" There was this boy who's Father took him to a place called Broken Dam. Before they left home, the Father advised his son that the rules he had given the boy must be followed explicitly. In his joy at shooting cans like his Dad, he waved the weapon without thinking where it was pointing. Though the weapon was not yet charged, the Father discontinued the outing and they drove home. The boy cried. They returned the next week and there was a greater appreciation for the insturment that can do damage to more than a soft drink can. The son remembers that event some 25 years later. If our fellow humans were taught to be more responsible (which they can), there would not be such tragedies. The honest and responsible owners of such firearms are not the enemy. The irresponsible are. As long as our culture denies the evil that exist in it, guns will be a problem. That the actual object be considered guilty is merely another brain dead figment of the liberal imagination. "

" I have to agree with Dennis. Criminals already ignore the 20,000 gun control laws on the books in this country. What makes people think criminals would obey any new laws? He is also right about gun-related deaths. Most of those, probably 98% are gang members shooting other gang members over drugs or turf. Can anyone prove otherwise? Nope. "

" Thank you, Mr. Andrews, for a well-written article. Sadly, until the people wake up from the media propaganda, their views on guns will not change. We are exposed to the harm guns can do, on a daily basis, in the newspapers and on television, but rarely see the good. Actually 20/20 did a “Myth” show about three weeks ago that showed the positives of gun ownership as opposed to the “myth” of gun bans being better, where the criminals still have the guns and have no fear when they know there are no weapons to oppose them. Also, I'm sure that those citizens willing to surrender their guns in Germany, China, and the Soviet Union, had no idea that their own government, was ready to kill and imprison millions of their own citizens. That is the power of a strong central government, and what concerns me most about the course this nation has taken since 9/11. "

" OUTSTANDING commentary!!! Clear, concise and to the point!! It couldn't have been stated better!! "

" Andrew's "seemingly thoughtful commentary" talks about 20,000 laws on the books regarding gun law - throughout the whole country. So what? Maybe there are 40,000 laws on the books against murder, but no one thinks about whether that is "enough" or "too many." The real question is, what are the gun laws in any given jurisdiction? The question I have is this - if you plan to use your weapons honestly and responsibly, why do you have a problem with laws that regulate your ownership? What is wrong with the laws? Are you seriously worried about our own government killing and imprisoning our own citizens on a mass scale? If for some insane reason things ever got that bad in this country, how do you think having a gun of your own is going to help you? (I'm also honestly curious as to what "good" things happen due to gun ownership by private citizens. Maybe if you never hear about how someone successfully prevented a crime because they happened to own a gun, it's because it doesn't happen very often.) "

" Why did the government confiscate the guns of lawful gun owners after the Hurricane Katrina hit the coast of New Orleans? The government couldn't confiscate the guns of the unlawful gun owners, because they didn't know who they were. These were people in the middle and high end suburbs that wanted to protect their homes from looters, and the government left them defenseless. Lincoln set the precedent for all Presidents to follow, when he declared an un-Constitutional Marshall law and confiscated the guns of lawful Northern citizens before and during the Civil War—he also closed down 300 Northern newspapers and imprisoned thousands of Northerners with dissenting voices. If the government wants to ignore the Constitution, confiscate guns, take rights, do whatever, whether lawful or not, they will do it—the citizens have been trained to not care about the government or rights anymore—just give them their entitlements. By the way, Karl Marx sent two letters to Lincoln during the Civil War that thanked him for changing America, basically destroying State rights, which eventually morphed our government into the strong socialist central government we have today. "

" I wonder if Dick Cheney would agree with Dennis Andrews' statement that "guns and alcohol do not mix." "

" No wonder the NVR’s letters page is so skimpy lately. Personal characterization and attack is winnowed on the net but not in print. This is one of the poorest choices the NVR has made. There is plenty of room in this opinion not to refer to the 1st author by name 4 times and by personal pronoun 4 times in less than 400 words. Having an opinion about the idea is one thing but in characterizing the opinion person who is not a public figure more respect is expected and more concentration on the merits of the counter point. Paragraph by paragraph this is a bad argument and response where this author does little genuine work of his own. The 1st author quoted his data source; it’s up to you to find things out, like self-defense or gang related shootings to support your argument. Lets hear why we should all have concealed weapons of choice. Assuming that the candidates of any party do not control much of the questioning they receive in a debate, is just plain naive. The 1st author uses suicide as example the 2nd prefers to bait and switch from the issue of guns to the issue of suicide comparing the availability of overpasses to guns, amusing but uninformative and unpersuasive. Nowhere does the 1st author advocate for the negation of other rights. This is a ploy of the 2nd author the “by extension” (a clever rhetorical trick or sneeringly “he opines” also droll) asking us to assume something we do not and cannot know. Lastly, where is attribution for 20,000 laws and the meaning of a string of dates and countries in support of this argument? Lets hear why the Sullivan act should be repealed. Convince us that guns do not kill innocents only the evil that wields them. From these words you cannot deduce whether I do or do not I support the 2nd amendment. "

" Statistics show that over 2 million incidents occur each year in the U.S. in which (legal) gun-owners used their guns to prevent a crime. Criminals become much more brazen when they know people are unarmed, kind of like how they are becoming more brazen here in Napa now that they know how few cops we have on patrol. "

" So quote your source 2 million stories each year? Sounds like a lot of instances to support a good argument. why don't we hear about them? give us an example "

" WHATs FIT TO PRINT... is the same approach LIBs have been taking to slur/slander BUSH now for 2 election periods! Hey... what works, works - right Pelosi! Dont like it when ur own ploys r turned-around on u, do u! Get ur heads outta the sand(?)! Come UP to where us superior Conservatives have been forever. The air is MUCH crisper, cleaner. GREAT ARTICLE!! LETs HAVE MORE PARTISAN "Balanced" Articles like this one! "

" Thank you for a well thought out letter on the laws of gun ownership and use. Well done!! "

" RE:20,000 gunlaws. If you would care to some research on the net their is a site that will list DAYLY incidents around the country where people wiht RESLOVE and Firearms stop criminals in their tracks. I can tell you this at least 5 times a day around the US lives are saved and crime stoped just like that by armed men and women who care more about life, limb and property rights. We all could only be so lucky to have more around us. Thank you. "

" Mr. Andrews, You offer one comment to which I must adamantly disagree. You state, "The Constitution grants us certain rights, not privileges." This concept is wrong! To "grant" implies a privilege. The Constitution does not "grant" citizens their rights. It ould be more accurate to convey that the the Framers' intent was to acknowledge with very intentional overt purpose. "