants to punch out, who am I to try to stop them?

Why argue?
I had a long answer written but it is pointless. Peoples minds are made up. I know I don't listen to my guns when they try to talk me into shooting a place up. It never stops them from trying. Sometimes they even offer candy.

If you can't carry a pocket knife with 4" blade in the Communist State of California while some parolee felon zombie is carrying an AK47, what's the problem here?
It's not the fact that he is breaking the law (huge shocker there) by possessing a firearm. It's the fact that you're all treated like bumbling fucking morons who would choke to death on an extension cord if it wasn't for the safety tag.

Learn to protect yourself and you family. Assess your threats. Prepare accordingly. Avoid trouble areas. Pick where you live wisely. Relying on ANYONE else especially the fucking Government is a death sentence.

Maybe Barbra Boxer will come to your funeral and say, "Doctor King said, we don't meet violence with violence." Good plan smuck. That's why you're dead. Then look at the several personal body guards of her carrying real machine guns.

This is a great graphic: http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8341/gundeaths...

It shows a typical day of gun deaths (averaged out from an entire year where about 30,000 people were killed by guns). The grey bullets are from homicide, the red bullets are suicide, and the yellow are from accidents/police involvement (not sure why these two were lumped together)

What this demonstrates is fascinating. By far the most gun deaths are old people offing themselves. Young people are not that heavily affected by gun violence (only 4 per day). And suicide accounts for about HALF of gun deaths, so we would probably have them with or without guns. So let's call it 15,000 gun deaths per year.

According to the CDC, 20,000 people die every year from the FLU. Another 20,000 die each year from FALLING DOWN. And about 50,000 die while they are driving to and fro. 32,000 people die from POISONING every year. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_s...

Just like most arguments that become an exercise in fanaticism, both sides are out of their fucking minds. Guns are dangerous, but they are not some special brand of dangerous. They require the same sort of regulations and oversight that we give to bottles of shit we shouldn't drink, cars that we zip around in at 80-miles-an-hour, and traction-control bath-mats.

You have to be a certain age and pass a test to drive a car, you have to be a certain age to drink alcohol and it is a substance that is tightly regulated. Arguing that firearms should be immune to the rigors of common sense is to take a fanatical position, as is the idea that getting rid of guns would prevent violence (Michael Moore). Why do most people rush to one side of abject stupidity when they could just stay in the center and wield their common sense?

NRA: Our forefathers gave us this god-damned right.
Swivel: And the right to own negros. They also have us the right to amend the Constitution. Leave their admirable starting position out of it and convince of your stance based on its own merit in modern times.
Me: I agree to those terms.

NRA: We need to defend ourselves from an oppressive government.
Swivel: Then we need to legalize tanks, landmines, RPG’s, grenades, and F-22 Raptors. ‘Cause they are going to whoop our ass if things come to a head. Again, arguing from the position of 200-years-ago when muskets and cannon were the height of anyone’s arsenal is pretty fucking stupid.
Me: I think a valuable lesson is being taught to us in Iraq: willingness to die for what you believe in can make up for a rather large discrepancy in available firepower. Of course, the people would eventually be defeated (if the military could be forced to fire on their own families), but so many of the country’s resources would be destroyed in the process that it would make the victory seem rather negligible. The point is to make sure the government believes that enough of us could be enough of a pain in the ass, that it would not be worth the time and resources that it would take to subjugate us.


NRA: We need to protect our homes from bad dudes.
Swivel: Fair enough. In my view, shotguns are the best tool for this purpose. A nice scatter, stopping power, easy for any family member to use effectively, quick to load, and home repair may just be some spackle and blood-removal. But this leaves the questions of whether or not we need fully-automatic bullshit, handguns, sniper rifles, registration, waiting periods, registered ammo… you know… the entire fucking debate.
Me: You of course, are entitled to your opinion. Everyone one else is entitled to their opinion as well, and some of them believe that a fully automatic weapon is the best tool to protect their homes. Somewhere out there on the Web there is video of a man on his rooftop during the LA riots, holding off an entire mob of people with an automatic weapon. Could this be called a common occurrence? Not in America, but I bet that he was pretty damn happy he had it for the one time that it happened to him.


NRA: States with conceal permits have less crime.
Swivel: Cool. Let’s allow gun ownership but only if you apply for a concealed permit. Your gun will be registered in your name and you need permission to ever sell or transfer it. No more selling guns at gun shows, though. And the only people that can own guns are people who have gone through these courses and qualified on the range, and passed their concealed permit courses. Knowing that concealed guns reduce crime is a fact we can work with, not one that waves away the hundreds of smaller debates around gun control.
Me: I agree that every gun owner should have more knowledge about their guns than simply “point and shoot.” For example, I not only know how to load and unload my gun, and work the safety I can also dismantle and clean it (and even put it back together again all on my own). If it becomes jammed, I can trouble shoot and usually fix it (all without blowing my hand off). I also regularly go to the firing range to make sure that my proficiency is still in the acceptable range. I did not carry my gun or keep it at my house for protection until I was comfortable that I would be able to handle the weapon in any situation that I might encounter. I wish that all people were responsible enough to enforce this on themselves. Unfortunately, as is well demonstrated by the stories on this site, our society has become one of l azy, irresponsible, fucking morons so perhaps mandated education for a license would not be a horrible idea. However, why should someone who only wants a shotgun for home protection and has no desire for any handguns be forced to get a conceal permit? Not too bloody likely that he could conceal that shotgun (without the end sawed off or one hell of a trench coat.)

NRA: There is no link between countries with guns and murder/suicide/crime/etc…
Swivel: Correct. If they don’t have guns, they use bombs, or they slit their wrists, or they rob you with a knife. Is the argument here that crime cannot be reduced? Because concealed permit studies (a fact you guys tout) show a reduction in crime. If crime can be reduced, let’s do some more experimenting. Let’s try reducing the number of guns manufactured every year. Let’s get them all registered. Let’s shut down gun stores masquerading as “private owners” at gun shows. Let’s increase legal and registered gun ownership and try to decrease all other types of gun-bearing, sales, and manufacture. Or is the argument that shit can’t actually get any better, even though our last argument was th at it DID get better?
Me: I think the NRA statement is a stupid one. They’ve long tried to prove that countries (or states) that allow guns have a lower violent crime rate. Sounds like a link to me.

I suppose, in theory, I agree with Swivel’s statement. However, the argument could be made that if the government ever decided to forcibly take our guns it would be much easier for them to do if they were all registered. Also, by reducing the number of guns produced you guarantee that the price will go up (the old supply and demand). So in effect you will be giving the rich one more advantage over the middle class: The ability to arm and defend themselves. While at the same time, the criminals would theoretically still be able to obtain guns through illegal means and would no longer ha ve to worry about a large segment of society having guns to defend themselves.

In closing I would like to share the following:
Gun control:
1. The theory that a woman found dead in an alley strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

2. means hitting your target the first time.

3. Stance, grip, breathing, trigger control, sight alignment, and sight picture

4. 5 shots, 1 inch, 500 yards

5. The proper windage, trajectory, and velocity which enables a bullet fired from a .50 BMG to pass through an enemy's skull at 1,000 yards

Some deep thoughts:
Ever wonder why massacres don’t happen at a shooting range?

How do I feel about gun control?&nb sp; Break into my house one night and find out.

An armed society is a polite society

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

And finally, a couple quotes which I found pertinent:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” The Dalai Lama

“History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” Adolf Hitler (alive far less than 200 years ago – and he even had tanks, landmines and grenades!)
:)

I personally was angry when the assult rifle ban was allowed to lapse. There is no valid reason for someone to own one unless you're in the army. No hunter is going to mow over a fawn and if you need an Uzi to defend yourself, I'd suggest moving. Because sooner or later you'll be dead.

NRA: Our forefathers gave us this god-damned right.ME: And the right to own negros. They also have us the right to amend the Constitution. Leave their admirable starting position out of it and convince of your stance based on its own merit in modern times.

I missed the bit about a guaranteed right to slave ownership in the constitution. I get the gist and can get on board with the overall point though. But in the absence of a constitutional amendment, the constitutional law stands as it is, as it did then, so it's a significant argument for the legality of gun ownership restricting laws passed locally. This isn't about whether it's good or bad, just a legal argument over what your locality may or may not do to regarding your cache of weapons. The same argument would be made on behalf of free speech if your locality passed some goofy hate speech law. Just because it doesn't address the merits (or lack) or such a law doesn't invalidate the legal point here.

Hmm, when I read about all those shootings, well heck, it made me think I want to go out and buy a gun for self protection. But the real crime that happens regularly in my neighborhood is burglary, and then I think I sure don't want such a desireably theftable item in my house, lol.

When I was childless, I had handguns in the house, and I was comfortable with that. I felt the benefit vs. risk ratio fell in favor of the gun. With children I don't have guns. It's my sense, with no particular numbers to point to, that kids are killed by handguns in the house more often than practically protected. It seems to fail the same risk/benefit calculation in my head. Sort of like the same reason I don't want a pool in my backyard either. We always had long guns in the house while I was growing up though, and I've been considering perhaps having a shotgun. My experience with them as a child was that they were just too large, heavy to mess with even outside of being intimidating.

As for guns on a societal scale... well, there does seem to be a certain amount of added danger attached to them. But I believe the constitution clearly guarantees our right to gun ownership. Heck, I think the intent of our forefathers were that people had the right to be as armed as any standing army. But given that they weren't especially clear about that, I'm happy to see missile ownership restricted, and I guess I'll settle for as armed as our local swat team, heh. Handgun bans - in places like DC - I don't think are effective at stopping gun crime, and while law enforcement is carrying and gun crime is occurring, I can't imagine an argument I'd agree with for average citizens being barred from ownership. Waiting periods and licensing I've no particular beef with. But you know, I might be a damn librul. :P

It is about to get loud in here.

A few arguments that I hate:

NRA: Our forefathers gave us this god-damned right.
ME: And the right to own negros. They also have us the right to amend the Constitution. Leave their admirable starting position out of it and convince of your stance based on its own merit in modern times.

NRA: We need to defend ourselves from an oppressive government.
ME: Then we need to legalize tanks, landmines, RPG's, grenades, and F-22 Raptors. 'Cause they are going to whoop our ass if things come to a head. Again, arguing from the position of 200-years-ago when muskets and cannon were the height of anyone's arsenal is pretty fucking stupid.

NRA: We need to protect our homes from bad dudes.
ME: Fair enough. In my view, shotguns are the best tool for this purpose. A nice scatter, stopping power, easy for any family member to use effectively, quick to load, and home repair may just be some spackle and blood-removal. But this leaves the questions of whether or not we need fully-automatic bullshit, handguns, sniper rifles, registration, waiting periods, registered ammo... you know... the entire fucking debate.

NRA: States with conceal permits have less crime.
ME: Cool. Let's allow gun ownership but only if you apply for a concealed permit. Your gun will be registered in your name and you need permission to ever sell or transfer it. No more selling guns at gun shows, though. And the only people that can own guns are people who have gone through these courses and qualified on the range, and passed their concealed permit courses. Knowing that concealed guns reduces crime is a fact we can work with, not one that waves away the hundreds of smaller debates around gun control.

NRA: There is no link between countries with guns and murder/suicide/crime/etc...
ME: Correct. If they don't have guns, they use bombs, or they slit their wrists, or they rob you with a knife. Is the argument here that crime can not be reduced? Because concealed permit studies (a fact you guys tout) show a reduction in crime. If crime can be reduced, let's do some more experimenting. Let's try reducing the number of guns manufactured every year. Let's get them all registered. Let's shut down gun stores masquerading as "private owners" at gun shows. Let's increase legal and registered gun ownership and try to decrease all other types of gun-bearing, sales, and manufacture. Or is the argument that shit can't actually get any better, even though our last argument was that it DID get better?