Tragedy

[Monty22 821]

A small safe can be had for under $200 that provides security form curious young hands and at the same time very quick access when needed. Mine is just large enough for a pistol with a mounted light and spare magazine. Kingpest, you may want to check them out.

[KingPest19 0]

A small safe can be had for under $200 that provides security form curious young hands and at the same time very quick access when needed. Mine is just large enough for a pistol with a mounted light and spare magazine. Kingpest, you may want to check them out.

Like I said Im not real worried about it. Between my brother in law and I the kids all know that guns are dangerous and arent to be played with. He keeps his in places that the kids cant get to and the kids never come near my room. My oldest nephew already knows how to shoot and were about to start teaching my younger nephew. Just like my brother in law was taught and I was taught.

[Chadd 916]

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Abraham Lincoln

THought this was particularly relevent....

Great quote

A small safe can be had for under $200 that provides security form curious young hands and at the same time very quick access when needed. Mine is just large enough for a pistol with a mounted light and spare magazine. Kingpest, you may want to check them out.

Like I said Im not real worried about it. Between my brother in law and I the kids all know that guns are dangerous and arent to be played with. He keeps his in places that the kids cant get to and the kids never come near my room. My oldest nephew already knows how to shoot and were about to start teaching my younger nephew. Just like my brother in law was taught and I was taught.

The more kids know about guns and the more they are taught to respect them, the fewer problems you will have. It never hurts to have them locked up, but a healthy respect is the best way to prevent problems.

[mrusse01 0]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Fantastic quote.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is the right to carry around a snub nosed .38 in my waistband an 'essential liberty'?

My response, and the response of nearly every industrialized nation in the world, is a resounding 'no'. What makes America so different?

[sdcopp 1]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Fantastic quote.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is the right to carry around a snub nosed .38 in my waistband an 'essential liberty'?

My response, and the response of nearly every industrialized nation in the world, is a resounding 'no'. What makes America so different?

Now you are assuming all gun owning Americans are carrying theirs everywhere they go, concealed from the world in a waistband or pocket. The gun in my home is high in a closet, not tucked in my waistband everywhere I go. It is an "Essential Liberty" that I have some measure of feeling safe in my own home.

The basic freedoms each American is afforded from the Bill of Rights and Constitution I guess is what makes America different. And the beauty of it is, we all have the right to disagree about it without fear of reprisal.

[Chadd 916]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Fantastic quote.

The question you need to ask yourself is, is the right to carry around a snub nosed .38 in my waistband an 'essential liberty'?

My response, and the response of nearly every industrialized nation in the world, is a resounding 'no'. What makes America so different?

That quote has been thrown around a lot lately with the TSA, Wiretapping and various other current government programs. I think it's quite accurate.

You aren't an American so your vote doesn't matter, nor does that of other nations. The sad truth is that if we were to actually put people in jail for their firearm related crimes, instead of letting virtually all of them plead down, the problem would be a hell of a lot less than it is today.

On a personal note; If I happened to be at a mall and some wackjob starts shooting at everyone he can find, you can bet I would want to have some way to defend myself.

[mrusse01 0]

I just find it remarkable that citizens in nearly every other democratic, free nation in the world can feel safe and secure in their own home without the need to own a firearm, but if you suggest such a thing to an American (ok, as a generalization) they point out they won't be able to defend themselves.

I've never seen a handgun in person, and I feel perfectly safe. It's never even crossed my mind that I might need a gun to defend myself, in fact I have no idea how to even go about buying a hand gun, I've never seen one for sale or known anyone ever who has owned one. I'm not trying to make americans sound like a nation of gun toting lunatics or anything, I just think it is an amazing cultural difference.

Of course anyone in any country would love to be armed if they happened to be at a mall shooting/home invasion/whatever, I mean that's obvious. It's just that Americans seem to be the only people that think that argument justifies owning a gun.

I'll take the 1 in several million odds that I'll need a gun to save my life or the life of someone else over the much more realistic chances of maybe losing my cool and 'going to get my gun' and making a huge mistake, or having a child find it and accidentally shooting themselves, or having something really bad happening in my life and deciding to kill myself, or the numerous other bad things that can happen when you have a firearm in your house. Everybody says 'oh, well that will never happen to me', but that is just wishful thinking. It does happen, everybody makes mistakes, but if you have a loaded gun around when you do make a mistake there is much higher chance someone will end up dead.

[lawryde 0]

The sad truth is that if we were to actually put people in jail for their firearm related crimes, instead of letting virtually all of them plead down, the problem would be a hell of a lot less than it is today.

Just like how the "war on drugs" and mandatory minimum sentencing has virtually eliminated drugs from our society. ;)

People commit crimes because they don't think they're going to get caught. If they really thought they were, they wouldn't do it.

[Chadd 916]

The sad truth is that if we were to actually put people in jail for their firearm related crimes, instead of letting virtually all of them plead down, the problem would be a hell of a lot less than it is today.

Just like how the "war on drugs" and mandatory minimum sentencing has virtually eliminated drugs from our society. ;)

People commit crimes because they don't think they're going to get caught. If they really thought they were, they wouldn't do it.

Plea agreements with career criminals and releasing people from prison early because of overcrowding don't help either. I don't agree with mandatory minimums, that has a lot of unintended consequences. Simply with lazy prosecutors who would rather accept a deal from a career criminal because it's easier than putting them where they belong.

[Chadd 916]

I just find it remarkable that citizens in nearly every other democratic, free nation in the world can feel safe and secure in their own home without the need to own a firearm, but if you suggest such a thing to an American (ok, as a generalization) they point out they won't be able to defend themselves.

I've never seen a handgun in person, and I feel perfectly safe. It's never even crossed my mind that I might need a gun to defend myself, in fact I have no idea how to even go about buying a hand gun, I've never seen one for sale or known anyone ever who has owned one. I'm not trying to make americans sound like a nation of gun toting lunatics or anything, I just think it is an amazing cultural difference.

Of course anyone in any country would love to be armed if they happened to be at a mall shooting/home invasion/whatever, I mean that's obvious. It's just that Americans seem to be the only people that think that argument justifies owning a gun.

I'll take the 1 in several million odds that I'll need a gun to save my life or the life of someone else over the much more realistic chances of maybe losing my cool and 'going to get my gun' and making a huge mistake, or having a child find it and accidentally shooting themselves, or having something really bad happening in my life and deciding to kill myself, or the numerous other bad things that can happen when you have a firearm in your house. Everybody says 'oh, well that will never happen to me', but that is just wishful thinking. It does happen, everybody makes mistakes, but if you have a loaded gun around when you do make a mistake there is much higher chance someone will end up dead.

Our constitution gives us the right, that alone justifies any American's decision to own a gun. Obviously criminals and those documented to be mentally disturbed shouldn't have guns and there are laws stating as much.

While I'm not completely up to date on legislation everywhere in the US, most states now require handgun locks on new handgun purchases. Any responsible parent would obviously have purchased one with or without a law requiring them to do so.

You're arguement seems to be that nobody should be permitted to own a gun because something bad might happen. By the same logic, nobody should be permitted to drink alcohol or drive a car as both of those can lead to accidental or even intentional deaths. Let's not even get started on prescription medication as there are countless tales of people becoming addicted and ruining their leves because of that.

At some point there has to be a level of personal responsibility assumed by the citizenry, a concept that seems to be anathema to a large portion of the population.

[Jason Harris 31]

I just find it remarkable that citizens in nearly every other democratic, free nation in the world can feel safe and secure in their own home without the need to own a firearm, but if you suggest such a thing to an American (ok, as a generalization) they point out they won't be able to defend themselves.

I completely agree that humans should be able to learn how to live their lives without needing a gun, but the sad truth is we are a violent culture. Worse, I'm beginning to think our choice of entertainment exacerbates matters. Violent movies, lyrics, video games, TV shows, newspapers, you name it. All being fed to kids, too many of whom are too young to handle it. So, while the average person knows the proper way to resolve a conflict, we have the one in a hundred-thousand that grabs their weapon of choice and extracts revenge.

That might be a simplistic explanation, but I don't think it's that far off, which is why I don't have problems with limiting our access to guns.

[mrusse01 0]

Our constitution gives us the right, that alone justifies any American's decision to own a gun. Obviously criminals and those documented to be mentally disturbed shouldn't have guns and there are laws stating as much.

While I'm not completely up to date on legislation everywhere in the US, most states now require handgun locks on new handgun purchases. Any responsible parent would obviously have purchased one with or without a law requiring them to do so.

You're arguement seems to be that nobody should be permitted to own a gun because something bad might happen. By the same logic, nobody should be permitted to drink alcohol or drive a car as both of those can lead to accidental or even intentional deaths. Let's not even get started on prescription medication as there are countless tales of people becoming addicted and ruining their leves because of that.

At some point there has to be a level of personal responsibility assumed by the citizenry, a concept that seems to be anathema to a large portion of the population.

No, my argument is that on the whole, the cons of rampant gun ownership like that which exists in the USA far exceed the benefits.

It would be absurd to ban motor vehicles because they are necessary for commerce, travel, any number of things. The pros of vehicles exisiting far outweigh the cost, even if that cost is tens of thousands of deaths a year.

Similarly the pros of alcohol (having a good time) outweigh the cons (you do dumb things sometimes if you have too much), at least that's the conclusion that almost every society on earth has come to by allowing liqour consumption.

If personal responsibilty is paramount, why ban cocaine? Heroin? The answer is because as a society we have determined the costs of legalizing heroin and cocaine are too great in relation to the benefits.

The point is that among all the major countries in the world, America is the only one that has decided that the benefits of widespread gun ownership outweigh the costs and I've never really heard a good reason why that is.

[cxo 0]

I just find it remarkable that citizens in nearly every other democratic, free nation in the world can feel safe and secure in their own home without the need to own a firearm, but if you suggest such a thing to an American (ok, as a generalization) they point out they won't be able to defend themselves.

I completely agree that humans should be able to learn how to live their lives without needing a gun, but the sad truth is we are a violent culture. Worse, I'm beginning to think our choice of entertainment exacerbates matters. Violent movies, lyrics, video games, TV shows, newspapers, you name it. All being fed to kids, too many of whom are too young to handle it. So, while the average person knows the proper way to resolve a conflict, we have the one in a hundred-thousand that grabs their weapon of choice and extracts revenge.

That might be a simplistic explanation, but I don't think it's that far off, which is why I don't have problems with limiting our access to guns.

I don't think it has as much to do with the culture kids live in as much as people would like to think. As far as I'm concerned it all comes back to square one: the parents. Not all people that go apeshit, had bad home lives, but the majority did. There was something in their history other than picking up a Grand Theft Auto game that forced them over the line.

[sdcopp 1]

Our constitution gives us the right, that alone justifies any American's decision to own a gun. Obviously criminals and those documented to be mentally disturbed shouldn't have guns and there are laws stating as much.

While I'm not completely up to date on legislation everywhere in the US, most states now require handgun locks on new handgun purchases. Any responsible parent would obviously have purchased one with or without a law requiring them to do so.

You're arguement seems to be that nobody should be permitted to own a gun because something bad might happen. By the same logic, nobody should be permitted to drink alcohol or drive a car as both of those can lead to accidental or even intentional deaths. Let's not even get started on prescription medication as there are countless tales of people becoming addicted and ruining their leves because of that.

At some point there has to be a level of personal responsibility assumed by the citizenry, a concept that seems to be anathema to a large portion of the population.

No, my argument is that on the whole, the cons of rampant gun ownership like that which exists in the USA far exceed the benefits.

With all the facts and figures you have thrown out about why they are bad, you have yet to throw out the counterpoints making your statement a bit bias. Stories sell in the news for their sensationalism, thus you don't often hear about feel good, random person who owns a gun protects their family from would be bad guy. All you ever hear about in the media are the nut jobs who snap and go on a spree.

It would be absurd to ban motor vehicles because they are necessary for commerce, travel, any number of things. The pros of vehicles exisiting far outweigh the cost, even if that cost is tens of thousands of deaths a year.

They are not a necessity but a luxury to be honest. I have the right to choose, just as the government could declare operating personal motor vehicles hazardous and oversee the bejeezus out of those who own and use them, maybe even ban them and force us into using Govt approved means of travel. Most of the bigger cities could invest in mass transit programs and limit how many roadways there are. People in places like NYC can quite often get by without owning a car for long portions of their lives because of their subway system. Again it's the whole personal freedoms thing. I have to get licensed for a gun or a car. I can acquire both illegally if I so choose. I can cause quite a lot more damage armed and willing with a car then a gun.

Similarly the pros of alcohol (having a good time) outweigh the cons (you do dumb things sometimes if you have too much), at least that's the conclusion that almost every society on earth has come to by allowing liqour consumption.

That's a pretty weak reinforcement on the Pros and Cons of alcohol, not unlike you saying guns should be banned because something bad might happen. Again, alcohol is a regulated substance with an expectation of personal responsibility and steep consequences for mis-use.

If personal responsibilty is paramount, why ban cocaine? Heroin? The answer is because as a society we have determined the costs of legalizing heroin and cocaine are too great in relation to the benefits.

Ah, now we hit the good stuff, the stuff that causes your ability to be responsible for your actions to disappear. I've never heard of someone being addicted to firearms to the point where they were no longer in control of their own actions. Sure people get really emotional about their guns, but people get emotional about a great many things.

The point is that among all the major countries in the world, America is the only one that has decided that the benefits of widespread gun ownership outweigh the costs and I've never really heard a good reason why that is.

How are we defining Major Countries? No matter how you slice it, there are countries, member states of the UN no less, that have far higher statistics of violent crimes than the US with all our gun laws do.

here's a little reading:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...n-Ownership.htm

[Monty22 821]

Our constitution gives us the right, that alone justifies any American's decision to own a gun. Obviously criminals and those documented to be mentally disturbed shouldn't have guns and there are laws stating as much.

While I'm not completely up to date on legislation everywhere in the US, most states now require handgun locks on new handgun purchases. Any responsible parent would obviously have purchased one with or without a law requiring them to do so.

You're arguement seems to be that nobody should be permitted to own a gun because something bad might happen. By the same logic, nobody should be permitted to drink alcohol or drive a car as both of those can lead to accidental or even intentional deaths. Let's not even get started on prescription medication as there are countless tales of people becoming addicted and ruining their leves because of that.

At some point there has to be a level of personal responsibility assumed by the citizenry, a concept that seems to be anathema to a large portion of the population.

No, my argument is that on the whole, the cons of rampant gun ownership like that which exists in the USA far exceed the benefits.

It would be absurd to ban motor vehicles because they are necessary for commerce, travel, any number of things. The pros of vehicles exisiting far outweigh the cost, even if that cost is tens of thousands of deaths a year.

Similarly the pros of alcohol (having a good time) outweigh the cons (you do dumb things sometimes if you have too much), at least that's the conclusion that almost every society on earth has come to by allowing liqour consumption.

If personal responsibilty is paramount, why ban cocaine? Heroin? The answer is because as a society we have determined the costs of legalizing heroin and cocaine are too great in relation to the benefits.

The point is that among all the major countries in the world, America is the only one that has decided that the benefits of widespread gun ownership outweigh the costs and I've never really heard a good reason why that is.

Then you need to do some research into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may also want to read the Federalist Papers for a liitle perspective. Your question has been answered in this thread already, but you choose not to hear it.

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't think it has as much to do with the culture kids live in as much as people would like to think. As far as I'm concerned it all comes back to square one: the parents. Not all people that go apeshit, had bad home lives, but the majority did. There was something in their history other than picking up a Grand Theft Auto game that forced them over the line.

I think good parents won't allow their children to be exposed to violence until they are incrementally ready.

I'll give you an example. The first movies we let our daughters see were Disney animations. When they were around 4-5, we began to let them see the Doctor Doolittles or Snow Dogs. Even then, the younger one became scared when an animal appeared to be in harm's way. We told her it all make believe, they use ketchup, yada, yada. But we also kept that in mind when choosing another movie. Around 7-8, we allowed them to see movies with cartoon violence, such as Spider-Man. Around 9, we asked whether they thought they could stomach watching the Jurassic movies, but not before telling them what was in them and how they were created by computers. At 10.5, we let the older daughter watch Mission Impossible 3, which was one of the first movies which featured true gun play.

The point, of course, is they've been exposed incrementally, with still more movies being held at bay until they are ready. In contrast, my brother-in-law let my nephews see anything. When the older boy was around 10-11, he told us he had already seen a movie that was something like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre."....."Oh, I've already seen that....." He also was allowed to buy whatever video games he wanted.

All I can say is it's affected him. We would play 20 Questions as a means of passing the time while driving and it was obvious he was fixated on violence. His third question would always be, "Is it a weapon?" or "Could it be used in a violent manner?" We had to finally make a rule that if the normal usage of an item wouldn't be considered violent, then we'd have to classify the thing as a non-weapon.

Was he looking for attention? Sure, but so have been some of the kids who caused this thread to be created. But I'm going to go back to good parents won't let their children be exposed to violent images until they're confident their children can handle them.

The point is that among all the major countries in the world, America is the only one that has decided that the benefits of widespread gun ownership outweigh the costs and I've never really heard a good reason why that is.

Then you need to do some research into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may also want to read the Federalist Papers for a liitle perspective. Your question has been answered in this thread already, but you choose not to hear it.

I don't want to speak for mrusse, but I think you're misunderstanding him. Based on some of his previous posts, he has a very good understanding of the law, enough so that I've wondered if he's a lawyer. Consequently, what I've read into his posts is, "I realize the 2nd Amendment grants the rights to bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia, but it's a 220-year-old concept that is antiquated, Why don't you Americans admit it's outlived its usefulness and take steps to protect your citizens from gun violence. Other countries have done so successfully."

Again, not to put words into his mouth, but he seems to have a good understanding of constitutional law and appears to be speaking more philosophically.

[Monty22 821]

I don't think it has as much to do with the culture kids live in as much as people would like to think. As far as I'm concerned it all comes back to square one: the parents. Not all people that go apeshit, had bad home lives, but the majority did. There was something in their history other than picking up a Grand Theft Auto game that forced them over the line.

I think good parents won't allow their children to be exposed to violence until they are incrementally ready.

I'll give you an example. The first movies we let our daughters see were Disney animations. When they were around 4-5, we began to let them see the Doctor Doolittles or Snow Dogs. Even then, the younger one became scared when an animal appeared to be in harm's way. We told her it all make believe, they use ketchup, yada, yada. But we also kept that in mind when choosing another movie. Around 7-8, we allowed them to see movies with cartoon violence, such as Spider-Man. Around 9, we asked whether they thought they could stomach watching the Jurassic movies, but not before telling them what was in them and how they were created by computers. At 10.5, we let the older daughter watch Mission Impossible 3, which was one of the first movies which featured true gun play.

The point, of course, is they've been exposed incrementally, with still more movies being held at bay until they are ready. In contrast, my brother-in-law let my nephews see anything. When the older boy was around 10-11, he told us he had already seen a movie that was something like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre."....."Oh, I've already seen that....." He also was allowed to buy whatever video games he wanted.

All I can say is it's affected him. We would play 20 Questions as a means of passing the time while driving and it was obvious he was fixated on violence. His third question would always be, "Is it a weapon?" or "Could it be used in a violent manner?" We had to finally make a rule that if the normal usage of an item wouldn't be considered violent, then we'd have to classify the thing as a non-weapon.

Was he looking for attention? Sure, but so have been some of the kids who caused this thread to be created. But I'm going to go back to good parents won't let their children be exposed to violent images until they're confident their children can handle them.

The point is that among all the major countries in the world, America is the only one that has decided that the benefits of widespread gun ownership outweigh the costs and I've never really heard a good reason why that is.

Then you need to do some research into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may also want to read the Federalist Papers for a liitle perspective. Your question has been answered in this thread already, but you choose not to hear it.

I don't want to speak for mrusse, but I think you're misunderstanding him. Based on some of his previous posts, he has a very good understanding of the law, enough so that I've wondered if he's a lawyer. Consequently, what I've read into his posts is, "I realize the 2nd Amendment grants the rights to bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia, but it's a 220-year-old concept that is antiquated, Why don't you Americans admit it's outlived its usefulness and take steps to protect your citizens from gun violence. Other countries have done so successfully."

Again, not to put words into his mouth, but he seems to have a good understanding of constitutional law and appears to be speaking more philosophically.

Who says it's outlived it's usefulness? I understood the context of the question, and the answer I gave still applies.

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)

[mrusse01 0]

How are we defining Major Countries? No matter how you slice it, there are countries, member states of the UN no less, that have far higher statistics of violent crimes than the US with all our gun laws do.

Nice link by the way, I don't pretend to have all the answers here or anything. But I'm afraid on nearly all the issues you can find studies that 'prove' either guns cause crime, or they don't.

But anyways, how do I define a major country? Certainly not by membership in the UN, who cares about that? Isn't everyone in there now? Let's compare apples to apples here, and comparing the USA to Russia isn't really fair now is it? Russia has had arguably the most tumultuous last 100 years of any country on earth. No, let's stick to good old westernized democracies, as socioeconomically similar as possible. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of western Europe, most people throw Japan in as well but I think that's stretching it a bit because their culture is so so different. Anyways here we go..

Recent studies (see, e.g., Krug, Powell, and Dahlberg, 1998) reveal that the United States has a murder rate six times higher than the average economically developed, democratic nation (i.e., Western European nations, along with Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand)...This huge disparity in the murder rate is accompanied by huge differences in gun prevalence. In the United States the percentage of households with any type of gun (about 36 percent) is two to three times greater than for our peer nations. For handguns, the differences are even more dramatic. In the United States, 22 percent of households have handguns, compared with 0.1 percent in the United Kingdom, 0.2 percent in the Netherlands, 2 percent in Australia, 2.5 percent in Spain, and 7 percent or less in Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, and Norway.

and....from the UN World Crime Survey (read the quote, doesn't mean all UN countries)

...using the United States as a point of reference, we arrive at the following conclusions:

Burglary – Widely believed as the gravest of property crimes, burglary is lower in US today than in the 80s. As of 2000, US has lower rates than Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, and Wales. It has higher rates than Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Spain. (Good stuff! I guess all those guns are working...but uh...keep reading. )

Homicide – US had been consistently high in homicide rates than most of the Western countries from 1980 – 2000. Though the rate was cut almost in half in the 90s, it is still higher than all nations without political and social turmoil with the 2000 rate of 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. ( um..not so good)

Rape – In the 80s and 90s, US rates were higher than most of the Western countries, but by 2000, Canada is leading. Rape reports are lower in Asia and the Middle East.

Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain. Those with fewer are France, Germany, and Italy, and Asian countries plus the Middle East.

In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa.(ok, now that's just flat out bad)

So there. Basically I don't see how it's gets any clearer than that. If you look at the countries that are most similar to yours socioeconomically, you've got the most guns, the most handguns, the most murders, and overall the most crime (again...rate=per capita, so don't say 'well we have 300 million people, so of course we have the most of everything').

Now that we've established that, let's move on a bit. I thank Salming for his interpretation of my earlier post, he hit the nail right on the head. I KNOW why your gun controls are so loose, it's because of the 2nd Amendment to your Constitution. I'm actually quite familiar with it.

Who says it's outlived it's usefulness?

I have, that's the whole point, hell I don't think it was probably ever particularly useful...but you don't need to listen to me, just look at the stats in this post. Look around at other countries that are roughly the same as you (only you have a lot more hand guns). Why do YOU need to have the Second Amendment and nobody else needs similar legislation? Why are you as a nation afraid that one day you all might need to leap up and defend yourself against your own government, so you better have enough guns around just in case? I mean come on, that is ridiculous on so many levels I won't even get into it.

Anyways, that's the perspective I want you to try and consider a little bit if you will. Why do you need to have so many guns? Why? It seems like most Americans I talk to just point to the 2nd amendment if asked about gun control and never really consider if what they are pointing to makes any sense, I mean jeez, it's an AMENDMENT, i.e. the original wasn't good enough we had to change it. Maybe you need to change it again.

ps. thanks for the discussion, so far it has been lively, well tempered, and most importantly has wasted much time for me that I should have probably spent working.

[Chadd 916]

The gang problems we have in the US are responsible for the majority of gun related homicides we have. And again, if they can import drugs to sell, they can import weapons as well.

That "amendment" is part of what is called our Bill of Rights, a document chock full of very important liberties that have been granted to the American people. As for repealing an amendment, by your same logic the government could repeal our right to free speech because it isn't relevant anymore. Or, the right to freedom of religion could also be repealed as some believe we should all be christian anyway.

If guns were banned tomorrow, the hit to the economy would be in the billions of dollars. Between the jobs lost in manufacturing the guns and ammo, you would also lose all of the hunting accessories and clothing production and sales positions. Then you would then have the loss of income to the various state governments from hunting licenses, resulting in higher taxes. You're also then going to have to spend a lot of federal (as I'm guessing that's where this mysterious ban is going to come from) money spent managing game species populations around the country, raising federal taxes yet again. All of this in the hope that without guns, a slightly smaller number of innocent people will die from gun violence.

You've made the determination that it isn't needed and nothing we say will do anything to dissuade you. Similarly, you're not going to convince me that gun ownership is, by itself, bad. Rather than continue to demand that we justify a right granted by the founding fathers, let's just let this drop and accept the fact that reasonable people can disagree.

[mrusse01 0]

Gottlieb cites an article by Canada's National Post columnist David Frum where he revealed that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States.”

Sorry for the double post, but I had to touch base on this because it completely contradicts what I just wrote earlier, and I said I was surprised about this and that I'd look into it. Well I did.

Here's the short answer: David Frum completely made that figure up.

http://www.dangardner.ca/Colfeb1506.html

If you actually go to that blog the author mentions there is a long and hilarious dissection of Frum's numbers. But really, you don't need to look at it. You can either believe my numbers from the United Nations, or you can go with an absurd, vague, and obviously false statistic from the man who coined the term 'axis of evil' as a speech writer for your President. Seems like a reliable guy who would never ever just say something outrageous in his editorials to get some publicity right?

That "amendment" is part of what is called our Bill of Rights, a document chock full of very important liberties that have been granted to the American people. As for repealing an amendment, by your same logic the government could repeal our right to free speech because it isn't relevant anymore. Or, the right to freedom of religion could also be repealed as some believe we should all be christian anyway.

You are putting words in my mouth here. My logic in this argument has only been applied specifically to firearms, I never made mention of free speech of freedom of religion being irrelevant, nor would I.

If guns were banned tomorrow, the hit to the economy would be in the billions of dollars. Between the jobs lost in manufacturing the guns and ammo, you would also lose all of the hunting accessories and clothing production and sales positions. Then you would then have the loss of income to the various state governments from hunting licenses, resulting in higher taxes. You're also then going to have to spend a lot of federal (as I'm guessing that's where this mysterious ban is going to come from) money spent managing game species populations around the country, raising federal taxes yet again. All of this in the hope that without guns, a slightly smaller number of innocent people will die from gun violence.

Again you are trying to subvert my argument by taking it to the illogical extreme. I never suggested a complete ban on all firearms. You could start by tightening regulations on hand guns. Make them much more difficult to obtain. You know, the stuff every other country except the USA does.

Rather than continue to demand that we justify a right granted by the founding fathers, let's just let this drop and accept the fact that reasonable people can disagree.

Sure, I can accept that, I just enjoy the debate.

[Chadd 916]

This turned into people talking past each other long ago.

[Monty22 821]

This turned into people talking past each other long ago.

Agreed. I've said my piece and this has grown tiresome.

[sdcopp 1]

mrusse - from your own link (and fair enough about Mr. Frum, after re-reading who he is I figured it was an exaggeration, which is why I went to other source):

"The 2000 ICVS found that 23.8 per cent of Canadians said they had been victims of crime in the previous year. Most of those incidents involved minor property crime. In the United States, the victimization rate was 21.1 per cent. The average for the 17 countries surveyed was also 21 per cent."

"Canada's victimization rate peaked in 1992 at 28.1 per cent. It dropped steadily until 2000. The American rate peaked in 1989 at 28.4 per cent and then it, too, dropped steadily until 2000. So once again, the crime trends in both countries are similar."

"The ICVS also asked people if they feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark. Eighty-three per cent of Americans said they do.

The Canadian result? Precisely the same."

Now onto the latest link I pulled for your reading:

"Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates."

"To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate"

"More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted."

"For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."

"Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

"Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."

Now I'm pretty well done with this debate. There's your Western Europe look. While America has a higher gun rate death the study found we still have lower levels of violent crime due to guns, stabbing, strangulation, beating, etc.

In reference to what Salming has said, I can't really agree there either. Japan has such a large media driven culture with movies, video games, etc. That if it were truly these bad influences in our society they would experience similar amounts of violent crime driven by youth not being able to seperate fiction and reality. They have one of the lowest crime rates no matter how you look at it. I whole heartedly think it is purely on the parents to do their job and teach their children. From what you have said about your own parenting experiences I commend you because you are being a good parent.

[Jason Harris 31]

Thanks for the compliment, sdcopp. The truth is all we can do is lead our daughters to the trough and hope they make the right decisions -- and I tell them those very words all the time.

I'm not trying to suggest our youths can't distinguish reality from fiction, although I believe there is a percentage of them who are becoming desensitized. I've seen occasional articles in which law enforcement discusses the gangs of yesteryear versus today. The conclusion is today's gangs are much more violent because they have so many younger members who have no respect for life. In other words, they suggest a thirteen-year-old who has grown up in violence doesn't truly comprehend the tragedy of an eight-year-old girl killed in crossfire, whereas 30-50 years ago, gang members were older and would try to minimize the collateral damage.

Something is causing that desensitisation, and I believe a culprit is the constant exposure to violent images. However, I readily admit the average person can handle it fine, so I understand it's not solely due to the media. The question becomes, then, how do we allow the average person to enjoy "Dirty Harry" while we tell the unstable they'd probably be better off watching "Mary Poppins?" Obviously, we can't.

(By the way, there might be two factors to consider while comparing our society with Japan's. They are 99% homogeneous, which removes a large factor of social stress. Also, they have 20% less women in the work force, which implies they have more parental guidance at home than we do in America.)

[hockeysew 0]

The Anti-Gun rhetoric that spews forth after every unfortunate incident makes me puke.

Get a clue gun banning/non-firearms folks.

The cold hard reality: If you ban the guns then the only ones that will be armed are criminals. What have you accomplished then? To make a predator stronger.

Just what I want in my neighborhood

Proven fact- The one reason that Mainland America has never had to face occupation by a foreign entity is because of an armed populace.

Proven fact- In states that have reasonable Concealed Carry laws violent crimes against persons incidents have DECLINED.

Proven fact- 98% of weapons related crimes in the U.S. are commited with ILLEGALLY obtained weapons by individuals that have violent criminal records.

LEGAL OWNERS OF WEAPONS ARE VERY RARELY THE PROBLEM.

An armed society is a free society.

Unarmed people are subjects (Australia and UK-are you listening?)

We already have plenty of laws meant to keep firearms out of irresponsible hands.

Enforce those laws and you will see a drastic reduction in firearm related crimes.

This is where the change needs to occur. Take the ACLU out of the criminal system. Why is it that an individual accused of a crime seems to have more rights than the victim of the crime?

As far as banning "Assault Weapons"

This is a "feel good" campaign started by the same clowns that have brought you the Million Mom March, The Million Man March not mention other totally useless endeavors.

These are the bleeding hearts that try to outlaw spanking a child,Discourage keeping score at little league games cause they dont want anybody to feel like a "Loser" but when something such as Columbine occurs it is the fault of the guns.

Wake the F&^K up would you.

Maybe if Mr Harris and Mr Klebold had had a boot up their ass at an early age they may not have commited the atrocity they did because they would have learned a bit of respect.

Do you see a connection maybe?

I like the analogy "If guns kill people then spoons made Rosie ODonnel Fat"

Lets re-visit the Clinton era ban which sunsetted in 2004. Its purpose was to control crime and hedge "Gang" violence. After the sunset of the ban before Judicial hearings numerous Law Enforcment entities including the FBI testified that the ban had NO effect whatsoever on crime.

This is the reason why it was not re-instated at that time.

The term "Assault" weapon is a total farce to start with. By definition an "Assault" weapon is capable of selective(full-automatic or semi-automatic) fire.

So in fact most any semi-automatic weapon is an "Assault" weapon by the definitions of the Clinton ban and even moreso under HR1022.

The politicians are for what ever reason terribly scared of any weapon that resembles a military weapon by looks or operation.

Gee whiz you in the Ivory Tower, are you intimidated?

The weapons in question are semi-automatic only and if you are stupid enough to convert to selective fire then you deserve to not have the weapon anyway.

Selective Fire weapons have been regulated since 1934 anyway (Class 3 weapons).

You can apply for your Class 3 for $200.00 and then purchase a Selective Fire weapon for anywhere from $3000.00 to $25000.00 plus pay a $200.00 tax stamp per weapon plus you consent to the ATF to drop by at any time and take a look.

Since 1934 only 1 LEGALLY owned Class 3 weapon was used to commit a crime and that was by a Law Enforcement Officer!

LEGALLY OWNED "Assault" weapons have been used in less than 2% of ALL crimes which a weapon is used.

LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM FOLKS!!!

Crimes are committed by CRIMINALS whose weapons are ILLEGALLY obtained. Usually by stealing them from LEGAL owners!

All of this with the illusion of "Protecting" the public.

Lets look at a little background: In ANY country that has had firearms outlawed the violent crimes against persons has DRAMATICALLY jumped.-(You Aussies and Brits feel free to jump in).

Pre World War II Germany: One of Hitlers first acts as Fuerher was to "register" and ban weapons owned by the public. Next was seizure of weapons from anyone other than "Party" endorsed (Nazi) supporters. We all know what happened next......

Are we scared yet? You should be!!

A well known fact: The ONE thing that has prevented mainland America from ever being subject to invasion by foreign enemies in history is the mere fact of a very well armed population.

I dont recall if it was Hirohito or Yamamoto that when questioned as to invading America the reply was: "It would be too costly, for behind every blade of grass would be a rifle"

Lets keep it that way, especially given the political climate we are in.

Sounds like "Homeland Security" at it's best.

It really boils down to a question of rights and our Constitution.

Regardless of your stance on guns, they are attempting to to INFRINGE upon our rights as citizens of this country. If we let them "Adjust" the 2cnd Amendment, then what is next?

I carry a weapon (CCW) daily. Does that make me a bad person?

I look at my weapon as I do a seat belt:

You pray to God that you never have to actually employ it's use. But the one time that you do you will be thankfull you did.

Food for thought:

Ten things non-gun people should know about CHP/CCW holders:

1. We don't carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does.

We don't walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don't get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don't hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don't think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren't hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don't take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness.

We don't believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety.

Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or "rage" incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting

someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don't pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well-made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply laying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to

discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of "accidental discharges". There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned

how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun "going off" was the result of negligence on somebody's part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also

realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good

judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it's very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private

security. Please don't generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like "there's a guy running around in the store with a gun" or even simply "I saw a man with a gun in the store" could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the

incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place

and at any time. Criminals do not observe "gun free zones". If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we

think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is

appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don't believe that every person should necessarily be

armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please

oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe "gun free zones". Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be

unarmed victims.

I will trust in 911 to get there in time to remove the body from my home in a "Sh!T Hit The Fan" situation.

I have THE RIGHT to protect myself and family with deadly force if warranted.

I would like to keep that right.

Sorry if it is a little long winded, but I guarantee the first time you are in a life threatining situation you will have a different outlook on things.