Let’s Pry Open Those Cold, Dead Hands

“...most Americans support more gun control laws.”

Try asking, “Do you favor stronger anti-wife beating laws?”
Or — “Do you favor better health?” “Less crime?” You’ll get a LOT of affirmative replies.

• Most Americans don’t even know what the current gun control laws are.
• Most have no idea how little the vast number of added laws have affected crime.
• Most don’t know that all except 2 states issue carry permits and have seen no huge increase in shootings and in some cases have had a decline.
• Most don’t know about the increase in “hot buglaries” (when guarranted unarmed people are at home) in countries with strick anti-gun ownership laws such as Great Britain.

Gun control laws are not the answer, shooting people is already against the law.

If shootings are the problem it requires not just a gun, but a person as the other (most important) part of the equation.

Not quite so simple is it?

Remember that the pro-gun lobby has the benefit of monetary support from firearm manufacturers who have a great financial stake in defeating gun control legislation.

For gun-control activists to mount a truly symmetrical campaign, they will need to identify a business interest with a stake in controlling guns.  I don’t know who that might be.

tell me, if the brady campaign is the majority, then why does the NRA have TEN TIMES the membership rolls of the brady campaign?

oh, and generally speaking, we inundate your reply boards and email inbox because we truly care about the issue, we’re in the right, and oh wait… maybe you get more replies against gun control than for because there are more people who actually believe in the second amendment as a civil right.

davidpaddock,

Bullseye!
Nice group too.
------------------

Theodore,

Who may be willing to subsidize the anti-gun cause?

• The drug dealers

• The neighborhood gangs

• The guy who burgled our house

• The people who actually subscribe to this magazine

• About two-thirds of Hollywood

• All those who think there are simple solutions to a complex issue

If I think of any more should I send them?

Same old tired liberal anti-gun tripe. I’ll try and respond to some of the points directly:

1)The public wants more gun control.

True if the question is put like that. If you ask “Do we need more than 22,000 gun control laws” most will say no.

2) The majority is represented by the Brady Bunch.

Then why do 39 states now have “shall issue” laws which provide any responsible citizen with a means to legally carry a concealed weapon? Did all of those state legislators go against the wishes of their constituents? The Brady Bunch represents myopic urban liberals who think one more gun law is the one criminals will all of a sudden obey.

3) Almost half the murder victims in the U.S. are black.

This is true and tragic. Wouldn’t it also be fair to point out that 90% of their killers were black? And where guns were used over 95% of those guns were already illegally in the possession of the killers. What is happening in the black community is a cultural problem not a gun problem.

Studies show legal guns are used between 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 times a year to stop crime. Would the author make those people who defended themselves with a gun new victims? In none of the states with “shall issue” law has the crime rate increased appreciatively and in some it has gone down. Does that suggest guns are the reason for crime?

The author may mean well but she appears ill equipped to evaluate issues based on logic and reason. Unfortunately lack of knowledge and intellect has never stopped a liberal with access to a keyboard and a venue.

Hi, y’all!

Ever heard of innocent bystanders getting killed in a drive-by stabbing?  How about a disgruntled postal worker returning to his workplace and strangling a dozen of his co-workers ? The boys at Columbine didn’t do what they did with baseball bats.

I’m sorry. I had to throw that out for the sake of symmetry. I’m not anti-gun at all. I own several that also comply with Clinton’s gun farce, I mean laws. I’m not giving them up without an insurmountably good reason. I do, however, believe that ALL firearms should be registered, and anyone who violates our gun laws should have the book thrown at them, in fact, borrow some of mine.

Jack-booted thugs? Puh- leeze! Change the tin foil in your hat!

Wild West if we allow concealed carry? Shyeah! Have you beeen wearing or smoking your hemp sandals! 

Let’s face facts, shall we?

The gun control issue is an agitant issue. All it does is stir up emotion on both sides without accomplishing anything. In the process, a few people manage to profit from the discord.

We’ll never be able to buy AK-47’s out of vending machines, and the government will never kick down your door to take your deer rifle.

You worry about me killing a family member in an argument ? I worry about you getting killed by some Mansoneqsue group of psychos because of a lack of shootin’ irons.

Can we agree to disagree and go back to our pursuits without having to deal with more unnecessary divisions/diversions?

Ta-ta!

“Women and the African-American church—get them behind the keyboard, and you’ll unleash a thunderous counterpunch to the gun lovers’ old one-two.”

Wake me up when that happens. Please don’t be too disappointed when absolutely nothing changes - except, of course, for more concealed carry laws to pass.

I personally think the existing gun laws need to be strictly enforced. That just isn’t happening right now. But I’m another one who is generally not in favor of more restrictions on citizens to purchase guns lawfully (provided they get a background check, don’t have a criminal record, etc).

But just politically speaking, this is a dumb issue for Democrats to try to champion. It’s proven to be win-win for Republicans time and time again.

Some background: I was born and raised in Queens NY, and saw first hand during then Mayor Dinkins NYC administration how restricting people from having concealed firearms only made them softer targets for criminals, I witnessed first hand criminal gun play as I rode the J/Z line thru east NY and the E thru Queens and A to my in laws in Washington Heights.

“Adolph” Giuliani certainly cleaned up NY however at a great toll to peoples civil rights a) restricting private firearm ownership b) illegal searches (I with no criminal record was searched without cause, at least 2 dozen times during his reign of terror).

I personally do not like guns, however with literally hundreds of millions of guns in America, the choice is clear: I will take a few accidental shootings over the mass murder of un-armed students, teachers and innocent citizens by crazies and outlaws every day of the week.

In fact any legislator working on “banning guns”, “gun control” aka “citizen control” or are creating another useless “gun free zone” aka “soft target zone” in light of the facts is grossly irresponsible.

Case in point arrogant Mike Bloomberg by denying NYC residents their civil rights to self defense; an un-armed man was gunned down recently in Brooklyn. In Newark NJ 3 good young un-armed people were gunned down. In both cases they might all be alive today, if they were not denied their civil rights to self defense.

(So far Newark Mayor Corey Booker is looking like clueless Cory Booker by spending $3mm on “gun shot detection technology” instead of putting that money in after school programs.)

CA, MA, NY and NJ need “shall issue” concealed carry and “reciprocity” (like drivers licenses). vs. the current “may issue” which is reserved for politicians and their cronies.

Self defense is a civil right.

ps: Fact: the first “gun control” laws were written to keep blacks from owning firearms, look at Wash DC, LA, Camden, Newark, NYC...what’s changed?

Ms. Washington, why don’t you call to task the racism in “may issue” vs. “shall issue”?

If we ban guns whats to stop the ban of free speech ?
Just shred the Bill of rights.

Lastly, Rev. Jesse Jackson has zero credibility on this, he is just playing his game and has you and others drinking the kool aid.

“citizen groups, like the Brady Campaign”

The NRA has 4 million dues-paying members and it’s “the gun lobby”. The Brady Campaign is composed of a few dozen well-healed out-of-touch do-gooders and it’s a “citizen group”. Oy vey.

Also consider everything the NRA does beyond lobbying for our 2nd Amendment rights. Safety programs, training for law enforcement, accident insurance for it’s members, and a huge yearly convention that culminates in those dues-paying members voting on who will represent them on the NRA’s Board of Directors.

Does the BC have any other function other trying to ban guns?

“the Gun Industry pays for these groups”
Perhaps you could tell me where I should apply for this money?

Britain (where i lived for 30 something years) banned civillian ownership of handguns and semi auto rifles larger than .22rf, result? armed crime has doubled since 1997.  Of course the Brits can all now feel safer as all handguns are now safely in criminal’s hands, and the honest folk are dis armed.

In the mid 90’s britain enjoyed 2X the burglary rate of the US and 40% of British Burglaries were hot compared to 7% hot in the US, since that time the US rate has continued to fall and the UK rate has risen. A major reason for US burglars not tangling with the occupants is:
“that’s how to get yourself shot”

You’re right, most (but far from all) legal gun ownership is by male, white, middle class, rural and predominantly middle aged… You’re also right about the shooting victims, mostly male, young, black, poor and inner city.  You miss the vital connection though. The perpetrators are?  ......  Come on ..... Yes?  mostly male, young, black, poor and urban,

Those white rural middle age middle class males you demonise are not coming into the ‘hoods on a night to hunt young black kids, I think we’d have heard about it if it was happening, don’t you?

so, why are Jackson, Bloomberg etal not encouraging the inner city folks to turn in the street and drugs gangs members who are doing the shooting instead of going after law abiding folk? answer please?

Most drugs are illegal in most countries in the world. If I wanted I could get whatever drugs I want virtually anywhere in the world, name me a small town in the States where that is not true? Drugs are smuggled into the US by the ton. being illegal doesn’t stop it. Do you think it is anymore difficult to smuggle firearms?

Even if you could stop the illegal flow of professionally produced Firearms, take a look at www.thehomegunsmith.com to see how easy it is to make your own sub machine gun from readily available bits of pipe.

What 2a is about is allowing honest folk of all races, colours genders and wealth brackets the means to defend their own and their loved ones lives and liberties.

Could you please explain the social benefits of disarming the law abiding and only criminals having guns?

That’s before adding that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, PolPot etc were all keen on gun control.

oh, just seen Aunty Rightwing’s comments,

Perhaps you could explain to the Branch Davidians and their children (those who survived that is) and Randy Weaver (who’s wife and child didn’t survive)that the Govt isn’t going to kick your door down.

Ask the people in New Orleans who were illegally robbed of their means of defense against lawlessness?

Go north of the 49th paralell and see how easily that event occurs. I have personal Friends in Britain who have been woken by the police armed response team breaking the door in to collect their individually licenced guns (they need to give good reason for each and every one, and give the make, model caliber and serial no to the cops plus store it in an approved safe, and only use it in approved places, oh and giving self defence as reason gets all your guns confiscated).

While I don’t subscribe to the Davidian’s beliefs or Weaver’s seperatist views, they were US citizens. believe me, it is a very short step from registration to confiscation.

In 1997 I had to hand in my British licenced .22 and 9mm pistols, my Mother had to hand in her .22 target pistol. What good did that do to the British armed crime figures? they’ve doubled.

“They out-gun, out-email, gun-control advocates by more than 20 to one. “

You forgot one.

They out-gun, out-email AND OUTNUMBER gun-control advocates by more than 20 to one.

Gee, I didn’t think anyone could be uglier than whoopi goldburg:

http://tinyurl.com/288c4v

Regardless of what brought Washington to her evil conclusions and suggestions for the destruction of our Liberty, when her goals are met her kind will be hunted.

When guns are outlawed, “Liberal” season must begin.

http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm

Laura, hoping you’ll help organize the Aftrican American churches...I’ve been trying and it’s just not that easy.

32 Americans die every day from gun violence.  Everyday.  That’s a VA Tech every day.

No one wants to tak guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans.  But we must do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of gang members and others who should not have them.

Losing 32 a day is our national shame and everyone who does not work to stop the violence is responsible.  Everyone.

“Losing 32 a day is our national shame and everyone who does not work to stop the violence is responsible.  Everyone.”

Bull.

The people responsible are the people pulling the trigger.

Here’s a quick newsflash:  Criminals don’t obey gun laws, so passing more of them isn’t going to help.  It makes things worse, because it allows the criminals to commit crimes with impunity.

And who were and what was the circumstances of the “32 a day“‘s demise?

Focus your good intentions on the cause and the effect will take care of itself.

These kids need guidance, after school programs, your mention of church’s, expanded mentoring programs etc.

Citizens need to call out their elected officials for real solutions, not feel good nonsense.

Case in point: Corey Booker Mayor of Newark spending $3mm on “gun shot detection technology” instead that money should be used in after school programs, a tech lab; bring in game software developers to share their knowledge with the youth, recreation center, field trips, athletic facilities, not just b-ball, tennis etc. heck put a golf driving range in Newark!!! There are endless things to do, summer camps in the country etc.

Hi stopgunviolence,
unfortunately about 90% of murderers are already well known to the criminal justice system and typically have 3 or more convictions for crimes of violence before they murder.

“They often know their victim” (Yes, usually a member of a rival gang, a rival dealer, or just someone who “dissed” them in the past).

Stats from around the world (see Kates & Mauser in the Harvard journal of law & public policy for a good review and source references) seem to show that murder rates of 3X the worst that America had can occur in societies with police state type controls on firearms. There are just more victims of stabbing, clubbing and beating to death.

Initiatives to unite the communities plagued by gang violence are to be welcomed if they give the honest majority in those communities the confidence that the perpetrators of the violence will be put behind bars until they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

Campaigns that target legally held guns are only providing disarmed victims who are easier for the gangs to intimidate and prey upon.

More general campaigns against guns , well, you see the reponse Laura’s op ed is getting here....

Waypasthadenough,
what side of the argument are you on? if you can’t muster a reasoned case in favor of 2A , perhaps it’s time to log off and get out a bit.

It isn’t hard to counter anti 2A arguments with logic and reference to any study that goes beyond the “people were shot therefore all guns bad” level of reasoning, you don’t have to lower yourself to dishing out personal insults and threats, which is what makes me think you are in the anti 2A fold.

Keith
a person of the gun....

To:

Keith
a person of the gun....

Did you even bother to go to my web page?

This creature has just told us it would like to see us dead, or suffering at the hands of the criminal element, whether that element be govt. or street in origin. This creature deserves no respect from me nor anyone else who values their liberty.

And I know, because I’ve been fighting them a long time, and learned early on that being ‘nice’ to them doesn’t work. They love it when you’re stupid enough to think it does.

Just have, I’ll be back there again
Keith
A person of the gun…

Laura Washington writes:

“While blacks make up about 13 percent of the nation’s population, they comprised 49 percent of all murder victims.”

Like it or not, blacks are mostly being killed by blacks so while blacks make up a disproportionate population of victims, they likewise make up a disproportionate population of perpetrators.  Don’t just take my word for it:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

You’ll garner more credibility if you are honest in your use of stats instead of selective use that only benefits your (misguided) cause.

--MuzzleBlast

Maybe black churches should be focusing their efforts on getting their youth into the pews every Sunday instead of being liberal PR machines with a gun agenda?

Maybe they could try to pass on values that would help to stem the tide of gun violence, teenage pregnancy, declining graduation rates, etc?

Gun violence is a horrific thing in the inner-city, and I completely understand what the author would want to see accomplished. But it just doesn’t make sense with the way she wants to do it.

Those “white, suburban males” just aren’t causing the problem. And everybody knows it.

Here are a few more polls to chew on, since you seem to base your decisionmaking on polls

According to a recent Gallup poll:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27229

“A Gallup update in January of this year found that Americans were more satisfied than dissatisfied with the current state of gun laws in the country. Fifty percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s laws or policies on guns, while 43% were dissatisfied. “

Recent Zogby poll:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1289

“Most Americans don’t believe that stricter U.S. gun control policies would help prevent tragedies such as this week’s shootings at Virginia Tech, a new MSN-Zogby poll shows.

While 59% don’t think stricter gun control policies would help, 36% believe they could make a difference by helping to prevent future shootings. More than two in three Americans (69%) believe the recent shootings at Virginia Tech were the actions of a deranged man determined to inflict mayhem and could not have been prevented. But 16% believe stricter controls of guns and ammunition would have prevented the tragedy.”

How do you like them apples?

so many of you are so quick to defend your gun rights but you don’t stop to think that there are laws we need that would not impact you but would impact the terrible violence we have in the US.  each of you who are so quick to say we don’t need any new laws (because the violence has not yet touched you) need to write back and tell us what YOU are doing to help stop the violence.  are you in the schools working as a mentor?  are you part of the big brother/big sister program.  do you and your church reach out to the homeless?  WHAT DO YOU DO TO STOP THE VIOLENCE

and if you’re not working to stop the violence, you’re part of the problem.

Dear “Stopgunviolence,”

The best way to “stop the violence” is to make it highly hazardous for criminals to engage in it. Criminals look for soft targets. They do not want to get hurt any more than you do.

Hi,y’all!

alpacca45 (cute name!)

The gun seizure you refer to is in ENGLAND, not in the U.S. Different countries with different laws.

Regarding the raid at Waco and the Branch Daviidians, let’s clear up a point or two.

1. They were not seizing legal weapons. Those weapons were illegally modified to full automatic. Why? Not because of a nutty belief. Rather they were to increase their value for sale. Vernon Howell was going from gun show to gun show selling said weapons to make money. Automatic weapons fetch prices five to twenty times their value as semi-automatic weapons of the same type. Ol’ Vern was trying to make extra money for whatever reason.

2. Vernon Howell was also trying to ILLEGALLY purchase weapons from his acquaintance, a gun dealer, by purchasing them without filling out a Form 4473. That’s a big no-no in EVERY state as it renders the weapon untraceable. That was also part of Vernon’s scheme.

3. The ATF agents showed up in force to meet a possible threat of several dozen people all of whom could have been armed with assault rifles, automatic or otherwise-- like there’s a real big difference.  Meet an army with an army.

4. Vernon and his followers did NOT have to fire at the ATF. However, they did in what was probably an act, however naively conceived, orchestrated by Howell to distract and muddy further prosecutiuon. Unfortunately, it worked. Albeit aided by partisan Republicans.Who fired first? No one ever answered that question--for political reasons.Did you listen to the phone and radio communications from the Davidians? I did. It was all recorded and Wayne Martin, a Harvard law graduate in the compound, knew that too.

5. Why the Bradleys and the M-60 tanks? Good ol’ Vern and his followers had a Barrett Model 82, a weapon that fires rounds that penetrate any type of vehicle that is not armored. Hiding behind a car, even behind the engine block is futile. Come to think of it, even a Bradley won’t stand up to the .50BMG all that well

By the way, when tear gas is thrown into the room-- LEAVE! That is the purpose of tear gas, to make you want to leave, and not stay in there with a mask on hoping the cops will go away!

Davidians as victims? Victims of Vernon Howell!

Regarding Randy Weaver, sorry his wife was killed. That sniper should have had his *ss handed to him along with a summary dismissal. MIghty bad shooting. Don’t take a maybe shot if you can wait for a sure shot.

However, taking a “YOU’LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!” stance when dealing with law-enforcement is not a smart move.When you break the law they can and will come and kick in your door. If you open fire,they have every right to shoot you.

By the way, it was Bush 41’s ATF that killed Weaver’s wife. That incident occurred in August of 1992. Perhaps if he had paid more attention to his law-enforcement instead of trying to smear Clinton…
Sorry, no one ever discusses that and Weaver never once said “Republicans killed my wife and kid”.

“Remember that the pro-gun lobby has the benefit of monetary support from firearm manufacturers who have a great financial stake in defeating gun control legislation.”

No, they don’t.

Remember Smith & Wesson?  They were the largest US firearm manufacturer.  One of those huge corporate behemoths - with gross sales slightly lower than Ben&Jerry;’s Ice Cream.  (Mistaken assumption #1 - the gun manufacturers aren’t terribly large, and they don’t have the billions of dollars to throw around that, for example, the tobacco companies do.)

In any case, back during the Clinton Administration, S&W;thought that it’d be good business to voluntarily sign on to Clinton’s “marketing” agreement - as an escape from the lawsuits, and a promise of preference in government contracts.

This was, you may remember, Bubba’s attempt to achieve through litigation what he’d been unable to achieve by legislation.

The gun rights community cut them off at the knees.  People simply stopped buying from them.  Their dealers, rather than accept the draconian restrictions that S&W;had promised the Administration that they would impose on their dealers, simply dropped the product line.

Within six months, they were bankrupt.  (And no, this was not the NRA - the NRA is anything but an agile institution, and by the time the NRA had noticed what was going on and made a futile attempt to get out in front of it so it could look like it was leading things, the damage had already been done.)

Smith&Wesson;closed its doors.  Eventually, it’s owners managed to sell the trademarks to a couple of venture capitalists from Arizona, at about 10% of what they’d originally paid for it.

In any case, the story should have made it clear - the gun rights community stands up for the rights of the gun owners, not the manufacturers.  The gun rights movement closed ranks against America’s oldest and largest handgun manufacturer, because that manufacturer thought that screwing over the gun owner would be worth the political favor it’d gain from an anti-gun administration.

If the gun rights movement was driven by the manufacturers’ agenda, it’d not have happened.  But the gun rights movement is driven by the shared understanding of millions of gun owners.

They have influence because of their numbers, and because of their individual efforts, and their individual contributions.

They win not because of the deep pockets of their corporate sponsors.

They win because there are millions of them, and for them the IRKBA is the sine qua non.  Absent gun rights, there _are_ no rights.

You need to understand this.  It’s not the manufacturers.  It’s not the NRA. The manufacturers would be happy to settle, if a method were found that let them keep their profits up.  The NRA ‘s interest in the fight has been limited and weak.  It’s been a constant fight to get them involved in the fight, and to keep them from compromising.

This is a true grass roots issue.  Shut down the manufacturers, disband the NRA, and you’ll still have tens of millions of pissed off gun owners, absolutely convinced that not only do they have a right, but that they have a moral obligation, to Keep and Bear Arms.

stopgunviolence asks:

“so many of you are so quick to defend your gun rights but you don’t stop to think that there are laws we need that would not impact you but would impact the terrible violence we have in the US.”

*All* of the violence is already illegal.  What is to be gained by passing more ineffective laws making it doubly or triply illegal?

“each of you who are so quick to say we don’t need any new laws (because the violence has not yet touched you) need to write back and tell us what YOU are doing to help stop the violence.  are you in the schools working as a mentor?  are you part of the big brother/big sister program.  do you and your church reach out to the homeless?  WHAT DO YOU DO TO STOP THE VIOLENCE”

I’m a father of a self-supporting family teaching my boys proper firearm use, marksmanship, handling and safety, instilling pride, honor and personal satisfaction in work, teaching respect for private property and an understanding of rights, freedom and liberty.  They know that nothing is free, that you must work to get what you want, that government stuff isn’t free and that those who contravene these principles are parasites on society wholly undeserving of the fruits of their labor.  We pay our own way and expect nothing from the government but to secure our rights and to be otherwise left alone.  When the government is unable or unwilling to secure those rights, we take on the task as our liberty, safety and dignity are paramount.  If that means deadly force to keep from being victimized, that is a choice made by the aggressor not the defender.  See:

http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

“and if you’re not working to stop the violence, you’re part of the problem.”

If you are not personally refusing to be a victim of violence and expecting some disembodied legislator or poorly paid law enforcement individual to do it by proxy, you are perpetuating the problem.

--MuzzleBlast

jdege,

“This is a true grass roots issue.  Shut down the manufacturers, disband the NRA, and you’ll still have tens of millions of pissed off gun owners, absolutely convinced that not only do they have a right, but that they have a moral obligation, to Keep and Bear Arms.”

Well put and Right On!

Wow this broad is just so right! All blacks are gun hating church goers oppressed by evil whitie’s army in suburban and rural America. We have to get those guns from whitie! Too bad we can never get on the internet and voice our opinion. All those pesky NRA members are always roaming around hogging all the Wi-Fi and everytime I try to go to the local internet cafe them dang old hunters are there hogging all of the computers. When will this madness ever end? Why can’t we all just live in Laura’s fantasy land where there are no guns. I mean if guns were illegal nobody would have them right? Look at how well that concept works south of our border in Mexico. We could be just like Mexico!!! Hurray!

Hi Aunty rightwing,
“Confiscations in Britain, different country Different laws”

don’t try to spread complacency mate, yes it can happen elsewhere too, all it takes is for the good “people of the gun” tribe to do nothing.  As youv’e probably noticed, we’re not complacent and we talk accross borders.

You have heard of international precedent in law? so have we.

I have a whole range of issues with the Davidians, I’ll stick to a few direct gun ones and the very important one of collective guilt.  If there was a criminal among them, does that justify killing them all? was it all for the greater good? was it Progressive? I think the answer to that question will have resonance for inner city communities all around the world....  don’t you?

My understanding is the Davidians had invited the ATF in to inspect the place, the ATF didn’t take up the offer and instead sent a SWAT team through the upstairs window without warning.

Sort of friendly eh?

Once the SWAT guys ran out of ammo and no longer represented a threat, the Davidians let them go. (obviously the actions of psychopathic killers, don’t you think?)

Let’s look at selective fire guns;
The ATF interest is as a tax collection agency, not anything to do with public safety, regardless of what the propoganda says.

Selective fire guns and silencers were taxed in the 1920’s to help fund the “New Deal”

I’m not going to sympathise with the Davidians religious beliefs (whatever they were) or any belief that they could get away without paying taxes.  Neither will I demonise them as freaky cultists (all faiths start as “cults").

What I will sympatise with them on is that their (your) Govt had no right in using military force on its’ citizens.

The ATF had its oportunity to go in peacefully, it didn’t
There were pleanty of oportunities to arrest the “suspects” as they walked around town, or even, heaven forbid, travelled to and from gunshows. They weren’t taken.

What was taken was the oportunity to display massive jack booted force. Period.

Actually, Selective fire weapons are not too difficult for determined individuals to make from scratch. Sten guns were cloned by the thousand under the noses of Nazi forces in wartime Europe, despite rationing and chronic shortages of metals and machine tools.

Still more stens were clandestinely manufactured under the noses of the Brits in pre ‘47 Palestine (pre independence Isreal).

The ‘smiths of the tribal lands in Pakistan are able to produce a copy of pretty much anything in a couple of days, then once they have their templates made, further copies can be filed and chiseled out in a day. All they need is a vise and a few hand tools.

Just like with drugs, if there is a demand, a market will spring up to satisfy it, you will never ever control that. What needs controlling are the mutants who are commiting the crimes of violence.

Keith
one of the People of the Gun

stopgunviolence wrote:

“so many of you are so quick to defend your gun rights but you don’t stop to think that there are laws we need that would not impact you but would impact the terrible violence we have in the US.  each of you who are so quick to say we don’t need any new laws (because the violence has not yet touched you) need to write back and tell us what YOU are doing to help stop the violence.  are you in the schools working as a mentor?  are you part of the big brother/big sister program.  do you and your church reach out to the homeless?  WHAT DO YOU DO TO STOP THE VIOLENCE

and if you’re not working to stop the violence, you’re part of the problem.”

No. 1. - You’ll never stop crime completely, or violence, or drugs, or war, or greed, or poverty, welcome to reality. Politicians keep promising that they’ll do such because the simple minded, on both sides of the isle, keep looking for simple solutions to their problems. Have the govt. send someone a check, that’ll fix it. The first step away from “Liberal"ism is to accept that you’ve been trying to stay in Neverland and start looking for the door.

No. 2. - I’ve been fighting “Liberal"ism(socialism, communism, progressivism, fascism, yes fascism is a form of socialism) and standing up for human LIberty for years so that’s my contribution. Stop paying young woman to bring fatherless children into the inner cities and get the “Liberal” freak ‘edukators’ out of the schools and you’ll go a long way toward ‘stopping the violence.’

Voting for a “Liberal” is like voting to live in Hell on Earth. Tolerating a “Liberal” is like tolerating a brain tumor. Tolerating “Liberal”ism in government is like tolerating cancer.

dear stop gun violence:
for your information, most of us are extremely active, introducing youngsters to the joys of hunting and fishing, i’m a scoutmaster, assist with coaching, church goer, recently joined my local archery range which sponsors a wide variety of youth activities teaching responsibility, discipline, and dedication, and i’m a dues paying member of my local firearms range which sponsors both concealed pistol license classes (proud graduate) and youth hunter safety programs, as well as various other groups.  and locally, i’m considered inactive, because as a military veteran attending college and recently engaged (fiance got her first dear two years ago now, can’t wait to get her first buck...) i’m limited on my time. 
i wake up every day knowing that because of the pistol hidden on my person both me, and those around me are safer, and that i influence young americans to exercise and take pride in all their civil liberties, including the second.  i KNOW i help decrease violence because i confront it head on, and unlike so many of you liberal gun-blamers who claim to want peace, i’m willing to confront the violence head on when it is immediate and life threatening because i’m well trained and practiced in the use of force and willing to risk my own safety for the safety of those around me, just so like so many of the other CPL holders i know.
now that i’ve addressed your question, please tell us, what exactly do you do to decrease violence, besides posting on a web board?
please, inform us…

And please stop using that favorite “Liberal” term ‘civil liberties.’ That intones that our rights come from the govt. or are ‘guaranteed by the govt. or ‘allowed’ by the govt.

see:

Noun 1.  civil libertycivil liberty - one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country
political liberty
freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
2.  civil liberty - fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference
civil right - right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; “civilization presupposes respect for the law”; “the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order”

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+liberty

Instead we must insist, with all our resolve, and on the blood of our enemies, both foreign and domestic, that we are born with natural rights, specifically a natural right of self defense, our most basic right, which underlies all other rights, to speech, arms, property, etc.

When the founders said “Liberty or death” that didn’t mean they were going to stand in front of the British troops and let them mow them down. It meant they were going to kill enough Brits to get the message across.

We will probably see the time come when we will have to kill enough “LIberals” or some other form of authoritarian to get the message across.

Wikipedia on natural rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Sorry, meant to include this quote, still so applicable today:

“From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms!
Through the land let the sound of it flee;
Let the far and the near all unite, with a cheer,
In defense of our Liberty Tree.”
-- Thomas Paine
(1737-1809)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Paine.Quote.73A0

@AuntyRightwing(assuming this actually describes what you are) You really need to read up on the Waco incident, you might want to start here - http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html . Plenty of information along with the results, or in one case the nonresult, of several FOIA requests.

@waypasthadenough I find it quite irritating when people buy into leftist propaganda, particularly the idea that they have anything to do with liberalism. They do not, and by pretending they do you just allow them to gain the upper ground. They are just as authoritarian if not more so than the current overall direction of the republican party. As such, they no more deserve the term liberal than you deserve the term communist. Now, when it comes to social issues they are selectively more liberal than the right wing, but not really, and most of that’s short-term vote buying. Their actual actions speak otherwise when you look at their long-term implications.

Hi Laura,
I think the comments here probably give you some small sample of the “People of the Gun” .

Legal gun owners are a pretty good cross section of those in society who don’t have criminal records.

Can I make the suggestion that you go see firsthand?

Howabout a few visits to a local range? and, if your state is one of the many that allows it, take the training for a concealed carry permit ?

- entirely up to you whether you ever buy a gun or carry, but i think you’ll be pleasently surprised by the people you meet along the way
Keith

One of many “People of the Gun”

According to The Brady Campaign, in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths in the United States from guns.  That includes homicide, accidents, and suicide.

It’s a commonly held statistic that there are somewhere over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the United States.

Calculating that out as a percentage, this means that only about 0.015354% of guns are used in crime.  That is, of course, assuming that every crime is committed with a new gun.

Yet the left continually bleats on about how the way to eradicate gun violence is to disarm people like me: law-abiding, upstanding citizens who’ve never pulled a trigger with ill intent.

Never mind the fact that gun-related deaths have been trending downward since the 1970’s, while at the same time the rates of gun ownership have gone up.

Oh, and Laura, don’t expect your call out to women to speak up for gun control to work.  The rate of gun ownership among women has recently been increasing as women decide to take responsibility for their own safety, rather than using 911 to summon a man with a gun.  The number of female competitive shooters has also been going upwards lately, as well.

I’d happily sit here and continue to poke holes in your assertions, but it’s a beautiful day out, and I’ve got a pistol match to attend.

Cheerio,
Captain Awesome

Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into “gun control” have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it.

Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated.

Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

The difficulty of enforcement crucially undercuts the violence-reductive potential of gun laws. Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm. A leading English analyst’s pessimistic view has been summarized as follows: “[I]n any society the number of guns always suffices to arm the few who want to obtain and use them illegally ....”

Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

- GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA? 
Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, Ph.D., John K. Lattimer, M.D., George B. Murray, M.D., and Edwin H. Cassem, M.D., 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994)

Laura S. Washington teaches journalism. That may help to explain the poor state of the news business. This piece includes most everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. The vilification of white males (especially non-urban), leftist hate speech, marginalizing or ignoring the function of centrist and right leaning rights groups, exalting left-wing extremist and organizations and demonstrating little or no knowledge of the subject matter. This piece is so riddle with misinformation and misrepresentations, colanders have less holes.

It hard to imagine how a reader without firsthand knowledge of this subject wouldn’t come away less informed and more ignorant after reading this piece.

The fact that Ms. Washington may be teaching other her brand of propaganda and trying to pass it off as journalism makes my blood run cold! I’m sure Joseph Goebbels would have been happy to know there would be people like Ms. Washington carrying on his work.

I love how anti-gunners mention the Second Amendment in passing, as though it were an optional amendment of the Bill of Rights.  And I love how liberals talk about white men as if they didn’t count.  I can’t wait until we’re a minority, hopefully by then it’ll still be in style; but probably not because it doesn’t have anything to do with population proportions and everything to do with hate.  I just posted on my favorite gun nut board for our resident non white non males to drop you a line just to let you know they’re out there.

I’m not going to bother tossing any arguments out there as to why the evidence is irrefutable that the Second Amendment had everything to do with personal rights because you’ve heard it all before and it’s irrelevant to you because the Constitution doesn’t mean anything to you unless it serves your purposes.  I’m one of the few pro-gun folks who might’ve been tempted to come to some kind of compromise, but you know why we don’t compromise?  Because the anti-gun lobby isn’t interested in compromise, their idea of “sensible” gun laws ultimately is the eradication of personal gun ownership.  We only have so many rights and you will keep chipping away until there is nothing left and there are plenty of public servants who’ve let the notion slip past their lips; we know you want us to turn everything in and thus we aren’t giving any ground. 

Take the microstamping bill on Gov. Schwarzenegger’s desk.  This bill is an anti-handgun bill plain and simple. Once it is law, who in their right mind is going to want to own a handgun in California aside from crooks?  You go to the range, you burn off a couple of boxes of ammo, you lose ONE shell casing with your personalized stamp on it, Joe the thug comes along picks up your casing and drops it at the scene of his next homicide; voila the police are knocking on your door.  Meanwhile the thugs are using revolvers that don’t drop casings.  Brilliant eh?

oh yeah and even if you don’t lose a casing, what are you going to do with the ones you retrieve?  Are you going to build a smelter at home to melt them down whenever you come home from the range?  So long as they exist intact with that stamp they are a danger to your good name and freedom.

Prohibition doesn’t work, won’t ever work, can’t work. It doesn’t matter if it’s forbidden literature, drugs, or arms, it’s the forbiddance itself that is unrealistic. There are illegal drugs and firearms in Saudi Arabia and Singapore, for example, despite the finality of the remedies each state uses to deter such. You have to deal with the *real* criminal elements to get them, but there you go, that’s part of the point.

I do favor having to qualify for gun ownership, no differently from having to qualify to drive a car, fly a plane, dive scuba, etc. That takes time, and leaves a paper trail. I mean more than a background check, but a true demonstration of safe skills. Cho Seung Hui did have a background check (i.e. he met the legal requirements, such as they were). It can be argued that his check wasn’t thorough enough, but privacy laws will have made it quite difficult to access his status as a mental patient. Besides, up to the point of his rampage, no one had a perspective on him that would have truly predicted the killings. Up to then, he was just another sullen, weird kid, like some others of us who have been similarly tagged. It may have to be admitted that terrible events like VA Tech are impossible to truly, 100% prevent (though they can be studied and interdictions set up to inhibit future similar attacks). In any case, 1000s of killings in a year aren’t the work of people getting psych services, sullen and weird or whatever.

(Having said that, what did Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold of Columbine HS, Jeff Weise of Red Lake HS, and Cho Seung Hui of VA Tech have in common? Years of pent-up anger brought on by ridicule, abuse, being chronically underestimated, ignored. All had lost any belief in their own worth. They were alienated so entirely as to see all other people as their tormenters, and all were determined to make their tormenters pay, really didn’t give a fuck who they got in their sites. Perhaps this is instructive for interpreting the high rates of inner city crime. We dehumanize each other at our collective peril.)

Obviously criminals will evade qualification requirements, but there’s where law enforcement’s role comes in. They already do what they can to interdict illegal arms traffic, and what they need from the lawmakers is a broader mandate and increased human and material resources. What they need from the courts are conviction rates and sentences for violent crime that leave no doubt as to the severity of the risks they take (over and above the risk that their intended victim might put a round through their sternum or skull). At the moment, with incarceration resources stretched to beyond the limit, the risks of crime may not seem too high.

(Ending the entirely fruitless drug war would free up a lot of these resources. Prohibition fails, every time, and prevents other possible successes by its inherent, flagrant waste.)

When it comes to self-defense, I’d hope my Remi 870 wouldn’t have to do the talking for me (nothing like the sound of a pump-action to get one’s attention!), but if it gets down to it I’m not going to quibble about what my civil right supposedly is. I have the right to guard my life and the lives of my loved ones whether the damn legislators or litigators acknowledge it or don’t. Hell, even an animal understands that.

Waypast and Raven -

Good take on the Second Amendment.

The Bill of Rights were the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  Liberal philosophy sprang from the Enlightenment, which largely originated in Great Britain and revolutionary France.  The Bill of Rights was the distillation of centuries of philosophical development, and is at the foundation of our stable and flourishing Republic.

The Rights enshrined in the Constitution belong to the people; the government did not grant these Rights to us, we own them.  The ability to defend our Rights is fundamental to the preservation of all our Rights; speech, press, worship.  This makes the Second Amendment critical to the continuation of our Republic, and that is why the Collectivists want to destroy the Second Amendment. 

The Bill of Rights and particularly the Second Amendment are indisputably “liberal” in the original meaning of the word at the time of the founding of the Republic. 

In the early years of the Twentieth Century, a new Collectivist philosophy, originating in Europe in the 1800s, arose in the United States.  Known first as “Communism”, it attracted few followers among the American electorate, who had extensive reports on the horrific death and destruction that accompanied the imposition of Communism in Russia.

Communism in the United States did not not thrive, but neither did it go away.  Communists changed their name to “Socialists”, but Socialism also failed to attract many followers. 

One thing you can say for the Collectivists, they are persistent.  When Communism and Socialism were repudiated by the American people, they began to call themselves, fraudulently, “Progressives”.  The Progressive movement in the United States had developed in the early Twentieth Century, and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was its most notable proponent.  When the Collectivists failed to etablish themselves under the Communist and Socialist labels, the stole the Progressive title.  Henry Wallace, businessman/mystic/Communist, ran for President on the Progressive Party ticket in 1948.  He lost. 

Shortly thereafter the Collectivists began calling themselves “Liberals”.  If the expropriation of the Progressive label was fraudulent, the expropriation of the Liberal label was bizarre. Collectivists are the polar opposite of the values originally enshrined in the liberalism of the founding of the Republic.

Now I note that some Collectivists (Hillary, most notably) are again calling themselves Progressives.  I suppose they are running out of labels with which to mislead people.

Controlling and confiscating guns is a priority among Collectivists, but it is profoundly illiberal and a direct violation of the peoples’ Rights.

Since the vast majority of ‘gun violence’ victims are African American
Maybe we should pass laws restricting gun ownership by blacks.
They won’t object-right? it’s what they want, so the legislation should be easy to pass- no blacks would complain or protest would they? No blacks will be allowed any firearm at all-period.
That way us rural/suburban white guys can live our lives and keep and shoot our guns and not be worried about the infringement of our God given rights, and the violence will decrease in the city. The original gun control laws were designed just for this, maybe they had the right idea.  Oh and don’t worry-all you soon to be disarmed African Americans the police-the federal government and we (the white guys) will protect you.

Ms. Washington obviously has a problem with the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights contained therein. It is within the Bill of Rights that we find the 2nd Amendment with which she has a special interest in seeing removed.
It was interesting that she did not see, in her own tirade on gun ownership and the members of the Responsible Firearms Community (RFC) that she was also attacking the 1st Amendment, for she seems to have a problem with anyone who disagrees with her.

One would think that a Senior Editor would write more from her mind rather than her emotions.  She has the right to her opinions and that right was guaranteed to her by the same people that wrote all the other amendments.
She should be well aware that the USA has more gun Laws than any country in the world, the problem is 99% of them are ignored by Law enforcement until too late and by criminals 100% of the time.
Even the tiniest bit of research would reveal to her that the places with the most gun laws also have the most gun crime Places like Washington DC which should be one of the safest places in the USA is actually one of the most dangerous.  Most of your major cities enact their own gun laws which restrict the State Gun laws even further.  Areas that have the highest legal ownership of firearms actually have the lowest crime rates. 

It is unfortunate that self righteous people like Laura Washington believe that she and people like her have the Rights guaranteed her in the Constitution but no one else has the right to disagree with her.

I am a retired Police Officer in Canada who had to watch as the Liberal Government of the day passed the Current Firearms Act.

We are more at risk in our own homes here in Canada as the Current legislation makes the defensive use of a firearm impossible for the general public. Your doors can be kicked in and you can be beaten and robbed as your firearm is locked up complete with a trigger lock in one area and the ammunition must also be securely locked in another location. 
Now dosen’t that just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over?

The increase in Home invasions and street gang warfare followed the enactment of new gun laws that made criminals safer.  Of course this is not a pattern that is unfamiliar to those in the USA which saw Federal Laws enacted there which turned schools that received any federal money into Gun Free Zones.  This was immediately followed by a rash of school shootings as the killers knew they could come to the school and rack up the body count with the full knowledge that even when the police arrived they would hang around outside the school waiting for the shooting to stop.  Then they would wait an appropriate amount of time before beginning to search for the shooter(s).  While this was going on students were bleeding out in hallways and classrooms.

At least, now after facing much criticism from everyone, they have adopted new strategies for getting into the school quicker while the school lockes down in an effort to save lives.

The sad part is that The media keeps the event in the forefront of the news for so long it begins to influence other kids that begin to think “I could have killed more” Annual memorials keep the killers name in the news and they, even though they may have committed suicide have achieved a form of immortality because everyone will always remember them.  In the mean time others with similar thoughts are biding their time while society ignores all the blatent warning signs, until they feel it is their turn for immortality.
One person in any of these areas who was the lawful holder of a Conceal Carry permit could have stopped the event shortly after it began.  The unfortunate thing is that rather than concentrating on the fact that this person , most likely a teacher , would then become the target of people like Laura Washington and people like her.

Ms. Washington works for the Chicago Sun Times, teaches at DePaul University in Chicago and more than likely resides in Chicago or a neighboring suburb ... all factors to be considered when reading her commentary. I would wager that she has rarely, if ever, travelled to see or spend time with any of those “white men from suburban and rural areas” that she so despises. Her circle of friends and acquaintances is probably composed mostly of like-minded liberal and progressive academia.

Sadly, Ms. Washington has taken her place among those who would lead the “African-American” (another label for another discussion) community ... the likes of Jackson, Sharpton and Pflegar who continue to preach victimhood to their misguided followers. “It’s everyone else’s fault but your own. Look to the government for salvation! The nanny state and its many laws will save you! The evil, repressive white man and his guns are the cause of all your plagues!” Unfortunately, their followers cannot see the sad and hopeless future that ideology portends for them. When they should be preaching personal responsibility they fail miserably.

I found the title of her commentary interesting as well “Let’s Pry Those Cold Dead Hands.” I’m sure she was just playing on Charlton Heston’s famous speech but I think she fails to realize that is exactly what would have to happen to bring her utopian dream to fruition. I’m sure she would want it done by proxy too since I don’t think she would be the one taking up arms to accomplish her goals. No, it’s quite clear that Ms. Washington is out of touch with “the gun culture” and “People of the Gun.” She fails to understand our motivation and our resolve.

For the record, I don’t get a phone call every morning at 0600 from “Gun Lobby” Headquarters with my marching orders for the day. I’m not white. My wife (who is not a white male) also owns and shoots several firearms. We have bills to pay, don’t live extravagantly but we still meet all our obligations. All our children shoot and own firearms as well (and have done so since age 8). I barely tolerate the NRA (they compromise too much) and prefer Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO).

“People of the Gun” just want to be left alone and are willing to bear the consequences of their (our) choices without blaming others or asking the government for help. Perhaps Ms. Washington should tell all women and “African American” churches the same ... Perhaps Ms. Washington should tell young “African-American” men.

After reading most of the above comments I am beginnig to understand why USA is always at war with remote countries which never attacked them, it just has violence at the root of its culture.
What you so despise as “utopic” is an attempt at trying to live in peace as human beings. While you continue to manufacture and distribute weapons as a natural part of man’s life, many of us think it’s the wrong way to develop a humane culture. If on top of that we hear you preaching christianity and democracy and calling other cultures as inferior, the option is hypocrisy or blidness. If you blame Afro-americans for gun-toting you should review your policies towards a group of people who descend from the slaves you bought, illtreated and used to develop your empire.

You know, I’ve been trying hard to find a polite way to respond to Maria’s last.

But there isn’t one.

Seems that she thinks that the problem is that we’re violent, knuckle-dragging, neanderthals, who have no place in a civilized society.

She calls us bigots and hypocrites, while simultaneously calling us violent, racist, and inhumane.

She clearly demonstrates a large part of the problem - it’s not so much guns that she hates, as gun owners.  She knows zilch about us, but she feels free to accuse of every vile thing she can imagine, based on no more than her own preconceptions and prejudices.

It’s bigotry in every sense of the word.

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

The Common Thread: Rage

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can’t handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? ...

Identity as Victim

If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

(1) People who identify themselves as “victims” harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as “not victims.”

(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these “victims” utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as “victims.”

(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Maria,

I do not despise all attempts at human beings living in peace. I only despise Ms. Washington’s method of obtaining that peace. Her view fails to take into account the true human condition. Man is basically sinful and in need of redemption. Without delving deeper into a religious discussion and going off topic, I will say that the solution is not found in government or within the individual. It is our very nature that is corrupt and after all, government is a human institution operated by humans. Government should serve the individual not the other way around. Ms. Washington would desire to make every person dependent on the government for everything (cradle to grave) ... including personal safety.

I never called any other culture inferior and I never blamed “African Americans” for gun toting. I have never bought, sold or “ill treated” any slaves. I’m not even white. I don’t have an “empire” either. On the other hand, Ms. Washington clearly feels that “white men from suburban and rural areas” are to blame for the ills that plague the “African American” community.

You said that we should “review (our) policies towards a group of people (African Americans?)” What specific policies are you talking about?

Please remember that human interaction breaks down into two categories ... persuasion or force. This principal was very eloquently stated in the following short essay :(http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html) by a man named Marko. I suggest you read it. This principal applies to interactions between the individual and government as well. If you will take pause and think about what I have said, you might begin to understand that it’s not “violence” that is at the root of our culture but rather, it’s Freedom that you will find there.

It’s a quaint bit of sophistry to refer to “gun owners” as if they all are, by definition, upstanding law-abiding citizens, and their “criminal” counter-parts are all, again, by definition, evil cold-blooded sociopaths, when in fact all of them, the citizens and the sociopaths, are gun “owners”.  Ownership doesn’t necessarily confer respectability upon the owner, as any criminal gun owner’s crimes have shown.  Making more guns more easily available simply compounds the problem.  Restricting the ownership of guns will also restrict the commission of gun-related crimes.  But then, restricting the ownership of anything in this country is pretty much a “capital” offense.

A bit-o-substitution from what Major Major sez:

It’s a quaint bit of sophistry to refer to “gasoline purchasers” as if they all are, by definition, upstanding law-abiding citizens, and their “arsonist” counter-parts are all, again, by definition, evil cold-blooded sociopaths, when in fact all of them, the citizens and the sociopaths, are gasoline “owners”.  Ownership doesn’t necessarily confer respectability upon the owner, as any arsonist owner’s crimes have shown.  Making more fuel more easily available simply compounds the problem.  Restricting the ownership of gasoline will also restrict the commission of gas-related arson.  But then, restricting the ownership of anything in this country is pretty much a “capital” offense.

See how that works?  :-) Same diff, eh, just a different “tool” ...

--MuzzleBlast

Fifty years ago, the medical profession used to think that long distance running was bad for you, because it resulted in an enlarged heart and an abnormally low pulse rate - symptoms that were linked to heart disease in sedentary people.

Today, we understand that an enlarged heart and slow pulse is not a symptom of heart disease in someone who engages in high levels of aerobic activity.  We’ve learned that the presence of an enlarged heart is shared by two distinct populations who have very little in common.

In other words, we are no longer so ignorant as to believe that the presence of an enlarged heart in and of itself has any predictive value as to general health.

Now as to the predictive value of gun ownership as to tendencies towards crime or violence, you still are ignorant enough to believe that such exists.

It does not.

There truly are two distinct populations of gun owners. One of whom owns guns legally, and the other of which is marked by a predilection for violence and crime.

It shows up in the studies, when the studies are designed so as to distinguish between the nature of the gun ownership.  Unfortunately, the field is full of studies that are designed by people who are seeking to justify predetermined conclusions, and intentionally avoid tracking such fundamental variables as whether the gun was legally owned or not.

But in those studies that do track that fundamental variable, the differences are strikingly clear.

One you can read online is at:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=E ED416294

“Gun ownership and delinquency

“Adolescent ownership and use of firearms is a growing concern, and results from the Rochester study suggest that the concern is well founded.

“By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys owned illegal guns (7 percent) than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the Hispanics carry them on a regular basis.

“Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and drug use.  Seventy-four percent of the illegal gunowners commit street crime. 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs. Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.

“The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place ‘on the street’”

Major Major sez:

“It’s a quaint bit of sophistry to refer to “gun owners” as if they all are, by definition, upstanding law-abiding citizens, and their “criminal” counter-parts are all, again, by definition, evil cold-blooded sociopaths, “

Talk about sophistry, whoo boy! You sure dumped a steaming noxious pile there.

Most criminals are not in fact gun owners. What most of them are is in possession of stolen property. Stealing something does not make it yours. Especially if it’s durable and has a serial number that can be traced. When we say “gun owners” we are talking about people who have taken the trouble, and have the requisite history, to jump through the legal hoops required to buy a handgun. They are real “gun owners” in that the gun is registered to them and they payed for it.. So trying to equate legal gun owners with criminal sociopaths who either steal their weapon or buy it from a fence is deceitful, dishonest, and despicable.

I know you have to be an idiot to be a liberal but why is this so hard to understand?  Criminals do not get their guns through legal channels. Making guns harder to get only means it its harder for law abiding citizens to own the best means available to protect themselves from, wait for it, ......criminals!! You are also disregarding the demonstrated deterrent effect armed citizens have on criminals. You are also ignoring the millions of incidents where lawful citizens use legally owned guns to defend themselves against, yes again,...criminals.

You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Even if you could round up all 200 million guns in this country and shut down all manufacturers of guns criminals will still have guns. Criminals do not obey gun laws. Guns will still be made somewhere in the world and smuggled in here. Guns will also be manufactured here in illegal workshops or factories. If you doubt this you need only look at the skyrocketing gun crime in the UK.

The real solution is arm as many law abiding people as we can. Give them the right to carry and use those guns when threatened by the lawless.  We also need to put criminals away for a very long time if they use a gun in a crime.

Gun owners, and I refer to the members of the Responsible Firearms Community (RFC) here, Major Major not the gang bangers and drug gang members, happen to be the most law abiding segment of society.  They even outshine most police Departments.  The reason for this is they have invested a lot of money, time and effort in obtaining their firearms, becoming proficient with them and making sure they meet all the qualifications required by the State to obtain CCW permits or simply to either hunt or punch holes in paper at the local firing range.
They are a far cry from those who obtain their firearms illegally and use them for criminal purpose.  99% of them obtained their training from movies or television which is why so many innocent bystanders get hurt.

I would also like to thank Muzzleblast for brining up the gasoline and cars analogy.  I have responded similarly to gun grabbers with this same.  My sister lost her boyfriend when the jeep he and four friends were in were run over the side of a cliff over a hundred feed to a rocky beach below by a drunk driver.  She, only two years later was in a popular nightclub in Montreal when three young men were denied access to the club because they were drunk and disorderly.  They left only to return a short time later with some gasoline in glass bottles which they threw into the stairwell leading to the club on the second story.  37 people died that night including my sister and another girl she grew up with.  It was like losing two sisters given they were always staying over at each others houses on the weekends. About 40 others were seriously burned and still carry the scars today, yet their is no annual cry fest for them like the one held for the 14 victims of the shootings at L’Ecole Polythenique in Montreal.
There were no cries to ban gasoline or at least the sale of it in portable containers.
The reason for this is it would have also impacted the gun grabbers and others like them!

Miss Washington’s article and my comments arise all kinds of “bad press”. No wonder, we both are women and as everybody knows, we are good only for giving birth, looking after children, old or sick people and mending and patching all the male deeds. We can be trusted to work hard in practically every profession but we are never consulted at the time of taking “big decissions which compromise other people’s lives”. That’s strictly the males’ privilege.Try to count how many women you know are willing to send their sons to a war, are jubilant to have a gun, center their lives on powerful cars, or machines of any kind, are not nature-caring, and you will have nine fingers too many.
I don’t expect politeness from you, jdge, thank you. I am not basing my comments on prejudice, I simply read papers, see the movies you produce, and I’m still trying to digest “you’re either with us or against us”. There are more than two sides to every issue as any intelligent person should know and producing and using weapons is not at the top of my list. Every life counts and all the progress in technology is worthless if it’s not used for the well-being of others.

In response to Maria’s last rant, all I can do is refer to Dr. Sarah Thompson’s paper, and the how important it is to some people to maintain their self-image as victims.

To say that law-abiding citizens occasionally “outshine the police” is hardly a compliment, even in that moral den of iniquity which calls itself the Canadian Federation.  Comparing citizens of the United States to Canadian citizens is an insult to the civil sensibilities of American moral values.

You bozos have yet to invade another country for no other reason than to acquire unrestrained access to its social and natural resources.  Well, I guess that confiscating the land and resources of its native inhabitants counts for something, but even there you followed the American model, even though you failed to follow through with the requisite genocidal extermination.  If only you had more available firepower…

Where did the feminist rant come from Maria? Has anyone advocating legal gun ownership said anything about keeping women subjugated? My wife is far from “bare foot, pregnant, and in the kitchen”. She has a Masters degree in social work and a career as a probation officer and social worker. She owns a gun. Her two daughters love to shoot. Her sister shoots. We know several other women friends who shoot. None of them are lacking in femininity.

Your tired “if one life is saved” mantra is based on faulty logic. It overlooks the millions, literally, of lives that would be put at risk and possibly lost if guns were banned. Guns save far more lives than they take. As for “every life counts” I’ll agree to a point but here’s another concept repulsive to liberals: some lives count more than others. If I awake to find some crackhead looting my house at 4 in the morning, his life counts far less to me than mine and my familys. In fact said crackhead is in mortal danger unless he conducts himself very carefully after being discovered.

Maria, stop with the knee jerk liberal feminist reactions and educate yourseld about the realitys of legal gun ownership. You have been lied to and the lies you believe are dangerous.

I am not sure where the Major is going with his comments. The statement from which he took three words does not contain the word occassionaly.  I said “MOST” which is vastly different.  These figures compare Citizens with CCW permits charged or convicted of a crime in various states,with police departments, State and Municipal, who have had officers charged and convicted of crimes.

I am unsure whether he was referring to me in his next post referring to “bozos” having yet to invade another country for no other reason…
If he was, I don’t see relevance..  That is the purview of our southern neighbors, who , as I recall tried to take this country many years ago but were chased back beyond Washing DC. We could not be bothered going any further so we burnt the Whitehouse and went back home.

I was being sarcastic, Dudley.  The wingnuts on this thread would have us believe that all gun owners can be conveniently classified into law-abiding citizens and the criminals who prey upon them.  The reality is more complicated than their Manichean categorization: parents who kill themselves or their children or their spouses to prevent spousal custody of the children, lovers’ disputes, workers who kill their supervisors or their coworkers to avenge their unemployment or humiliation on the job, children who kill their childhood antagonists, or accidentally kill themselves (what’s the point of locking up your pistols when the purpose, to begin with, is to defend your family from the violence of your neighbors), all of them fatalities or injuries which could easily have been avoided or mitigated with more comprehensive restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

And the “relevance” is as obvious as your inability to perceive it: a nation of citizens armed to its teeth, aside from the dismal social significance of such a spectacle, is much more inclined to support the martial crimes of its government, such as the unjustified invasion and occupation of a nation which never threatened us.

Uh, I don’t think you can insult a Canadian by calling him ‘Dudley’- Maybe ‘Hoser’ or something like that.
Anyway- can’t your argument (major) be made for any number of machines and objects that most people use every day, cars-baseball bats-hammers- steak knives (I heard some guy in New York City was killed with a steak knife- but you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you)
My handgun is the best method of protecting my family and me in the event of a potentially deadly imminent physical attack. (Sometimes -they don’t just want your money)
The overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners use their firearms for target practice-hunting and in the gravest extreme self defense.
Are you one of those ‘take fire away from men because they might burn themselves’ types?
I guess what it really all comes down to though is this HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO TAKE MY MANY, MANY GUNS AWAY FROM ME-ALL MY FAMILY-ALL MY FRIENDS AND COWORKERS-
I mean---we are not going to just turn them over!
Personally- I don’t think you or anyone else for that matter-is up to it.
Oh--and you’re a wingnut-nyahh nyahh-hoser.

“The reality is more complicated than their Manichean categorization: parents who kill themselves or their children or their spouses to prevent spousal custody of the children, lovers’ disputes, workers who kill their supervisors or their coworkers to avenge their unemployment or humiliation on the job, children who kill their childhood antagonists, or accidentally kill themselves (what’s the point of locking up your pistols when the purpose, to begin with, is to defend your family from the violence of your neighbors), all of them fatalities or injuries which could easily have been avoided or mitigated with more comprehensive restrictions on the ownership of firearms.”

Two points, taking the second first.

2.  “could easily have been avoided or mitigated with more comprehensive restrictions on the ownership of firearms.”

That, I’m afraid, is simply false.  Restrictions on the ownership of firearms have never resulted in a reduction in violence or crime.  So your premise is false.

But even if your premise were true, what you are proposing is a violation of the fundamental principle of a free society.

1. “parents who kill themselves or their children or their spouses to prevent spousal custody of the children, lovers’ disputes, workers who kill their supervisors or their coworkers to avenge their unemployment or humiliation on the job”

And all of which has what, exactly, to do with my gun?  Or the gun that a nurse working third shift at an inner city hospital carries while walking out to her car?

Think about what you are proposing.  My gun, or her gun, you will take away, not because of what I’ve done, or what she’s done, or even because there’s some indication in my or hers past behavior that indicates that she or I might be likely to do, but because of what other people have done.

It’s simply wrong.  It’s a violation of everything that makes a society good and decent and free.

There is simply no legitimate justification for restricting the behavior of one individual because of fears about what someone else might do.

“Maria, stop with the knee jerk liberal feminist reactions and educate yourseld about the realitys of legal gun ownership. You have been lied to and the lies you believe are dangerous. “

wscott52, thank you for your kind advice, but my idea of education doesn’t include gun ownership, as it doesn’t include living in fear.
I agree fully with major major’s last paragraph of his comment.

My dear maria, your idea of education is living in neverland and electing someone to hire someone with a badge and a gun to force it on your neighbors because you are too cowardly and despicable to do it yourself.

I sincerely hope that your neverland is invaded and you get exactly what you deserve, i.e., what you are wishing on others, even if you are too stupid to realize it.

If I am told to turn my guns in, and I see you, your never land will end as will the never land of many “Liberal” freaks.

http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm

“wscott52, thank you for your kind advice, but my idea of education doesn’t include gun ownership, as it doesn’t include living in fear”

No? You have resigned yourself to living like a victim? Here’s a newsflash for you: bad things happen to good people. There are people roaming the streets who have no regard for the rule of law or even civilization. More specifically, they have no regard for your life or health if they decide something of yours should be theirs. They will kill or maim you for laughs even after you have meekly submitted and offered them everything of yours. The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect the populace from crime. The job of the police is to protect the herd by removing offenders, after the fact, from the general populace. So, do you live in some fantasy land where you believe no evil can come to you? Have you decided to willingly sacrifice your property, well being, or life to benefit the herd? I’m sorry for you if you have. I have not. I will be responisble for my own safety. As an added benefit to you if evil comes to me there is a chance I will destroy it and remove the possibiity it will come to you. A gun is a tool neither good nor evil. It can be used for good or evil. Far more guns are used to protect the good than to commit crime. If you choose to be a victim that is your choice. All I ask from you is you respect my right to protect myself and my family.

“wscott52, thank you for your kind advice, but my idea of education doesn’t include gun ownership, as it doesn’t include living in fear.”

So, what you’re saying is that Olympic competitors who shoot Free Pistol live in fear?

That Jerry Miculek, who is one of the fastest and most accurate pistol competitors alive lives in fear?

That David Tubb, who designed and built the world’s most accurate competitive rifle lives in fear?

Matt Burkett, one of the top Multigun and IPSC competitors lives his life in fear?

All of the nerdy engineers at places like Sierra all live in fear?

What’s really funny is applying that mindset to other things:

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house?

Why, you obviously live in fear of fire.

Do you wear your seatbelt?

Why, you must have an irrational fear of auto accidents.

I could go on, but I’m afraid I’d get far too gleeful.

Maria, your statement reveals everything we need to know about your stance.  You’ve already decided that all gun owners are a bunch of fearful psychotics, and there’s nothing that can be said or done to change your mind on the subject, irrespective of the facts.

Nope, you’ve simply decided to dismiss the pro-rights stance out of hand and continue on your way without a second thought.  That’s terribly close-minded, I think.

Oh, and would someone please alert Laura that her “People of the Gun” trope has been satirically co-opted by the very people she attempted to insult with it.

http://www.peopleofthegun.com/

Ironilicious!

:-)

Cheers,
Captain Awesome

“Maria, your statement reveals everything we need to know about your stance.  You’ve already decided that all gun owners are a bunch of fearful psychotics, and there’s nothing that can be said or done to change your mind on the subject, irrespective of the facts.”

Yep.  Like I said, it’s not fear of guns, it’s prejudice against gun owners.

Simple bigotry.

My views,which seem to arise all kinds of adjectives towards my self (stupid, victim, prejudiced, bigot, neverland inhabitant, liberal freak, etc.) are perhaps the result of having been raised and having raised my children with no one in the family ever having had a gun. Should I apologize for that?
Maybe I have served some purpose, which has got all of you together. Be happy!

The thing is, unless they’re hobbyists, people arm themselves for reasons that are for them more immediate, more directly at issue, than lofty and admirable ideals such as neighborliness, assertive peacefulness, and overcoming xenophobic out-grouping. I am not being sarcastic with the citing of the ideals, either, I think in fact that they’re about the only things that counterflow against more primitive, irrational trends in the human mind.

But in a given terrain, urban or out in the sticks or wherever, it’s only sensible to “arm” oneself with knowledge and the determination to prevail against the dangers and risks within that terrain. And that may also include arming oneself literally.

So I wouldn’t consider for a second going into the wilderness unarmed, any more than I would consider going out there without the other tools I’d need to help me live and cope with emergencies (water purifying tablets, meds kit,