Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Gun Love in America Is Strong as Ever

By Paul Harris, The Observer UK. Posted October 16, 2007.


Despite the spiraling rise in the daily number of shootings in the US, gun culture has only become stronger.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Almost All U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison For Non-Homicide Crimes Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Paul Harris

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Shirley Katz is not afraid to fight for her rights. Last week the schoolteacher, 44, went to court in her home town of Medford, Oregon, to protest at her working conditions. Specifically she is outraged she cannot carry a handgun into class. 'I know it is my right to carry that gun,' she said.

Katz was in court in the week that someone else took a gun to school in America. This time it was a pupil in Cleveland, Ohio. Asa Coon, 14, walked the corridors of his school, a gun in each hand, shooting two teachers and two students. Then he killed himself. Coon's attempted massacre made headlines. But a more bloody rampage, the murder of six young partygoers by Tyler Peterson, a policeman in Crandon, Wisconsin, got less attention, even in the New York Times -- America's newspaper of record -- which buried it deep inside the paper.

Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years. Despite the fact groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) consistently claim they are being victimised, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America -- although no one can be sure, as no one keeps a reliable account. One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream.

An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US -- with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. Yet despite those figures US gun culture is not retreating. It is growing. Take Katz's case in Oregon. She brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Now it is the battleground. 'Who would have thought a few years ago, we would even be having this conversation? But this won't stop here,' said Professor Brian Anse Patrick of the University of Toledo in Ohio. Needless to say, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case.

It is a nation awash with guns, from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the Midwest's farms to Manhattan's mansions. Gun-owning groups have been so successful in their cause that it no longer even seems strange to many Americans that Katz should want to go into an English class armed. 'They have made what was once unthinkable thinkable,' said Patrick, a liberal academic. He should know. He owns a gun himself. Even the US critics of gun culture are armed.

To look at the photographs in Kyle Cassidy's book Armed America is to glimpse a surreal world. Or at least it seems that way to many non-Americans. Cassidy spent two years taking portrait shots of gun owners and their weapons across the US.

The result is a disturbing tableau of happy families, often with pets and toddlers, posing with pistols, assault rifles and the sort of heavy machine-guns usually associated with a warzone. 'By the end I had seen so many guns and I knew so much about guns that it no longer seemed unusual,' Cassidy said. He keeps his in a gun safe in his home in Philadelphia. 'This turned into a project not about guns but about a diverse group of people,' he said.

At the cutting edge of weapon culture remains the gun lobby and its most vocal advocate, the NRA. Founded in the 19th century by ex-Civil War army officers dismayed at their troops' lack of marksmanship, the NRA has transformed into the most effective lobbying group in Washington DC. It has scores of lobbyists, millions of dollars in funds and more than three million members. It is highly organised and its huge membership is highly motivated and activist. They can have a huge influence on politics.

In 2000 Vice-President Al Gore supported stricter background checks for gun-buyers and the NRA organised against him, describing the election as the most important since the Civil War. It spent $20m against Gore in an election ending in a razor's edge result. Its influence was especially felt in Gore's home state of Tennessee, which he narrowly lost to NRA gloating. 'Their vote can select the President. They don't get to pick who goes to the White House. But they can tip the balance,' said Patrick.

Democrats have learnt that lesson now. Many shy away from gun control issues, wary of taking on such a vociferous lobby group. In the 2006 mid-term elections the NRA was able to back a historically high 58 Democrats running for office. Every one of them went on to win. Such influence over the past three decades has seen the NRA fight a successful campaign against new gun laws. It has in fact loosened regulations, spreading the ability to legally carry concealed weapons across 39 states. And this has all been done in the face of a fight from anti-gun groups, backed by much of the mainstream media. 'Politicians are so afraid of the gun lobby. They run scared of it,' said Joan Burbick, author of the book Gun Show Nation

But the key question is not about the number of guns in America; it is about why people are armed. For many gun-owners, and a few sociologists, the reason lies in America's past. The frontier society, they say, was populated by gun-wielding settlers who used weapons to feed their families and ward off hostile bandits and Indians. America was thus born with a gun in its hand. Unfortunately much of this history is simply myth. The vast majority of settlers were farmers, not fighters. The task of killing Indians was left to the military and -- most effectively -- European diseases. Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired.

But many Americans believe the myth. The role of the gun is now enshrined in mass popular culture and has huge patriotic significance. Hence the fact that gun ownership is still a constitutional right, in case America is ever invaded and needs to form a popular militia (as hard as that event might be to imagine). It also explains why guns are so prevalent in Hollywood. Currently playing in US cinemas is the Jodie Foster film The Brave One, a classic vigilante movie of the wronged woman turning to the power of the pistol to murder the criminals who killed her boyfriend. Foster's character is played as undeniably heroic. 'There is a fascination with guns in our culture. All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun,' said Cassidy.

But this worship of the gun in many ways springs from economics and social problems, not the historic frontier. It took mass production and mass marketing to really popularise firearms. The Civil War saw mass arms manufacturing explode in America, including making 200,000 Colt .44 pistols alone. It saw guns become familiar and cheaper for millions of Americans. The later 19th century saw gun companies using marketing techniques to sell their weapons, often invoking invented frontier imagery to do so. That carries on today. There are more than 2,000 gun shows each year, selling hundreds of thousands of guns. It is big business and business needs to sell more and more guns to keep itself profitable. 'They will do anything to sell guns,' said Burbick.

But there are deeper issues at work too. The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom -- the gun lobby points out helpfully -- are often armed themselves. Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year. But others say that this argument is a shield, using guns as a way of deflecting harder arguments about how crime is caused by economics, poverty and racism. 'The argument over guns redefines a lot of social issues as simple aspects of crime,' said Burbick. She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security. To talk about solving those social issues in terms of safety, not just letting the gun lobby control that language,' she said.

It is a powerful argument. Critics of America's gun culture often point to other nations with high levels of gun ownership -- such as Canada and Switzerland -- but much lower levels of violent crime. The fact is that America itself is equally divided. Patrick lives in a quiet, rural part of Michigan just across the state line from Ohio and the town of Toledo where he works. 'I would be amazed if anyone within four miles of me did not have a gun,' he said 'But our homicide rate is zero.'

Then look at where Cassidy lives. He has an apartment in Philadelphia, a city that is just as flooded with guns as Patrick's rural idyll, but also suffers from inner-city social ills. It has a stratospheric murder rate. 'There is a murder here every day. This is something that America has to come to terms with,' he said. Yet the differences do not lie with the simple existence of guns. Both places are full of them. They lie with the root causes of crime and violence, such as poverty and drugs, that blight many big cities. Guns seem neither to be totally the problem and certainly not the solution.

However, that is a debate few in America are having. In the meantime, the gun culture is so firmly entrenched and society so full of guns that there is little prospect of it retreating. Even those who advocate much tighter laws have long accepted defeat of the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent. 'That notion is absurd. There is no way to de-gun America,' said Patrick.

To cap a grim week, as Katz was winning her court battle in Oregon police in Pennsylvania were giving details of a raid on the home of a teenager who was plotting to attack a school. They found seven home-made grenades and an assault rifle. His mother had bought it for him at a gun show. The boy was just 14.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: guns, gun culture, second amendment

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A well regulated militia.....
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 16, 2007 12:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THANK DOG FOR THE 2nd AMMENDMENT! "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" a quote left out of the article. An armed populace is harder for a tyranny to control. But, like the First Ammendment, nothing is absolute (shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, 'threatening' speech, etc.). I'm glad we citizens have the freedom to keep a weapon to defend our home, but the ammendment obviously refers to a "well regulated militia". Let me put it this way, if the ammendment stated, "Cancer being such a painful disease, the rights of doctors to prescribe morphine shall not be infringed", that wouldn't mean everyone should have access to morphine at all times. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association are examples of good ideas taken too far. You may wonder why I am lumping together the ACLU and the NRA to make my point. Just as the ACLU does stuff like defending the KuKluxKlan and NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association, a pedophile group), the NRA bends over backwards defending things such as assault weapons and 'cop killer' bullets, which can pierce bulletproof vests. There is a sensible middle ground. The 2nd Ammendment even specifies "well regulated", so why the NRA resists all regulations is beyond me. In this brutal world of violent video games, graphic movie/tv images, and the veritable desensitizing of human life itself, we may have already crossed the Rubicon. The genie is out of that bottle.
A comedian once made me laugh when he joked that we should all be allowed to own only weapons the were available when the Constitution was written, which would mean we were only allowed to own muskets. That would certainly reduce crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A well regulated militia..... Posted by: vox persona
» Facts do make a difference Posted by: vox persona
» RE: Facts do make a difference Posted by: YogiBear
» YogiBear for Prez Posted by: vox persona
» RE: Facts do make a difference Posted by: Skipper1946
» RE: Cop killer bullets... right. Posted by: latteslave
» Teflon Posted by: YogiBear
» Amen, prophit! n/t Posted by: jbur816
» Upon consideration.... Posted by: vox persona
» www.votenic.com Posted by: votenic
Seems unlikely...
Posted by: ahmlco on Oct 16, 2007 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one."

I must live in the other half then, as hardly anyone I know has one. As such, I also feel the need to ask what numbers some of the other Federal studies estimated, as I'm pretty sure the author choose with care the one study best suited to his point.

Further, all of his articles are written for The Observer in the UK, and discuss Federal reports and Kyle Cassidy's book, Armed America, which makes one wonder just how much hands-on experience the author has with the subject. Or if he spent most of his time looking at a picture book.

Is there a "spiraling rise"? Most studies have shown violent crime declining over the past two decades, a fact inconvenient both here and to those that loudly oppose movie and video game violence.

And do you have a pool? Let your kids go down the street to a friend's house with a pool? Because just to put things into perspective, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is. (Steven Levitt)

But as deadly as they may be, we have for some reason yet to see the AlterNet article recommending that we ban swimming pools...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seems unlikely... Posted by: worldwide65
» RE: Seems unlikely... Posted by: tkwilson
» RE: Seems unlikely... Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Seems unlikely... Posted by: zorro
» The madness argument Posted by: YogiBear
That's true!
Posted by: TT16 on Oct 16, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And we can definitely see the RESULTS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» www.votenic.com Posted by: votenic
Let's be reasonable when citing stats
Posted by: YogiBear on Oct 16, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odd that the essay includes this tidbit:

"Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered."

But fails to bring up that fear of her husband is precisely why Katz wants to bring a gun into school -- her workplace -- in the first place. Which one is it? Do you want women to be safer or not?

Of course a gun, or anything that could be used as a weapon, in the home is going to be used more by the abuser. Most often likely, it's their gun. But, in any domestic violence situation, the chance the abuser knows the layout of the home and its contents are pretty high. Only in cases where the abused is living separately and the abuser has no knowledge of the home would I recommend having a weapon hidden away. Even then, the best weapon the abused can have is empowerment -- the will to get away, the will to survive. Clearly, especially in some rural areas where police are not quickly accessible, having some sort of weapon could be a help only if the invader has no access to it.

Guns with fingerprint locks would be perfect in such situations, I would think.

To continue:

"A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defense against an attack."

That 22 figure is really boosted by suicides, isn't it. Personally, I'm not against suicide (for other people). It's an individualist act and supported, at later stages in life, by the "progressive" community. But it does inflate those figures.

Accidents are common, no argument there. I mean, guns are dangerous -- that's the point of them. And no argument from me that guns -- mostly handguns (which weren't demonized in the assault weapons ban, go figure) -- are used in murders.

But the stats only count guns that are "used," in self defense. I.E. fired. Criminals do like to steal guns from citizens, but they have been quoted time and again they don't like to target
folks they know to be armed. Criminals always go for the easy prey.

This part gets me:

"Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired."

Is that the study cited by Michael Bellesiles in his "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" book? You do know he was forced to revise his figures upward from 1 in 10 colonial Americans possessing a gun to 1 in 5, not an insignificant difference. And others, including at least a few nonpartisans have interpreted those same early records to cite it as 1 in every 2 households.

Playboy magazine, whose editorial dept. is avowed anti-gun, haughtily printed Bellesiles original claims in 2001, but later felt it necessary to print the updated info with many corrections or caveats. The editors' attitude could only realistically be described as chagrined, if still defiant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fair and balanced Posted by: YogiBear
» www.votenic.com Posted by: votenic
LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 16, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's pathological obsession with fire arms will one day come back to haunt us - even more than it is haunting us now. We can argue from now until the crack of doom about what the real intent of the 2nd ammendment was. But you have to ubderstand that when it was written over two-hundred years ago, the rapid fire, semi-automatic weapons that have been responsible for so much of the carnage on our city streets were over a century away from even being invented. And while it is always not a wise idea to ammend the constitution in order to limit freedoms, a society that lives in mortal terror of when the next mass slaughter in a high school cafeteria somewhere is going to happen (And it will happen again - count on it) is not a free society at all but, in fact, a society held hostage.

Maybe I'm just a tad sensitive on this issue because I had a loved one killed a number of years ago by some twisted little geek who had been stalking her. Susan Clements, my beloved, lost cousin, was an accomplished violinist, pianist and an award winning writer. She was twenty-three years old and had a wonderful life to look forward to. The man who murdered her in cold blood, a German exchange student, could not easily gain access to a gun in Susan's home state of Indiana. He traveled to Arizona (a state with some of the stupidest gun laws in the entire Milky Way) and was able to obtain two of them. He then drove back to Bloomington and killed her and her boyfriend, Steven Molen, in her dorm room at the University of Indiana on April 23, 1992. She was such a beautiful, sweet and gentle girl. This year marked the fifteenth anniversary of her passing and it doesn't get any easier to accept as time goes by. I once met an elderly man in Toronto whose own daughter had died in the same horrible way over thirty years before. He said to me, "You adjust, but you never really get over it." I've come to know how right he was.

Are there lessons to be learned from the out-of-control pile-up of dead bodies because of America's perverted love of guns? Oh, yeah! i>A whole shitload of lessons! Will the American people finally take those lessons to heart? Don't hold your breath.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
An Inconvenient truth for the Democrats

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: YogiBear
» Here is the actual link: Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: Moira61
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: clvngodess
» carnage.... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: maxomai
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: LeeAnnG
» Hello LeeAnn Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: LOTS OF GUNS - NO BUTTER Posted by: jbur816
Fortress America
Posted by: Carts on Oct 16, 2007 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am just waiting until you stoopid yanks start your civil war - thats gonna be good TV!

The end of America will be when it shoots itself.

And the rest of the world will celebrate.

America has been as virus in the world - may it die soon.

"God Destroy America"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pfft! we're WAY ahead of you on that Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Fortress America Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Fortress America Posted by: fideau
» RE: Fortress America Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: You have hate in your heart Posted by: magiquarian1969
just bill
Posted by: jwc1480 on Oct 16, 2007 3:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would still rather have a pistol in my hand than a cop on the phone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: just bill Posted by: laoma
when I lived in California, my local newspaper had a weekly column reporting every crime in the area
Posted by: Suzon on Oct 16, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It ran the gamut from the rare homicide to the guy who kept sneaking into the library to secretly paint girls' toenails. But a very common crime was burglars stealing guns from the people who bought them to protect against crime.

So we had a situation whereby the law-abiding were providing free guns for criminals--not exactly a desirable outcome!

The best point made here has been the fact that, while guns make America a scarier place to live, it's the inequality and culture of violence that is probably a much more important factor than the weapons themselves.

In a hierarchy of dominance ("I'm the decider!"), low social status produces violent men and pregnant women. The best way to reduce crime is by respecting the right of every person to a good education and a chance for a decent life in a democracy which keeps the "corporateers" under control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets face it Posted by: fearn
Now or Never
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 16, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The moral ideal of America as a nation of peaceful people who have no need of guns is, of course, completely out of reach. America has always been very diverse, settled by all kinds of people, good and bad. So, instead of campaigning against the very existence of guns, we need to re-write and enforce the regulations already on the books, which should reflect and address the grossly overcrowded situation we find ourselves in this year of 2007-8.

The question is: do individual citizens have the right to defend their homes and their persons from attack by the growing number of petty criminals who are erupting out of the growing population? The Constitution says they do.

But one problem is that thousands of untrained and emotionally unstable people are included in that 2nd Amendment, people who should be barred from any access to guns until they pass a strict test of their psychological fitness and skill in handling firearms.

Another problem is the 50 states have widely different laws, so effective regulation nationwide is nearly impossible.

But the biggest problem today, in my opinion, is our overpopulated, dis-united nation is slipping into social chaos and the likelihood of another Civil War. If that happens in a nation as heavily armed as the USA, blood will cover the streets.

Therefore, in my opinion, there are two solutions:

1. Write and strictly enforce a universal gun law that applies to all the states of the union and to each and every citizen.

2. Reduce the population through family planning clinics in every state available to all women of child-bearing age.

That won't solve all the tensions that divide our nation, but it might stop the younger psychopaths from shooting their classmates; and it might prevent domestic disputes from going ballistic - hopefully.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now or Never Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Now or Never Posted by: solrev
» double talk Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Speaking of that, I need another gun...
Posted by: willie.horton on Oct 16, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We own several guns. So do many of our friends. None of these guns will ever be used in a crime. Most likely, we will use them only to punch holes in paper targets.
Wake up, fellow liberals: Poverty, not guns, is the problem here. The only thing we have gained by passing so-called "gun control" laws is... nothing, unless we count 12 years of Republican control in Congress as a gain (and we don't).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Unless your house is burglarized Posted by: war_on_tara
» HUH????? Posted by: Prophit
It's good to have guns at home....
Posted by: donl51 on Oct 16, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you have dirty Government running your country and your lives lets call it a.''check'' on how far they can go!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» very well said Posted by: yale
This isn't going to get better
Posted by: tkwilson on Oct 16, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We live in a society where the law is delivered at gunpoint, and that law is anything but equally applied. Race/class make all the difference.
The population of this country has doubled in the last 54 years or so (my lifetime) and actual wages have been in decline since I was 10 yrs old.
Our political situation has been deteriorating for a very long time. In fact, it may have been fatally flawed from the get-go.
In any case, we are currently owned by a global corporatocracy who don't really care.

The whole firearms issue is really a non sequitur. In fact, I'd call it a Red Herring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an atmosphere of fear
Posted by: aislinnluv on Oct 16, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i live in texas, where it is legal to have concealed handguns. i work as a petsitter, which means i go into people's homes for the purpose of caring for their domestic pets. more than once, my boss has mistakenly sent me somewhere that i wasn't scheduled to go. i've seen handguns in some of these homes - hidden under the edge of the bed, sometimes. so i worry that one of these days i will open a door and be greeted by a scared homeowner who blasts away at what he thinks is a home invasion. i've also had a neighbor kid hit my house with shot from a pellet gun (and the constable i called tried to tell me i was hearing "june bugs hitting the window screen"). i suspect the kid was trying instead to kill my cat - a lot of that goes on in this area. and what about those inevitable traffic disagreements? i'm afraid even to honk at drivers whose behavior is churlish and/or dangerous, for fear of being shot at (it has happened in this state). the argument that we need to be able to own guns for our protection is rank bullshit. handguns have no place in a civilized society, and there is absolutely no rational reason for a private citizen to own any kind of assault weapon. get real, people. today, someone else but tomorrow, perhaps you. or me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree...... LOL Posted by: Prophit
Enforce the laws
Posted by: Philip Newton on Oct 16, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live a few miles from the Medford, Oregon teacher who wants to take her handgun into class. In this part of Oregon, few people are without firearms. I have a shotgun and a rifle.

While I think the Medford teacher's stance is wrong (she is not, by the way, allowed to have her gun in school as of yet) the tone of this article is off-base.

I live in the county next to Medford. Sometimes we have one sheriff patrol for an area bigger than Rhode Island. We have meth, gang-operated "plantations" and a forest full of edentulous freaks straight outta Deliverance.

I am keeping my guns. They are varmint-getters. They are also my only defense in the event of an attack on my family. Rudy G and the anti-gun lobby live in one of the most heavily-policed regions of the world. I do not. The writer of this article is from the UK. Bully for him. I am not. (I don't imagine the writer has had to drive off pet-killing and child-menacing coyotes, for instance, but here in Oregon there are a whole host of critters that do not respect our food chain rank.)

Rather than pointing to guns as the source of the problem, and advocating new restrictions on their lawful use, I suggest enforcing the laws we have.

What a concept.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nforce the laws Posted by: yoursfaithfully
Guns v. Gun culture
Posted by: StrayCat on Oct 16, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The guns, in themselves are less a problem than the "gun culture". Unfortunately, many drawn to the "culture" are those of low self esteem, low social ability, and limited mobility. Those persons, a small, but consistently active subgroup within the "gun culture" are empowered by a sense of being victimized and marginalized, and see the gun, and the group, as a place and a purpose. These are the true "gun nuts". They are a small, but persistent minority among 2nd amendment supporters, and heavily skew the emotional content of the debate.
If the issues of reasonable regulation were resolved, these cadres would no longer be empowered. As in other situations, when issues are shaped to appeal to a base of supporters, instead of to the issues at hand, solutions become very difficult.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guns v. Gun culture Posted by: vasumurti
» No, really, I'm an American... Posted by: vasumurti
Let's see:
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 16, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An non-native* placing his values above the native peoples?

Check.

Ideology over liberty?

Check.

"Security" over freedom.

Yup.

What, does this Brit want to run for President Bush? Sorry, that seat is taken, and I for one am fairly fed up with the Nike-Care Bear Model of Executive Governance (Just Do It because I Believe). Besides, I understand that there are four or five houses left in Blighty missing a camera trained on them. Better hop to, they might be about to engage in thought-crimes!

*unless he's from America, in which case he should come back and throw his lot in with the wiretappers, our "freedom and democracy" President, and his Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's see: Posted by: b4upoo
» RE: Let's see: Posted by: Ivann
» RE: mick3 Posted by: 3rdI
Give up your guns
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 16, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're so desperate to find out what its like to live in a police state hellhole, just go ahead and let em have your guns. And while you're at it, just stand there and let the corrupt cops break your child's arm, on video.

You may think you're smart and enlightened and all that wonderful stuff because you want to surrender your only means of defense. Big brother will take care of you. You just want to take your pills and your flouridated water and be a good little slave. Enjoy having the luxury of being able to call me crazy, while you still can! Just sit there in your quarter million dollar home and watch as currency devaluation and the popping of the real estate bubble robs you of every single red cent you've earned this year. And probably next year as well. But dont think too much about that. You might accidently ... grow up or something. Just sit there and feel good because you gave money to Hillary and everything is gonna be alright once she's back in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Will Kill You and All Members of the NRA Until I am Dead
Posted by: tommy1957 on Oct 16, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope my title gets your attention. I am against gun owner ship of weapons other than for recreational use, i.e., hunting. It is because of the NRA that criminals are so well armed. The idea of a teacher having a gun in her classroom is an outrage. Will she keep a lock on it, or will a student be able to get a hold of it and inflict harm on others. Dumb bitch is putting those kids in harms way by even reporting to work. I hope her husband and her have their shoot out some place where there are no innocent victims around. If a member of my family is ever shot and killed by anyone I will hold the NRA responsible. And I will track and kill as many members, especially those in charge, like Mr. Pierre and Charlie Hesston. I know I will be stopped and killed, but I promise you I will take some of them with me. You here me mother fuckers; he who lives by the gun, dies by the gun. In stead fighting for laws that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they do the opposite and blame law enforcement. Bullshit! Cops have a monumental task of protecting citizens from gun toting criminals thanks to the 2000 a year gun shows and the lucrative business of dealing in illegal weapons. The terrorist probably donate funds to the IRA so they too will be able to procure weapons to kill Americans. For all you NRA members, go to hell!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: if the shoe fits Posted by: solrev
» RE: Thanks Tommy! Posted by: Axiom69
otto
Posted by: otto on Oct 16, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps we should change the slogan on our U.S. coins from "In God We Trust" to "In Guns We Trust"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: otto Posted by: b4upoo
Gun Control: Sound Logic
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 16, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The logic of gun control can be understood by considering the analogy of the automobile. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. To drive a car, one must be trained, licensed, and have that license periodically renewed.

And a car is designed solely as a means of transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are deliberately designed to kill people. It is not unreasonable to demand their regulation.

Guns are the second deadliest consumer product (after cars) on the market. By the end of the decade, firearms will likely supplant automobiles as the leading cause of product-related deaths throughout the United States. In 1990, American guns claimed an estimated 37,000 lives.

There are no federal safety standards for the domestic manufacture of guns. There are no voluntary, industry wide safety standards for the manufacture of guns. Every two minutes, somebody somewhere in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes, somebody dies from a gunshot wound. Each gun injury involving hospitalization costs $33,159. A license to sell a gun costs 83 cents per month.

A gun rolls off American assembly line every 10 seconds. America imports another gun every 11 seconds. There are 246,984 gun dealers in the United States, but only 240 inspectors to keep an eye on them.

It's a widespread myth that handgun ownership makes people safer. In reality, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that a handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner, a family member, or a friend than it is to kill an intruder. Over 75 percent of firearm deaths in a typical year involve handguns. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics Report says that nationally, there were 38,317 firearm deaths in 1992, but fewer than 300 justifiable homicides.

It's a myth that gun control laws don’t make a difference. In reality, strict handgun regulation saves lives. In Washington, DC, a tougher gun law actually reduced homicides by 25 percent through the mid-1980s. Again, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 47 lives were saved in Washington, DC, in a typical year studied, because of that city’s handgun ban.

Most other industrialized nations have virtual bans on handgun sales. In 1990, handguns were used in the homicides of 13 people in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 22 in Great Britain, and 68 in Canada, compared to 10,567 in the United States.

Gun control is constitutional. The Second Amendment evolved from a draft by James Madison on June 8, 1789. His intent very clearly was to tie the constitutional right to own arms to service in official militias regulated by state governments.

Madison’s original proposal reads:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The final version of the amendment, which emerged on September 25, 1789, also tied the constitutional right to bear arms to service in a militia, and stated that such militias are to be “well regulated”:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Handgun control is constitutional. The courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals outside the context of “a well regulated militia.”

A handgun control ordinance was upheld by the U.S. 7th Court of Appeals in 1982, which issued the following statement:

“We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

The Supreme Court let the decision stand by refusing to hear the appeal of the handgun lobby.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not quite correct on the law Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Gun Control: Sound Logic Posted by: jbur816
» RE: Gun Control: Sound Logic Posted by: YogiBear
Guns are the right way to go.
Posted by: b4upoo on Oct 16, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people do not have any reality on the fact that many Americans live under conditions such that going without a gun is more than a casual invitation to bear, moose and other predators to have them for lunch. Many people also live in areas where law enforcement is hours if not days away under all conditions. This is a huge land mass and our needs are quite different than European nations.
In addition many crimes never happen because we are armed. I'm a well thought of fellow and have never had legal issues of any kind. Yet my neighbors have a vague knowledge that if they did serious wrong to me or mine that I would come for them and many know that I am well armed. In other words no teenager in the neighborhood is likely to burglarize my home as they know if I find out who they will likely catch a bullet. That is as things should be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guns are the right way to go. Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
Steps to Tyranny
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 16, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Disarm the public.
2. Allow only "State approved" media.
3. Ban protests and assembly of groups of citizens unless "State approved".
4. Ban speech that is critical of the State.
5. Enemies of the State are not entitled to Due Process.
6. Monitor the Citizens.

You cannot fully achieve 2-6 unless you first acheive number 1.

I have read endless comments of people complaining about "corporate media" and "media bias" (#2). I have read comments from people complaing about "Free speech zones" and not being able to protest the Republican convention or WTO (#3). Dan Rather, Dixie Chicks and countless others (#4). Just look at all the lawsuits lately about Due Process (#5). There are plenty of articles about all the cameras going up in the name of security and plenty of references to Big Brother (#6). Allow the public to be disarmed and steps 2-6 WILL take place and you won't even be allowed to complian about it.
I forget who said it so I will paraphrase "those that trade their liberty for security will have nor deserve either"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Essential liberty Posted by: YogiBear
Guns are a Right...
Posted by: Tirjasdyn on Oct 16, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like to note that the teacher case wouldn't have been in an issue many years ago because then no one would have questioned her right to bring a gun with her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guns are a Right... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Guns are a Right... Posted by: desidid
» RE: Guns are a Right... Posted by: YogiBear
WE'VE LOST CONTROL
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 16, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We no longer control ourselves or our children. The future is a crap shoot and government has become oppressive. The police are out of control. A gun makes a person feel in control and ready for anything. They're easy and cheap to get. People who are reasonably content and not living in fear are not prone to violence. The murder statistics +- 25% in the last six yrs. speaks volumes about us. It's not just about guns. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Moider? Posted by: YogiBear
What I've learned from the gun owners here
Posted by: war_on_tara on Oct 16, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) They all live in incredibly violent places where they expect an intruder to break in at night, just about every night.

2) They all live in places where the police are corrupt, incompetent or nonexistent. (Or maybe none of these people have telephones.)

3) They all live in perpetual fear of crazed wild animals.

4) They all expect to need to overthrow the government someday, because that's what the Founders intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Although no one has actually conducted an uprising since Daniel Shays in the 1790s, when the Founders were all still around, and look what the Founders did to that poor guy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame the NRA!
Posted by: kewpie on Oct 16, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to fund raise for the NRA and it made me sick to my stomach the lies I had to spread accross the country every night on the phone to members and nonmembers alike.

Some hard core members who heard the propaganda every two weeks had no problem shelling out membership dues again and again for NRA scare tactics. Others were not convinced and would either yell at me or quickly hang up.

The NRA tries to say hard to corrupt the meaning of the 2nd the ammendment by using fear first and foremost. People misunderstand its true meaning and feel that to protect the 2nd amendment they need to stockpile their homes with weapons. This can cause mass paranoia.

In addition, if the NRA is spreading this propaganda in its educational programs such as gun safety, for youth this can cause problems for children who may have social skills issues and decide to use guns as a means to solve their problems, instead of learning to communicate. Gun safety should be used for hunting purposes for youth only.

The NRA has many twisted policies that they wish to place nation wide and have deep pockets to do it. For years the NRA has pushed for semi automatic rifles to legal. I recenlty read that the NRA wants domestic abusers and sex offenders to be able to have guns. Why? There is no reason a violent offender should own a gun. That person forfeited his rights when he commited the crime. There is nothing unconstitional about that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Owning Inanimate Objects is a *RIGHT!!*
Posted by: alicelillie on Oct 16, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a staunch libertarian, a charter and lifetime card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, and although I am not a dues-paying member, I look forward to bulletins from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Gun Owners of America.

I fiercely oppose Bush, not only for the litany of reasons so many on the left do (for instance I advocate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan *now*) but because he does not respect the God-given right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment says what it means and means what it says.

Every single gun law on the books (and according to Harry Browne, Libertarian for President in 1996 and 2000 and other sources there are about 20,000 of these just at the federal level) is unconstitutional. Every permitting and registration requirement and every background check is unconstitutional. The BATFE has committed acts on the par with the DEA and should be closed.

Having said that, what if the Second Amendment were repealed and a gun ban could legally be imposed? Would you want that?

Before shouting "Yaaaaahhh!!!" because "the country is awash in guns" and many crimes are committed with guns, stand back and think of the implications.

Even if the police could peacefully go around and collect all the guns (they can't, they would miss some even if all citizens complied, which they won't), there would have to be provisions to keep new guns from being made. Some clever people can make them at home. I happen to be near Nanaimo, B.C. right now and there was recently a bust at the home of someone who had a stash of guns and the ability to make them right there at home. (So they said. You cannot trust government officials not to lie as they almost always do.)

But, what was this guy using? Guns are predominately metal. The same metal that are used for toasters or frying pans? If you are going to outlaw guns effectively you have to require registration of all items that contain anything that guns can be made out of, and any tools that could be used. You have to regulate these materials and track them from the time they are mined from the ground until they are part of your toaster. Then you have to register the toaster. You might not be allowed to buy a toaster until you are 21. Or a skillit. Or a TV; there is material in there too to make a gun out of. Not to mention cars and washing machines.

You'd have to micro-manage everything.

Consider the civil liberties implications here, not to mention the bureaucratic home inspections (read invasions) and the taxes to cover it.

Do you *really* want to ban guns or any other particular item???

If so, join Hitler and a number of other crazies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Use with caution
Posted by: kewpie on Oct 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no problems with hunting rifles. I think people who own guns should have gun safety courses. If people like to target shoot with that is fine. I heard target shooting can be both exhilerating and relaxing. THese are legitmate purposes for guns.
Guns are tools, powerful tools that should be used with caution and respect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Defense against your government
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Oct 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From what I understand, a major justification offered for owning a gun is defense against one's own overbearing government.

But the question should be raised, does it matter anymore? Even if every American citizen owned a shotgun, a high-powered rifle and a whole pack of ammunition, in this day of pain rays, robot drones and fighter bombers, could they hope to offer any serious resistance to, for example, a military coup?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same old same old
Posted by: dbatterman on Oct 16, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throughout this commentary, I've heard the same old arguments from both sides. People who are against gun ownership cite a bunch of statistics from the Brady campaign that are complete hogwash, people who like guns talk about revolution and crime statistics. But much like the writer of this article, quoting a bunch of numbers gets nobody anywhere.
The problem is not the tools. The problem is the people.
And the problem is reality. For those who want to ban gun ownership, just remember, we banned illegal drugs in this country too. See how well that's gone...
Reasonable legislation, above and beyond propaganda from both sides of this issue, is what is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns can be useful
Posted by: billdake@sbcglobal.net on Oct 16, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A gun is an inanimate object.. People kill people and have tragic accidents with guns. Guns also save lives and stop crime. Too many people buy a kid a BB gun and they go off with no instruction into a lifetime of unsafe gun handling.

I was fortunate to be a Cub Scout 60 years ago. Our group met at St Emydius (Catholic) elementary school and our leaders brought in a Colt .45 automatic pistol for show & tell. This was instructional. We took it apart to learn safe handling and learned to treat a dangerous device with respect. This all came into play when I discovered a .45 Auto in a house where my my mother worked as a cleaner . Perhaps if I did not have the Fireams instruction that discovery may have been tragic. I did as the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" project instructs kids. Leave it alone and go tell an adult.

Many in this day have little knowledge of firearms and many gun owners never get proper instruction. There is a responsibility with gun ownership, but the community also needs to allow outdoor/indoor ranges with staff who teach firearms safety. Education is smart; putting one's head in the sand is stupid. Firearms instruction should be encouraged and programs like "Eddie Eagle" supported.

Ending the War on Drugs and Incarcerating only the violent, would make the gun controversy much less important.

39(?) States have Right to Carry, allowing citizens the right to carry a gun. All have lowered their crime rates, I would love to see this in California. If this were allowed, we could go out into a world where poeple are treated with the respect, becauase we might be "carrying". Best of all I would not have to carry. Why should I? The existance of the law works almost as well as "carrying" except in life threating situations. We read about the guy in the mall shooting people and we get all anti-gun. In a carry state, that Killer would be fortunte to not have a citizen shoot him to end the killing.

"Guns are tools no better or worse than the man who uses them," Alan Ladd from the movie Shane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad Article
Posted by: Arkham42 on Oct 16, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why? Because I know Kyle Cassidy and he went out of his way to make his book non-judgmental about the gun owners. He wanted to hear and show their reasons and their stories.

However, none of this is mentioned and thus you might come away with a view of "Armed in America" that isn't true or to the point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a way to discourage the use of handguns might be to make various models
Posted by: Suzon on Oct 16, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which would backfire. Let them be sold by undercover police to criminals in selected urban areas.

Once people intending to blow away other people ended up killing or wounding themselves, people might be much more wary of actually firing a gun at anyone.

I still stick with my idea of making a society where your fate is not sealed at birth, where the government has a commitment to a decent society and help for those who need it.

But wouldn't it be great to make people less inclined to actually use a handgun?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love this blather about overthrowing the government with shotguns
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 16, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That gun freaks have to have guns so that they can overthrow an "oppressive" government. Who will decide to do this and on what basis? Red blooded, he-man gun nuts? How about hippies and black panthers from the 60s?

Revolutions are always fought by some minority or another-- rarely by the population as a whole. That's what Timothy McVeigh was trying to do. He was fighting against onerous gun laws! He should have been the NRA's hero!

Of course, this means that they must have access to machine guns, grenade launchers, tanks, etc. Otherwise, they can't fight the Army. We can all form our own militias and wait for our version of the "Leader" who will organize "the people". Sound familiar?

The Communist party was outlawed in the 1950s because they advocated the violent overthrow of the government. So why not outlaw the NRA for advocating the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You obviously didn't read my posts Posted by: ReallyBearish
A country that was founded on and credited with violence will never give it up.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 16, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a country where people LOVE to watch and experience violence from children watching violent cartoons and playing violent video games to adults watching violent shows and even the wars for oil. And what about all those toy weapons that happily get advertised in those sleazy commercials? And what about all those “get tough or get lost” attitudes teenagers end up growing with? We cannot blame just the guns but instead must learn to take control of our urge to be violent if we’re really going to be safer ever again.

“Like everything else, most gun-toting Americans have been brainwashed into thinking it provides them security (from criminals and the Government), when the reverse is true.” - WTF

No doubt about it. Policy after policy, Americans are LOSING one freedom after another to the point that even having all the firearms in the world is not going to protect one’s freedom. It’s no coincidence that groups such as the NRA are awfully silent about freedom robbing agencies such as the CIA, FBI, FCC, FTC, DEA, NSA, Chamber of Commerce, etc …

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Regulated" meant something different back then
Posted by: alxtav on Oct 16, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does the word "gay" mean the same thing 100 years ago.. A well regulated militia means a well maintained militia... It meant having a fighting force that had weapons that shot straight.
A well armed populace is the best defence against liberty. The flase wars being fought in the Middle East aren't being fought with pee-shooters....
Police should bring a mop with every call they get; because most of the time they just end up cleaning up the mess or taking a statment.
To hell with the NRA, look into its history;bunch of gun grabbers. "Gun Owners of America"GOA all the way

Ron Paul 08'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by the way, guns will never become the solution to any problem.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 16, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the flip side, if Congress doesn’t grow some balls and start dealing with the social inequality issues that drive people to seek out guns to commit crimes for the sole purpose of money and survival, gun ownership in this country will soon become a major and uncontrollable problem as living-wage jobs become non-existent and people resort to crime to feed and shelter their families and themselves.

Millions of import containers enter this country without being checked for content. How many of them are full of guns and other weapons that are being sold on the streets? This seems to be one of many questions our incompetent and corrupt leaders refuse to address.

While they continue to bail out the Wall Street elites who are largely responsible for screwing up this economy and job market, the shit will eventually hit the turbo-driven fan with devastating results, making Katrina look like a lamb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ok Prophit Posted by: apophenia_monkey
The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with it
Posted by: yoursfaithfully on Oct 16, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Second Amendment, interpreted by gun-ownership promoters, protects the rights to own arms.

If that were so, the ban on machine guns, which has been in place for nearly a century, would have been overturned YEARS ago.

Because the ban of ownership of machine guns is legally sound, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to own ALL weapons.

Once the government is in the legal business of deciding which guns people can and cannot own, it is a legislative issue, not constitutional issue.

If the majority of citizens want to ban a type of weapon - such as semi-automatic handguns (or just handguns altogether, since they're used in the vast majority of gun crimes), there is no constitutional recourse for gun enthusiasts.

The NRA is a publicity machine. Its job is to trick the majority of citizens into voting against gun control, because IT KNOWS IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL LEGS TO STAND ON.

Again - if the constitution guaranteed the right to own all arms, WHY CAN'T YOU BUY A FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47? Because the government can decide which guns you can buy, and has for a century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many
Posted by: vertical on Oct 16, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are too many people, and anything that thins are ranks is good. We should be handing out guns for population control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too many Posted by: Axiom69
Gun Control
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Oct 16, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have noticed that there are a few key issues that get people frothing at the mouth more than anything else in your country.

1. Gun Control
2. Abortion
3. Health Care
4. Immigration
5. Talking About Israel

Nothing seems to elicit more venomous back and forth than an article about one of these issues. It's difficult for people in the rest of the world to understand the staunch resistance to any form of gun control, or reform in the US.

In Canada, we have strict laws. Most people who own firearms, own hunting rifles. Those who own handguns or other types of rifles, are collectors or target shooters. These people are specially licensed. Regardless, everyone has to keep the guns locked up in a gunsafe, unloaded, and with trigger locks. Target shooters can only transport their firearms to a range and back, and only when the firearm is secured. That doesn't sound very sexy to gun enthusiasts but I think it's a policy that most people are comfortable with here.

Do we have illegal gun trade here? Sure we do, and guess where most of those come from. Yet, there aren't very many places in Canada where I feel unsafe or at risk of being shot.

Could I be shot by someone with a handgun here? You bet I could, because they are here and people do use them. Yet, I am not about to run out and start lobbying for laws to allow citizens to carry handguns. That is the price I'm willing to pay to live in a society where you don't live in fear of being shot. There are groups here, no doubt, who would rather we had an American style system of gun laws, but I think they are in a small minority. There was a scandal here a while back in Federal Politics about a gun registry, but aside from the minority of people who fear gun control, the Conservative Party latched onto the issue on the grounds that it wasted money and used it as a means of turning the screws on the Liberal Government. It wasn't about protecting gun owners, that was simple political gamesmanship.


That is the culture we have here and we are not afraid of the government. I think the obsession with bearing arms among those who support it stems from a long period of big Government portrayed as seeking to control every aspect of your life. The gun lobbies have worked their magic as well. So, for those who buy into the big Government paranoia, it is not such a stretch to be vehemently opposed to any reform in gun laws. This last statement is likely to trigger various diatribes on the need to arm against the Bush Administration but what I am talking about stretches back more than a hundred years and the Bush Administration is only a blip on the viewscreen of Big Government paranoia and gun culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» big Government paranoia? Posted by: dover23
» RE: big Government paranoia? Posted by: jbur816
» RE: big Government paranoia? Posted by: dover23
I need a gun to protect my family against ATTACK?
Posted by: Ellie1 on Oct 16, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where in the hell do you people LIVE? I have never had anyone bang on my door with a gun in their hand. And when I had an abusive husband, was glad i did not have a gun because I know i would have killed him! Then I'd be the one in jail. Everyone can be pushed to murder, or at least shooting someone. Having a gun makes that even more likely, but you have to pay the consequences if you use it. Not a great idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» as a matter of fact Posted by: 3rdI
I'm the NRA and I vote
Posted by: throck on Oct 16, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many on this board have proposed banning guns. I would like to know how they plan to enforce the ban. Perhaps with guns? What we are looking at here is just another wannabe dictator. Of the few choices we have in life, one of them is choosing to be the shooter or the target. There is no middle ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Enforcement Posted by: YogiBear
COPS on Fox is a real offender
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 16, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that one of the reasons that guns are so prevalent in our society, and that people feel the need for guns, are TV shows like COPS on Fox network.

This show makes it seem that everyone you might run into is a drug-crazed trailer trash just waiting to jump you, your wife, or your kids.

A culture of fear has been created by the news media and tv movies, hence the need people feel to be armed to the teeth.

I am a farmer, and I have two older shotguns. While it has been a necessary, but rare, thing for me to have to use them, I cannot see why anyone needs a handgun or a sub-machine gun.

There are deep and fundamentally dysfunctional forces going on in our society. The prevalence of guns and a gun mentality is not the problem, but it is a symptom of a problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FACT: Mountain of evidence shows gun control doesn't work
Posted by: pennman on Oct 16, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mountain of evidence shows gun control doesn't work

Last month, the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked.

The study was not the work of gun-control opponents. The panel was set up during the Clinton administration, and all but one of its members (whose views on guns were publicly known before their appointments) favored gun control.

It's bad enough that the panel backed away from its own survey and empirical work; worse yet, it didn't really look objectively at all the evidence. If it had, it would have found not just that gun control doesn't help solve the problems of crime, suicide and gun accidents, but that it may actually be counterproductive.

The panel simply ignored many studies showing just that. For example, the research on gun locks that the panel considered examined only whether accidental gun deaths and suicides were prevented. There was no mention of research that shows that locking up guns prevents people from using them defensively.

The panel also ignored most of the studies that find a benefit in crime reduction from right-to-carry laws. It did pay attention to some non-peer reviewed papers on the right-to-carry issue, and it also noted one part of a right-to-carry study that indicated little or no benefit from such laws. What the panel didn't point out, however, is that the authors of that particular study had concluded that data in their work did much more to show there were benefits than to debunk it.

James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, was the one dissenting panelist and the only member whose views were known in advance not to be entirely pro-gun control. His dissent focused on the right-to-carry issue, and the fact that emphasizing results that could not withstand peer-reviewed studies called into question the panel's contention that right-to-carry laws had not for sure had a positive effect.

Wilson also said that conclusion was inaccurate given that "virtually every reanalysis done by the committee" confirmed right- to-carry laws reduced crime. He found the committee's only results that didn't confirm the drop in crime "quite puzzling." They accounted for "no control variables" -- nothing on any of the social, demographic and public policies that might affect crime -- and he didn't understand how evidence that wouldn't get published in a peer- reviewed journal would be given such weight.

While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense. The National Academy of Sciences panel should have concluded as the existing research has: Gun control doesn't help.

Either academia and the government have wasted tens of millions of dollars and countless man-hours on useless research (and the panel would like us to spend more in the same worthless pursuit), or the National Academy is so completely unable to separate politics from its analyses that it simply can't accept the results for what they are.

In either case, the academy, and academics in general, have succeeded mostly in shooting themselves in the foot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Armed America
Posted by: kylecassidy on Oct 16, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I learned in the two years that I spent crossing the country photographing gun owners is: "No one ever wins an argument that contains the line you must be an idiot."

In a debate that is so passionate, I think reasonable people stand a great chance of making progress when they meet one another reasonably (which is rarely on the Internet).

One of the reasons behind Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes was to, hopefully, provide a platform where people with differing opinions could have a conversation about what matters to them.

I think it helps everyone when people realize that the opinion they're in opposition to belongs to a person who has thought long and hard about it. In my experience, understanding this goes much further than name calling.

-- Kyle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Armed America Posted by: YogiBear
Get a DOG!
Posted by: helenwheels on Oct 16, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Los Angeles and there's some crime in the area, although not much, but there are gangs. I have 2 LOUD dogs and when they bark, it's terrifying. An LA cop told me that nearly ALL home invasions happen in homes w/out a dog. What does THAT tell you? Why would someone pick a home with a dog to rob over one without? I've never felt safer. I can walk at night as well. People cross the street when they see my 70 lb shepherd mix mutt. Dogs also keep you in shape.

I realize this is a discussion about gun rights and all that, but isn't prevention a bit smarter than worrying about defending yourself once someone's already in your home? If you have a loud-ass dog barking his/her head off that person is NOT coming in!!!

Plus dogs are just great to have around. Of course, I'm biased as I'm an out and out dog lover (and rescuer).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get a DOG! Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Get a DOG! Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Get a DOG! Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Get a DOG! Posted by: babs
» RE: Get a DOG! Posted by: fibrowitch
Of course bused women get killed with guns
Posted by: Dean Cascio on Oct 16, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[quote]Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. [/quote]

The people doing the abusing are already breaking the law!! Do you think some new law covering gun control would have an effect what so ever?
Dean

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't like guns-but I have one.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Oct 16, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Michael Moore says-Canada has lots of guns. They don't have our level of violent behavior. Not even close.

Guns are not the problem. The problem is we live in a corrupt, economically and racially unequal, insane society. Where 3 percent of the people hold 97 percent of the wealth. That leads to violence.

The murder rate of rich people is very low. That is why the mainstream media plays it up so much when it does happen. To create the false impression that social class and wealth have nothing to do with violence. When in fact, it has everything to do with it.

Poverty, social injustice, and desperation- creates a violent society.

Really it is pretty simple. Guns are not the problem. Nor by the way is music, movies, computer games, or as Michael Moore also points out-green hair.

It is the Goddamn Greedy war mongering-world polluting exploiting the poor -Rich Ruling Class-and talking about anything else -until we solve that problem-is a waste of progressive peoples time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

True Cliche....inanimate objects don't kill people
Posted by: drblack on Oct 16, 2007 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
neither drugs or guns do anything....In fact the violence associated with both is because of the Drug War.
Imagine if the War On Some Drugs had never started and police could focus on true dangers.
Gangster rap would never have existed and a whole bunch of people would still be alive...prisons would only contain truly dangerous people...etc...
Guns are easier to manufacture then most drugs so if they are illegal the Black Market in weapons will join the Black market in drugs and people will die, trillions will be spent and nopthing will change.
I could own a million guns and a nuclear weapon and I wouldn't kill anyone.
Why do some people injure or kill other people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Across the Atlantic...
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Oct 16, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very good article. Like a lot of people on the other side of the ocean I've always been a bit perplexed by America's love of guns which would appear to verge on pathological obsession. That image of Charlton Heston raising his gun defiantly for all to see sums up gun madness for me. Perhaps I just don't understand it... the gun culture, that is.

But in saying that it isn't just guns that kill people. For instance, my home city of Glasgow (Scotland) is the murder capital of Western Europe, but very few people die of gun wounds. There is a horrendous knife culture in Glasgow which contirbutes heavily in giving the city a higher murder rate than NYC. It's a macho gang culture that stretches right back to the 19th century... it's been on-going for generations with little hope of it changing in the near future.

I don't like guns or knives but surely the deadliest ingredient in perpretating the violence is the mindset, the mentality, that is behind the weapons. The main difference between guns and knives I believe is the profit motive of the gun companies... the big sell.

I realise that for Americans the right to possess guns is an emotive issue, but as another poster stated the Second Amendment was written down two centuries ago, and the world is a different place now and weapons are a lot more deadly and sophisticated.

The logical conclusion to the gun lobby's desire is surely for every citizen to be able to possess and own, if so required, weapons of mass destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: From Across the Atlantic... Posted by: BrianOfNairobi
» But medical care is better Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: But medical care is better Posted by: BrianOfNairobi
» RE: But medical care is better Posted by: YogiBear
FACT: Mountain of Evidence & Common Sense Shows Gun Control Does Work
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 16, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control).

The above statistic is just one of many. In Western Europe, only a handful of gun related deaths are recorded annually, compared to tens of thousands in the USA. However, the gun nuts try to discredit all this based on their "studies." But, here is the problem, unless guns are totally eliminated from the society, gun control won't work. D.C. is a case in point, even if you ban them, they get in anyway from the surrounding areas where they are legal.

Therefore, the USA needs to establish gun control that is universal across the entire country for it to be effective. But, even beyond that, and what the gun nuts haven't figured out yet is the common sense side of the argument. Of course, if guns are readily available, they are going to be used. The idea that they would only be used in self-defense is ridiculous. IN fact, that they are more commonly used in the USA in suicides and domestic violence should be no surprise given the widespread problems in American society.

So, the proof is that gun control already works, in works in Western Europe and Japan. In 1999 for example, Japan had 26 gun deaths while the USA had 26,800. But, I don't think the gun nuts will listen. We just have to hope they hide their guns from their children, here in Miami, a couple of kids are blown away every few days just from finding the loaded guns of their parents. Common Sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's really just so sad...
Posted by: Sushi on Oct 16, 2007 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that you almost got it, but not quite.

"Yet the differences do not lie with the simple existence of guns. Both places are full of them. They lie with the root causes of crime and violence, such as poverty and drugs, that blight many big cities. Guns seem neither to be totally the problem and certainly not the solution."

Crime is about those root causes, not about guns. Guns are irrelevant to crime. Take them away (as they've tried in England), and the violent crime rate does NOT go down (in fact there it has sored, with the Home Office reporting as much as a 50% increase in GUN crimes, and a violent crime rate exceeding that of the US - all in a country that has achieved "...the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent...", at least among the law-abiding).

What you got so close to understanding, but apparently were not able, with your anti-gun cultural indoctrination, to accept, is that guns should not even be a part of the debate. The US is a violent society, not because of guns, but because of our defective social system that refuses to address those root causes. Just as ridiculous over-regulation, the most draconian laws, and even military force has so utterly failed to reduce drug abuse in this country to the point that they are easier to get than ever, these ignorant emotionally driven attempts to ban guns are doomed to failure, even if the laws pass. All it will do is create an even greater set of nation-crippling social ills than those created by the "War on Drugs". Move on, and spend some of your time and effort solving THOSE problems, and stop wasting it on making things worse by attacking something you yourself have demonstrated (though you still can't quite bring yourself to say it) is irrelevant to the issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wonderful! The more guns, the fewer Americans.
Posted by: xbj on Oct 16, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fewer Americans, the purer the planet.

Can't handle the truth as the rest of the planet sees it?

Take your guns and change it instead of shooting each other like assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Wowie Zowie Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wowie Zowie Posted by: apophenia_monkey
When the crap hits the fan
Posted by: Moe Snodgrass on Oct 16, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This nation was build on justifiable revolutionary violence. It's just a matter of time. When the crap hits the fan, those Americans who refuse to arm themselves will be forced (or content) to sit on the sidelines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got a different perspective from Bowling for Columbine
Posted by: nellie blogger on Oct 16, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael Moore's trip to Canada, where gun ownership is actually more prevalent than in the U.S., changed my mind about this issue somewhat. I've never been fully persuaded by either side, but the fact that Moore could walk into someone's home in Canada, the door unlocked and people unafraid when he walked in—no one drew a gun on him—was pretty illustrative.

Moore's theory is that the culture of fear and paranoia in this country is the factor that makes gun ownership here problematic. I look at what the culture of fear has done to the country over the past few years and it makes sense to me. At the time, Moore blamed our culture of fear on crappy television news reports—which makes sense. "If it bleeds it leads." Today, I think we can extend some blame to our government and the endless fearmongering punditry of talking heads

It was a very sensible treatment of the gun issue. I'd recommend anyone check out this film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author Wonders Why
Posted by: Sparks56 on Oct 16, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"To cap a grim week, as Katz was winning her court battle in Oregon police in Pennsylvania were giving details of a raid on the home of a teenager who was plotting to attack a school. They found seven home-made grenades and an assault rifle. His mother had bought it for him at a gun show. The boy was just 14."

And the author wonders why a teacher wants to carry a gun in school?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Author Wonders Why Posted by: YogiBear
Hmmm....maybe you can explain your math
Posted by: RCWV on Oct 16, 2007 6:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You state that "A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack." as if it were an unquestioned fact. However, your figures for these unfortunate events are:

"In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US -- with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year."

Then, when you do give a figure for incidents of self-defense, it's "Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year."

Now, I don't claim to be an expert in anti-gun math, but by my calculations:

14,000 gun murders + 16,000 suicides + 650 fatal accidents = 30,650 accidental shootings, murders, suicides

Now, again, by my normal, non-anti-gun math:

30,650/2,000,000 = 0.015

That implies that the incidence of self-defense gun usage is over 65 GREATER than all those other shootings combined, not 22 times less.

Okay, okay, I know that the "2 million" figure came from a pro-gun survey. So let's be skeptical of it, just to be fair. Hmmm. Wait a second. Even if we reduce the 2 million figure by 100 times, we still don't remotely approach your "...22 times more likely..." figure. (There have been, as far as I can find, 14 separate surveys attempting to determine this number - the results range from 800,000 to over 2 million. Even taking the lowest figure, the ratio comes out over 26-to-1 in favor of self-defense!)

Maybe instead of stating "...22 times more likely..." as fact (despite its undeniable power to make an anti-gun point), you should have said that the figure is from a controversial study that gets cited willy-nilly, but is seriously flawed. Ah, but then you might also have to admit that your ideas about gun ownership being rare in the frontier and colonial US are also misleading. They're all from a single (oft quoted) book that has since been thoroughly discredited by several leading academic historians who have no stake in the gun debate. The fact is that handguns (like the Colt .44 pistols you mentioned) were rare and expensive (and also not very useful for the purposes to which people put firearms at the time), but rifles, muskets, and shotguns were ubiquitous. Wow, how easy it is to wring a completely misleading argument from the truth when one is willing to ignore, cherry-pick, or twist the facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Oct 16, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what an pretentious asshat you are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow--Oops Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Grew Up Around Firearms
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Oct 16, 2007 7:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they were everywhere. from my home to my grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc.

got my first rifle at 8, first handgun at 12. i've never killed anyone, never pointed any of my own firearms at a human, and only a couple of times felt the situation warranted to answer the door with my hand on the shotgun.

i don't live in the boonies, and none of my firearms are registered--pre-brady tyvm.

i have no children, will never have children and me wife is just as comfortable around firearms as me.

simply growing up around firearms and owning firearms doesn't make one bloodthirsty, ready to kill the girl scout ringing the doorbell, or, for that matter, willing to pose like a moron for an anti-gun editorial picture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supreme Court says Gun Control NOT Constituional
Posted by: RCWV on Oct 16, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gun control, as it is envisioned by anti-gun people, is NOT constitutional. In The Supreme Court case, US v. Miller, that some lower courts incorrectly interpret as limiting the right to keep and bear arms to militia service, the court actually ruled that the weapon is limited by its usefulness to militia service; not the person's actual service in a militia. Justice Hugo Black, one of the justices in the Miller case, wrote later:

"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute." (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

So, the currently standing Supreme Court decision says that the Second Amendment protection is absolute, as long as the firearms possessed are typical of those used for military service, i.e. military weapons - which today would mean assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns. That's what the Supreme Court most recently had to say on the issue, despite the misinterprtation by a few (but not all) lower courts.

The only 3 other cases where they specifically ruled on gun right, the Supreme Court has ruled:

1. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not granted by the Constitution; it is a pre-existing inalienable right that is simply enumerated in and protected by the Constitution. (U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876))

2. The States are prohibited from disarming any citizen capable of bearing arms because doing so would deprive the federal government of its right to a pool of armed citizens on which to draw if it should ever need to do so, and that a person's protection under the 2nd Amendment was not contingent upon actual service. (Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)) (note: Presser was convicted under state law for carrying a gun in public - and the court ruled that conviction unconstitutional)

3. The government may deprive convicted felons of their 2nd Amendment rights, as long as there was a process for them to regain their rights. (Lewis v. U.S. (1980))

So, according to the only existing Supreme Court rulings on the subject, laws depriving citizens of the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) weapons are unconstitutional, as long as the weapons are of a type useful for military service and the citizens are not convicted felons who have not successfully petitioned for a return of their rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maybe we should
Posted by: Kodiak44 on Oct 17, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we should ban cars as well. Overall, 42,636 people died in car crashes in the U.S. in 2005. Maybe motorized vehicles in general. Last year, 4,008 people died in motorcycle crashes. Plus it would be better for the environment. If the goal is to prevent deaths, I think this would be a good start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bang on!
Posted by: ankhet on Oct 17, 2007 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great! so the thing won't be clarified...again...or likely ever. All that happens is people just scream invective at each other. Kinda makes you want to shoot somebody...

It'll be nice and quiet around here when everybody's dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» PLEASE STOP !!! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
reasons for agreement/disagreement
Posted by: lealea on Oct 17, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Lennon
Dr. Martin Luther King
Medgar Evers
Malcolm X
schoolchildren
Amish schoolchildren!!
battered spouses......
in this country alone. How many more people's lives we will sacrifice before the alter of our meaningless "rights" of weapon ownership. If you arm some of us, then you must arm ALL of us! In an armed country, democracy doesn't exist but policy is dictated by a loaded sidearm. We have the police, the military and the need to be MUCH more active in our political reality. If we want this country to change, we the people are the ones to do it, not the rifle in someone's hands.
Oh, and did I forget to mention little children? Yes, we make sure little Timmy wears his bike helmet, but we can't protect him from his beserk classmates growing arsenal, or rather from his fellow human beings. We use guns to kill, and that's that. Cart before the horse won't save lives. There is no debating the slain and mutilated as far as I see it. No one cares why you kill, just that you did. Let's end the b.s. No one is out to get you, just your bloody guns!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't forget Condi Rice Posted by: YogiBear
Just another American sickness
Posted by: celeborn on Oct 17, 2007 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there are enough NRA members to tip the balance and influence ("muzzle") the campaigns in elections, then you North Americans deserve the lousy government you have and will have. Al Gore won the election and he was what you needed for the past 6 years. Such a "redneck" culture is just beyond belief of a cultured and educated citizenry. Where are the champions of Liberty and Government by the good People? Cheating in elections, attacking other countries without cause, letting Corporate sleeze and corrupt political lobbies run the decisions in Washington... we in other countries shake our heads -- you are no longer the shining example of anything in the World, much less democracy. Very sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm An American Posted by: MeridaLady
Plow Shares
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 17, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Those that beat their swords into plow shares will plow for those that didn't"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plow Shares Posted by: tooldoc60
» RE: Plow Shares Posted by: YogiBear
BAN IT ALL!
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 17, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can save lives by banning guns then we can save alot of lives by banning alcohol. Think of the tens of thousands that drunk drivers kill and maim every year. Hell, why not ban cars so we can save the lives of all those people in non-alcohol related crashes? Plus it would be good for the environment. Then we can work on those staph infections that kill 19,000 people every year. Don't forget the lawn mowers! Those dangerous machines are just waiting for a distracted operator so they can lop of fingers and toes. Oh and the toasters. Don't forget that evil little machine that is just waitng to jump into the bath tub with you. Of course after we banned everthing that could possibly kill people we would have an over-population problem. So out of all those things we ban maybe we should only keep the guns to deal with all those extra people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BAN IT ALL! Posted by: davmills
» RE: BAN IT ALL! Posted by: Axiom69
Long term change begins at home
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 17, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If so many Americans are determined to ban firearms, all they need is to close down all the manufacturers - and what degree of gun-wielding dictatorship would that require?! But guess what? Even if such a ban succeeded, the criminals would import them from other countries! So, what degree of nuclear-armed global dictatorship would be required to stop them?!

As you can see, the only possible way to get rid of guns is by friendly persuasion. But nobody can convince the corporate Big Boys to stop playing their games of wealth and power, dominance and submission, winners and losers, all of which requires the threat of violent death, which must be real to be effective!

What to do?!

Everyone was born here on this planet where all life must devour life to live. We can become vegetarians to give the other animals a break, but their wilderness homes are extremely violent as part of the balance of Nature, and we can never change that without destroying it. But we can build our network of eco-tech villages nearby that wilderness, defend ourselves from the stray predator with repellent, and live in peace with each other. "Live simply that others may simply live." ( Dorothy Day)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Gotta Gun...
Posted by: heyhick on Oct 17, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here it at www.myspace.com/thehickmen

feels good in my hand
I'm a defender of all
that's good in this land
It's a free country,
and I'm gonna keep it that way
Ya say it's a carry state? Well I state that I carry mine
all the time
I gotta rifle in the attic its packed in oil with 2000 rounds

You don't get a second chance,
I can't be caught with my guard down
And if I have to, I'll water the tree of liberty
You never know, there could be somebody out there
Just like me
If that policman won't protect me and all I own
and the dispatcher cant' be bothered
While I'm waiting on the phone
I don't believe Dirty Harry Lives on my street
So I need it, I believe in it,
you wanna feel it? just don't steal it
I gotta gun...sends shivers up and down my spine
I might become a hunter sometime
sportin' a mighty fine tech 9
Now the forest is an issue
I believe in multiple use
but keepin us out to save the critters
Now that's a lame excuse
Hats off to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson
and Mr. Walther and his PPK
I know it's not a good day, when I don't get to fire my AK
I've read most of the 2nd Ammendment,
its there for all to see
and I'm so glad there's a lot of us out here,
just like me
Everybody knows, that the bad guys always flow
To where the good guys don't carry Magnum. 44's
You won't catch me with a trigger lock on my piece
Cuz I need it, I believe in it,
you wanna feel it? just don't steal it
He's gotta gun!
so what I got one too
And if that bad guy turns around
I'll pull it out of my boot
and chase him through the nieghborhood
and pull his butt off the fence
"But you shot him in the back"
Lets just call it self defense
Take away my bourbon, I still got my 45
take away my license, I'll still drink and drive
take away my weapon? I'll say it from my dying lips
Your gonna have to pull that mutha fucka from my cold dead finger tips

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The second amendment has Everything to do with it.
Posted by: mbruton on Oct 17, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no ambiguity in the Constitution. It is only illegal interpretation of the Constitution by small minded traitors that have allowed government to pass the unconstitutional laws which we already have, not to mention, free speech zones (we used to call those America), income taxes, and a host of other foolishness.

The Constitution being the sole contract between the people and government and having been eviscerated to being essentially meaningless requires the logical mind to reach only one conclusion. The government is now rogue and all US law is therefore without benefit of any moral authority. Why obey laws enforced by a rogue state except out of fear?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when all of the criminals are locked away...
Posted by: tooldoc60 on Oct 17, 2007 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will remove the personal defense weapons from my home. I have defensive weapons (.45 S&W, .40 derringer, custom made), and hunting firearms (shotguns of various make. guage, and action...each for a specific type of hunting). The hunting TOOLS will go when I am too feeble to use them for their intended purpose. The personal defense weapons will go when all of the rapists, burgulars, and robbers are all locked away, and when I have no fear of the tyrrany, which seems to prevail in our government, is a thing of the past. In other words, never. Guns are not the problem, people not taking the responsibility to secure their weapons, poor training in the use of guns, and criminals supplying guns to those who shouldn't have them are the real problem. If an individual is going to kill someone, and they really want it to happen, do you really think that lack of a firearm will stop them? Do you think that an individual determined to commit suicide will be deterred by the lack of a firearm? I can tell you that it wouldn't. If there were a disaster which brought about occurrences like looting, etc., I would feel much more secure having my .45 next to me than waiting for the police to respond to a 911 call. Pity the fool who wants to rob my house while I'm home. He'll leave well ventilated (and in a bag!). I am an open minded individual, support no one political party (although I tend to vote for Democratic candidates), support a womans' right to choose, believe that a single payer health care system would be a good thing, and believe that the wealthy and corporations should pay their fair share of the tax burden, but my stand on guns is non negotiable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What The Response From This Article Strongly Suggests
Posted by: Mr. Terrific on Oct 17, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is known around the world for its diversity and opprotunity. It is also known for its arrogance, ignorance, and violence. During the last 6+ years of the Bush Administration, U.S. citizens and citizens in many parts of the world, have been assaulted not only with threats, whether they be economic or military, but naturally hard physical violence in the form of miltary assaults, governmental and private as in the case of the many Mercenary corporations which serve this nation.

All during this time we have seen wave after wave of protests in this country and around the world. Yet, nothing has changed much with regard to the militaristic extremist within our government. In the case of the domestic milita {the police force}, its brutality too seems to be protested, and yet, sadly nothing much changes. So many police men and women receive medals and raises after murdering citizens, regardless of the age of the suspect. In regards to racism which is a classic problem in the U.S., there is some protest but it too is sadly accepted even promoted. Right winged sections of the U.S. dominate Internet websites with arguments against "Affirmative action" and make claims of "Reverse" racism. Sites like "Jeff Rense.com", are filled with articles touting the violence of blacks against whites; yet, the website completely ignores violence committed by whites against blacks or the history of racism and slavery in this nation and Africa.

So upon close inspection of the comments on the "Right to Bear Arms," one can clearly see a fanaticism that is sorely lacking when issues of acceptance, ethics, kindness, love, and social responsibility come into play. This is simply indictative of the problem. Far too many American citizens would be willing to overthrow this corrupt government and instantly put every member of Congress, the Senate, the Executive branch and the Judical branch on trial, if it threatened to take away their "Right" to bear arms, than fighting the government's right to mass murder people around the world and subjugate certain classes of people within this nation.

To me as I am certain to many people around the world, this simply displays the true spiritual nature of a large majority of the citizens of this country! This simply gives one more reason as to "why" they hate us. I tell people I meet almost constantly, the expression is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is not, do unto others before they do unto you!

Terrific

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not all blacks are anti-gun Posted by: YogiBear
Gun Nuts Have Jettisoned Common Sense
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 17, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite gun control working effectively in every country in the world where it is universally applied, the gun nuts still come up with all there so-called arguments.

People will kill if they really want to. People will still get guns anyway, etc. Yea, yea, yea, we have heard it all before. Or, the biggie, the people need guns to defend against the gov.

This argument is probably the most ridiculous when you think about it. The USA gov has cluster bombs and M-16's, how are you going to defend against them. Unless you are the NRA, and they say give everyone M-16's.

Well, an end to the stupidity. You don't even need stats. to understand you cannot put millions of guns into a society like America's and then try to pretend it's not the guns when thousands of people get blown away. Common Sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False Statistics
Posted by: Carl Street on Oct 17, 2007 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a typical bubblehead article -- it offers numerous statistics without any source reference, of course, because they are FALSE numbers.

These tired old numbers are quoted endlessly, but NEVER backed up with valid sources. The TRUE statisical facts are that you have 14 times the probablility of being killed by medical malpractice than you do by gunfire.

One thing the anti-gun people NEVER ADMIT is you are nearly 5 times more likely to be killed or injured by gunfire from a police officer than you are from a criminal. AND that is ONE statistic that is getting worse everyday.

BTW, in "gun controlled" merry old England that same statistic is nearly 24 times -- just goes to show you how much gun control will do your your good health. There is NO magic to having government gun monoopolies and history shows that such monopolies ALWAYS degenerate into genocidal tyranny.

Don't forget, Nazi Germany had GREAT gun control laws -- Jews, Gypsies, and other disarmed groups learned the benefits of gun control first hand.

The purpose of being armed has NEVER been to prevent individual crime; it has ALWAYS been to prevent state sponsored criminality. How many Jews at Auschwitz would have glady traded the risk of local muggings for the state sponsored crimes of the Nazi SS?? Of course, we can NEVER really know since they all died in the gas chambers. I guess, because the Jews were gassed they were never counted as gun victims! -- So much for the "all the wars" B.S. statistic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False Statistics Posted by: davmills
» RE: False Statistics Posted by: davmills
Pass the bullets and praise the Lord
Posted by: alleybear on Oct 17, 2007 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pass the bullets and praise the Lord

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pass the bullets and praise the Lord Posted by: Constitutionalist75
okay
Posted by: lealea on Oct 18, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
still people are making actual stipulations about gun ownership. one life is too many! try to gloss over the emotional aspect when it's your loved one that has been killed. I lived in England and know a thing or two about the violence there. the thing is to remove emotional human beings from dangerous weapons in the first place. we don't need them. we are private citizens not in the military and not in the police force, the only select groups where self-defense is necessary. I will not shuffle off and will not bow down and am here ironically by the auspices of a gun, i.e my violent and abusive father killed himself with a gun rather than me or anyone else...and believe me the man had taken a life before. no, gun ownership is not a right for private civilians. we keep the guns or we do away with law and order. and I mean that our political system would include the social emphasis necessary to curb America's volent society, not about the current administration! make all the studies and current statitistics, comparisons are never accurate as they require an absolute replication of circumstance, i.e American society,etc. what we need is to not fear each other by providing each other with the means to our destruction. we all have the right to gun ownership, i.e the right to decide who lives and who dies. to suggest the world is far from perfect is obvious. gun ownership has nothing to do with the arbitrary sphere of America as it is today! gun ownership is all about the morality to arm human beings, emotional and flawed human beings in an imperfect world the hardware for murder. we care more about the rights of pieces of steel and hardware then we do human lives. no arguments from anyone, EMOTIONAL or otherwise will change that. in other words, I have the right to die, because you have the right to a gun. the issue is as simple as that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not okay unless - Posted by: Constitutionalist75
those who...
Posted by: lealea on Oct 18, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
live by the sword, die by the sword.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The innocent are trapped because Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: those who... Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: those who... Posted by: Constitutionalist75
I haven't shouldered a weapon since my
Posted by: motamanx on Oct 18, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't shouldered a weapon since my Army days, circa 1960. I have never had any fear of being mugged and used to consistently traverse Cental Park in the middle of the night.

I don't fear criminals. But since the birth of Blackwater, I think it might be a good idea to be armed. They are the spectre of the Black Shirts, circa 1933--Berlin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Country Where Guns Are Not Allowed
Posted by: MeridaLady on Oct 18, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an ex-pat American, living in Mexico on the Yucatan Peninsula. We don't have public access to guns here. In fact, it's a felony to possess a gun unless you are law enforcement or feel a need when having to carrying large amounts of valuables, including cash, on a regular basis. To my knowledge the latter has never needed to use a weapon.
We don't have car-jacking nor home invasion incidents here either.
The city that I live in has over 1 million people and the murder rate is maybe 2 people per year within this city. These murders are usually domestic violence situations committed without the use of a gun.
I can walk out my door here at any time day or night, whether dressed for the symphony, wearing lots of gold jewelry, or just for a leisurely stroll, most times alone, with no apprehensions what-so-ever. I have been doing so for many years.
To my knowledge this is not possible anywhere in the U.S.. Would you go outside alone at midnight to walk for dozens of blocks though the center of your city?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still in An Angry world Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: You haven't A clue Mister Posted by: MeridaLady
Quoted Mexican statistics are lies (see below)
Posted by: Carl Street on Oct 18, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have lived in Mexico at various times over the past 43 years so I KNEW your statistics just HAD to be wrong, and not just a little wrong; but FAR WRONG so I bothered to look up the US State Department data on various murder rates of nations and Mexico and particular -- HERE ARE THE REAL FACTS...

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals


Of course you COULD be just ignorant and not lying -- but either way you owe this forum an apology for your misinformation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Don't Have Clue Posted by: MeridaLady
Great topic!
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 18, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments are the best part of Alternet. When I read them sometimes I feel that there may actually be hope for mankind and then I'll read another and realize we are all doomed. I have to admit there is nothing like the topic of gun control to bring out emotional comments. I am enjoying myself so much that I look foward to the next article on legalizing marijuana!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes I do remember that article.
Posted by: Mr. Terrific on Oct 18, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However the problem in this country is not the right to own a handgun, shotgun or rifle, or even to defend your home if it is under attack. The problem is that those who are truly classified as gun "nuts," want the "right" to own assault weapons and shoot M-60 machine guns and the like. It is insane! How much is too much? Are they expecting a mob of people to attack them in their homes or maybe a Superpowered criminal? Also you well know that the black community has suffered tremendously because of guns. Yeah the addage "guns don't kill people, people kill people," is very true. However, just how many people asian, black, latin, native, etc, would be killed with a pocket knife, butcher knife, bo staff, baseball bat, scissors and the like, compared to a handgun or rifle? The answer to that should be incredibly obvious. Some people wish to classify a gun or rifle as a "tool." Well you can call it a tool for "hunting." However it is not a tool in any sense beyond that usage. Tools are meant to REPAIR things with, not to put HOLES in things. It would be so nice if those on the side of firearms use simple English and understand the words they use when describing firearms.

I guess my true concern is what are we as a nation of people teaching future humanity? One of my undergraduate majors is International Affairs, the others are Economics and Finance, I can only wonder when people use their weapons to defend themselves, hunt or kill, do they stop to think who profits from their actions?

Here is a very small run down. The gun manufacture profits along with the various individuals whom design, and build the weapons along with all of their various subsidaries and quite naturally CEO's, CFO's and the like. Naturally if you are a hunter, the parks department or hunting facility if you use one profits. The gun shop where you purchased your gun, ammo and any other miscellaneous from profits. The hospital, morgue and funeral home if you had or have to "defend" yourself or kill someone profits. The EMTs who came or will come to the scene of the attack will profit along with their company. Lastly our lovely Government also profits, who's bureaucrats beem when they see "GDP" is up {Gross Domestic Product: the total output of goods and services produced within a country's border in a given time frame. Killing someone is classified as a "service." It matters not if the police {the domestic milita} kills them, the CIA, FBI, etc., or you. The weapon, bullets if used, your clothing and various other items you have with you at that time, if they were purchased in the year the killing ocurred, are classified as a "good" and are calculated into GDP}

Finally the prison system actually profits if the attacker lives since funding increases for prisons dependent upon the number of prisoners among other things. There are of course others whom profit as well from these actions. I could go on with the Military Industrial Complex, and those of us who choose to work for them, whether they be soldiers or employees in various job fields, but I am sure you get the picture. To be frank, it is a very, very ugly senario.

After all of this is said and done, many of us have the GAUL to go to "church," the "mosque," or the "snyagogue" and actually pray to God for instance, to "protect" our "great" nation. Hahahahhaha. Man, what a sick country we live in.
Lastly people made fun of Rodney King; however, what he said truly needs to be heard, "Can't we all just get along?"

Terrific

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very Well stated. Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: Very Well stated. Posted by: Mr. Terrific
» RE: Here's To The Young at Heart Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: Yes I do remember that article. Posted by: Mr. Terrific
civil liberties matter
Posted by: navarro on Oct 18, 2007 4:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i consider gun ownership to be a matter of civil liberty as important as anything else in the bill of rights. this is why my life membership in the nra is just as important to me as my status as "guardian of liberty" with the aclu. i see no disconnect between the two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: civil liberties matter Posted by: YogiBear
as I've said before...
Posted by: lealea on Oct 19, 2007 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you arm some of us, then you have to arm ALL of us! right down to the infant in the cradle, to the oh so dreaded deranged homeless guy who may or may not shoot you if you don't give him some spare change. if this is a democracy and all thos pro-gun people babbling on about civil liberties and their rights as American citizens well then I say that if you arm some citizens then you must arm ALL citizens. after all you are taking away the civil liberties of the so called crazy person, the guy who is disgruntled and opens fire on a schoolroom, the confused adolescent who sprays his classmates (mine and your children), and the little three year old that wants a cool toy like daddy has. Nope! we are all armed or none of us. so let's make it fair and very pro-NRA shall we? EVERYBODY gets a gun!! and I do mean everybody! right down to the guy who bags your groceries to the postal lady who delivers your mail, everybody in the U.S! everybody. everybody! from the teacher at your kids school to your local priest, bishop, reverand, etc. we all get armed to the teeth and we carry our arsenal arround with us at all times. only seems fair. if we are to compare the right to buy and own a dangerous weapon with a car or cell phone or pair of shoes, then well let's never sit on anyone else's civil rights....let's arm us everbodyl!!! and by the way, the Constitution made provision for slavery and for the disqualification of women from the vote. the Constituion has been amended before, let's amend it again...either that or we arm ALL of us. after all as an American, I say it's the American way. to live in fear and die by it too. and one last thing, our founding fathers weren't militia crazed stock piling lunatics with a gun agenda but were attorneys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Founding Fathers Were NOT Attorneys
Posted by: Carl Street on Oct 19, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, only about 50% were attorneys -- a substantially lower rate of attorneys than the 78% that make up the present U.S. Congress -- (House and Senate).

Let's stick with facts and avoid the emotional blather...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people are totally clueless regarding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms
Posted by: Carl Street on Oct 19, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, most here have substituted their personal agenda for the facts. IF you REALLY want to know the reasoning of the Founding Fathers, I suggest you read the writings of the founding fathers of this nation. Their Federalist Papers give an extensive, detailed, and complete background for each and every Clause and Amendment in the Constitution – including the much misquoted and misunderstood 2nd Amendment.

You can find the text of their Federalist Papers on line using Google – Synoptically, they were UTTERLY OPPOSED to a strong military and standing armies and considered them a consummate danger to freedom and liberty. By design, they ONLY supported a SMALL cadre officer corps.

Their plan for protection of this nation was that EVERY INDIVIDUAL was to be armed and a member of the militia -- an independent ad hoc irregular defense force. Thus, providing any invading enemy with a prickly porcupine of innumerable armed enemies that COULD NOT be defeated by an organized military forces. And, while those militia might not "win" a war in a conventional sense; eventually, the enemy would find any invasion to be too expensive to maintain.

They based this on their proven success in defeating the British (the superpower of their day) in the American Revolution. And, their stance was MORE than justified in that the defeat of the British was accomplished even though only about 20% of colonial residents actively supported the American Revolution. So it stood to reason that with an independent militia representing 100%, their stance was a sound military defense strategy.

Would such a plan work in today's high-tech, smart-weapon world? You BET-- regardless of the smoke screen provided by self-serving military-industrial government sources, THAT is exactly what defeated the USA in Vietnam and is defeating us in Iraq.

All you junior-league arm-chair history channel john waynes please spare me your comments. I KNOW first-hand what I am speaking about. I served from 8 aug 66 to 7 aug 72 including stints in the 101st Airborne and was an instructor at Ft. Lewis WA -- my specialty was Techniques of Guerrilla warfare -- so I do NOT want to hear ignorant comments from wannabee idiots whose only combat experience is fighting their wife for the remote control.

Hopefully, this clarifies the Second Amendment for ALL -- bubble-headed, touchy-feely, doo-gooders and centralized, standing-army, military-industrial warfare, "super patriots" -- both of whom are unwittingly undermining this nation and cutting their own throats as well as the rest of ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's an example of the idiocy...
Posted by: RCWV on Oct 19, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that grows out of the "weapon control" philosophy:

Tennis shoes are illegal weapons

Notice that the two men were charged with "Possession of a Weapon", i.e., a tennis shoe. Now, I understand the logic here, but it raises all kinds of problems. The logic is that, under normal circumstances, a tennis shoe is not a weapon, but once USED to strike someone, it becomes one. But wait - the charge isn't illegal USE of a weapon, it's illegal POSSESSION of a weapon. Now, if its possession is illegal once it becomes a weapon, then someone kicking an attacker (a woman kicking a rapist, or a child kicking a kidnapper) would be just as guilty as the two in this story, since mere possession of the weapon is, apparently, illegal. And there are also all kinds of problems with the original logic, that the legal status of the object changes with use. What if I went out and purchased a whole arsenal of tennis shoes with the INTENT of going on a kicking rampage? Would that be illegal if I didn't go through with the plan? Or if I did kick someone with just one of the shoes, does possession of the other shoe (or the rest of my shoes at home) constitute a separate weapons possession violation?

My points are 1) possession of a weapon or potential weapon should not be a crime - it becomes an excercise in obsurd idiocy (like with tennis shoes). It's socially unacceptable USE that should be illegal, not possession, or some ridiculous nebulous changing status to be used to pile on charges, and 2) what's really going on here is the criminalization of the willingness to use force, in ANY context, even self-defense (I know, this story wasn't about self-defense, but if a shoe can be an illegal weapon, then it must be no matter the underlying cause of the use of force - and there are cases where this is happening in self-defense defense cases, when an otherwise legally possessed object is deemed an ILLEGAL weapon once used to defend one's self). Some people are so passive that they would rather die than even potentially hurt another person. Unfortunately, they also want to force everyone else to be that passive as well - which again is idiocy, because it is forcing those who are unwilling to do so to be hurt or killed for nothing more than the emotional comfort of the bunch of idiots who aren't willing to take responsibility for their own well-being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Story Loaded with Misinformation
Posted by: faultroy on Oct 19, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There numerous fallacies and misinformation perpetrated by this most biased article...
1) Suicides and murders are lumped into one. Please note that Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but also one of the highest suicide rates--almost all with other than the use of guns.
2) Both accidental shootings and murders have actually declined. Furthermore, the tragedy of children getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing a friend or sibling has declined tremendously with the active participation of the NRA's programs in schools.
3) These murder statistics are valid if you consider the definition of "children" to be Gang Bangers 21 years old. Yes, gun control advocates label gang bangers 21 years old as "children" in order to inflate their statistics.
4) As above, most of the killings are related to drugs, money and turf warfare. And by far committed in high crime impoverished areas of major municipalities.
If gun control advocates really cared about the senseless deaths and violence committed in our inner cities, they would deal with the root causes, rather than arbitrarily brand guns as the culpirt.
Just once I would like to see this site publish unbiased moderate, easonable and common sense articles that normal Americans can relate to rather than the constant and unfettered lies and misinformation that so many of these "journalists" seem to engage in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seaside
Posted by: seaside on Oct 20, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, thank God for the second amendment. Guns don't commit crimes, people do. Responsible gun ownership is a plus. I live in Maine where most small towns don't have a police department as it is too expensive. A county sheriff's department covers a wide area, with State Police back-up if necessary. I am a woman who did a lot of bird hunting and trap shooting and would not be without my shotguns. If someone attempted a home invasion, don't wait for the sheriff's department, as it would be too late. I recently heard on a local radio program that there are more guns in the state of Maine, per capita, than in any other state. And yet we have a lower crime rate than most states. People who live in highly populated city areas should not be wanting to make the rules for the rest of us. We would not be safer if the general population did not have guns, and you can be sure that criminals will always be able to get guns!! However, they might be afraid to commit their crimes if the person on the other side of a door had a gun. Permit to carry should mean just that. And schools and people in the workplace should not be objecting against that kind of protection. The caveat should be that a person undergo training in the use of their gun and be certified by local law enforcement as having passed that training. I rest my case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

children
Posted by: civilized european on Oct 20, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what about their rights? I would not want for my children to be taught by someone armed as a matter of course. What a sick , mad , shit hole of a society you live in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: children Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: children Posted by: civilized european
» RE: children Posted by: Axiom69
» ill placed humor Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: ill placed humor Posted by: Axiom69
gun-loving INTJ liberal here... strikin' back
Posted by: waitingforthefall on Oct 20, 2007 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ahhh yessss, the anti-gun faction of the uber-left......embracing every cause but reality....

It is no wonder why the "ignorant poor" continually vote GOP, election after election against their own economic interests.....they honestly believe that ivory-tower social utopians of the extreme left, like the fanatic who wrote this article, want to take away the only security that these multi-generational down-and-outers still believe they posess.

There isn't a gun-owning hillbilly, Christian fundamentalist, urban wanna-be commando, survivalist or redneck in America that doesn't know at least somebody that they care about who is gay. I honestly believe that they'll tolerate gay marriage, (another suicidal stallwart of the left's politically self-defeating platform in this current political climate) long before they will give up their constitutional 2nd amendment right to have a final say in their security, right or wrong, from the tyrrany and oppression of this billionaire-controlled government.

If the democrats dumped these off-the-charts, far left-leaning anti-gun folks from their platform, and instead embraced the NRA and sensible gun ownership for citizens of proven responsibility, they would have the votes to run the country for the next 100 years. The corrupted GOP and its billionaire mandarins might cease to exist.

Perhaps then, with a bit of social spending, infrastructure repair, repair of our foreign relations and equalization of the classes etc. Americans really might be willing to take their fingers off the trigger because they will have less strife to fear.

Americans of all types responsibly posess guns, including me, a lifelong Democrat who fled California for Texas in order to be able get a permit to carry a gun in defense of myself and my family. We only hear about the nut jobs who go postal from agenda-driven authors who rally against citizen's right to own a firearm.....the one-in-a-million goofball who unfortunately did not encounter a trained shooter (or two) when they decided to start their massacre....

However, we will not give them up for an experiment in social engineering that would leave the citizenry sheeple of this country defenseless against the very real prospects of future Federal facism, societal collapse due to economics or Peak Oil, or any other possible scenario that would make the common law-abiding citizen vulnerable.

EVERYBODY....PLEASE READ "DEER HUNTING WITH JESUS" by Joe Bageant or read Joe's blog at

www.joebageant.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» California to Texas Posted by: civilized european
The Holocaust took place in "Civilized Europe"
Posted by: Carl Street on Oct 21, 2007 10:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, it could ONLY take place in "Civilized Europe" where those being forced into the boxcars, gas chambers and ovens were denied the right to defend themselves by "civilized gun control laws".

The history of Europe is far from civilized -- most of the atrocities of the past few centuries have taken place in "civilized Europe" and what atrocities took place on this continent were originated in large part by "civilized Europeans".

It takes a profound ignorance of history and the ultimate in chutzpah for any European nation with the possible exception of Switzerland to lecture us on civilization. Whatever you "civilized Europeans" are smoking it must cause amnesia...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.votenic.com
Posted by: votenic on Oct 22, 2007 8:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WEEKLY POLL

http://www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening.
FREE, NON-BIASED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement