My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« Get a proofreader, Doug Morgan! | Main | Guns and progressives »

April 17, 2007

Comments

I suppose it worked so well in Washington DC why not expand it to the whole US. By the way, the DC gunlaw on the books was recently overturned by the appellate court from what I understand.

DarePDX's comment reflect ignorance of the Washington, DC area.

First, gun-related violence has, in fact, decreased since the gun ban went into effect.

Second, the reason, it has not decreased further is because it's so easy to bring guns in from neighboring Virgina and, to a lesser extent, from Maryland. I, like the Virginia Tech shooter, can drive two miles from my home in Arlington, Virginia, walk into a gun store, and walk out the same day with a semi-automatic pistol. I can then drive five miles across the Potomac River into Washington, DC with that gun. There are no roadblocks or inspections on any of the five bridges over the Potomac.

Third, an appellate court did, in fact, overturn the gun ban, but, it's still in effect while the city appeals the appellate court ruling to the Supreme Court.

The USA is virtually alone among developed countries in allowing citizens easy access to handguns. Not coincidentally, the USA has a far higher murder rate than almost all these other countries.

There is simply no reason at all for people to own handguns. Statistics show, for example, that possession of a hand-gun in a home is light-years more likely to result in the deliberate or accidental shooting of a family member than to deter an intruder.

Ban all handguns.

Drugs have been banned also haven't they? Show me how to ban drugs and alcohol and then let's see about hand guns.

If laws are passed to eliminate guns. Law abiding citizens will not have guns. It's the people with no respect for the law (criminals) that will keep, import, or manufacture guns. Out lawing guns will decrease the number of guns in circulation. It will not eliminate people disire for guns and the gun market will be driven underground. This will raise the price of guns and we will have gun runners and dealers much in the same way we have drug dealers.

Look. If it's the number of deaths by firearms that concerns you, perhaps you should focus your efforts against things that cause more deaths than firearms. Gun related deaths are way down on the list of top killers in the United States.

Maybe if one of the students there had been allowed to carry (many students at VT had concealed weapons permits) they could have stopped the madman. But, alas a gun-free zone, a shooting gallery for any crazed lunatic. Guns cause crime like spoons make people fat or like flies cause garbage. Free people are armed, oh, and the first gun control advocate was Hitler. Wonder why he didn't want civilians having weapons. Wake up.

In order to not be the victim of a gun crime, carry one..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One Nation Under The Gun..." In my opinion, you attract what you give out...If you think you'll need a gun, chances are you'll end up in a situation where you probably will...Not the way I want to live, Gary. Peace out...

Marcia, you speak out of ignorance. Most of the people who legally carry handguns go out of their way to avoid situations like you speak of. I know I do. I would rather carry and never need to use it than not carry and take the chance that I might need it to defend my life one day. I am no threat to anyone except those that would attempt to harm me or my loved ones.

Tyrants all around the world have demanded gun control for centuries. How progressive.

Why did my mom die of a Heroin overdose...theirs too many drugs on the street. Wait...I thought Heroin was illegal. Didn't we declare a "WAR ON DRUGS" when Nixon was president. Jesus Christ thats been a long time! If drugs are so illegal why are so many kids addicted to them.If you ban handguns long guns etc...people will still get their grubby little hands on any gun they want.I think it would make it easier to buy a gun if it were illegal. A ban on guns of any kind will not work. You would have to destroy every gun in the world and make sure all information about how to make a gun is destroyed as well. Even then as intellectuals we will still find another way to make a gun.

David has the right of it. I saw a youtube vid of a guy who went to a hardware store and in 15 minutes had created a zip gun. It couldnt hit anything with any accuracy passed arms length. Thats makes it even more dangerous. You cannot keep these things out of peoples hands. The drug reference is only too true in this scenario. I carry. I am not a victim.

None of the defenders of gun rights has explained why gun deaths are lower -- far lower -- in the European countries that ban possession of handguns. Or explained why, if you carry a gun or have one in your house, you or a family member are far more likely to be the victims of that gun than you are to use it against an intruder.

Until you can explain that, all your arguments about how you are the exceptions because you are "responsible" gun owners just won't wash.

Two words for you: Plaxico Burress.

Greetings!
I fully believe in banning handguns. I think the gun industry (and I prefer to use this rather than NRA) has brainwashed gun owners into believing they are safer when they purchase a handgun. While I do support the 2nd Amendment in the sense that it does allow citizens the right to own reasonable rifles, I am fully in favor of a complete ban on handguns and frequently write about my feelings on sfgate.com and other news websites when another shooting takes place. Glad to see this site.
[email protected]

So, if we ban all guns, how are you going to protect yourself? Don't need protection?

I am not a gun nut, but I want to know a simple answer to that question. We know that outlawing something will not prevent it from being obtained, otherwise, there wouldn't be any heroin, cocaine, crack, and so on. Those drugs are illegal, and yet, they are easily obtained (although I don't know how, because I don't take them), why is it such a stretch to consider that handguns would also be obtainable if they were outlawed?

So, let's say that 2 guys came up to you, and they had baseballl bats. What are you going to do? Ask them to wait until you can call 911 and please wait until the police show up? Please, just tell me how you are going to defend yourself against something like that.

I guess what bothers me is that there have been numerous court cases where it was ruled that the cops have you responsibility into protecting the individual. You can't sue the police if they don't protect you.

Please explain to me how people should protect themselves from criminals who may or may not be armed with firearms. Someone comes at you with a shovel, or an axe, what should a person do?

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a criminal. After all, I don't live in LA or Chicago, and we know that a majority of the people are NOT criminals. However, criminals can be anywhere. I hope to never have to point a firearm at another person, ever. That's my worst case scenario. At least in NC, if you shoot someone (even in self-defense), there is no guarantee that you won't get charged with murder, so you don't pull a gun unless you absolutely have no other choice.
It's that simple. It's not the wild west. So, with handguns, I just don't see it being the wild west. I don't see people pulling handguns out when they are upset.

So, if you don't want handguns, ok. Why impose your view on handguns on me?

Data show that handgun owners are far more likely to shoot themselves, their family members, their friends and acquaintances, or innocent (and non-criminal) bystanders than felons intent on doing them harm.

That's why handguns should be banned.



Posted 03 February 2009 11:51 AM
A little Gun History Lesson


In 1929, the
Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------ --------- ---------


In 1911,
Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------ --------- ------


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


------------ --------- ---------


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------ --------- -------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------ --------- ---------


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..


------------ --------- ---------


Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Tony,

Do you really believe that an armed Jewry in Germany would have done any good against the Gestapo or that Soviet dissidents would have been able to "defend themselves" with a firearm against Stalin's Secret Police? Same question applies to your other examples.

Now answer my previous questions. Why is it that European countries, almost all of which currently ban guns, all have far lower homicide rates than does the U.S.? And why would anyone want a gun in his house when the data are crystal clear that that gun will far more likely be used to kill or injure a member of that household than an intruder? And please spare me the argument that you are different because you are a "responsible" gun owner. That's what all they all said before creating widows, widowers, and orphans.

I agree with my libertarian brothers and sisters that the power of government should be feared and resisted, so I support a right to own firearms. An armed citizenry is likely to deter some strongarm tactics by the militias of the state, an increasingly likely scenario because of our collapsing economy.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that a far higher percentage of armed Jews survived from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising than of unarmed Jews who submitted "non-violently" to the Nazis.

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" suggested that the difference between Canada (which has plenty of guns) and us is the degree of fear that our culture instills. It's the combination of guns and fear that makes gun violence more likely here, not just the existence of guns.

Geez, Harry, you're the last person I'd peg for a gun nut.

I think the higher survival rate of armed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto is highly speculative, at best.

I've never owned a gun in my life, Terry. I do, however, see the value of armed self-defense at a time of fascist devolution, e.g., the "Patriot Act" and the "Military Commissions Act" are still in effect, and I have seen no movement by Obama to repeal them.

Derrick Jensen, in Ward Churchill's Pacifism As Pathology: "...the Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, including those who went on what they thought were suicide missions, had a higher rate of survival than those who went along. Never forget that" (p.12).

Armed resistance could have made the "final solution" a cost-prohibitive proposition for the Nazis, and, as Bruno Bettleheim contended, the failure to do so was due to a general tendency for human beings to want to conduct "business as usual". Jewish scholars like Hannah Arendt, Raul Hilberg and Arno J. Mayer have raised similar issues.

The near total identification of anti-imperialist resistance with "Ghandian" non-violence has impoverished the tactical discourse. All our non-violent marches and demonstrations, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, have produced imperialism with a liberal (and a black) face.

As Churchill said, "The obligation is not to be personally pure. The obligation is to affect a measurable change."

For all you gun nuts out there, I give you 10 recent reasons to ban not just handguns but all automatic and semi-automatic weapons:

1. Seung--Hui Cho
2. Eric Harris
3. Dylan Klebold
4. Jeff Wise
5. Kipland Kingel
6. Bruce Pardo
7. Marcus Wesson
8. Adam Moss
9. Jessie Dotson
10. Ervin Lupoe

And, oh yes, the latest -- Michael McClendon. The list could be much, much, longer, but I think you get the point.

Answer to the question that nobody wants to answer:

Q: Why do handgun owners cause deaths to themselves, family, etc. than criminals?
A: because they are not RESPONSIBLE...
people need to learn HOW to own a gun. they do not need to be told they can not own a gun. government should fund classes on ownership (cheaper and less risky than hunting down all of the guns in the country and forcefully taking them) and do INSTANT background checks on buyers. gun locks seem fine until a knife wielding burglar breaks in and you have to find the key. keep your gun in a place where only you have easy acess to it and don't tell anyone who dosn't need to know.

overall: government interference bad... individual responsibility good


Oh gee, acarnes, how silly of me. I stand corrected.

If only we had taught Seung--Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jeff Wise, Kipland Kingel, Bruce Pardo, Marcus Wesson, Adam Moss, Jessie Dotson, Ervin Lupoe, and Michael McLendon "how to own a gun" and to be "responsible" gun owners, I guess they would not have murdered all those school children, family members, and random others.

You can't be serious.

I agree! Guns are dangerous and plentiful. We should ban and confiscate them all.

We should also ban knives too (including kitchen knives) because they are sharp and dangerous and are used to kill people.

We should ban alcohol again since its dangerous in that it causes people to act violently.

We should definitely ban drugs again because of the crime and violence caused by their trade (wait...)
Oh and automobiles... they kill thousands every year, in accidents (especially because of alcohol). They are also harmful to the environment - we should ban them.

We should also ban violent television shows, movies and video games because they are the reason that some people act violently.

and so on...

The "guns are evil because they kill people" argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. I find that many on the left are motivated by emotion. They demand sweeping change in a reactionary way because such change would make them “feel” better.

The most dangerous tendency of the left is their inability or unwillingness to acknowledge evil. To the typical American leftist, all unfortunate, negative and harmful actions taken are not completely the fault of the perpetrator. Instead the perpetrator’s actions were motivated in part by some prior victimization. Because of this, the perp is either partially or entirely not to blame for the resulting harm caused by his actions. For example, the pedophile molests children because he was abused as a child. The psychopath murders fifteen people in a school massacre because he watched violent movies and was a loner. The alcoholic killed a family of four in a drunk driving accident because he was drowning his sorrows over his lost job.... and so on.

People have free choice - and some choose evil. It has been this way from the dawn of time and it simply can't be legislated, regulated or "hoped" away (and it certainly can't be ignored). Evil unopposed on the macro scale leads to fascism (or socialism), genocide, mass murder, oppressive governments, etc. On the micro scale others choosing evil leads to a direct threat to your life. You may be mugged, threatened with rape or death, or have your children's lives threatened. This threat may be in the form of deranged drug addict demanding money after breaking into your home, or a mass murder bent on killing as many people as possible. Self defense is a right, and banning firearms would infringe upon that right. Looking at Australia and England where sweeping legislation to ban firearms has been passed, limiting the “subjects” right to self defense, anyone can clearly see that not only has the crime rate skyrocketed on both cases, but the criminals continue to possess firearms and other lethal weapons and they are completely unopposed by disarmed and ignorant prey. Even in Germany, a Mecca of gun control, school shootings (and courtroom shootings) do occur. Leftists need to acknowledge responsibility as well – responsibility for their own actions and responsibility for their own self defense. Take note: the government cannot protect you. They cannot protect you from natural disasters, from bad financial decisions, from criminals or anything else.

I would be frightened if more Americans agreed with you, but fortunately most of us want liberty and protection of our fundamental right to self defense. In a recent Gallup poll, only 29% of Americans supported handgun bans. Granted this poll was taken prior to last week’s mass shooting at the NY immigrant center, but I’d guess that such events would drive the percentage even lower.

The second amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. Both it and the first amendment are the only thing separating American citizens from American subjects.

Hawk,

The primary purpose and/or function of knives, alcohol, drugs, automobiles, and violent TV shows, movies, and video games, while not always positive, is not the same as the primary purpose and/or function of a handgun. The primary purpose/function of handguns is to kill people.

As to your international comparisons, here are the most recent data on the annual homicide rates per 100,000 people in Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, and 11 Western European countries.

France = 17
Australia = 15
Canada = 15
UK = 15
Italy = 13
Spain = 12
Germany = 12
Netherlands = 12
New Zealand = 11
Denmark = 11
Norway == 11
Ireland = 9
Switzerland = 9
Greece = 8
Japan = 6

And the United States? 43

In other words, the homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 3 to 7 times the rate in countries with comparable standards of living.

Why the difference? With the exception of the U.S., all the countries cited above either ban possession of handguns by civilians or have very strict laws controlling them.

Case closed.


Hi Craig,

You are right. The case is closed. It was closed last year when the United States Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that US citizens have an individual right to own firearms for personal use (including self defense in the home). The court also found that banning an entire class of firearm (ie handguns) was unconstitutional. The justices agreed with the majority of Americans who don’t take their liberty for granted and take responsibility for their own protection.

I would argue that the primary purpose of drugs and alcohol is to kill people and destroy lives. What would you say their purpose is?

Knives, guns and automobiles are tools. Their purpose is based on how they are used (again going back to the responsibility argument). The kitchen knife evolved from a prehistoric weapon. It can be used to cut a steak, or to stab someone. The automobile can be used to transport your family to a soccer game, or it can be used to commit vehicular manslaughter. The handgun can be used for hunting, competition shooting, or self defense. Again, your liberal worldview is clouding your argument with emotion as you divorce the person and his actions from the object you wish to ban.

Statistics are fun aren’t they? It’s amazing how easily they can be massaged to support a certain ideology or agenda. Ok, let’s talk statistics.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the US Department of Justice (via the BATFE) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm, the violent crime rate has dropped dramatically since 1993 reaching its lowest level in 2005. The property crime rate has been steadily declining since the 70s. You can see this trend here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm. Over this same period of time, the handgun supply has increased linearly from less than 190 million in 1973 to almost 330 million in 1995. Today, there are more handguns owned by US citizens than in any time in the past, yet the crime rate continues to drop…

You may argue that in 1994, the Clinton assault weapon ban went into effect. However it expired in 2004 and according to the NCVS, the violent crime rate decreased 1.4% from 2006 to 2007. From 1998 to 2007 the rate fell 17.7%. So it decreased 1.4% three years after the ban had expired. The 1.4% figure is consistent with the 17.7% over the previous 9 years.

So with these statistics, I believe that it is safe to conclude that handguns cause crime like flies cause garbage.

Now let’s look at other countries. In fact, the statistics show that there is no correlation between gun availability and violent crime rate. For example, the United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (according to the Small Arms Survey 2007), and its crime rate according to your unsourced statistics is 43 homicides per 100,000 people. Switzerland has the third highest rate of gun ownership in the world, yet its homicide rate is 9 homicides per 100,000 people according to your statistics. According to this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece Scotland is one of the world’s most violent countries, yet gun ownership, like the rest of the UK is very very low thanks to tight control and confiscation. “The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.”

And these are homicide statistics. Homicide by definition is the killing of another human being. Self defense that results in the death of an attacker is classified as a justifiable homicide, but a homicide nonetheless. We should be looking at violent crime statistics and property crime statics instead. Did you know that the majority of burglaries in England occur while the victims are at home? Yet in the United States, the majority of burglaries occur while the residents are away. Why? Gun ownership. Take a look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

Alcohol kills people and was banned. The ban didn’t work.
Drugs kill people and they were banned. That ban didn’t work either.
Firearms were banned in other countries, yet criminals still have access to them and the crime rates have increased. See http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts for Australia, and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm for England.

When it comes down to it, gun control is about control. It is about keeping a population subjugated and hopelessly dependant. When a government becomes afraid of its own citizens, that government needs to be replaced. Implementing sweeping gun control legislation is a reflection of that fear. 100% of tyrants and criminals polled prefer unarmed victims. How is that for statistics?

I suggest you sign up for a basic firearms safety class with a range component. That way you’ll be introduced to firearms, how to use them safely and you’ll get to shoot some paper targets. Who knows, you might even enjoy the experience.

Craig, if you remove young black men from the data, the US comes in nearly the same as Europe in terms of violent crime rates. If you compare Seattle Washington with Vancouver BC, only comparing Caucasians, then you find a murder rate about equal. How can that be if handguns are the problem? Your logic fails when compared to the evidence.

And the assertions above that "most European countries ban handguns" is false. Germany, France, Italy, etc... do not ban handguns. Canada doesn't ban handguns either. Heck, I can legally bring my .45 into Canada as long as the barrel is at least 4.1" long.

I'll ignore Hawk as he's obviously gone off the deep end with his rant about tyrants keeping their populations subjected through "sweeping gun control legislation." Hey Liz (that's Queen Elizabeth II), how does it feel for Hawk to call you a tyrant?

Af for Ben, next time, quote me accurately. I did not say "most European countries ban handguns." I said that the countries I cited "either ban possession of handguns by civilians or have very strict laws controlling them." The UK, for example, will only issue a firearm certificate to a person if the person has a legitimate work-related or sporting reason to have one. Since 1946, self-defense has explicitly been ruled out as one of those legitimate reasons. The law is so restrictive that it acts as a virtual ban. Result: the UK's homicide rate is nearly 3 times less than that of the U.S.

As for your comments about blacks, two points. 1. Europe has lots of non-Caucasian minorities, including black Africans. 2. Almost none of the school shootings and other massacres involving handguns (including half a dozen in the last week) in the U.S. have been perpretated by blacks. Why have we allowed these mentally unstable people to purchase handguns?

Yes, please ignore me Craig. That was a very predictable (and emotional) response given that you didn't want to (or couldn't) present an intelligent rebuttal to my argument. Thank you for reinforcing my concept of the "typical American leftist".

I tell you what: you keep on drinking the liberal kool-aid and just ignore what I post from now on. =D

By the way, the second amendment was established to prevent my "deep end rant" from becoming reality in America. LOL. What Ben is saying is absolutely true. In fact, in Europe it is possible to not only own a handgun as a civilian but also carry one. They laws vary by nation, but the UK is the exception in Europe with their extremely tight control. Up above you called for the US Government to "ban all handguns"... well then you should be arguing for that goal. You presented a view of Europe depicting a utopian, crime-free paradise where nobody is violent and all guns are banned. That simply isn't the case.

You are also talking about massacres, as opposed to violent crime and property crime statistics. While massacres are tragic, they are very very rare (thankfully). You calling for sweeping gun bans because of massacres is like me calling for the entire Democratic leadership to be removed from power because just a few of them are tax evaders.

Lets look at violent crime, again using the US Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics) Website is here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm See the graph that describes Homicide Offending By Race. The statistics show data up until 2005, where black offending homicide rates were 7 times that of whites. In fact, that is the lowest that black offending homicide rates were in the past 30 years! That website also includes victimization data by race as well crime trends. You should spend some time there before posting random unsourced statistics.

A half dozen in the last week? Huh, are talking about school shootings or massacres. The last two massacres in the US were Northern Illinois U (2008) where 6 were killed. Before that was Virginia Tech (2007) where 33 were killed. In Europe there was the Winnenden shooting in Germany (2009) where 16 were killed and the Kauhajoki school shooting in Finland where 11 were killed. Oh wait.. school shootings don't happen in Europe because Europe is a safe gun free zone that we should emulate, right?

Now if you are talking school shootings, where a gunman targets a few people and doesn't intend mass murder ending in suicide - well then you should start looking at gang violence - which is what Ben touched on above. We have plenty of that in this country and banning guns isn't going to curb that one bit. Banning handguns wouldn't prevent these individuals from finding a weapon at all. Instead, it would just make a few black market arms dealers wealthy and establish even more smuggling channels that easily breach our porous borders.

Anyway, you just ignore me - I recommend grape kool-aid - it is by far the best flavor!


Result: the UK's homicide rate is nearly 3 times less than that of the U.S.

This is not a result. The UK has always had such a relative homicide rate, even when citizens, er, excuse me, subjects were allowed to carry concealed weapons back in the early 1900s. Crime in the UK has increased since the ban. Those are the facts.

About Europe, you wrote this:

Why is it that European countries, almost all of which currently ban guns, all have far lower homicide rates than does the U.S.?

That's what I was responding to.

And about blacks, all I'm trying to convey is that there is a particular population in the US that has a dysfunctional culture that is responsible for a disproportionate amount of gun violence in our country.

Re: "Thank you for reinforcing my concept of the 'typical American leftist'."

Hawk in Winter: Ignorance is not bliss. Your suggestion that Craig is a "leftist" is foolish. My guess is that he's closer to you than to me on most issues, and I'm not a "leftist". (I recommend Ward Churchill's work to you if you want to know what a leftist is.)

The political center in America, on the issues, is where most people dwell ideologically. Most people want an end to imperial war and occupation, even-handedness on Israel-Palestine, single-payer-universal health care, an end to bailouts for the rich, more social programs vs. military programs, and, yes, the right to own guns.

"Those that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Hey "Concerned Gun Owner" -- Maybe you're right. Let's preserve our essential liberty and give up temporary safety by:

-- Doing away with security checks at airports;
-- No longer requiring drivers to have driver's licenses and doing away with speed limits;
-- No longer requiring prescriptions for any drugs;
-- Allowing all of us to keep machine guns, mortars and bazookas in our homes. Wait, let's not stop there. Let's allow all of us to keep a nuclear bomb in our house.

Gee, why didn't I think of all this before? These things must have been exactly what Franklin had in mind when he was talking about "essential liberties."

Craig,

One question that was not answered for you: Why are more people with guns in their homes injured by the weapons than those without?

A: Because the gun is there, and like it or not THEY made the decision to own and take responsibility for it. And they obviously shirked their responsibility.

That question, however, is like asking why are more people on a major fault line more likely to be insured in an earthquake?
A: Because they chose to live where there was a fault line...

Q: Why are more people who drive cars killed in car accidents than the Amish?
A: Because they HAVE the car...

Q: Why are sky divers more likely to die in a sky diving accident than non-skydivers?
Q: Why are astronauts more likely to die in a rocket launch than non-astronauts?

So, the mere presence of a firearm, by definition of the word "presence", are more likely to be injured by them. That is why training, competence, and responsibility are essential. You don't give electric drill to someone who doesn't know how to use it, and you don't let your gun (essentially a remote controlled drill) get in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it (Obviously Plaxico Burress DIDN'T know, or he would have had his weapon in a better location, use a holster, and NOT have his weapon with a chambered round if it had no safety, etc. In short, a moron that PROVES my point about responsibility and training.)

Craig, you have the choice to NOT own a gun, but you don't have the right to tell me I CAN'T, any more than I can tell you you CAN'T own a car (people die from car related accidents far more than negligent firearm handling every Day/Year/Month/Decade/etc. Also, cars are used in far more crimes than guns... how often do you see a robber with a stolen plasma TV on a Schwinn, or a drug dealer hauling 200 kilos of cocaine on his 10-speed? ) But you do have the right to tell me why you think we shouldn't own them, and why you don't agree with me. I, for one, appreciate the freedom to debate the issues and disagree, according to the right of the people to free speech.

Lastly:
If you actually read the Constitution & Amendments, there are rights of the "people". If you apply them as they are written, they are either ALL individual or ALL reserved for the government (which it expressly says they are inalienable, i.e. Natural, or exist IN SPITE OF government) to decide who gets them. The right of the "people" to free speech (like we are civilly exercising here) is open to everyone, as is the right of the "people" to bear arms. For the true intent of that Militia portion, please read the writings and intents of those who wrote the documents. It becomes quite clear they in fact intended it to be for everyone, for their own defense against ANY threat (personal injury, oppression, etc.).

I strongly believe in personal firearm ownership.
That includes handguns, rifles, and shotguns... to and extent.

I DO NOT support the ownership of assault rifles and other firearms that are obviously designed to kill a large amount of people in a short time.

The US already has many gun law. If only they were all properly enforced, the gun homicide rate would drop even lower.

We do not need to BAN handguns. We need better enforcement, including better screenings.

When I am able to, I plan to purchase a handgun and rifle. I, unlike the college and high school shooters, have a respect for human life. I will not be a killer and there are many others like me. We retain our handguns strictly for self defense and wholesome recreation.

Please consider the innocent on both sides, including the responsible and perfectly sane firearm owners around the US.

Craig u do realize that the U.S. has a considerably bigger population than all the European countries u listed above right? Of course the us would have higher rates per 100,000. Do you think before u post?

Hey thinker -- oops, I mean Bob.

Nah, I'm not going to bother. Would someone else please explain to Bob what the difference is between an absolute number and a relative number?

ban handguns??????
SMELL MY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just think about this... an emotional response to your question. Suppose you take your 7 year old son to a movie in a nice part of town. There are several gang members in the movie theater, and they seem to you to be minding their own business. After the movie, on the way back to the car, they take offense to your setting foot on their "turf". They have obviously been drinking. They approach you and after threatening and yelling at you as you try to leave, proceed to assault you by punching and kicking you. During the assault, your firstborn son of 7 years attempts to save your bloody face from further punishment by throwing himself between you and the MS-13 thugs. One gang member, the largest of the group, fresh from prison and stronger because of the time he spent on the Recreation yard lifting weights, punches your pride and joy full in the face like he was a man. His jaw broken, face crushed and neck broken, he collapses to the ground twitching and gurgling a horrific scream/wheeze. The thugs laugh and "ooooooooo, damn homie!" while you try and crawl to your dead son. The last thing you see in this life is the leering faces of evil men and the crushed body of your flesh and blood, his life fading from bright eyes. All of this because the gangsters thought you looked like a rival gang member, a case of mistaken identity. I dare you to sit in your chair, and think for a minute on this. Think on the above scenario, and you might realize that the likelihood of such a thing happening is better than you think. In this scenario, is it possible that a pistol in your hand could have produced a different outcome? Even if you didn't possess a gun, would you rather 10 people stand there helpless and watch your family be destroyed, or draw their gun and rush to your defense. I would prefer the latter. Even if it was a 1% chance that you would survive, is it worth it? In the end, even this nightmare is not the reason we Americans are blessed with the right to bear arms. We are armed in the defense of Liberty, not disarmed for the sake of safety. We Citizens stand armed to deter tyranny, not cower as subjects to be terrorized. I am armed, not to fight the British, or because I fear the government, but to defend the innocent. That is my reason. Yours might be different, but if it were you being assaulted, I would rush to your aid. Could You come to mine?

Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.

LATEST TREND


Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Our destiny offers not the cup of despair, but the chalice of opportunity. So let us seize it, not in fear, but in gladness. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for circumstances they want, and if they cannot find them, make them.so come on everyone.


Fear not that thy life shall come to an end, but rather fear that it shall never have a beginning.

I like to the town.I live in a crowded town.This park is (the safest) park in our town.Born in this beautiful town, he hates to leave it.

Go its own way, just referring to someone else..

We realize the true worth of happiness when we are in sorrow.

Such a good writing, or by I saw for the first time. I'm quite happy, you are a good writer

Thank you for the article, I saw after the enlightened, my idea like you, just not good at expression

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

  • War_prez_prima_1
  • Bushvaca2nh
  • Dscn1145_2
  • Dscn1144_1
  • Dscn1144_4
  • Dscn1137_4
  • Dscn1137_3
  • Dscn1051
  • Dscn1046
  • Dscn0883_1
  • Dscn0881_1
  • 422d683505eb4821_1