And if the righties had it their way, the crazy employee would have shot and killed the five co-workers before the witness showed up with his gun to have his shoot-out with him. That's because in righty-land he would have just plucked one off the the shelf at WalMart and paid for it at the self-checkout register on his way into work.

Last I heard, lefties just wanted reasonable gun controls and a ban on assault weapons. I don't see how that's relevant in this example.

Conservative victim myth: Liberals want to take our guns away from us!

The nuts who carried out the massacre at Columbine did so with assault weapons. Do you think the number of dead and wounded would have been as great if they had been armed with knives?

Unfortunately, we also have had our own merciless slaughter of innocent victims here in Canada with unhinged lunatics running amok with firearms.

You can't deny that guns = death, destruction and devastation.

Canadian Observer

Canada? Nobody cares about Canada. Nobody. Don't you Canucks have any web sites North of the border to pollute with your "thoughts?"

Question: Did Sgt. Preston like boys? I heard he did. And dogs. Sure does get lonely in the great white North, eh, hoser?

Back in reality world, this concerned citizen stopped a murderous maniac who had already stabbed 8 people and was chasing another one through the parking lot with malice in his heart. He stopped him by showing him his pistol - showing it to him. The cowardly knife-wielder surrendered immediately.

No one is sure how many times a year incidents like this happen because they go unreported for the most part. The fact is, a fully licensed, legal gun owner saved at least one person's life, cornered and captured the rampaging maniac who had stabbed 8 people already, and turned the menace over to the police. Anybody who thinks this is a bad thing...well...

And yes, it goes directly to the point of gun-grabbers and the second amendment. Funny how the gun-grabbers use any incident that involves a gun in committing a crime is causus belli to enact ever more repressive gun control laws and all the while when something like this happens, they stand in their echo chambers screaming "Its meaningless! It doesn't apply" yadda yadda yadda. And then that priceless look of, "How dare you look at me like I'm some kind of kook?" Well, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, yer a duck.

"You can't deny that guns = death, destruction and devastation."

As a corollary...Canaduh Observer=naive, ignorant, wimpy, cowardly idiot. Are you French?

"Do you think the number of dead and wounded would have been as great if they had been armed with knives?"

Jeez your a feckin moron. The ability to ask stupid irrelevant strawmen questions must be taught in Lib 101. Do you think as many would have died if a teacher or administrator had a gun and knew how to use it?

According to the most recent data available from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports states with RTC laws had significantly lower overall violent and firearm-related violent crime per capita rates than other states:

Violent crime rate -- 22% lower Robbery rate -- 36% lower
Firearm violent crime rate -- 29% lower Firearm robbery rate -- 38% lower
Homicide rate -- 31% lower Aggravated assault rate -- 14% lower
Firearm homicide rate -- 38% lower Firearm aggravated assault rate-- 19% lower
Handgun homicide rate -- 41% lower

Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:

• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.

• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.

• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

Your owned wimp.

Reverend Scaramonga

Wow!!! Such hostility toward your northern neighbor. I'm sure glad you don't have your pistol pointed in my face, or I would be on my way to meet my maker.

For every life save by someone stopping a crime, how many other lives are lost due to negligence and criminal intent, for example?

"Witness"...more accurately what we have here is a brave member of the American militia willing to take up arms to protect dumb progressives.

I'm sure glad you don't have your pistol pointed in my face, or I would be on my way to meet my maker.

Sorry, I don't own a gun of any kind. But if I did, I wouldn't waste a bullet on a worthless Canuck, any more than I'd shoot at a fly with a .357 magnum. Waste of time and ammo.

Besides, all you gotta do with Canucks is say, "Boo!" and they start peeing down both legs and crying for their mammas.

"Besides, all you gotta do with Canucks is say, "Boo!" and they start peeing down both legs and crying for their mammas".

Rev, would you like me to pass on that comment to our brave soldiers in Afghanistan?

Because knife fights are so common in the USA, I'm for gun control. Peace

The left is so out there on this.

Great Britain doesn't have guns, yet their major crime rate is higher than ours.

Washington D.C. has a law against guns and they are about to set a record for murders.

We have laws on the books against drugs....are there no drugs in this country? Of course not.

The only thing anti-gun laws do is prevent HONEST citizens from having them. The bad guys will always find a way to get them.

"For every life save by someone stopping a crime, how many other lives are lost due to negligence and criminal intent, for example?"

A true lib. You dont have a clue yet you have an opinion cause you FEEL. Look it up sparky...more lives are lost on the roads, mistakes by doctors, drowning, falls, etc than by firearms.

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

As far as criminal intent are you so blind and naive as to believe that any gun control law will keep guns out of criminals hands...if so that would explain a lot.

C.O.

RE: "You can't deny that guns = death, destruction and devastation."

Oh, but yes I can and do!!!

Go visit a skeet, trap, or rifle or pistol shooting range. Go out and visit with and talk to groups of hunters. You will see guns and ammunition everywhere -- real and loaded ones too! You will see and hear guns fired. It's sheer carnage as those poor shattered "clay pigeons" crumble before those guns and fall to the ground in broken pieces. You may even see some dead deer, birds, or small game... but death, destruction, and devastation by YOUR DEFINITION -- NO WAY!

Try this. Place a loaded gun on a table in the middle of a crowed room. Make sure no one touches the gun. See how long it takes before that gun jumps up and shoots anyone. The gun will rust away and turn to dust before it leaps from that table and starts randomly shooting any one or any thing! The blame is not with the guns, the knives, the baseball bat, the bathtub full of water, or the truckload of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil.

The fact is, liberal progressives want to take away all guns! It's time liberals [progressives] leave the legal gun owners alone and start demanding the courts put the criminals in jail and leave them there -- to include the death penalty for those who kill people.

It's time we stop allowing the criminal teenagers to "clear their record" of their crimes when they become adults. Teenage and child crime is a joke. The police arrest them and the kids basically laugh, knowing they will be back on the streets to commit their next crime in short order. More and more children are being raised with no ethics, morals, or values other than those established by their own "gang"! Teachers aren't allowed to discipline them the way they can understand.

Liberals have worked hard to remove morals, values, and the ten commandments (thou shall not kill, steal, or lie) from our schools and from America. Liberalism is the problem. The solution is to outlaw Liberalism!

We need laws in every state like the one in Florida where a person is legally permitted to shoot a thug or criminal who threatens them or their family with harm. Hopefully, for you liberals, a conservative will be in the area to help if you get in trouble.

Innocent people shouldn't be forced to turn tail and run from a criminal in traditional liberal fashion. A criminal threatens someone with harm -- they die right there on the spot! It's the criminal's fault if they are shot, not the person who defends themselves and their families. The criminal is the guilty party!

And, what is your definition of an assault weapon? You might want to check the Internet for help in working up your definition.

AAR

Rev, would you like me to pass on that comment to our brave soldiers in Afghanistan?

Were you to try, they'd likely be the ones to shoot your worthless behind.

It looks like Canaduh has bravely ran away. What a coward. Come on Canaduh...try something new...argue your position based on facts. Although it does cause a little pain to the lib mind you'll get used to it and it might help you break out of the mental disorder called liberalism.

Come on Canaduh...try something new...argue your position based on facts...

The problem with that is he/she's still a Canuck and that still means worthless.

Couple of thoughts on this.

Item First: I live in Virginia, not far from the DC line. Virginia is a right to carry state, not too many gangland type shootings here. MS-13, the illegal alien mob that the libs want to give citizenship to, keep their homies in line by cutting off limbs, usually hands, so gun control is moot on that. Ban knives? Nope that won’t work, Britain is now contemplating a knife ban as their gun ban was so successful. Sticks and stones anyone?

Item Second: DC consistently has high murder rates. In fact there is a 'crime emergency' in DC now. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. But the libs that run DC keep looking the other way. It kind of like their view on tax cuts, they just can't get it through their skulls that when you cut taxes, govt income rises. A citizenry that is armed has a lot less problems. Kind of like Sowell piece the other day and the Limbaugh Doctrine, Peace follows Victory

Item 3rd. Back to Virginia, before the leftist Mark Warner (president wanna be) became governor Virginia had a program, Project Exile, which demanded that if you were in possession of an illegal gun, you became a guest of the state prison system for 5 long years. At many state borders a big sign warned people of that. Warner had the signs taken down. Actions like this reinforce the claims that libs want to whine and complain but work like hell to prevent any meaningful solutions.

Couple of thoughts on this.

Item First: I live in Virginia, not far from the DC line. Virginia is a right to carry state, not too many gangland type shootings here. MS-13, the illegal alien mob that the libs want to give citizenship to, keep their homies in line by cutting off limbs, usually hands, so gun control is moot on that. Ban knives? Nope that won’t work, Britain is now contemplating a knife ban as their gun ban was so successful. Sticks and stones anyone?

Item Second: DC consistently has high murder rates. In fact there is a 'crime emergency' in DC now. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. But the libs that run DC keep looking the other way. It kind of like their view on tax cuts, they just can't get it through their skulls that when you cut taxes, govt income rises. A citizenry that is armed has a lot less problems. Kind of like Sowell piece the other day and the Limbaugh Doctrine, Peace follows Victory

Item 3rd. Back to Virginia, before the leftist Mark Warner (president wanna be) became governor Virginia had a program, Project Exile, which demanded that if you were in possession of an illegal gun, you became a guest of the state prison system for 5 long years. At many state borders a big sign warned people of that. Warner had the signs taken down. Actions like this reinforce the claims that libs want to whine and complain but work like hell to prevent any meaningful solutions.

Rev,

I like most Canadians west of Toronto but the canucks east of that in general, especially the french ones, can kiss my a**. Several west canadian friends of mine wish they would break off and join the US. I think there is still hope for canada if they can flush their libs out.

The other day I was speaking with a friend who is Lebonese-American whose wife and children were trapped in Beirut...

Not being able to print his exact words for Hezbollah and what he wished would happend to them, he did say something about gun control.

Hezbollah and the Syrians took everybody else's guns... they have them... we don't..

The other day I was speaking with a friend who is Lebonese-American whose wife and children were trapped in Beirut...

Not being able to print his exact words for Hezbollah and what he wished would happend to them, he did say something about gun control.

Hezbollah and the Syrians took everybody else's guns... they have them... we don't..

My Thoughts:

If it was not for guns, there would be many thousands of miserable men and women across America! each fall, Including myself!!

I enjoy hunting it has been a big part of my life ever since I was about twelve years old!

I coon hunt, deer hunt, turkey hunt, squirrel hunt, pheasant,quail, and grouse hunt, rabbit hunt!

And as summer comes to a close it starts to bring the memories with my family and friends as we hunted together!!.............

I can just see it now, going out on a calm,cold, and clear frosty morning just before sun-up, and I can hear the grass crunching underneath my boots, warm the truck up a little to defrost it, and then I'm off to the mountain, I sneak down in the woods and patiently wait for that beautiful set of antlers to appear, a big event hear in the state of West Virginia, and I can guarantee you, hunters everywhere would be angry to know that their guns would be taken away from them!!

So, Let's do this, Let's keep congress and the Presidency FREE of liberals!!

Let's vote for people that have the decency and honesty to do what is right, and save our guns!!

Jeremiah

My Thoughts:

If it was not for guns, there would be many thousands of miserable men and women across America! each fall, Including myself!!

I enjoy hunting it has been a big part of my life ever since I was about twelve years old!

I coon hunt, deer hunt, turkey hunt, squirrel hunt, pheasant,quail, and grouse hunt, rabbit hunt!

And as summer comes to a close it starts to bring the memories with my family and friends as we hunted together!!.............

I can just see it now, going out on a calm,cold, and clear frosty morning just before sun-up, and I can hear the grass crunching underneath my boots, warm the truck up a little to defrost it, and then I'm off to the mountain, I sneak down in the woods and patiently wait for that beautiful set of antlers to appear, a big event hear in the state of West Virginia, and I can guarantee you, hunters everywhere would be angry to know that their guns would be taken away from them!!

So, Let's do this, Let's keep congress and the Presidency FREE of liberals!!

Let's vote for people that have the decency and honesty to do what is right, and save our guns!!

Jeremiah

(another blue screen)

My Thoughts:

If it was not for guns, there would be many thousands of miserable men and women across America! each fall, Including myself!!

I enjoy hunting it has been a big part of my life ever since I was about twelve years old!

I coon hunt, deer hunt, turkey hunt, squirrel hunt, pheasant,quail, and grouse hunt, rabbit hunt!

And as summer comes to a close it starts to bring the memories with my family and friends as we hunted together!!.............

I can just see it now, going out on a calm,cold, and clear frosty morning just before sun-up, and I can hear the grass crunching underneath my boots, warm the truck up a little to defrost it, and then I'm off to the mountain, I sneak down in the woods and patiently wait for that beautiful set of antlers to appear, a big event hear in the state of West Virginia, and I can guarantee you, hunters everywhere would be angry to know that their guns would be taken away from them!!

So, Let's do this, Let's keep congress and the Presidency FREE of liberals!!

Let's vote for people that have the decency and honesty to do what is right, and save our guns!!

Jeremiah

To all you gun lovers out there.

If you think owning a weapon will save your sorry asses, then you should speak to the doctors & nurses in all the ER's across the nation.

All your arguments for gun ownership means shit when a loved one is dying from a gun related incident.

More guns in more hands = more deaths, more misery.

Well Rev, you got what you asked for from CO. He/She probably had to call someone from the DNC to get that overused worthless POC response.

We have laws on the books against drugs....are there no drugs in this country? Of course not

You are right on this one. The criminalization of marijuana use should be lifted. The "war on drugs" is exactly the same as the "war on guns." Either support both (restricting individual liberties), or don't support either (allowing more individual liberties) --- but do not contradict yourself by falling in the middle.

"More guns in more hands = more deaths, more misery."

Canaduh Observer= impervious to facts

You are a moron. You respond with nothing. WTF has responsible gun ownership to do with someone dying from a gunshot... its nothing more than another strawman about your precious ffeeeelllings with NO facts to back it up. Do you think the parents of the killed kids in Columbine wish someone other than the perps had a gun? You disgust me you friggin coward. You MUST be fwench.

Hey Canadian Observer:
--Pssst. It's me, Canuckguy. The Reverend doesn't like me either especially since I described him as a hairy back knuckledragger with less sense than a heinz pickle. But now I think he just hates Canadians specially those who disagree with him.
--I presume you are by now in a state of shell shock. The Mercans love their guns, easier to take candy from a baby.
--However we must admit that the gun control program in Canada is an expensive boondoogle. I had to register two WWI vintage hand guns of my father's, I have to keep them under lock and key with trigger guards plus store the ammo is a seperate place. Yeah, that what's the law abiding citizen has to do. I really don't have a problem with registration though the Mercans see that as a commie leftie plot. However the criminals don't bother with that. The real problem is the laxness against criminals and namby pamby sentences handed out for gun crimes. Control the criminal and you control gun crimes.

Canuckguy

Thanks for your reasonable response. No, I'm not shell-shocked, as I know what to expect from those who think carrying a weapon will protect them from all evil.

You said:

"The real problem is the laxness against criminals and namby pamby sentences handed out for gun crimes. Control the criminal and you control gun crimes."

I agree, but gun fatalities are not wholly due to criminal activity. A good number, unfortunately, are accidental or non-premeditated. Regardless, a gun death is still a gun death whatever the origin. In the end it really doesn't matter.

Canuck,

Gotta keep in mind that we're dealing with extramedium types - who want a ban on assault weapons, even though they can't give us a hard and fast definition of same.

I don't own a gun - mostly because I consider them alarming to have around. But I don't ride motorcycles for the same reason. I'm a rather relaxed person and just don't like loud things around me.

Be that as it may, I do believe that gun ownership should be licensed, just as driving a car is...meaning that as long as you are a law abiding adult and can demonstrate your ability to properly use a weapon, you should be licensed to carry it anywhere you want. I really would not be alarmed if my fellow citizens were in majority walking down the street with a pistol on their belt (I don't believe in allowing the concealed carrying of weapons) - what it would mean is that it is almost impossible that anyone would commit any crime...what criminal would risk holding someone up with his own gun when there are a score of others right around, any one of which may be held by a person brave enough to use it against the criminal?

Used to be in this country that violent crime was fairly rare - outside of the big city slums (which have very long had strict gun control) and the wide-open frontier (which hasn't existed in 125 years), America was a peaceful place of very well-armed, law-abiding citizens. It took a combination of liberal criminal justice plus a strong drive to disarm the American people in order to make an America where thousands are murdered every year.

Right now, the authorities in Britain, Australia and elsewhere around the world are busily repeating the American experiment in liberal jurisprudence and gun control...and it is winding up just as it did here.

Canadian,

Man, you are really out to lunch on this - all evidence indicates that more guns in the hands of honest citizens means less crime. This is just a known fact, and has been known for more than a decade, thus explaining the decline of the gun control issue in American politics.

Observer, I don't like guns and don't have one in the house but your statement is absurd. There are millions of guns in this country and deaths by guns is miniscule because 99.9% of people that have guns use them correctly and are honest citizens.

Look at the U.K.'s violent crime rate compared to the USA and they don't have guns. Case closed!

CO,
As a nurse I can respond. The vast majority of gunshot victims I have encountered in my 15 years of nursing is "bangers vs.bangers" As far as I'm concerned they can keep shooting each other up, far less to feed, house and clothe. If they do survive their bill is payed by you quessed it EVERYONE else. They are rude, ungrateful and offensive "patients" and usually end right back at the ER, until they finally get picked off. Do I sound uncaring? Absolutely not. I work horrible hours and long days for the ill and injured, but get tired of being subjected to foul mouthed thugs that leave me feeling like I need to bathe before I enter my house to tend to my family.

The 'Castle Doctrine'!!
..................................................

A mans home is his castle, ONLY open to the elements!, and not the kooks of the land!!

I want to make it clear and simple!, If someone comes into my house at 2oClock in the morning and I have to get out of bed and find someone going through the silverware, I want to be able to use force to protect my home,my life, and my family!!

Jeremiah

-I do believe that gun ownership should be licensed, just as driving a car is.

isn't one a privilege and one a right? Where in the Constitution does it say I have a right to drive a car, is it around the same section that says I need to have a license to own a gun?
Why should I have to have a license for something guaranteed to me in the Constitution?

Jeremiah
You and Me...same page on this one

"as I know what to expect from those who think carrying a weapon will protect them from all evil."

NO ONE said this you moron.

"A good number, unfortunately, are accidental or non-premeditated."

Did you even go to the link I provided you and see the percentages? Are you so stupid as to not be able to interpret the stats? YOur obviously too lazy to do it yourself.

"Regardless, a gun death is still a gun death"

Man I'm in awe of your powers of observation.

"In the end it really doesn't matter. "

When it comes to dealing with idiots who spout nonsense like "you can't deny that guns = death"
yes it does.

Amen Nurse Mary!!! Amen!!

Uh...Mark - I don't recall personally advocating a ban on assault weapons. I own handguns myself wouldn't mind having assault weapons if I had some place I could shoot them. I understand you have some ranges in Vegas where tourists can go and shoot Uzis and AK-47s but I haven't checked them out yet.

I might remind you that it was a group of godless, whoring, gun-toting Liberals who won the West you now call home.

I'm sure you could find some far left group that wants to ban guns but none of my ordinary liberal and moderate friends do. In fact, I defy you to name a liberal group of any political significance who has gone on record advocating the banning of guns in America.

You can't - because it's a myth that liberals want to take away your guns. A silly myth that binds you in your collective fantasy of conservative victimhood at the hands of powerful liberals.

mary s

In your profession as a nurse, I can only guess at the horrors you have witnessed and I commend you on your good and vital work. However, the gun-related injuries between 'bangers' are still due to the free use of guns in your culture. I realize that being armed and dangerous is now part of the American psyche and perhaps, in a small way, explains the need for the US to dominate world affairs with the cowboy mentality
coming from your leaders in Washington.

I don't see a change in gun policy anytime soon, so I suppose the deaths & injuries will continue to mount and you all will be free to remain armed and dangerous.

C.O.......good grief, how thin is the air up there...it is obviously crippling your blood supply to your brain.

PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Not GUNS...PEOPLE!!! If it weren't guns, it would be something else.

Again, just look at the U.K.'s violent crime rate which is WORSE than the USA's and they have guns totally outlawed in the U.K.

Blows your simple minded theory right out of the water.

It's been proven over and over again here in our country as well. Cities with anti-gun laws have no better violent crime rates then those that have no gun laws...in fact many times it is worse.

You cannot legislate morality and it's a matter of bad people committing bad crimes usually against other bad people (though many innocents are also hurt at times).

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

"You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18

* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19

CO,
With all due respect the Americans aren't a group of gun toting "cowboys." I know that was a shot-no pun intended-at our President. We have a Constitution that provides for the ownership of guns, for the protection of our lives and property. I am armed-a beautiful 38 special given to me by my dad-a physician by the way, but am only dangerous if my family or myself are threatened. Then I will be lethal. And unlike the "bangers" I have my Conceal and carry permit.

Warriornation,
Right back at ya baby-you're smokin'....I really wish I was computer savvy enough to pull up the stats you do, until then I quess I'll keep learning.Much admiration, Mary S

Opus,

I think that if it is "will issue" provided the person has not had a felony conviction and is otherwise of sound mind, then we wouldn't be violating the Second Amendment by requiring licensing...this would, in my view, fall in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment; there is a compelling national interest that the people who would make up the well regulated militia know how to handle their weapons...getting a license after being tested on maintaining, using and storing weapons just makes sense to me.

Additionally, I would actually re-create the old volunteer State militias of days past. With the Guard essentially serving as the reserve component of the United States Army, I believe that the States need an additional force for security and other emergency situations.

I think this a worthwhile effort on a lot of different levels - for instance, it would give older ex-military people like me a place to serve now that we're too old to serve effectively with the active military; it would allow the Guard to be more freely used around the world by providing the States with a force for emergencies; it would allow the Guard to be more effective at its reserve job in that they wouldn't spend time responding to floods, etc and that is just more time they can spend training for combat; it would allow for a much higher level of national security during a 9/11-type event (the State militias could guard bridges, power plants, etc.).

Anyway, that is my view of it.

Mark,

Exactly!, Every time I buy a gun I have to do a background check, which I think is a real good thing, I think what we need to get across to opus is, It's the right's of the people, instead of the perpetrator!!

Jeremiah

Attn. Warriornation:
--You stated "United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18"

It is silly to use such statistics, it includes WWII for crying out loud as well as the Balkan messes. Does not in any way help prove the point you are trying to make.

Mark,
I always love how cons like you will never be happy unless the government knows what color socks we're all wearing...then complain about the government being too large....

Bottom line is, if a Katrina type disaster and response (or lack there of, nationally and locally) happens in my back yard, what I use to defend me and my own is of no concern to the Feds.

-State militia...not a bad idea, unless you're saying to have a gun you need to be in a state militia...

Jeremiah,
-It's the right's of the people, instead of the perpetrator!!
YEAH! Go on with your bad self! Any more slogans you can re-hash since you never typed an original though to this date?
Did you have a point? Who’s disagreeing with it’s the right the people not the perp?

You can't deny that guns = death, destruction and devastation.

Yes we can, asshat; you're not God, so don't tell us what we can deny. We deny it. There, how's that? Nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in do-do.

What an idiot you are, C.O. I'll bet you're peace-steve too, huh? War

"YEAH! Go on with your bad self!"

OH YEAH!!No need to worry there mr.opus WE WILL, including myself, until you fall over from exhaustion!!

"Who’s disagreeing with it’s the right the people not the perp?"

What kind of question is that? You should know that? You even asked so yourself in your first post, you asked: Why should I have a license?

Simply put: By you asking that You are saying that, No one should have any responsibility!!

So, You are in fact exempting everyone including the PERPETRATORS!!

You proved my point, it's the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, N-O-T THE RIGHTS OF THE PERPETRATOR!!

Yep.You won't trick me opus!!

GET SOME RESPONSIBILITY!!! AND QUIT LISTENING TO THOSE EVIL LIBERAL COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!

Jeremiah

It includes WWII for a very specific reason. Our forefathers knew that an armed society meant the gov't wasn't just going to come in and take everything over. They were right. A society that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of a radical dictatorship as was Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.

That simply cannot happen here in the USA because the citizenry will not allow it.

extramedium errs..."You can't - because it's a myth that liberals want to take away your guns. "

What was one of the first pieces of legislation that was proposed by Clinton and the Democratically controlled House and Senate????

Does the name Brady ring a bell?

Does the term "assault weapons ban" mean anything to you?

In fact, most of the weapons that were banned were "assault STYLE" meaning that IT LOOKED LIKE AN ASSAULT WEAPON it was considered an assault weapon under the ban. If was a semi-automatic weapon and it had a folding stock it was considered an assault weapon, while those of the same make and model that had a regular stock was not considered an assault weapon.

Functionally, the two weapons had the exact same function, but one had the look.

Uh, which party has proposed the most gun control legislation?

(expletive deleted) walks, get steppin.

C.O.....why aren't you challenging all of the other statistics I threw out at you, the ones that have NOTHING to do with WWII?

We all know guns don't kill people! People with guns kill people.

People with knives kill people too.
So do people with bombs strapped on their waste.
So do people selling drugs which other people than overdose on.
So do people with cars that drive on sidewalks.
So do people with too much alcohol in their systems who get behind the wheel of a car.

And on and on and on and on.

We also know that people with guns routinely kill a-holes that try to break into their homes and hurt them or their loved ones.

I had British students interning with me for a couple of summers, and they were appalled at the freedom to own guns.

OK---not to get too specific, being a female and all, about my age, but I've been around for a while, and the most violent thing that has happened to me in the United States, while living in a city of over a million people, is that my car was stolen from my driveway. (The thief was arrested and convicted and still sends me checks every now and then.)

However, on my first visit to London, I walked along Pall Mall following the Horse Guards to Buck Palace before heading to the airport. The next day, along the very street where I had been walking, a car bomb exploded, killing tourists and soldiers and horses.

I hate the way I feel without exercise when I travel, so I got in the habit of getting up early in the morning and walking down Oxford Street to Hyde Park, doing a couple of miles in the park, and going back to my hotel. On one trip a bomb was found in the doorway of a store along Oxford Street, along my walking route, early in the morning.

Every time I went into any public building in England, my bag was searched. Every public area, going back at least to 1980 when I started traveling there, was littered with signs warning to report any unattended bags or packages.

But the Brits took this all in stride, while being horrified at the prospect of someone having a gun.

Sorry, but I'll take my chances with the intent and aim of a person who has to be fairly close to me to harm me with his gun, rather than become complacent about bombings. I find bombings far more barbaric, far more frightening, and far more dangerous, than the possibility that I might encounter a stranger with a gun who will then want to shoot me---and have the skill to do so.

Mary hit it on the head. Most shootings are gang-related, and occur among people who know each other. I don't know the percentage of gun-related deaths that occur when a stranger shoots another stranger, but I know it is low.

And remember the town in Florida that passed a law requiring all households to own a gun? The crime rate plummeted, while the rates in surrounding areas went up---the criminals chose not to run the risk of tangling with anyone who might be armed.

For those who are against guns, I suggest that they carry their attitude a few steps farther. For example, they could choose to live in communities where it is illegal to lock up cars or houses---after all, according to their logic, this information would not encourage criminals to target them, any more than a guarantee of being unarmed would make any population more tempting as targets.

As for me, I just came across my husband's grandfather's Colt revolver he carried in WW One, and am having it checked out and reblued for me to carry---it's a sweet little gun. I want it in the car in case I hit another deer, but gee, if I need it for something else, putting in the miles I do on the vast highways of the West, I'll be glad to have it.

Ash should be very very worried---stupidity kills more people than anything else......

Opus,

What you use is of no concern...but do you want someone who doesn't know how to shoot packing a gun?

Thats my main point - if you own a gun, I want some assurance that you know which end the bullet comes out of. Some people have more gun the brains, ya know?

If it were left up to Liberals, along with guns, they would first want to register, control, limit and eventually outlaw knives as well.

They can't seem to understand a criminal can pick and choose what to commit a crime with, especially murder or assault.

In plain English, Libby's. IT'S THE PERSON, NOT THE INSTRUMENT!!!!!!!

Ash should be very very worried---stupidity kills more people than anything else....

That's very appropriate alms. Thanks for such an intelligent post.

warboy, everyone here misinterprets my stance. I have no problem with gun ownership. All things being equal, I'll take my chances against a ball bat, knife, and on and on and on and on, before a howitzer.

I just believe in registration.

Ash, I don't have a problem with registration either.

It's also why I believe voters need to show a photo ID card...I'm sure you support that too.

crickets chirping

I'm with Mark on this one. If "gun control" means requiring people to go throught background checks before buying a gun, I'm for it (assuming such laws are not abused to the extent that they are used to effectively ban possession, or discriminate on the basis of something other than the applicant's status as a law-abiding citizen). If "gun control" means a person can be prosecuted if they can be shown to be careless about keeping their guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have access to them (their kids, for example), then I'm for it. However, if "gun control" means preventing law-abiding citizens from buying and carrying guns, then I'm against it.

The argument: "if people were not allowed to carry concealed weapons then there will be less people killed by guns" is one of those that sounds reasonable on the face of it. The problem is that I'm quite sure you would be hard-pressed to back it up with evidence. Sure, you could find a few anecdotal accounts to support your case, but the overall statistics do not appear to me to support the argument. Zoot and others mentioned some of it. And as they pointed out, the evidence supports the argument that crime has either gone down or at least has not changed in states that have implemented RTC laws -- and certainly has not resulted in some kind of "blood in the streets" scenario, as was feared by some. Likewise, this article from the CATO institute presents a very thorough analysis of the question.

However, it is the case that in many cases, the states that passed RTC laws didn't do so in isolation -- they combined them with other types of "get tough on crime" policies. Also, those policies have been implemented in a time of social demographic changes that are also likely to have a positive impact on crime probability (e.g., the proportion of the population composed of "young adult males" also dropped around the same time). So it's hard to say exactly what effect RTC laws alone had on falling crime rates. But I think it's safe to say that they haven't hurt and very well may help.

Sorry, the citation didn't come through on my last comment. This article from the CATO institute presents a very thorough analysis of the question.

crickets chirping I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm guessing it's deragatory.

Sure, I'm for photo i.d.s to vote. Or eye scans: whatever works.

I also favor paper ballots and a required number of voting booths based on registered voters.

For example if there are 10,000 registered voters in a south Chicago ward there should be the same number of voting booths as there are for 10,000 voters in, say Colorado Springs.

Sound fair?

Ash...I'm for that as well.