Stop the gun violence | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Stop the gun violence

Friday, April 17, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, An epidemic of handgun murders and suicides is happening in our country. Obtaining firearms is legal. However, our Constitution was written at a time when one’s needs were different than today, and so were the firearms.

The National Rifle Association defends the right to possess a firearm. However, there must be a distinction between automatic weapons and rifles. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons must be outlawed in our country. We, as a nation, must be concerned with the welfare of our own people.

Craig Payne / Napa

357 comment(s)

anticommie wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:54 AM:

" Wow Craig, I am in awe of you statement. "The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons must be outlawed in our country." I own several 'automatic' weapons, and let me tell you, I havent killed anyone or myself with them, so should I get rid of them?

And how about this,

According to FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) states that there were over 37,000 driving fatalities in 2007. Should we make everyone take public transportation?

How dare anyone question my right as a law abiding good citizen, what kind of automatic weapon I have in my possession. To me, those that sadly die by guns in these country are worth the freedom that is GIVEN TO US ALL IN THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS. It is not the guns fault, it is the individual that uses it improperly or immorally. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:13 AM:

" From a recent column by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, some stunning, uniquely American gun-related statistics:

"Since Sept. 11, 2001, when the country’s attention understandably turned to terrorism, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror homicides, most of them committed with guns. Think about it — 120,000 dead. That’s nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the most part, we pay no attention to this relentless carnage. The idea of doing something meaningful about the insane number of guns in circulation is a nonstarter. So what if eight kids are shot to death every day in America. So what if someone is killed by a gun every 17 minutes."

Herbert goes on to say:

"Murderous gunfire claims many more victims than those who are actually felled by the bullets. But all the expressions of horror at the violence and pity for the dead and those who loved them ring hollow in a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything about it."

You said it, Bob. "

kevin wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:03 AM:

" "Automatic" weapons being already illegal to own in California, it would appear the author is unfamiliar with the 20,000 gun laws already in effect.

The recent shooting in Oakland is a prime example: the shooter used a perfectly legal handgun and SKS rifle, not an "assault rifle".

The Supreme Court has affirmed an individuals Constitutional Right to own firearms.

While unpopular, the Constitution applies even here in Liberal California.

At least for a while... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:40 AM:

" Craig, Another wow for both you and anticommie.

Craig writes, "The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons must be outlawed in our country."

Automatic weapons have been outlawed in the ENTIRE United States for over 50 years. Unless you have a special license that is rare anticommie, you are committing a crime!

This is exactly the problem with the gun issue. This misinformed putting out inaccurate information.

By the way Craig, a lot has changed since the writing of the Constitution regarding freedom of speech. Maybe we should outlaw putting out misinformation in opinion pieces......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:45 AM:

" Joanne, a misleading column by the New York Times, doesn't work either. "

antipc wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:49 AM:

" Sorry Craig, you can't pick & chose which articles in the Bill of Rights are outdated. "

Wannabee wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:55 AM:

" The Second Amendment wasn't written for hunters or sportsman. The intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, gone awry.

When a government turns socialistic, the first this it does is to disarm its citizens.

Also note, and all the gun slayings have been in gun-free zones, where guns are not permitted. When a police officer shows up, the shooters usually commit suicide at the first indication of armed opposition. "

OU now wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:08 AM:

" Automatic weapons are not legal for most people in the USA. Simi auto is legal for most. The NRA and Anti gun groupes BOTH distort facts. Guns are dangerous when in the wrong or untrained hands. Guns are a good tool when used correctly.Freedom without personal responsibilty is dangerous, but freedom should come first. I know it sounds cold, but death comes to us all. In the long run it does not matter so much how we die as how we live. When my sons surf shark infested waters, white water kayak or cave dive, I know they can die. If they get shot by some gang banger they could die. But death does come to us all and death may be the greatest adventure yet. Why are most black and white people in the U.S. so scared of life and death? Step out on the edge and live free, dont worry so much. You can really die any time. Live like a true american did be for the before 1492. "

antipc wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:22 AM:

" One more thing Craig. Based on recent events I believe you'll find some sympathy from Yountville & St. Helena city councils. The "Craig's Law" resolution.

Kind of has a nice ring to it, eh? "

jwk wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:51 AM:

" Duh Craig, News Flash, GUNS don't kill, Criminals with them do!!!!! ANd us law bidding Gun Toting citizens will defend you and the other Anti-Gun likes against the Criminals and Current Government that's trying to take "we the people over"..Any and Every time. You're welcome! "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:21 AM:

" these are how automatic weapons get into the US.

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

You are required to have a class three license issued by the ATF for an automatic weapon. That license is reviewed every year, as well as the firearm. Stop buying the Obama Administrations lies about Mexico.

Colt sells the M16 to the Mexican Government on contract for the Police and Military, 150,000 of which deserted to work for the drug cartels. with their weapons.

Source: Wall Street Journel-By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott Thursday, April 02, 2009 "

misfit wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:28 AM:

" Live by the gun, die by the gun! Maybe then, you'll change your tune if it happens to someone in your family. This gun thing is CRAZY and anyone who can justify what it has become is part of the problem. Guns should be regulated more than they are. I like the ordinance in Sacramento, where ammunition sales are documented. "

Alter Ego wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:40 AM:

" Just look at the recent oft quoted "fact" that "95% of all guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US".

Wrong.

That information was for one particular "bust", but the Liberal, anti-gun media repeated it endlessly and out of context. The true number is closer to only 17%. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:49 AM:

" As Dr. Thomas Sowell (black BHBauthor and newspaper columnist) states:

"Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media." "

tripnote wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:57 AM:

" Statistics don’t lie and those statistics are horrible. But let’s not have another case of feel good idealism that will result in bad policy.
We can look to Australia, Canada and England where guns are only owned by outlaws.
From the examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d29-Gun-control-and-addiction-Part-1
“England and Australia instituted draconian gun bans in the mid-1990s. The new laws were hailed as the dawn of a bright new day, when people would be safer, but violent crime went up in both countries, and law-abiding people were less safe. Between 1995 and 2006, Britain’s violent crime rate increased 29.2%, with rape leading the way at a 76.5% increase. Australia saw a 39.1% increase in violent crime during the same time period.* The response of the politicians and police? Since British criminals can buy any gun they desire, the government is pressing for knife control.”
I agree with the sentiment of the letter of reducing gun violence, but don’t you’re not going to take away my RIGHT to protect my family. "

mikeb wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Does the NVR not have a responsibility to screen letters to the editor for at least the slimmest semblence of content integrity?

"The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons must be outlawed in our country."

They already are!!!

I'm all for open discourse, but does "open discourse" not inherently have to begin from an honest and/or factual starting point?

This is one example where I think exceptions should be allowed to the Comment Guidelines, specifically the 3rd one. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:30 AM:

" The Government can lock us all in padded rooms. Think of how many lives
this will save!
I prefer to live my life free.
I will take care of myself and my family.
I do not want the Government telling me how to live my life.
I will keep my guns and protect my family.
The day you take my guns will be the day you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Have a nice day. "

sdnapa wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:50 AM:

" what would be better is if everyone's heart had no desire to kill people at all, that Hollywood didn't glorify killing, that video games didn't glorify killing, and that hard core rock bands & rappers didn't "sing" killing into glory...ah, but alas there is no way to legislate morality. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 17, 2009 11:25 AM:

" To dismiss legitimate concerns about gun violence in the USA is ultimately deteremental to guns rights. While it is, indeed illegal to buy and sell automatic weapons in the USA, the means to make a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one is easy to get, maybe even legal. Gun manufacturers make weapons knowing full well that their products can be modified easilly. I think that is an issue to consider.

Mr. Herbert's column is opinion, but his hacts aren't. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000 Americans lose their lives to guns in the USA. Only a small fraction are accidents. About half are suicide and the other half murder. Those numbers surpass the numbers of GI's killed in Viet Nam or Korea. That is no small matter.

I have no problem with law abiding citizens and their guns. The problem is criminals. Either the laws are ineffective or not enforced. Neither case is acceptable. It would behoove gun rights advocates to take concerns, such as Mr. Payne's, seriously. Responding with denials and NRA talking points is not productive.

Otherwise, they may find that Americans may start to wonder why we need to be so heavilly armed and why we need a second ammendment. "

glenroy wrote on Apr 17, 2009 11:30 AM:

" A simple fact is that areas where gun ownership is the highest as a percentage of the population the crimes rates are significantly lower….and handgun murders are virtually nonexistent.

Virtually all the handgun murders occur in the major metropolitan areas where in many instances gun ownership has been banned for decades…funny how our Founders saw that coming.

If the libs were truly concerned about the murder rate they’d have to revisit their phony war on poverty and the chances of that happening is much less than Obama ever balancing the Federal Budget. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 17, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Alter Ego wrote:" Just look at the recent oft quoted "fact" that "95% of all guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US".

Wrong.

That information was for one particular "bust", but the Liberal, anti-gun media repeated it endlessly and out of context. The true number is closer to only 17%. "

That was the Bush Dept of Justice who came up with those numbers.

Rocketman writes: "Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media."

Correlation does not equal causation. By the same argument there should be no crime in Richmond, which seems to be overflowing with guns. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:09 PM:

" sdnapa said "...ah, but alas there is no way to legislate morality. "

And yet that is exactly what the gay agenda is trying to do!! Funny how you dont appreciate the morality of hip-hop artist, hollywood, etc. or even want to allow thier freedom of speach or to be who they are.

Now I dont know where you stand on the gay marriage issue, but I bet dollars to doughnuts the many liberals that are for gay marriage would agree with you that thier is a need to 'legislate the morality' of those you sited. . .

How ironic

> "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:09 PM:

" I keep hearing the refrain, "automatic weapons are already illegal in the US, don't you know?" If that's true, how come anticommie gets to have so many?

And really, when it comes to cutting down a classroom full of students, how different is an "automatic" weapon from a semi-automatic assault rifle? When the target shooters across the canyon from me get going on the weekend (actually, usually Sundays and Holidays), the rapid staccatto of gun shots is a persistent reminder of how easy it must be to kill a lot of people for those who have the belief that "everyone must die and it doesn't matter how" or "It's either you or me 'cause there's not room for us both", or who simply get angry in a fast, furious and irrational way. And that even happens to many "law 'biding" folks, yes indeedy.

And the 60 minute special on gun sales in Virginia was a striking reminder of how easy it really is to buy assault rifles -- either from inside the building where tables of high-tech killing sticks are festooned with a row of Nazi flags, or from a trunk of a car or a van outside, where ten dollars extra will get you any number of guns with no background check.

There is cause for concern. No easy solution, but that's not a reasy to claim we've got our proper interpretation of the Constitution and the best way to implement it all squared away. There's much work to be done to make this gun thing a bit more friendly to the innocent. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:11 PM:

" to a teacher...........the problem is that the liberals want laws that will disarm law abiding citizens. That is ALL the laws will do. Criminals are criminals for a reason.........they commit crimes and could care less about laws. So how is YOUR system supposed to work. You folks come up with these great ideas, because you don't care about gun rights and gun ownership for law abiding folks. This is not just a policy issue. It is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. But most liberals could care less about the Constitution. We have the Government to take care of us...................right?? "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Cars kill more people than guns. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:05 PM:

" Rocketman -- tell me, how do criminals get their guns? Is it possible that some "law abiding citizen" who hasn't yet gotten caught doing it has bought the guns legally (because they can buy a lot, right?) and then sells them, at a profit, to a criminal or two? I mean, isn't that a possibility?

I mean, all law abiding means, really, is haven't gotten caught yet. And that goes for all of us.

BTW, wasn't the Constitution written, in part, to establish the government? I mean, didn't the two kind of go hand in hand? Or were we just handed this kind of outline of how we should be and told "here you go good citizens, figure it out & have at it!" I think, if my memory of civics and history serves me correctly, the government was meant to play some sort of role in implementing the guidelines of the constitution.

But maybe it was all intended to be carried out by the laws of the wild west, after all. "

pharper wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:23 PM:

" I think there's a problem with guns across the board if a teenager can get hold of them and kill other students at his high school. Just a thought.

I don't know what the solution is, but screaming that it's your Constitutional right and that guns shouldn't be as regulated seems fairly ineffective to me. I agree with a teacher that gun rights advocates should address the concerns of those who aren't so trigger-happy. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:29 PM:

" Rocketman,

Exactly what about that New York Times column was misleading?

If you're going to make such an accusation, support it! "

a teacher wrote on Apr 17, 2009 2:16 PM:

" Now, Steph, that's what I mean by unhelpful comments. When you answer reasonable criticism with a flippant answer you come off as either callous or an extremist.

Obviously cars kill more people. There are more of them, we use them more. There is a difference between the accidental deaths caused by a means of transportation and the diliberate deaths caused by a device whose purpose is to kill people. "

antipc wrote on Apr 17, 2009 2:53 PM:

" For all you anti-gunners out there. The blame for the problem lays squarely at the feet of the liberals. So many of our laws, penalties, & punishments have been rendered toothless because of their policies of always being sympathetic toward the criminals. Liberal judges & unscrupulous lawyers also share the burden of responsibility as well. Turn back the clock fifty plus years & the criminals will have something to fear once again. A death sentence used to mean something, now it's just a photo-op for a bunch of do-gooders holding a candle light vigil. "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 17, 2009 2:55 PM:

" pharper- if a kid gets ahold of a gun and uses that gun to harm others, the problem is with the kid-not the gun.

Google "Kennesaw County Gun Laws" and see what happens when a town or county REQUIRES residents to own a gun. Crime and violent crime goes way down. (Have to apologize to "teach" in advance, he loves this arguments!) "

pharper wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:06 PM:

" The problem is that a disturbed kid was able to get a gun. Yeah, I agree the kid has problems, but no kid, disturbed or other, should EVER be able to obtain a gun. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:24 PM:

" To all of you who are so attached to the "cars kill people, too" notion:

- Driving is a privilege that can be revoked or suspended.
- You have to apply for a driver's license, take a test, and prove that you are at least minimally competent to get behind the wheel before you can drive.
- You are also required to register and insure your vehicles.

Even if it were otherwise an "apples to apples" comparison, which it is not, we regulate automobile ownership and automobile drivers a lot more heavily than we do guns and those who use them.

If you want to hold onto that comparison, then at least be consistent about it. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:25 PM:

" to a teacher............thanks for giving me the credit, but as I stated in my blog, I DIDN"T WRITE THAT STATEMENT. A Black Professor wrote it. Secondly, your Richmond example is totally off base.............where did you come up with that one?? "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:33 PM:

" cab e-girl,

Isn't requiring someone to own a gun an infringement upon their freedom?

I wonder what will happen when an accidental shooting occurs in a Kennesaw County resident's home...

Don't the people who live in Kennesaw County have the right to live free from the risk of that happening in their homes? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:38 PM:

" Dellasumbrella, If law abiding citizens are selling guns illegally they are criminals as well........

Joanne, what is misleading, is that the article makes it sound like all of the killings are by murder. In fact, more that half of the killings are suicide. Suicide will occur no matter if guns are outlawed or not. What also is not included in these stats are the fact that countries who require gun ownership have a lower crime rate.

The "professor" I quoted also writes periodically for the New York Times and his position is contrary to your source. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:42 PM:

" cab e-girl -- If a kid has a problem and doesn't have a gun, he/she might punch someone (maybe stab them, but less likely). If a kid has a problem AND a gun, he/she might shoot someone.

What many seem to be ignoring is the violence done by "law abiding citizens" who nevertheless got upset enough to use a gun for the first time to harm another person. We have all sorts of guidelines, licenses, rules, registration, laws, speed limits, etc. for drivers of those deadly vehicles. Why the resistance to laws, license, guidelines & restriction for those deadly weapons?

I'm curious: Now that Obama seems to be backing away from his campaign pledge to seek renewal of the assault weapon ban (not a decision that pleases me), is the conservative NRA faction of our great citizenry at least going to get behind his efforts to increase enforcement of laws banning the transfer of the guns across the border to Mexico?

What do commenters here think might help with reducing the possibility that criminals and drug cartels get their hands on assault weapons? Or reducing the possiblity that people want to become criminals in the first place?

I'm asking that as a serious question, because, as pharper says, "screaming that it's your Constitutional right and that guns shouldn't be as regulated" seems fairly ineffective to me as well. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:43 PM:

" a teacher..............but on the car issue, if your goal really is to save lives, then why are cars built to go faster than the speed limit?? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:48 PM:

" antipc -- Statistics from 1990 to 2007 demonstrate that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:57 PM:

" Darrell Scott, victim parent of one of the Columbine High School students stated,

"And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties."

Mr. Scott gets it!! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 3:58 PM:

" Rocketman -- Granted, such a citizen may be acting criminally; but if the only restriction on being able to buy a gun is that one be a "law abiding citizen", yet there is no way to find that out because one is innocent until proven guilty and is therefore, by definition a "law abiding citizen" unless found through a court of law to be criminal, then clearly would-be or non-convicted criminals can buy guns as easily as your run-of-the-mill goody two shoes.

As for the car thing, we've been asking the car manufacturers that for a long time. You know why? Because the good law abiding citizens of the US just LOVE breaking the law by driving faster than the speed limit, and strenuously object if the speed limit is reduced to create more safety, and the car manufacturers know they can get rich by selling cars that speed and they don't really care much about the people who get killed by people in cars that speed, just as the gun manufacturers and the NRA don't care about the people who get killed by guns. Because corporate and investor profit rules, and anyone injured or killed in the rush to wealth is just collateral damage. "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:04 PM:

" Teacher--Car deaths are mitigated by the fact that cars are used more than guns? Tell that to the dead person's family. Cars are dangerous. But because you see the value in owning and driving a car, you will defend your right. Likewise, I will use the constitution to defend my right to own guns.

Joanne--
To use a gun legally--and legal gun ownders are the only gun owners you can regulate, remember--everything you said about cars is also true of guns, except for the insurance.

Not that insurance does much good to a dead person. "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:04 PM:

" "There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not 'brainwashed' about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when con-fronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis."
- Theodore Haas,
survivor of Dachau "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:08 PM:

" I disagree. I know kids that have been brought up about around guns (as was I), use guns for what they were intended, with very close parental or adult supervision and have a very healthy respect for what a gun is. Obviously you were not brought up around guns, nor were you educated about gun safety. I agree, you and those like you, that are either afraid of guns or have not had gun experience and gun safety courses, should not be able to obtain a gun. Parents with guns and children in the the home should either use trigger locks or lock their guns up so that minors do not have access to them, in other words be responsible for their guns and for their children. Many of the guns that are obtained and used in crimes by minors are guns that are obtained illegally. More gun laws are not going to change any of that. Just like more motor vehicle laws are not going to save lives when driving. I do not wish to live my life in a bubble without any freedoms. That includes driving a car, which I know kills many innocent people or riding on an airplane, which has also killed innocent people. You see the difference in the way I think and the way you think is the difference in how much freedom you are willing to sacrifice to feel safe. Statistically, you should be more afraid riding in a vehicle than you are of a gun or of an airplane.

If you are interested in learning about guns, I would encourage you to seek out a local hunters safety course or contact the local Sheriffs departments. "

jonb123 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:11 PM:

" Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they don't have guns, they will use knives, if no knives they will use clubs, if no clubs they will use rocks, sticks, their fists, feet, teeth, whatever they can. Get real. Someone that is going to kill someone is just going to do it, one way or another. "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:17 PM:

" Joanne, you have the option of not moving there if you really think your rights are being infringed upon. Kennesaw County has had that law for 18 years, so it is not a short term anomaly. I imagine that IF they have an accidental shooting, it won't be much different than if there was some kind of other freak accident.

There are law's preventing citizens from carrying a concealed weapon. Citizens must have a permit and fairly extensive training, usually from someone in law enforcement. "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:18 PM:

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

In 1929, the USSR established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents were exterminated, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

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

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 under General Idi Amin Dada, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Amin, were exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 19793, 2,035,000 "educated" people were exterminated.

In a March 1976 coup in Argentina, a military junta seized power and went on a campaign to wipe out left-wing terrorism with terror far worse than the one they were combating. For seven years thousands of people vanished without a trace. Human rights groups say up to 30,000 people were killed or "disappeared" as the military waged its campaign against a disarmed citizenry.

The UN imposed gun control after civil war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. Although the town of Srebrenica was a UN-designated "safe area," in July of 1995 more than 7,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb forces as the UN forces in the town proved unable or unwilling to help its Muslim population.

I wonder if the refugees in Darfur wish they could somehow protect themselves when nobody will do it for them? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Here's some relevant info:

From: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-higher-murder-rates-related-gun-laws

"States with softer gun laws have higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study due out in January 2009. The study’s 38-page report, underwritten by a group of over 300 mayors and obtained by the Washington Post, focused on tracking guns used in crimes back to the retailers that first sold them.
Based on an analysis of annual crime-gun data compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the study found:

• The 10 states with the highest export rates of guns used in crimes had nearly 60 percent more gun homicides than the 10 states with the lowest rates. The high-export states also had nearly three times as many fatal shootings of police officers.
• 10 states supplied 57% of the guns that were used in crimes in other states in 2007.
• States requiring background checks for handgun sales at gun shows have an export rate nearly half the national average. None of the 10 highest export states requires the checks, according to the report.
• States requiring gun buyers to get a purchase permit have a lower export rate." "

misfit wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:27 PM:

" so....gun lovers...what is the answer then to this rampant gun crime? Are you trying to do anything to fix this problem even while keeping your guns or do you look the other way all the while you are doing your Tea parties to protest that we have cops, i.e. "Rampant government". I'm sorry but, your right to own a gun doesn't supercede my right to live freely, without the fear that I'm going to get my head blown off while sitting in church, by some disgruntled Conservative who's afraid that Obama is going to take his guns away... You are pro-life too, aren't you? "

misfit wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:29 PM:

" Rocketman...Yeah...Well, Mr. Scott's son GOT IT...didn't he? What an awful argument! "

glenroy wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:30 PM:

" “but if the only restriction on being able to buy a gun is that one be a "law abiding citizen", yet there is no way to find that out because one is innocent until proven guilty”

LOL…10X…

These are the people who are slowly but surely eroding constitutional rights because their pet policies backfired....…….any wonder society is spinning out of the control with folks like these electing folks like Reid and Pelosi…. "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:38 PM:

" Misfit- Gun education is the first step, just like educating the public of the dangers of DUI. What have I done about it? Made sure that my children are educated in the use and mis-use of firearms. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:52 PM:

" steph, you said:

"To use a gun legally--and legal gun ownders are the only gun owners you can regulate, remember--everything you said about cars is also true of guns, except for the insurance"

That statement is indefensible. Please cite me the federal law that requires gun owners to demonstrate that they are minimally competent to own and use a firearm, including a test there for.

As to this statement:

"Not that insurance does much good to a dead person."

What about the survivors? If an adult loses his/her life to gun violence, do the surviving spouse and children not suffer?

It isn't just those who are killed by gun violence that are affected by this issue. Or did that not occur to you? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:56 PM:

" Della.
della.........
della.......there are 20,000 gun laws on the books..........I think there are a lot of restrictions.........more than owning a car. Non-convicted criminals???? What??? A criminal not caught yet?? Let's pass a law that states that if you are thinking about being a criminal then you are a criminal???

Your comments about the NRA are unfounded. The NRA does MORE TO PROMOTE "gun safety" then any other organization in the nation. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 4:58 PM:

" glenroy, my point is that the term "law abiding citizen" is totally and ludicrously meaningless in the context of gun purchase. In fact, it's nothing more than an imprecise, right-wing euphemism meaning "better than thou and don't tell me I can't buy all the guns I want".

Here are some statistics on US "pro-life" mentality as compared to other countries.... (from http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/factsaboutgunviolence/uscompared.shtml):

In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.

• The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.

• The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

• The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.

Still waiting for your good conservative ideas on how to address the problem.

Oh, who knows, maybe ad hominem attacks peppered with names like "Reid" and "Pelosi" will solve it eventually after all. "

Wannabee wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:16 PM:

" Not to worry, Misfit. I am armed and will step up to protect you. Hang out with people who aren't afraid to defend themselves, and you should always be safe because of their bravery.

If only one person had a gun to defend the Virginia Tech students, they probably wouldn't have been executed while cowering under their desks. In fact, if it hadn't been a gun-free zone, the shooter wouldn't have gone there, knowing he'd be confronted. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Misfit......THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for your obvious uninformed comment. You have no idea about Mr. Scott do you?? If you did, you would know that he did not lose a son.............. "

anticommie wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:23 PM:

" Rocketman:

Look at the definition of automatic handguns. Though they are not FULLY automatic, Kimber, Glock, Sig, Beretta all make AUTOMATIC handguns. Sorry you misunderstood my point. I wish it was legal to own FULLY automatic rifles, cause I would. "

antipc wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:44 PM:

" Guns have never been the problem, criminals are the problem. Anti-gunners keep shifting the blame to guns & gun owners.

Example, there are four dead Oakland police officers because a criminal was on the street rather than being behind bars. Why was he not in prison?

Teach
Della
misfit
Joanne
Pharper "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 5:56 PM:

" misfit-

take a pill and relax as my mother used to say. If we take the word of the Founders and as stated by Justice Scallia recently in Heller v. D.C.........
both of those rights we gain at birth and are given to us by god, not man.

It looks as though they are equal. There are laws and checks to try and prevent this type of thing. Saying irrational things as you stated do not help. We all feel the pain when there is a senseless killing. That person snapped for lack of better term. Can you tell me when a person will do that, no you can't.

Annually, cars kill more people than anyone else. Can we legally sue the carmaker, no. As Joanne stated it all boils down to registration. When you purchase a firearm in the US they are registered. That is something I bet criminals do not do. After all these are all criminal acts. With 22,000 gun laws on the books, Politicians lying about gun violence, our President and Secretary of State lying about gun violence, the left gets tweeked.

Do the math folks and read the stats. excluding 50% for suicides, as a teacher likes to quote, gun violence claims 15,000 annually in the US. About 70% is bad guys being shot by Police or other bad guys. The people who snap, kids on Riddelin or other drepression drugs who can say how they will react. That is where the adults come in. Lock up the guns, keep them away from kids, and know what the heck your kids are doing! Parent them! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:04 PM:

" cab e-girl.........perfect example "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:04 PM:

" Automatic weapons are not sold over the counter in the US. A Class III License from the BATF is required to purchase one. Good luck getting one. A teacher why don't you try and apply for one and see how much of grilling you get.

Colt has a contract approved by our government to automatic rifles to mexico for the military and police. 150,000 of which have deserted and join the drug lords. get your facts straight, and stop listening to the Obama news group. They will always lie to you. You see they learned from the clintons.

a teacher stated these falsehoods

" To dismiss legitimate concerns about gun violence in the USA is ultimately deteremental to guns rights. While it is, indeed illegal to buy and sell automatic weapons in the USA, the means to make a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one is easy to get, maybe even legal. Gun manufacturers make weapons knowing full well that their products can be modified easilly. I think that is an issue to consider.

Murder in England is now being committeed by knife. Much more threatening as it is silent and can be done out on the street anytime. same is true for Australia. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:06 PM:

" Guys, I support the 2nd amendment, but some of you are making crazy arguments and it doesn't help your cause at all.

The militia vs the army is particularly bad. The other half of the Warsaw Ghetto story is that the Germans sent an SS armoured division and and wiped out the Ghetto. It turns out that while hand guns will chase off the second stringers not expecting resistance, they are useless against Tiger tanks.

Steph's attempt to connect gun control with exterminations is intellectually dishonest. She makes the connections without any supporting facts. Just random connections. It's ludicrous anyway. Have you considered that the average Mayan Indian probably couldn't afford a gun even if it were legal to own one? Do think that the refugees in Dalfur have the cash for a gun (maybe they can buy one at the local gun show)? Give me a break.

If you think that your guns are going to save you from the imminent leftist take over, you haven't been paying attention to Iraq or Afghanistan. The reason the insurgents don't stand up and fight is not that they are cowards, it's that they are not crazy. Every time they try the most powerful military in the world squashes them. Unless you plan on having an M1 Abrams in your garage, you don't have much of a chance with what you can buy at a gun show.

I suggest more logical arguments: It's my right, I feel safer with a gun, I am a law abiding citizen. "

kevin wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:09 PM:

" ateacher said:

"Obviously cars kill more people. There are more of them, we use them more. There is a difference between the accidental deaths caused by a means of transportation and the diliberate deaths caused by a device whose purpose is to kill people."

From what I've been able to research on the internet it appears you are incorrect, ateacher.

There are approximately 62 million cars and about 200 million guns.

Also, there is no difference between a gun and a car, they are both tools that can be used for good or evil at the owners disgression. Some estimates show that defensive gun uses can occur up to 2 million times per year.

The only real difference is that your Right to own a car is not guaranteed by the US Constitution... "

jonb123 wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:20 PM:

" Heart Disease kills more people, AIDS kills more people. Is it a contest? Is AIDS and Heart Disease covered by the Us Constitution, they were probably created by government. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:31 PM:

" I saw a picture of Wooden Valley school where the kids had their guns they packed to school stored in the corner. "A few years ago."

Misfit" The answer is teach your children common sense. Teach them to take care of themselves and their families. Teach them resposibility and not to expect or rely on the Government to wipe their behinds! Teach them how to use guns safely.
Teach them that guns gave us freedom and will allow us to keep our freedom.
If this would happen we would not need laws or Government telling us what to do. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:41 PM:

" Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman said it best...........There are 3 types of humans that inhabit this earth. Wolves (criminals), Sheep (average citizens) and Sheepherders (citizens willing to be armed and protect the Sheep). When you disarm the Sheepherders, the Sheep have no defense.......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:44 PM:

" Thank you Kevin.......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:51 PM:

" This will be my final argument on this issue. It is a proven fact that we have a 2nd Amendment. It is part of our Constitution. It is a proven fact, that any type of gun is merely a tool and it does not kill people. It needs to be "used" as a tool to kill. The problem is our current society. Laws that are not properly enforced. Family that has disinegrated. No morality. No respect for others rights. These issues can not be challenged. Yet, we need an eazy out. So blame it on the gun. It's eazy and then our problem is solved.........or is it?? "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 17, 2009 6:54 PM:

" A teacher"
Your right, we all need M1 Abrams in our garages to protect our freedom.
I don't trust our current administration. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:18 PM:

" Why am I getting the sense that there's no interest among the pro-gun-at-any-cost people to reduce the numbers of homicides by guns? It's a dog eat dog world, folks, get yourself a gun and make sure it's the other guy who gets killed.

No suggestions for reducing the number of arms sold illegally or shipped off to be used elsewhere.

And objections to renewable licenses that reflect training and a clean record? Insurance? Restrictions on drinking and shooting? Come on, there's gotta be something that would keep us safe from keeping us safe.

Taxpayer, your last comment indicates you belong in the category of one of my worst fears. And you probably would say you're "law abiding."

If so, I rest my case about law abiding. "

alucawanza wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:33 PM:

" O.K. you have the right to own guns. Great. You're exercising your constitutional right.
Are you managing the safety of your gun in your home. No matter where you put it or hide it, your children will get to it. The best safe, the most ingenius hiding place, or the rules of the house will not stop children from getting their hands on them. They will find them. They will experiment. The most trustworthy child will go for it. Your child is smarter than you think...and more clever. Be so careful.
Please keep your children safe. "

alucawanza wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:34 PM:

" TAXPAYER:
What about our current administration makes you think you need to be armed. What freedom is at stake? Ever heard of paranoia? "

Wannabee wrote on Apr 17, 2009 7:39 PM:

" Rocketman, I stole the Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman quote and passed it on.

Thank You "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:08 PM:

" "Dellasumbrella"
U.S. gun owners will keep you safe.
As far as arms sold illegally or shipped off to be used elsewhere talk to the large gun dealers in Russia or China.
We need no new licenses or insurance? I suggest you educate yourself on gun safety and gun responsibility and become a gun owner so you can protect your family, friends and neighbors. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:12 PM:

" "Alcucawanza"
My children from birth have been taught gun safety and responsibility. I would be more worried about my children behind the wheel of a car then handling guns. Guns are for my childrens protection and they know how to use them. As to our current administration government expansion is out of control. Government expenditures are beyond their means. Please give me some assurance this country won't be bankrupt and owned the Chinese in ten years.
Even if this is the slightest chance, it's not a chance I want to take. I value my freedom. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Wannabee........You are welcome. He has a great website and is a scholared writer. He teaches at West Point. If you really think about it, it totally makes sense. We have several sheep blogging on this issue. You and I will protect them. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:25 PM:

" Wannabee, Here is the full article:

http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/885.page "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:27 PM:

" Rocketman,

I have never seen anything by Thomas Sowell in the New York Times. When was the last time the Times published something that he authored? Do you know? I do know that he is a regular contributor the the ultra-Right-wing "Townhall Daily." But the New York Times? Never had the pleasure of reading any of his material in that publication...

As for the Mr. Herbert's choice of the word "homocide," that word is pretty clearly defined as: "Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing ANOTHER human being." I'm pretty sure Mr. Herbert "gets that." So I don't think he meant anything other than exactly what he said in his column; "since Sept. 11, 2001...nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror HOMICIDES, most of them committed with guns.

But -- for the sake of argument -- let's just say it's actually half that number, which would be 60,000. What's the current population of City of Napa? According to Wikipedia: "As of the census of 2006, there were 74,966 people..." That 60,000 would be the rough equivalent of about 80% of the population of the City of Napa. Does that put it into perspective for y'all? Or does that simply not matter to you? "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 8:38 PM:

" cab e-girl,

You said: "Joanne, you have the option of not moving there if you really think your rights are being infringed upon. Kennesaw County has had that law for 18 years, so it is not a short term anomaly."

To which I say: But what if I lived there 19 years ago, before the law was passed?

You said: "I imagine that IF they have an accidental shooting, it won't be much different than if there was some kind of other freak accident."

To which I say: If I did not want to keep a gun in my home but was forced to do so because of that law and one of my loved ones was killed as a result, it would be quite different than "some other kind of freak accident." You see, if I hadn't been compelled to keep a firearm in my home and would otherwise have chosen not to do so, that accident would not and could not have occurred. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:00 PM:

" Joanne..............I refer you to Freeport56.......by the way, I have never heard of Mr. Herbert........so I guess we are equal......... "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:01 PM:

" The distribution of gun violence is not equal among all races and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In order to reduce homicide, I would advocate better educational and economic opportunities for America's youth--maybe even some good old fashioned propaganda that seeks to improve attitudes toward the benefits of education. I would advocate more school choice, since public education seems to be failing among the same groups that are most prone to gun violence. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:16 PM:

" Mr. Herbert has been a twice-weekly columnist for the Times since 1993.

You claimed "the 'professor' [you] quoted also writes periodically for the New York Times and his position is contrary to [my] source."

I'm just asking you to back up that claim.

When has anything that Thomas Sowell authored appeared in the New York Times? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:33 PM:

" steph: "In order to reduce homicide, I would advocate better educational and economic opportunities for America's youth--maybe even some good old fashioned propaganda that seeks to improve attitudes toward the benefits of education."

Thank you, steph. All I needed was one reasonable suggestion to allow me to sleep better tonight. For some reason, having a gun in the closet just wasn't going to reassure me as to the reasonable nature of our good, law-abiding citizenry. "

misfit wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:43 PM:

" I would also like to know how your kids will be protected by their guns while hovering under their desks while some other kid is on a warpath with his daddy's uzi. Get real! Rather than continuing to justify this out of control hobby that you have, that has created more heartache in this world, why not work to come to some kind of common sense compromise that tightens up the proliferation of these weapons. Why are you so rigid about this? No one is taking your guns away but, if things continue as is, it might have to come to that and it will be you, who will have contributed to that end. Can't you please try to be part of the solution for once. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 9:51 PM:

" Does this work for you Joanne??

From the New York Times:
New Light on Black IQ,” March 27, 1977, pp. 15 ff. [ EAVH] ???
“A Black ‘Conservative’ Dissents,” August 8, 1976, pp. 14 ff.
“Colleges are Skipping Over Competent Blacks to Admit ‘Authentic’ Ghetto Types,” December 13, 1970, pp. 34 ff.
Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion by P. T. Bauer; Investing in People by Theodore W. Schultz, T, October 16, 1981, p. 13.
Book Review: The Chinese of America by Jack Chen, June 7, 1981, p. 13. "

kevin wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:00 PM:

" della, heres one study "Guns save lives":

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/02/07/Opinion/Guns-Save.Lives-514612.shtml

They compare crime in states where concealed carry is allowed verses crime in other states. Pretty obvious that guns do lower crime rates.

And acluwanza, my kids all grew up handling guns and I never had to worry about them.

Amazing that the NRA has a free program for the schools to teach gun safety and very few schools will take advantage of it.

Why do you suppose that is?

It's okay to teach our kids how to put condoms on a banana, but God forbid they get some education on gun safety... "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:04 PM:

" pharper rote: " no kid, disturbed or other, should EVER be able to obtain a gun."

Nice sentiment, but there is no feasible way to prevent it. That's all we get from libs, lots of hand-wringing, but no feasible ideas. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:11 PM:

" Joanne wrote :"Isn't requiring someone to own a gun an infringement upon their freedom?"

Why would it be an infringement? Napa Country requires me to own and install smoke alarms in my house, even if I don't like their radioactive content. The state requires me to wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle, even if it restricts my vision. It's what government does. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:13 PM:

" .........my MISTAKE Joanne.........several of Dr. Sowell's articles SLAM the New York Times as being misleading. I stand corrected.......... "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:23 PM:

" dellasumbra wrote: "Why the resistance to laws, license, guidelines & restriction for those deadly weapons?"

We already have some 20,000 gun control laws. How many more do we need? The plain fact is that restrictions are useless. Criminals don't abide by restrictions. All you're doing is inconveniencing the lawful gun owner. "

steph wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:37 PM:

" Joanne--
You are correct and I am incorrect about gun laws.

My husband was required to pass a written safety test (or take a safety class) and pass a background check to purchase his last handgun, which was required to be registered here in California. From that I erroneously extrapolated that all guns had to be purchased and registered in the same manner.

I spoke/typed too soon, but you correctly called me on it.

I see the NRA has been quite effective. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:37 PM:

" dellasumbrella wrote: "Why am I getting the sense that there's no interest among the pro-gun-at-any-cost people to reduce the numbers of homicides by guns?"

There is a corollary to Darwin's evolution theories called "Survival of the Fittest." There's not a whole lot of good people shooting each other. Most of the gun deaths you cited are caused by drug-crazed gang members shooting each other. How would you propose to limit that? "

Joanne wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:43 PM:

" Thanks for the information, Rocketman.

In my view, someone who apparently hasn't had anything published in the New York Times in nearly twenty-eight years cannot be said to be someone who "also writes periodically for the New York Times," but maybe I'm putting too fine a point on this. "

pharper wrote on Apr 18, 2009 12:09 AM:

" cab-e girl wrote, "I disagree. I know kids that have been brought up about around guns (as was I), use guns for what they were intended, with very close parental or adult supervision and have a very healthy respect for what a gun is. Obviously you were not brought up around guns, nor were you educated about gun safety."

It's interesting that you should say that, because I actually was raised around guns. My neighbor's father, who is a police officer (and who hunts) taught me about gun safety and use right along with his kids at a very young age. I know how to handle one, clean one, and be safe with a gun.

That doesn't change the fact that a gun should never fall into the hands of a kid. Cab-e girl, you say that guns should be kept locked away and safe from kids. That's obviously true. But we're handing out guns to people with no idea of how well they're going to keep them locked away. How do you regulate that? It's easy to say it should be done. The way it is right now, though, it's impossible. Once someone takes a gun home (legally or not) we have no idea if they're keeping the gun away from their children. In effect, we have thousands of gun owners out there, and no idea how many of them allow their children access to those weapons, inadvertently or otherwise. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 7:04 AM:

" pharper..........to own a firearm in the United States is (should be) a right and not a privledge. With that said, it is the responsibility of the gun owner to be responsible. Some aren't.........MOST are. So we have this dilemma. I was also raised around guns and was allowed to hunt and target shoot unsupervised as a child. It is because my family taught be core values and most importantly to respect guns as tools. Safety was a primary issue. Most gun owners are responsible, yet the government wants to restrict that right to the point where it is nearly impossible to own a gun. The chant is always to reduce crime, but as many have pointed out, it's not the gun, it's the person behind the gun. So we make more and more laws regarding gun ownership.............. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 7:11 AM:

" ...........that restricts the rights of law abiding citizens. It doesn't do much for criminals. The assault weapon ban is a joke. It relies mostly on cosmetic features of a weapon and nothing more. Despite the news stories, assault type weapons are used very little in crimes. An armed society is much safer than one that is not. Criminals prey on the weak. The criminal who killed the young girls in the Amish school house was a clear examle. He knew there were no guns around. Of all the major school shootings of the last 20 years, there was a common theme among the suspects. They all were engrossed in violent video game activity. Our society, through different forms of media output is ruining our children. Yet when you ask to censor violence, you know what the response is. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Until we correct the core problem, violence will continue. These folks don't need guns to kill. But the more the law abiding citizen is restricted, the less he/she will be able to protect themselves.

There was a recent study done by several medical associations regarding youth violence. They found that taking away television and video games reduced violent behavior dramatically and kids actually did better in school. It's a right brain left brain thing.

We are using guns as an excuse, when we all know that this is not the problem. Children brought up in more rural America, around guns, have less violence.

We all need to take a deep breath over this gun issue. We know that family environment plays a big role in the issue of violence. It is a know fact.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and there is a reason. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 7:29 AM:

" finally..............here is an excellent book on the subject matter:

Grossman, D., and DeGaetano, G., Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence, Crown Books (Random House), 1999. (Published in German and Norwegian.) "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 18, 2009 8:09 AM:

" http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

the above link will educate those who have not one clue of the existing laws surround firearms in the United States and it's Territories.

Yes, it is an NRA web, the NRA Institute for Legislative Analysis. Additionally, any and every sproting goods store that sells firearms have the guide to state gun laws for sale. Rather than quote the left leaning and almost bankrupt (wonder why) New York Times, do your home work!

There are only two organizations in this country that look after the Bill of rights on behalf of the citizens. 1.) ACLU, started to defend those accussed of being communists in the 1950's. Turns out they were communists, and 2.) The NRA. Without the Second Amendment, the other nine are also in jepordy. Jefferson said it best, "Whdn the government fears it's people they are citizens, when they do not they are servents".

I choose not to be a servent to socialism! "

Joanne wrote on Apr 18, 2009 8:50 AM:

" John Richards wrote on Apr 17, 2009 10:11 PM:
" Joanne wrote :"Isn't requiring someone to own a gun an infringement upon their freedom?"

Why would it be an infringement? Napa Country requires me to own and install smoke alarms in my house, even if I don't like their radioactive content. The state requires me to wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle, even if it restricts my vision. It's what government does. "

The difference is: in my small universe of friends and aquantainces, I have known two people who have been killed in gun "accidents." I have yet to hear of any known cases of people being killed from a smoke detector. Or, for that matter, from wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, which is an optional mode of transportation to begin with.

Your comparisons here are, therefore, not "apples to apples." "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 9:21 AM:

" Kevin--was your study to counter the study which appeared briefly but disappeared because I tried to sneak past the 300 word limit?

From New York Times, 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html

The research finds states with the most household guns also have the highest rates of homicide.

“In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high.

“Among the possible explanations for the higher homicide rates, the study said, is that states with high gun ownership tend to make it easier to buy guns. There are also more guns that can be stolen. And the presence of a gun may allow arguments and fights to turn fatal."

The study was more fully covered at

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/01/6601.ars:

"This problem is far more complex than simply looking at homicides and the percent of households that own firearms....[T]he researchers controlled for a variety of factors such as the rate of aggravated assault and robbery, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol use, the percentage of the population who were between the ages of 18 and 34, percent of divorce....The researchers also used a principle component analysis to generate a socioeconomic index they called the resource deprivation index (RDI)—this had previously been shown to have an invariant relationship with homicide rates across the country for multiple years." "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 9:34 AM:

" From taxpayer: " I suggest you educate yourself on gun safety and gun responsibility and become a gun owner so you can protect your family, friends and neighbors. "

To taxpayer--Except for learning to shoot a rifle at summer camp and target shooting with my husband once or twice, I'll probably continue to avoid guns. My husband is a gun owner; I'm a gun skeptic for life.

While a college student many years ago, I acted angrily and foolishly by shooting a hole in a wall. My friend, a trained gun owner and hunter who had served in the military, turned the situation deadly by grabbing my hand and pointing the gun at his head. He was irresponsible and had been drinking. We were both lucky only the wall got shot.

Guns aren't safe because people are unpredictable, and guns don’t act alone. Not everyone who owns or has access to a gun is responsible. It's not a good idea to recommend everyone get a gun; some will not heed your advice to get training and act responsibly. And others are just not able to control their temper or their distrust of others. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 10:07 AM:

" From John Richards: "There is a corollary to Darwin's evolution theories called "Survival of the Fittest." There's not a whole lot of good people shooting each other. Most of the gun deaths you cited are caused by drug-crazed gang members shooting each other. How would you propose to limit that? "

That's cute, JR, but isn't it true that not-good people shoot good people sometimes?

As to the "drug-crazed gang members" (a hyperbolic term if I ever heard one), I'll defer back to steph's solution--"better educational and economic opportunities for America's youth". And that includes those who would become gang members, not just those who could afford private schools. "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2009 10:10 AM:

" If I had a magic wand, I'd end the scourge of substance abuse and fatherlessness, too.
Those two things would go a very long way in reducing all forms of violence. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:14 AM:

" Rocketman -- You are right on with parts of your over 300-word run-on comment (just ribbing NVR, Rocketman, not you).

The culture of violence we tend to endorse as a country has a huge effect on how children behave. And it's funny, but liberals have been saying for years that we should reduce the amount of violence in TV, movies and video games that children are exposed to. Since that would go against free enterprise and a child's right to the pursuit of happiness (right?), we're about as likely to change that as we are to limit the amount of weapons that leak through the hands of law abiding citizens into the hands of drug-crazed criminals.

I liked the comment, "Children brought up in more rural America, around guns, have less violence." Could it be that it's the growing up in rural America part, and not the being around guns part, that makes them less violent people generally? They go outside to play, they climb trees, they raise animals, they capture frogs from ponds; they don't spend their young lives drinking sodas and playing violent video games perhaps. Or at least they didn't used to. "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:42 AM:

" dellasumbrella--
You can significantly decrease your risk of being the victim of gun violence if you avoid being a criminal, hanging out with criminals or abusive men/women, or using illegal drugs. Marry the results of the study you cite with the fact that many studies have shown that the majority of homicide victims have prior arrest records.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=4475729

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/9510272.html

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0903MurderVictims0903.html "

winewoman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Well, look at that. Many of the bloggers crying out, "don't you take away my civil right to own a gun" have no problem taking civil rights of another group of people - gay people. Interesting, but not surprising. "

jwk wrote on Apr 18, 2009 12:13 PM:

" Have any of you Anti- Gun Lib's ever even shot a gun? I've been shooting guns and hunting since I was 12, (So that's 39 years)shot thousand's of rounds and haven't killed a single person!!! Yet!! AMazing?? No, just practical common sense and a very Basic Gun Safety class for all and even the lefties could defend themselves.. "

pharper wrote on Apr 18, 2009 12:24 PM:

" Rocketman, if you think the reason kids kill is because of violent video games, you have blinders on. I just the other day read an article in USA Today about the most famous school shooting in the country, Columbine. New evidence which came to light shows that the boys, whom people have long assumed committed the crime because of their obsessive playing of violent video games, may not have been effected by them at all. They weren't members of the "Trenchcoat Mafia," disaffected videogamers who wore cowboy dusters at their school. The two spent more time writing in their journals and planning the attacks than they did playing video games.

Violent video games may very well have an effect on young minds. But the heart of the problem here is that someone who has been affected by those games can get their hands on a weapon. Whether it's in their own household, or outside, disturbed kids can (and do) get a gun. How is that okay? "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2009 12:32 PM:

" winewoman--
But not all of us.

And can we please not go off-topic to a topic that has been beaten to death? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 2:40 PM:

" Thanks steph, that's useful advice which I've pretty much been following most of my life.

I suppose it would be possible for me to take the "survival of the fittest" approach to the issue and just not care about those who, often because of socio-economic or demographic circumstances, DO associate with criminals, abusive men & women and those who use drugs. I'm a short walk from not caring about the bulk of humanity, but everytime I go in that direction, I start feeling little bits of my integrity dropping off and being buried in the dirt.

So I guess I'll continue to advocate for social programs that address those socio-economic and demographic issues, and whatever regulation of gun sales it takes to reduce the possibility of weapons being passed along to those who might use them against innocent people.

It's easy not to care; I'm really good at apathy, and I've worked hard to overcome it. I'm not about to let it become the theme of my golden years. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 3:06 PM:

" If most of the violence by guns is done to criminals & their associates, how can that jibe with the study on correllation between states with highest gun sales and homicides by guns? If guns are only sold to "law abiding citizens", then they aren't criminals, right? Maybe they're friends of criminals or drug users, but are still law abiding, so they can buy guns, would that be it? Somehow, the guns which are sold to the law-abiding citizens, would presumably be given or re-sold to those who comprise the criminal element that is victimizing its own.

Oh, okay, let 'em kill each other off, what do I care. I'm too busy; I have a few pieces of integrity to go bury.

But before I go, one more quote, from the New England Journal of Medicine, at
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/14/1421#R2:

"Policies limiting gun ownership and use have positive effects, whether those limits affect high-risk guns such as assault weapons or Saturday night specials, high-risk persons such as those who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, or high-risk venues such as gun shows. New York and Chicago, which have long restricted handgun ownership and use, had fewer homicides in 2007 than at any other time since the early 1960s. Conversely, policies that encourage the use of guns have been ineffective in deterring violence. Permissive policies regarding carrying guns have not reduced crime rates, and permissive states generally have higher rates of gun-related deaths than others do." "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 4:26 PM:

" pharper..........states, "Violent video games may very well have an effect on young minds. But the heart of the problem here is that someone who has been affected by those games can get their hands on a weapon.

That's right pharper, just ask Timothy McVeigh.........all people who want to kill will find a way. Disarming citizens is NOT the answer.

By the way, here is what else the Columbine boys brought to school that day:

48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs "

pharper wrote on Apr 18, 2009 4:37 PM:

" And interestingly, Rocketman, none of those items worked - but the guns did. Two incredibly disturbed teenagers with the original intent of killing everyone at the school and all of the responders to the scene managed to get hold of more than just the two guns they needed. And guess what? They financed their attack using salaries from part-time jobs. It may be true that they would have found another way. but I sincerely doubt they could have killed 13 people and injured even more if they'd had knives. Maybe if their bombs had worked, but they didn't - and the guns did.

That's wrong. It is absolutely, positively wrong that a child (disturbed or otherwise) can get a gun. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 18, 2009 4:54 PM:

" Rocketman,

No matter what the "Columbine boys" did or did not bring with them, in the end they did all their killing (and maiming) that day with guns. "

misfit wrote on Apr 18, 2009 5:11 PM:

" Just because there are other ways for killers to get their hands on lethal weapons, wouldn't it be wise to keep these options limited anyway? In healthcare, we know contamination exists but the goal is to keep it to a minimum. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 18, 2009 5:43 PM:

" della, della-

Criminals by the very definition will never obey the law. No matter how many you pass to control crime. The black market that exists on the streets can pretty much anything you want.

Gang members with sources in Mexico can bring anything through our porous southern boarder. Firearms are stolen all the time from burglaries. from your rant you are very uninformed as to the law surrounding firearm sales and the requirements.

Why don't you take a drive to Darin's Downtown or the Last Gun Shop in Riverpark and speak to the owners about what it takes to purchase a firearm, any firearm. Ask them about the laws, restrictions, and the hoops they have to jump through to run that business. Once you have been educated at the retail level, read John Lott Jr's book "More Guns, Less Crime" It is a serious statistical analysis of how the increase in CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) has actually reduced crime. He did set out to prove the opposite and was surprised by what he found. You approach based on hysteria has no foundation in reason. It is just there to push a personal agenda of misinformation and tall tales.

Get an education and then you can approach the subject on an intellectual level. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 18, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Where the parents of the two boys from Columbine? They never even entered their kids rooms. I remember one parent did while the kid had a sawed off shotgun on a dresser.

Where were the parents? They were failures as parents thats where. That begs the question.

Where are your children and what are they doing. "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2009 5:47 PM:

" High crime rates are not mutually exclusive to high gun sales by law-abiding citizens.
And criminals get their hands on guns illegally by theft or by illegal borrowing from family members.

You don't have to bury your integrity. It is right to want better for innocent children unfortunately born into poverty and all the disadvantes thereof. But you don't punish the law-abiding citizens by taking their guns away.

Is it right for your husband to have to give up his gun because a gang member is killed in East Oakland? Or is it right for that terrified gang member's elderly neighbor to have to give up his gun? Or the brave store owner in the neighborhood to give up her gun? I think not. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 6:32 PM:

" .........you folks just don't get it............criminals and or people with criminal intent will get guns and KILL PEOPLE. So You all tell me. How do you keep guns away from criminals and allow law abiding citizens their rights?? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 7:47 PM:

" No one is taking anyone's guns away.

That uninformed belief is the hysteria talking. "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 18, 2009 8:38 PM:

" Joanne, let's go ahead and continue to ignore the lives actually SAVED in Kennesaw because criminals are obviously afraid to enter a home where they know there is a gun and an owner who is qualified to use it. I'll choose freedom, over fear of an accident any day. As I stated in my previous post cars can be dangerous, airplanes can be dangerous, breathing can be dangerous. I take my chances every time I climb into my car. The criminals who are using guns for crimes are using guns illegally, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop criminals from using guns illegally.

pharper- Please don't confuse learning about using a gun from a neighbors father with actual training and education. I'm sure he had great intentions, but before you are qualified to use a gun, you need far more education and training. It took years of being with my father and mother who both hunted, before I really grasped the responsibility of carrying a gun. They were both there when I was young and even into my teens, to make sure I didn't hurt myself or someone else. My father was the one who taught me one of my most valuable lessons, which was "A unloaded gun is the most dangerous gun." It wasn't until my late teens and saw an unloaded gun go off that I fully understood. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 9:05 PM:

" Freeport -- Interesting what you consider a rant.

"Gang members with sources in Mexico can bring anything through our porous southern boarder. Firearms are stolen all the time from burglaries."

"Why don't you take a drive to Darin's Downtown or the Last Gun Shop in Riverpark and speak to the owners about what it takes to purchase a firearm, any firearm. Ask them about the laws, restrictions, and the hoops they have to jump through to run that business."

"Where were the parents? They were failures as parents thats where."

"Get an education and then you can approach the subject on an intellectual level. "

Whoa. You mean like you? Guess I'd have to watch a lot of Fox News to do that. John Lott isn't the only expert on gun issues, but if he feeds the paranoia about having guns taken away from good law abiding citizens (and I'm not saying he does, because I don't know if he echoes Fox News and Friends), enjoy the delusions.

I guess if firearms are stolen all the time in burglaries, having a gun isn't a whole lot of protection, is it? It's just another source for criminals to tap into. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 9:11 PM:

" cab e-girl -- No one is taking anyone's guns away. Relax. That's a myth.

How many people do you think really get "far more education and training" before buying a gun? You may have the qualifications, but that doesn't mean all gun owners do. Anyone can buy a gun. Do you think that's okay? I mean, given your belief about qualifications and all. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 18, 2009 9:25 PM:

" Della, You obviously aren't paying attention to all the new and ever-increasing gun laws. As a proven law abiding citizen, please tell me why I am restricted on how many guns I can purchase in a given time? I am on a hunting trip and my gun breaks. Tell me why as a law abiding citizen I have to wait TEN DAYS to get a new gun for something I have already been cleared to use?? Tell me why as a law abiding citizen, I can't purchase a gun for cosmetic reasons?? Please tell me why I can't purchase a 12 round magazine, but I can purchase TWO 10 round magazines? Please tell me why. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 18, 2009 10:02 PM:

" cab e-girl,

You said:

"Joanne, let's go ahead and continue to ignore the lives actually SAVED in Kennesaw because criminals are obviously afraid to enter a home where they know there is a gun and an owner who is qualified to use it. I'll choose freedom, over fear of an accident any day."

What freedom? If I lived in Kennesaw County, I'd be left without a choice. By law I'd be compelled to keep a firearm in my home. Yet, in the absence of such a law, you'd still be free to do that (keep a firearm) yourself, if you wanted to.

As to "the lives actually SAVED in Kennesaw," just how do you know that anyone's life has been saved by this law? You don't. There's no "obviously" about it; you are just assuming that to be the case. On the other hand, there have been at least a couple of documented "accidental" shootings in Kennesaw County since the law went into effect. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 18, 2009 10:25 PM:

" Because suffering builds character, Rocketman. And a sense of entitlement is highly overrated; sometimes delayed gratification is a good thing, .

That's why. "

pharper wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:08 PM:

" cab-e girl, I know I'm not qualified to use a gun in any situation; I certainly don't intend to, nor do I wish to. But in an emergency situation, and for the purposes of shooting paint cans in my neighbor's backyard, I know how to handle a gun. One of the things he taught me was indeed that an unloaded gun is the most dangerous kind. I remember a story he told about a .22 that had been out of use for many years taking a chunk out of the ceiling when everyone thought it wasn't loaded.

The problem is that we can't regulate how well parents teach their children. All we can regulate is how easy it is for bad parents (and uneducated children) to get guns. "

littlered56 wrote on Apr 18, 2009 11:21 PM:

" The parent of one of the Columbine shooters allowed there child to have those guns. they were minors and a far as I am conserned they should have been charged with murder, The story on 60 minutes tells of teachers reporting these boys making threats ,it was reported to the Deen, to the Principle and to the supertendant of education, the school board and the county sherriff..and no one bothered to take these kids into custody to question them. It is available via 60 Minutes archives. the youngest killer in the Kentucky shooting..his teacher informed the principle the kids had serious problems threating to kill students..but it was not investagated.
I think we have got to hold parents responsible for their kids. I think we need more mental health help for troubled kids. I think violent criminals should never be parolled unless they have electronic monitors 24/7. I think each state need to create a work farm for parolled criminals to do labor and street sweeping and other tasks while getting professional counseling about how to stay out of trouble.
I have been told the death penality detures killings...for over 50 years I have heard this...just wonder when it will start to work???? I think if a violent criminal knew he was going to get a labotomy and sit is a rubber room the rest of his life..he might re think his acts. "

Angelina Gervasio wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:13 AM:

" Getting rid of guns will hurt as much as it helps, now getting rid of the people who kill people with guns is another story... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Thank you Della...........it has taken awhile, but you finally proved my point. I need to "suffer" to qualify for my Second Amendment rights. I need to have my "gratification delayed." I see that YOU have the answers to the "conditions" of my Second Amendment rights. That is all I was waiting for! "

misfit wrote on Apr 19, 2009 8:36 AM:

" Rocketman said, "you folks just don't get it............criminals and or people with criminal intent will get guns and KILL PEOPLE.
And so will depressed, detached teenagers, drunk/angry/misguided/jealous boyfriends and husbands, fathers wanting to get revenge on the ex wife and kill the kids, the wife, her co-workers...all, previously innocent and "law abiding". "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 19, 2009 10:39 AM:

" Rocketman -- and you've proven my point about sense of entitlement.

Thank you.

Hope your cosmetic weaponry goes well. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 19, 2009 10:51 AM:

" You were told wrong, littlered56. The death penalty doesn't deter killings. There's at least one study cited above about that. People don't think before they act. That's one of the problems with anyone being able to get a gun. Think of people who are so distraught and so desperate they are willing to shoot another for no good reason. Do you think they care about their own life at that point? They are a bit like suicide bombers; in fact, those who commit mass murder often end up shooting themselves as well. Do you think they think about the death penalty?

Okay folks, I earned rant points on that one. It wasn't directed at you, littlered56. I absolutely agree with this statement you made:

"I think we have got to hold parents responsible for their kids. I think we need more mental health help for troubled kids. I think violent criminals should never be parolled unless they have electronic monitors 24/7. I think each state need to create a work farm for parolled criminals to do labor and street sweeping and other tasks while getting professional counseling about how to stay out of trouble." "

Joanne wrote on Apr 19, 2009 11:47 AM:

" Rocketman,

Try to look at it this way:

The preamble to the Constitution. of which the Bill of Rights is a part, describes its intent and purpose thusly...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Toward that end, the first amendment gives us the right to free speech, but there are limits on that, too. Neither you, nor I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless -- of course -- there is one, nor can we use "hate speech." And so on.

Why, then, should there not be limits on our second amendment rights as well? Especially if those are seen to serve the purpose of promoting our "general Welfare?" "

alucawanza wrote on Apr 19, 2009 12:36 PM:

" Do you have to pass a psychological screening to own a gun?
Do you have to prove somehow that you don't have an anger problem?
Are your children screened for personality disorders before you can buy a gun?
Do you have to prove you have a secure place to store a gun before you can buy it?
Are your neighbor kids screened so they don't know where you keep it?
Do you have the false belief that your children will follow your rules?

dellaumbrella: Professional counseling will not help sociopaths, psychopaths, and personality disorders. Those are the ones that need to be supervised every minute. Parents with children with these problems did not create them nor can they control them. They are like a birth defect. They need supervised facillities for life. I agree with you. Violent criminals should never be parolled....not even with monitors. Who's watching the monitor? There is no failsafe monitor for a clever psychopath.
The death penalty does not deter killings. The sociopath scoffs at this idea. He/she will continue their work in prison. Eliminating the death penalty would save money. Life sentences with no parole are cheaper. All the appeals and court appearances are very costly.
Have all the guns you want. Just don't buy bullets... "

PastNapan wrote on Apr 19, 2009 12:51 PM:

" PHarper wrote " Once someone takes a gun home (legally or not) we have no idea if they're keeping the gun away from their children. In effect, we have thousands of gun owners out there, and no idea how many of them allow their children access to those weapons, inadvertently or otherwise."

Ok so millions of people have cars and their kids could have access to their keys, take the car and kill themselves or someone else.

Millions of people take prescription drugs like Oxycontin, Vicodin etc.. that their kids can take right out of their medicine cabinet. Should we ban medications also?

It just never ends does it? "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 19, 2009 1:22 PM:

" Of course we can't "regulate" how well parents teach their children, any more than we can regulate how well parents teach their children to drive. There are so many gun laws on the books that try to to make it completely safe for everyone and the bottom line is it will never be 100% safe, but then again either is living.

Joanne- We will never know how many lives were saved in Kinnesaw, but you refuse to factor it in to your conclusions. Don't you think you should at least consider the potential that lives have been saved? Can you justify overlooking that detail? "

Joanne wrote on Apr 19, 2009 1:40 PM:

" PastNapan wrote:

"...so millions of people have cars and their kids could have access to their keys, take the car and kill themselves or someone else."

True, but they -- for example -- cannot conceal a car in their backpack and take it to school and kill a bunch of their classmates and teachers.

"Millions of people take prescription drugs like Oxycontin, Vicodin etc.. that their kids can take right out of their medicine cabinet. Should we ban medications also?"

I guess I don't understand your point, here. Yes, they could hurt or even kill themselves if they were to overdose on these medications or sell them to their friends, perhaps, who might do the same. But that is a whole lot different from being the innocent victim of gun violence.

Once again, such comparisons are simply not "apples to apples." "

kevin wrote on Apr 19, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Regards an earlier post:

"The death penalty doesn't deter killings"

It absolutely DOES!

Not ONE executed killer has EVER been documented to have killed AGAIN!

(Remember, "lifers" are the most dangerous of prisoners; they have nothing left to lose. They don't just kill prison guards, they also kill other prisoners.) "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 19, 2009 2:17 PM:

" PastNapan -- The requirements for driving legally, with tests, renewable license, and the laws regulating it (no drinking, no speeding, etc.) have been discussed above. The medications you mention must be prescribed by a doctor. Maybe that's the answer, huh? Guns by prescription only.

Of course no one has total control over who will abuse the laws and regulations, but to treat guns as LESS lethal than amenities we use that are not even intended to be lethal in the first place, makes no sense.

alucawanza -- I think you're giving me credit for littlered's comment. I was agreeing with it, however. I also agree with you that in the case of sociopaths, there's not much that can be done to rehabilitate them. However, we can't always ferret out the sociopaths, as some are pretty slick, so it might make sense to give the counseling thing a try, just in case we catch a few of the non-sociopath/psychopaths. And some personality disordered people (dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and histrionic and sometimes borderline) may be helped by counseling. Not that those disorders necessarily cause people to commit crimes, but they can be contributing factors, and efforts should be made to treat treatable disorders that contribute to crime.

As for children and teenagers, I think we should always try treatment. Personality disorders are not always fully developed and all children should be given a chance to change, whether it works or not. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 19, 2009 2:29 PM:

" cab e-girl,

I'm not "overlooking that detail." I don't "buy" your premise at all.

Among others, here are a couple of reasons why I feel that way:

There is ample evidence that many Kennesaw County residents do not take that law seriously and do not actually abide by it. Based on my research, it appears as though they have never actually enforced that law either. That being the case, do you really think that it has the effect of deterring crime that you are trying to suggest it does?

Furthermore, in my lifetime, I have personally known two people who have died in gun "accidents," yet I have never known a single person who has saved him/herself or his/her loved ones from harm with the gun that s/he kept in his/her home.

In short, I can't "overlook" something that I don't accept as valid in the first place... "

misfit wrote on Apr 19, 2009 3:11 PM:

" I find it ironic that the mostly conservatives who love guns and are worried about the possibility of their rights being taken away aren't so adamant when the rights of others are being taken away. This is why conservatives have no credibility. Their values change and the rules change continually to suit their cause of the day. "

winewoman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 5:32 PM:

" Steph, D'Oh! You're right. Sorry. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 19, 2009 6:42 PM:

" Kevin -- That's another one of your jokes, right?

We were talking about death sentence as deterrance, not death as deterrance. If the existence of a death sentence had been a deterrance, they wouldn't have murdered in the first place.

Oh, silly me, responding as if you weren't joking. It was kind of funny, though. "

steph wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:36 PM:

" della--
Just one quick point about those drugs, they don't have to be prescribed.

As for hiding a car in your backpack--we've established that this is unnecessary. The auto killings occur right out in the open. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:49 PM:

" Joanne, There are limitations to our Second Amendment rights.......that is what we are talking about. The problem is that they are becoming so severe that it limits your right to have weapons far and beyond your limits of freedom of speech. That is what this whole argument is about. But if you have no use for a weapon, then why would you care. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:51 PM:

" misfit...........and yes, those folks will use other means of violence if they have no access to guns "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:53 PM:

" Della.............sense of entitlement??? Don't get your logic. But I never have so it works for me.......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 7:59 PM:

" Like the story goes...........if folks treated the SECOND Amendment like they want the first amendment to be treated, they gun ownership would be mandatory. This is the one Constitutional right that a lot of people don't care about because they have no use for guns. I get that, but leave my Constitutional right alone. Than god this US Supreme Court didn't interpret the Constitution, they enforced it. District of Columbia v. Heller. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 19, 2009 8:13 PM:

" Rocketman,

OK. I'll bite. What are these limits you feel are "becoming so severe." Perhaps we can focus this discussion more narrowly upon those.

That said, however, please keep in mind that the "20,000 laws" that have been cited three times (by you and others) on this Web page so far are presumably the sum total of all the gun laws in the United States imposed at every level. There are clearly not 20,000 gun laws that apply in any one place in the United States.

Ironically enough, this is largely a consequence of federalism. If consider yourself a conservative, then you likely subscribe strongly to the notion that such matters should be addressed on the state and local, rather than the federal level. Therefore, this is exactly the result that you should expect to come from that. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2009 8:47 PM:

" My comment on severe restrictions is a comment referred in the totality. Case in point is Washington DC and San Francisco, going beyond the Constitution and forbidding citizens to be able to own hand guns in their perspective cities. That is unconstitutional law, but they didn't care. There are law enforcement agencies that refuse to issue concealed carry permits, except only to certain individuals. Banning weapons because they don't meet a drop test. If you are out legally hunting and your gun is damaged, if you don't have another weapon, you have to wait 10 days to get another one. It goes on and on and on. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 19, 2009 9:13 PM:

" Rocketman,

Then would you be in favor of the federal government creating a set of reasonable, uniform regulations for gun ownership that would supersede the patchwork quilt of 20,000 laws that exists now? If not, what would you support?

You see: I don't think that you and I are so very far apart on this issue.

I do not now and do not ever expect to own a gun, nor otherwise to keep one in my home. However, although I do not want to be compelled to keep a gun in my home, I am not "anti-gun," nor against responsible gun ownership. (Many years ago, I earned a "Marksman" rating with a .22 rifle, and I make that statement with a certain amount of -- yes -- pride.) And I agree with you that we currently have a crazy hodge-podge of gun laws that serves nobody's best interests most of the time.

But I also think there is a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the answer, it seems to me, has so far escaped us. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 20, 2009 9:31 AM:

" Steph says, "Just one quick point about those drugs, they don't have to be prescribed"

I guess I misunderstood the meaning of "prescription drugs" (Oxycontin, Vicodin were given as examples) in a prior post. I assumed that would mean a doctor's prescription. No? I'm wrong on that? Anyway, I liked my idea of prescription guns. Where did I read something about guns "leveling the playing field", allowing the weaker to feel stronger. So, maybe if doctors just prescribed guns for the weaker, that would take care of the problem.

Yes, I'm being facetious. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 20, 2009 9:50 AM:

" About sense of entitlement—Quoting the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But where, oh where does it say that one has the right to buy as many guns as one wants at any given time, buy a gun IMMEDIATELY to replace a broken one (or for any reason, for that matter), or buy a 12 round magazine rather than two 10 round magazines? Claiming any of those as a constitutional right demonstrates what I call a sense of entitlement.

The interpretation of the 1st amendment has been narrowed – no hate speech, no yelling “fire” when there is none, plus a myriad of other communication conventions we usually accept in order to (as Joanne pointed out) “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…promote the general welfare….”

Yet the NRA, gun manufacturers, dealers, gun enthusiasts as well as, no doubt, criminals want us to endlessly broaden the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to mean not just endorsing an armed militia of citizens to protect the State, but endowing the right of anyone who is presumably “law-abiding” to an arsenal of weapons and the right to carry them anywhere, and shoot at anyone he/she considers MIGHT be a danger. So as the 1st amendment has been construed more narrowly over the years, we are asked to expand the 2nd amendment rights to allow, for instance, carrying guns in a national park where families and wildlife have traditionally been able to feel free from violence and the terror of knowing any “unproven” criminal or sociopath may be legally armed and ready to shoot. "

Alter ego wrote on Apr 20, 2009 10:20 AM:

" Actually the First Amendment has been expanded over the years to include the Internet, TV, Radio, telephone, computers, things that obviously were never covered by the Constitiution.

But yet many people want to narrow our Second Amendment Rights for the same reason; ie "you should only be able to own black powder muskets, etc.." "

OU now wrote on Apr 20, 2009 10:41 AM:

" How many of the 120,000 gun death's were gang related? how many were cop's shooting or justifiable? Why always look at the glass half empty? Try to look at the bright side. many of the dead needed killing. I'm sure the stats.were put out by anti gun people. Freedom does come with a price and education on proper use will bring the cost down. But try to teach gun safty in schools, and some nut will say"not my kid". Just like sex ed. or AIDs ed. Yes, I have many guns. Each has a specific use, deer,hog, turkey,duck,dove,rabbit,quail,home protection(1 or more hours for law inforcement to get to my house) People who break the law will not obey gun laws, so why try to make everybody else suffer? I can't change your minds any more than you can change mine. Some things we don't like we just have to live with. Della's U If people shooting on their own land really bugs you, move! Out of 100,000 people .27 of one% die from firearms each year 15.3% in auto- 6.6% die from poison. stats. are only stats. "

O/U now wrote on Apr 20, 2009 10:49 AM:

" What did My forefathers say? Guns don't kill people arrows do! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:04 AM:

" Della, It's the last 4 words of the first sentence. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:10 AM:

" Wow Della, I wished I had read your whole blog........."but endowing the right of anyone who is presumably “law-abiding” to an arsenal of weapons and the right to carry them anywhere, and shoot at anyone he/she considers MIGHT be a danger." That's what we want. To shoot at anyone, "who might be a danger".............yeah that pretty much happens everyday. But Thank you again for proving my point!

Yes, I am concerned for those wildlife that will be slaughtered in the National Parks if I am allowed to carry my gun with me. I have absolutely no concern for that child I might save if a wild animal attacks that child in a National Park. "

Raven wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:32 AM:

" I am sure that the families of the victims in the shootings over the past few weeks will be comforted by knowing 'freedom does come with a price.'

If yu suspect the figures, take a look at the CDC figures of gunshot victims. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:38 AM:

" OUnow says, "Try to look at the bright side. many of the dead needed killing."

Tell that to the family of mom & 3 children recently killed in Middletown MD by hubby before killing himself.

"Della's U If people shooting on their own land really bugs you, move!"

Okay, so I should be on the run to avoid the ever expanding proliferation of guns? Sorry, can't go to town, can't go to church, can't go to college, can't even go the the national parks anymore, and now you're saying I should get out of my home that my husband and I bought over a decade ago because we wanted to live in the peaceful hills of Napa County?

So I guess according to OU the 2nd amendment trumps everyone's rights to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. "

AKNRA wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Della, how dare you state that "...just as the gun manufacturers and the NRA don't care about the people who get killed by guns...!" I, my wife, and many of our friends are ourselves NRA members; what WE see as the problem is the constant coddling and excuse making for the debase criminal culture that continually, day after day, night after night, create more statistics within their predominantly urban settings. We KNOW the original intent of the Second Amendment was NOT for hunting, but for free citizens to be able to defend themselves against tyrannical government. If you anti-gun, pro-criminal types would do serious investigation you would come to the same conclusion as our founding fathers. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 20, 2009 11:48 AM:

" Enforce the existing laws.

I personally dont believe the citizens should have "military weapons made to kill people" but the constitutions says its O.K. for our defence. What I do disagree with is all the variations of laws.

Eliminate the laws and use just three.

1) Use a gun in a crime go to jail 10 years minimum each ofence. 2) Murder somone with a gun, you die. 3) A gun stolen from you and you dont report it, and its used in a crime, YOUR responsible and accessory also.

Now everyone can cry me a river on how this is so unfair and there always is other circumstances. You want a gun fine. Your irresponsibe in its ownership you also pay then! "

steph wrote on Apr 20, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Yes, della, if you want the drugs legally, you have to have a prescription. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 1:47 PM:

" AKNRA..........it is obvious to most of the readers that Della just doesn't like guns................so we shouldn't like them either. It's the liberal mentality.......they all know that the government will take care of them. And because criminals use guns illegally, we should have our rights infringed so that handful of criminals might not get their gun like the other millions of criminals do. There is no argument with that type of logic. We have already been told that the wildlife are in danger from us gun carrying good guys...........it's in print. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 20, 2009 2:30 PM:

" Sorry but I do list "Trophy Hunters" that gutlessly shoot wolves from helicopters just to get their picture with a trophy kill, then leave the meat. Those are not good NRA hunters they worthless uses of human dna that have destroyed wildlife for their own ego. That is a totally different discussion than the constitutional rights to bear arms. I dont know what you'll label me, but I do believe in the right to bear arms, but not the right to arm the stupid! "

post-it wrote on Apr 20, 2009 2:58 PM:

" There is clamoring by the right to use the instant check employee verification to weed out illegals taking jobs from Americans. Why then from the same group that asks for nothing but the enforcement of the quoted 22,000 gun laws do they have an issue with a background check for all gun sales? Surely this would be beneficial to weed out those who are not able to acquire a gun legally. How does this process of verification and registration infringe on your rights to "keep and bear" arms? You have to show ID to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. But if you want a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle (capable of penetrating steel and taking out an armored vehicle from more than a mile) you need only to show up at one of 5,000 legal gun shows and fork over the cash – no ID or background check required! It is like the TSA making you wait in the security line at the airport while some other guy lets the terrorists pass on thru and board, no questions asked!.

Seems to me the NRA is just like any other lobby firm looking out for its constituents to make the most profit. More guns + More ammo = More profits. Lobbyists are a good thing when they are on your side. They are active participants in creating a society where you need a gun for your safety.

Many of the recent mass murder sprees were of the murder suicide variety. Was mommy supposed to be packing just in case daddy went a little of kilter? How did the guns in those houses protect the children? 40 states have right to carry laws, how many armed citizens came to their aid? "

ssi wrote on Apr 20, 2009 4:51 PM:

" It would probably add more credibility to the debate to cite a common source for stats,etc...say the FBI Crime Reporting Statistics or the National Institute of Health....google- gun control florida State University for some reading pleasure...by the way...the Kennesaw Ordanance was merely a "shot"...pun intended...at Morton Grove,IL for banning fire-arms...the crime rate decrease was probably irrelevent as it followed a national trend somewhat anyway "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 20, 2009 4:57 PM:

" The real question to ask the far lefties here is this;

Once the 2nd Amendmend has been rendered useless by the useless suggestions mewntioned above, what is the next right you are more than willing to give up?

freedom of Speech is the next one on the block with the fairness doctrine, what a joke that is. Liberal controlled newspapers, moviesn and all television. Once the conservative talk show hosts are shut down, only the liberal voice will be heard in America. What is Fair or free about that.

Yes, far lefties which right do you want to take away next religion, quartering soldiers in your home, unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, a speedy trial, and finally states rights. Maybe we can do with cruel and unusal punishment, or as Americans the power to control our government.

Yes, which Right is next in your book? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 5:13 PM:

" ..........as I have stated before, it is useless to argue with people that are illformed or uninfomed. They have their CNN beliefs that are as wild as fiction can get. It really is like arguing with a wall. "

antipc wrote on Apr 20, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Sorry I'm late,

Mexico has had heavily restricted gun ownership for how long now? Yet no one knows whether the government or the drug cartels are in charge of the border towns.

5th-gener those aren’t trophy hunts they’re called depredation hunts, get used to it because we’re going to start having to do it in the lower 48 as well. "

post-it wrote on Apr 20, 2009 6:48 PM:

" Ever notice that the pro-gunners always frame the second amendment as a black or white discussion?

The fourth amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One hears nary a peep from a pro-gunner about going through the TSA security line. Everyone has their bag checked while nearly 100% are not guilty of a crime. Do they have probable cause to search your bag? Of course not, you are a "law abiding citizen". Common household implements are seized daily, you can't even bring a bottle of water through the line. (sounds unreasonable to me) Used to be that airline security did the scanning, post 9/11 the TSA now a government agency.

When the pro-gunners begin to complain as vociferously for absolutism in this constitutional right, I will respect their arguments in favor of a free for all on guns. I suspect the same fraidy cats don't want to risk being on the same airplane when someone with bad intentions has a gun. They demand that government insures their safety in the air much like the so called "gun-banners" are trying to secure their safety in the community at large. "

antipc wrote on Apr 20, 2009 7:36 PM:

" post-it, absolutism? The second amendment is every bit as clearly definable as the first amendment. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 8:55 PM:

" post-it.............pro-gunners accept "reasonable" rules. The security check is reasonable..........not a good argument. "

post-it wrote on Apr 20, 2009 8:58 PM:

" Absolutist: Any gun, any time, anywhere for any one as a "natural" right of self defence.

If there is an absolute constitutional right to carry a gun, laws criminalizing weapons possession of various kinds, such as the federal law barring those convicted of a domestic violence from possessing a firearm, MUST be challenged. Perhaps criminal defendants will also rely on the absolutist celebration regarding the "natural" right of self-defense to argue that states must give them a more ample right of self-defense than presently available. If anyone needs a gun for protection, a gang banger fits that description to a "T".

So do you want your neighbor who beats up his wife to have a gun?

So if that is what you believe, then yes everyone should get a bigger and better gun because sooner than later our society will resemble the models of Somalia, Haiti and Sudan where the thugs with the best "militia" control their little fiefdom to perform extortion, robbery, piracy, murder and ethnic cleansing. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 9:34 PM:

" post-it.......gang bangers are already doing that in LA.............and we have gun control don't we? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 9:39 PM:

" post-it says: "If there is an absolute constitutional right to carry a gun, laws criminalizing weapons possession of various kinds, such as the federal law barring those convicted of a domestic violence from possessing a firearm, MUST be challenged."...................remember reasonable rules??? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 20, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Post-it says........"So if that is what you believe, then yes everyone should get a bigger and better gun because sooner than later our society will resemble the models of Somalia, Haiti and Sudan where the thugs with the best "militia" control their little fiefdom to perform extortion, robbery, piracy, murder and ethnic cleansing. " Yes sir.........that is what America is all about.........land of the disenchanted!! "

misfit wrote on Apr 20, 2009 10:36 PM:

" Okay, let's just say we can all keep our guns and it's all good. Now, what would you say regarding the prospect of having ammunition rounds encoded with serial numbers and linked to the purchaser? "

post-it wrote on Apr 21, 2009 12:25 AM:

" Rocketman, Reasonable rules? careful, lest you slide down that slippery slope.

But now we are talking. What might you consider "reasonable"? "

antipc wrote on Apr 21, 2009 6:13 AM:

" Nope, that won't work either. Another layer of costly bureaucracy that won't achieve it's intended goal. Criminals steal guns or get them underground why wouldn't they do the same with amo. "

misfit wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:10 AM:

" Wouldn't the ammo still show a connection to the original purchaser? Perhaps then, it is ultimately stolen or re-sold but still, it can begin to be traced. It's something isn't it? And, if keeping your guns is your sole aim, why now would you care about bureaucracy??? Careful now because you will begin to reveal your true intentions. This is the issue. Extremist, (fanatic) gun owners are unwilling to compromise. Once again I say, your right to own a gun does not supercede my right to life! "

glenroy wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:47 AM:

" Q: "So do you want your neighbor who beats up his wife to have a gun?"

A: I can guarantee with a 90% effectiveness the beatings will cease if the wife had a gun.... "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 21, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Sorry I'm late anitpc.
Depredidation hunt. Lets see there are about 1000 wolves left in North America. In the 1930's there were about 40 million! Think we "deprediated" enough? And people that say its wolves killing their livestock are 99% mis identifying Hybred domestic ferrel pack dogs running loose. Gov. Palin is ignoring real science and replacing it with the "trophy hunter science" told to her by her campaign supporters of the sport hunting board. Dont get me wrong, I grew up in a hunting family and know a lot of hunters, "real" hunters" that use every bit of the kill. But there are a lot of NRA, Trophy Hunters, and weapon dealers, Collectors and Criminals that are perverting and polluting the real meaning of the Constitution. "The right to bear arms. Not the right to gang shooting, bank robbing, domestic violence, revenge killing / suiside, and murder. And why do I seem so upset? Look at the 100 plus weapons stolen from the San Jose Gun shop two months ago. Guess the people that took them have the right to freely go hunting right? Oh, which kind of hunting are we talking about? Animals or people? If its animals i guess its ok for them to bear there arms freely, right!
Sorry for the rambling this time. But when are people going to accept responsibility? I grew up with rifles, shot guns and pistols in a hunting cabinet with the ammuniton right below and the whole family knew how to respect it. Atleast it was locked and secured if the house was burglarized. Where is that mindset today? A huge segment of the population doesn't have it. Ergo, rules need to be applied and enforced. Once again the constitution doesn't apply to the stupid. "

cab e-girl wrote on Apr 21, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Glenroy: Touché "

antipc wrote on Apr 21, 2009 9:30 AM:

" 5th gen, other than humans the wolf has no natural predator to control their population. Look at the introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone. They are seriously decimating the elk herds that had been stable from the mid '60s.
Alaska is also having similar problems with the moose & caribou populations. How about the mountain lions in CA & their affect on our deer populations. Controlling predator numbers is a must.

As for the over-regulation of guns you have to admit it is always the the law abiding citizen that is paying the price monetarily as well as limiting our freedoms. Meanwhile the criminals are undeterred "

Alter ego wrote on Apr 21, 2009 10:44 AM:

" freeport, you asked which Right would the government take away after we lose the Second Amendment?

The correct answer is: which ever ones the government wants to take.

The Second Amendment was put there to make sure the rest stayed there. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 21, 2009 12:01 PM:

" antipc, I do highly regard your opinion. Please read "Of Wolves and Men by Barry Holstun Lopez". The whole preditor / prey sinereo seems to really be misunderstood. If it were on an island like Angle is. then yes there would be a problem, since people dont like seeing deer die of hunger the way nature does it. Hunters today seem to be looking for the stablization of heard numbers for their own Preserve style hunting, not how nature does things. An in yellowstone the wolves were protected until this year! and now the elk are experiencing a reduction? Sounds like political misrepresented infomation again. An they have already proved it is ferrl dog pack from dumped dogs doing a lot of the killing. Proof, 90% of the wolves are radio tagged, and they know where they are.
An for the law abiding citizen that pays the price? That seem to me they should put more effort in to getting these bleeding heart judges off the bench and DEMAND the laws be followed. My friend was MURDERED three years ago and they are still playing musical chairs with the DA, Court, and Judges. (another county not here). Three Judges and three politcally seeking DA's they have gone thru already. Fast and speedy trial. Way to many are manipulating the system and we have lost the fact we need to distinguish RIGHT from WRONG. "

antipc wrote on Apr 21, 2009 1:01 PM:

" 5th gen, here's some interesting reading. Ed Bangs is the USF&WS biologist who's been in charge of the wolf introduction program. This guy is a no BS guy. The most compelling fact is that from the original 66 wolves released in '95/'96 there are now 1645 in just 12 years.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/index.html "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 21, 2009 1:20 PM:

" So you liberals would like it if we outlaw all guns and ammunition in the United States. You believe this will cure all problems.
Lets look at Mexico. They do not allow any guns. Do they have a crime problem?
Lets ask them to enact the same 20,000 additional laws the U.S has, this will help!
Have a nice day. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 21, 2009 1:54 PM:

" Glenroy,

"Q: "So do you want your neighbor who beats up his wife to have a gun?"

A: I can guarantee with a 90% effectiveness the beatings will cease if the wife had a gun.... "

Unless the wife shoots the husband dead, the beatings won't stop. And when they use a gun to stop the beatings in that way, they almost always go to prison. Is that the solution you're proposing they pursue? "

Raven wrote on Apr 21, 2009 1:58 PM:

" "The most compelling fact is that from the original 66 wolves released in '95/'96 there are now 1645 in just 12 years."

from the NPS....

At the end of 2008, at least 124 wolves in 12 packs and various groups occupied Yellowstone National Park. This is one more pack than in 2007, but several long-term, stable packs were lost and smaller, newly formed packs replaced them. This represents a 27% decline compared to the 2007 population and was similar to the 30% decline in 2005. Only six of these packs were breeding pairs, the smallest count since 2000 (when wolves first reached the minimum requirement for delisting of 30 breeding pairs in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). High mortality of both pups and adults caused the low breeding pair count, despite there being 12 packs. Disease and intraspecific mortality are the two primary factors that caused the wolf population decline. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 21, 2009 2:08 PM:

" TAXPAYER,

I don't think a single person that has posted a comment on this Web page has suggested that "we outlaw all guns and ammunition in the United States."

In fact, many of "us liberals" have made statements very much to the contrary. "

antipc wrote on Apr 21, 2009 3:45 PM:

" Raven, the USF&WS study is on going & not limited to the park boundaries. In fact it doesn't include this years crop of pups, but it does include the depredation kills. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 21, 2009 4:16 PM:

" I will not argue with you antipc. The fact is one study here and there, which everyone likes to cite to validate their point of view tends to have a specific point. When you talk about ecosystems you need a wide range of encompassing infomation, even then things are missed. The plain fact is we have messed up nature and our environment, we still use micro studies to say "all is fine all is well", when its not. We live in a society of poisioned human views of the world. The european philosophy basically said (and dont give me chapter and verse, but the basic meaning is) the earth is for us to use for our benifit. (HUMMMM) so we wiped out the Native americans (whom thought they should live WITHIN nature), we fence every inch of land and destroy nature because WE OWN it. We destroy entire species because we like it on our neck or it looks good on our mantle, or gee I got a picture of me with a huge animal I killed a 100 yards away, with a little high powered cannon from a moving air plane. You have heard me a lot saying i dont believe in definition and words. Because people are generally self centered, egotistical, and overcome with an I, Me, Myself attidude about everything. I go by actions, those speak volumes and are not missunderstood. People make choices, everyday from will I run that yellow lite, its just a little white lie, to I'm going to see how many people I can kill for "whatever reason". Basic Right from Wrong is lost in every debat I've seen here. Take your guns away, killing the species of wolves not the problem, Not understanding the delicate interaction of living! The problem. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 21, 2009 4:32 PM:

" Joanne, the problem I have is that, there is over 20,000 laws on the books now. There is so many laws already it is over welming. Most of the suggestions for additional restrictions listed in blogs above are allready laws. Most if not all enforcement personel could not recite all of the laws.
To buy a hand gun, you have to have the following:
Pay for and pass a back ground check.
Be fingerprinted.
Pass a gun handling test for the gun you are purchasing.
Wait 10 days before you can take the gun.
The gun must have a trigger lock or lock box before you can take it from the store.
You must sign an affidavit that you have a state certified gun safe.
The gun must have pass certin safety laws.

This is just a few. "

antipc wrote on Apr 21, 2009 5:24 PM:

" Now 5th gener, who do you really think (deep down) cares for the environment (flora & fauna alike). Is it the sportsmen & conservationists who in reality pays the tab for it; or is the condo dweller with a computer who takes a hike in Yosemite once a year?

Just because I believe predators must be controlled doesn't mean I want to exterminate a species or push an agenda. "

Raven wrote on Apr 21, 2009 5:53 PM:

" antipc we can do the dueling wolf studies on another thread....but how does that relate to the explosion of firearms sales and the associated violence we are facing?...answer, it doesn't.

Some of liberals are still waiting to hear a good explanations as to while we don't require the same amount of oversight for a device whose sole purpose is to kill as we do for a mode of transportation, like a car and driver? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:17 PM:

" From Taxpayer: " So you liberals would like it if we outlaw all guns and ammunition in the United States. You believe this will cure all problems."

Joanne already responded adequately to this.

But what I wonder is, if what we're looking for is adequate (not oppressive) regulation that either makes sure guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people, or allows us to track the guns or ammunition if they do and there's a killing, why is there such resistance to coming up with a solution to the problem the original LTE addressed-- maybe even, dare I say it -- COLLABORATING to come up with a solution? What we have isn't working, yet all I hear are attacks and hyperbole about what the "liberal gun haters" want to do to destroy the 2nd amendment.

It's not really helpful.

This doesn't have to be such a divisive issue -- we all want safer communities -- and to be quite honest, I don't care if others have guns, I just never felt a need for one and don't want to feel it's the only way I can protect myself.

By the way, has anyone seen the movie "Dear Wendy" (2005)? It's extreme, but possibly interesting for those on both sides of the arguement, I think. Of course there's a good chance I'm wrong about that, and will no doubt hear how wrong I am. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 21, 2009 7:25 PM:

" TAXPAYER,

OK, then let's not pretend this discussion is about we "liberals" wanting to "outlaw all guns and ammunition in the United States" because we "believe this will cure all problems." Because it clearly is not.

The regulations you cite may apply in California, but what you must comply with in California is not at all representative of what exists in all 50 states. As I mentioned in response to another post:

Please keep in mind that the "20,000 laws" that have been cited several times (by you and others) on this Web page so far are presumably the sum total of all the gun laws in the United States imposed at every level. There are clearly not 20,000 gun laws that apply in any one place in the United States.

Ironically enough, this is largely a consequence of federalism. If you consider yourself a conservative, then you likely subscribe strongly to the notion that such matters should be addressed on the state and local, rather than the federal level. Therefore, this is exactly the result that you should expect to come from that.

As I asked Rocketman earlier (and to which I do not believe I ever got a response):

Would you be in favor of the federal government creating a set of reasonable, uniform regulations for gun ownership that would supersede the patchwork quilt of 20,000 laws that exists now? If not, what would you support? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:01 AM:

" Joanne............your question is a trick question. The answer would obviously be yes if the (this) federal government acted responsible and reasonable. But it will not. With the Democrats in charge of both houses, there would be no reasonableness. Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein?? Yeah right. Feinstein is a hypocrit having had a concealed weapon permit for years, but stating emphatically that the populous shouldn't have one. She has no business making laws about guns. This is all feel good legislation that has proven over time does not work. The assault weapons ban..........complete failure and that is why it's not law anymore. Obama has proven he has no idea what he is doing. The Somali hostage situation is just ONE example. Took credit for something he had nothing to do with. The military ignored his orders. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:11 AM:

" ........gun ownership will always be a controversial issue. It deals with those who have knowledge about guns and those who don't and the politicians that think they do. So the 20,000+ laws are nationwide. That's an average of 400 laws per state......and the criminals still ignore them. You can have all the restrictions you want, criminals will find a way to kill if that is their intention. My ONLY point is that might right to keep and bare arms is essential (and guaranteed) to keep me safe from that segment of society that governmant has failed to control. Napa County is safer than most because of a great judicial bench. So far they get it. Who they send to prison some counties would put that person on probation. Judges ordering prisoners released because we don't have the room?? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:14 AM:

" and back to your initial question..........In this day and age, we see time and time again where laws are passed federally and cities and counties across the nation just ignore then. Drug laws, gun laws, etc. No repercussions, so how is this reasonable federal regulations supposed to work. "

Joanne wrote on Apr 22, 2009 8:31 AM:

" No, Rocketman. It was not a "trick question." But it was a "two-part" question.

1) Would you be in favor of the federal government creating a set of reasonable, uniform regulations for gun ownership that would supersede the patchwork quilt of 20,000 laws that exists now? 2) If not, what would you support?"

I'll take your answer to the first question to be no. So tell me: What is your answer to the second question? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 22, 2009 10:10 AM:

" Character assassination isn’t very helpful when trying to look for common ground. ("With the Democrats in charge of both houses, there would be no reasonableness....Feinstein is a hypocrit....Obama has proven he has no idea what he is doing"--from Rocketman)

So here’s another approach. Here are various “politico’s” positions on addressing gun violence that I would consider useful (outlined at http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm)
Joe Biden -- Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole. (Apr 2007)
Hillary Clinton--Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers. (Jan 2008)
Give local police access to federal gun tracking info. (Apr 2008)
John McCain--Calls for GOP “tolerance” of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
Barack Obama--Limit gun purchases to 1 gun per month (co-sponsored 2000 bill)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Bill Richardson--No guns for mentally ill or those with criminal background. (Jul 2007)
Attack poverty at the core of gun violence. (Jul 2007)

What strikes me, at least in terms of what I see as possible (if partial) solutions to the problems of gun violence, is that there are, contrary to what I keep hearing from the most adamant “pro 2nd Amendment” voices, some common denominators in looking at ways to reduce criminal violence by guns.

Most interesting, for those who are absolutely certain that the current administration is dead-set against people being able to have guns – from the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security:
Janet Napolitano-- No new gun laws; bearing arms is a fundamental liberty. (Sep 2002) "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 22, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Joanne, I would be in favor of doing away with all gun laws. The money would be better used in teaching.
Gun safety.
Moral values.
Common sense.
Stiffer penaltys for criminals.

I guarantee this would accomplish more than additional laws. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 22, 2009 10:36 AM:

" "20,000 laws on the books"

Says who? I'm reading a passage in "Evaluating Gun Policy" (2003, Jens Ludwig, Philip J. Cook Brookings Institution Press) that argues that at best that is a very technical number that is arived at by including local ordinances. However, most of those ordinances are "prempted" by state and federal laws (a policy pushed by the NRA to prevent local towns from banning guns). The real number is closer to 300 laws.

The fact that those laws are not enforced effectively is something I would not argue with. "

OU now wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:26 AM:

" Both sides still beating this dead horse? The 9th curcuit just gave their two cent's on this subject. It was very consertive for a liberal court. They upheld the traditional second amendment by saying that gun rights belong to not just for military for every body. To protect ourselves from terrorist or our junky neighbor. Yes people die from gun violence, some needed killing others did not. Violence will always be with us, and there are many ways to be murderd or to die. Humans always look for someone or something to blame other than theirself. Don't look to guns only, to protect yourself. Don't think gun control will solve everything. If you want to be safe,change the world. WHAT! You can't do that! Then don't worry about death and enjoy life. Live like there is a God but no tomorrow. . "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:27 AM:

" I really can't come up with a better answer than Taxpayer............... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:52 AM:

" OK Della...........8 YEARS of Bush bashing and now we all are not entitled to voice our opinions regarding the worst President since Jimmy C.

And we will see if Napolitano has any clout. All I am hearing is Feinstein is just waiting for the right opening (incident). She is on record that she wants the failed Assault Weapons Ban back as soon as possible. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:56 AM:

" and Della.............lots of your comments would work...........especially "Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights." Maybe we are on to something here. PUNISH criminals who abuse the SECOND AMENDMENT, not law abiding citizens that respect this right!! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 22, 2009 1:42 PM:

" So quick to judge, Rocketman. What is it -- 3 months? Whatever happened to history being the judge?

They weren't my comments, they were the suggestions of those whose names preceded the comments. The point was, yes, there are some things that could work that we could all agree on. I've heard no one disagree with your final sentence at 11:56 am.

I think the means to the end is what's at issue. How does one punish criminals who abuse the second amendment? Well, if we're lucky enough to catch them after the crime, and if we have enough room in prisons, that's not such a difficult question to answer. Isn't that why we have the three strikes law in California? But wouldn't it be a good thing to prevent the criminal acts in the first place? So I submit this question: How do we prevent them from getting access to guns (or from wanting to commit crimes with guns) BEFORE they commit the crimes?
Isn't that the question that needs the most attention? "

plokij wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:07 PM:

" Drugs are illegal but still around as much as ever.

Criminals will still get guns.

Outlawing guns will make it safer for criminals to victimize unarmed, law abiding citizens. "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:09 PM:

" dellasumbrella,
See my answer for above.

Have a nice day. "

Raven wrote on Apr 22, 2009 2:25 PM:

" OU now..

and what would your God say about 'some people needed killing and others di not"'...does the toll of those who do not need killing justify the toll of those who did?..and how did you determine who needs it? "

post-it wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:21 PM:

" There is no arguing with gun advocates that use the 2nd amendment as their only argument. You see, they apparently want the criminals to have guns and will defend the criminal's rights to have them. All you have to do is look at the record. The Miller supreme court case was a second amendment case regarding gun laws of 1934 and the defendent was Jack Miller.

a description of Mr Miller's character from the "right to keep and bear arms" web page:

"Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner with many enemies, felt the need to carry a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax. He and his associate, Frank Layton, had the misfortune to be caught transporting it from Oklahoma to Arkansas and were arrested in June of 1938 by federal agents on charges of violating the Firearms Act.

further:
Miller had no resources to finance his argument against the government's appeal and it is doubtful that he had any interest in defending Constitutional rights. In fact, he died before the decision was rendered. His body was discovered in April of 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds. His own .45 pistol lay by his side with four rounds expended. Perhaps he had a legitimate need for that shotgun after all."

Of all ironies, apparently carrying a weapon did not ensure his safety!

Source:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2338 "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:36 PM:

" How many gun laws are there?
Back to top

I'll get to a numerical answer, but first consider the question. "How many gun laws are there?" is a subtly biased question, of the type, "are you still beating your wife?" It implies that there is a "correct" or "best" number of gun laws, and asks, also implicitly, are there enough gun laws. This leads to a no-win debate on whether there are enough or not.

1. Everything criminal about guns is already illegal.

2. There are more laws than a person can reasonably be expected to remember, and they are growing annually.

3. There are countless legal traps for the unwary. Even for the wary.

Because criminal activity is already outlawed, new laws tend to affect only honest individuals and not criminals, and so of course decent people object to them.

The idea of "gun control law" has come to mean "infringement law," a rule that incrementally disarms a civilian, and has little or no bearing on crime control, which is supposed to be the goal. Infringement laws are illegal, and it's right for people to object to them -- and to the people who promote them.

the article is too big to paste it all. To summarize the average novel is 40,000 words, gun laws take up 143,000 words.

http://www.gunlaws.com/faq.htm#howmany "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:45 PM:

" post-it says: "There is no arguing with gun advocates that use the 2nd amendment as their only argument."

Oh my god.....................that IS THE ONLY argument!!! Right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed!!!

Kinda like freedom of speech etc. etc.....

Yes we want criminals to have guns to control the liberals............since we are talking fantasy, I might as wll join in the fun!!!!

Gee didn't you say Miller was arrested for violating the law???

Where do you folks come up with these arguments??? Were off to see the wizard................ "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 4:49 PM:

" Della.............we don't keep criminals from getting guns. Just like we don't keep criminals from driving drunk. But we don't take away cars from law abiding citizens do we??? We tell them if you abuse the privledge you go to jail. Welcome to America........land of the free, home of the SECOND AMENDMENT!! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 22, 2009 5:09 PM:

" I'm afraid I have to agree with you post-it.

There's a filter there that allows in only information that appears to confirm their pre-judgments. Once again, we see cognitive dissonance at work--an inability to assimilate new information or possibilities and adjust the thinking process to develop solutions. It's an either-or world we're dealing with, with no room for pragmatic problem-solving. And just when it seems there's a possibility for reasonable dialogue, it deteriorates into stonewalling and derision.

Guess that's why we always end up trying to make laws or resorting to the courts to try to reduce the likelihood that criminals will have unlimited access to guns. When problem-solving and collaboration is unlikely, we tend to legislate or sue. "

post-it wrote on Apr 22, 2009 5:28 PM:

" So rocketman you would stand behind this sentiment found on another pro gun forum?:

"If you are not working to repeal 1994 gun control, 1986 gun control, 1968 gun control, 1934 gun control-ad nauseum you do not understand the 2nd Amendment and you support Sarah Brady and her agenda.

It is just exactly that simple and clear. Pass the word"

Shall not be infringed is an unlimited expression and you seem to be taking that quite literally. So you must feel every one (including convicted criminals, mentally ill ) should and can have a gun period. no questions asked, no limits on type. No regulations whatsoever as it is you god given right to defend yourself per the 2nd amendment as it has no limits spelled out in the constitution. Please say it instead of dancing around the subject.

However,You have noted you are for sensible rules, yet all I hear is crickets on that subject and complaints that every one wants to usurp your 2nd amendment rights and steal your gun. "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 22, 2009 5:41 PM:

" It’s interesting to read so many arguments using the Second Amendment to defend the right to bear arms, when the conditions that led to the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution no longer exist. At the time of ratification there was no standing army, nor an arsenal to support one. It was necessary for citizens of our young country to be prepared to defend it against foreign enemies. However, a “well regulated Militia” is no longer “necessary to the security of [our] free State.” That being the case, doesn’t it seem reasonable that we should revisit the issue of gun ownership? If the original intent of the Amendment (national defense) is met by other means, is the Amendment still necessary? It seems to me that we should be engaging in a constructive discussion about how to deal with the epidemic of gun violence, rather than name-calling and bashing each others’ political leanings. "

antipc wrote on Apr 22, 2009 6:12 PM:

" Raven, I remember reading on other threads you are ex-military right?

So I'm a little confused at your stance on firearms. Unless of course your service was with the French & not the USA.

You do know that the fatigues of American armed forces are all camo whereas the French utilities have that big white patch sewn into the back, right? "

steph wrote on Apr 22, 2009 6:23 PM:

" della--

It strikes me that your last argument is, essentially, "Either you folks give up some of your rights, or we'll call you stubborn."

And firemike seems to be saying that we don't need the second amendment right anyway. We should just do away with a fundamental constitutional right because times have changed.

What I want to know is, at what point will you anti-gun folks be happy, as you implement "reasonable" legislation upon "reasonable" legislation? Isn't your ultimate goal to rid society of all guns, something we pro-rights people keep telling you is impossible? Isn't your ultimate goal to turn the US into a country that is similar to many European countries, where the citizens have no fundamental rights to gun ownership (save Switzerland)? In this way, we'll have no more gun violence, according to your fantasy.

You're why I joined the NRA this week. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:38 PM:

" Thank you Steph............they just don't get it............we NEED to give up our constitutional rights because "a times they are a changing............yep we are stubborn for believing in our constitution! I am standing behind sentiment when I never brought any of this up...........I have been lumped into one speakers opinion because I believe in the Constitution of the US. But when you label these liberals.........we are all bias and lump them into the liberal mantra..............what a group!!! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:47 PM:

" problem solving...............democrats definition..............we are smarter than everone else so abide by our decisions or else...........that is problem solving......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:53 PM:

" Della states: There's a filter there that allows in only information that appears to confirm their pre-judgments. Once again, we see cognitive dissonance at work--an inability to assimilate new information or possibilities and adjust the thinking process to develop solutions. It's an either-or world we're dealing with, with no room for pragmatic problem-solving. And just when it seems there's a possibility for reasonable dialogue, it deteriorates into stonewalling and derision.

Yep......the Democratic mantra............if we can't get what we want, we resort to their unwillingness to compromise the constitution........pretty much sums it up! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 22, 2009 8:05 PM:

" "at what point will you anti-gun folks be happy" -- For me, it'll be when you folks stop stereotyping us all as "anti gun folks", and when you learn to negotiate solutions to a significant problem rather than adhering to anachronistic dogma.

"Isn't your ultimate goal to rid society of all guns" -- No. But I don't expect you to hear that.

"Isn't your ultimate goal to turn the US into a country that is similar to many European countries" -- Only insofar as public transportation.

"this way, we'll have no more gun violence, according to your fantasy"-- I have no fantasy, only a smidgin of trust that the majority of people are not so obstinately opposed to problem solving.

"You're why I joined the NRA this week." Oh, steph, I'm afraid I can't take credit for your worldview; I'm sure the NRA was just around the corner for you.

Funny, my husband is just now dealing with an NRA propaganda call & survey, starting the survey with "Do you trust the gun-hating congress?" (referring to proposed laws that could make it easier to find out how criminals got their guns, described in a very biased & manipulative recording)

My husband, the gun owner, is telling her how unpatriotic & unamerican that question is. She just hung up, because he asked what the next question was.

I'm pretty much convinced there is no way of rationally communicating with the NRA and its pawns, because there is a full-fledged campaign going on to malign anyone who would like to see the problem of criminal violence addressed adequately. "

Raven wrote on Apr 22, 2009 8:07 PM:

" antipc, you make a lot of assumptions sometimes...why do you assume that ex-military would be in favor of unlimited, unrestrained firearms use? 13 years in the AF...first job involved EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) and then moved to nukes and we had to be qualified on M16, .45, .38, and shotgun as part of the weapons security.

I never said I was against firearms.....but I also think reasonable regulation is needed...like we do for a drivers license...or since you bring it up, recurring training on the firearm as is required on military, esp since so many believe you need that assault weapon to defend against tyranny.

BTW, what is your problem with the French? They have used more of their forces to rescue or protect civilians in combat situations than almost any other nation. Right now they are very active in the anti-piracy patrol. So jokes about their cowardice fall very flat. Or was it another assumption? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 22, 2009 8:53 PM:

" well then Della.............what is your solution...........you have been challenging all of us and making fun of our beliefs, well I'll bite.............what is the solution?? "

MyWrites wrote on Apr 22, 2009 9:03 PM:

" The argument that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books is so misleading. When you add up all the laws of all the states, counties and cities plus federal requirements throughout this nation, it appears staggering until you realize the majority are redundant. Most states have similar gun laws.

If you have 40 states that agree you can’t carry a concealed weapon without a special permit, then you have one law not 40. But the NRA has been using this false addition for decades to argue that gun owners are unfairly burdened by excessive laws.

If you add up all the same/similar laws concerning the operation, licensing, purchase, registration and insurance of motor vehicles in all our states, I would bet they far outnumber the totality of gun laws.

Another bogus argument is that cars kill more people than guns, even though there are more guns in circulation. It an apples/oranges issue. Most of you probably use your cars many hours each day. How many hours per month do you use your gun (assuming your vocation is not the armed forces, law enforcement or security work)? It’s a matter of usage and cars are obviously used far more than guns, ergo, more accidents and deaths. But there is another difference - cars are tools for conveyance. Guns are tools of destruction. Whether you are hunting game, defending yourself or punching holes in paper targets, guns are designed to inflict damage. Which do you think should require more stringent competency testing, licensing and insurance? "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 22, 2009 9:04 PM:

" Post-it-
Very interesting interpritation of the Miller case. Too bad you leeft out the substance of the case. Sawed-off shotgun an illegal weapon possessed by a criminal. As my post stated, we have all the gun laws we could ever want on the books. All we need is the court to enforce them. Oakland would be much safer if the liberal Mayors would add the 600+ cops they need to be at full streength. the City of Los Angeles has 9,000 Police Officers and 150, 000 gang members. Think the cops are out numbered and out gunned.

Your fantasy is that passing more laws will get guns out of the criminals hands, obsurd, totally obsurd. The black market in Mexico can get them anything they need supplied by the Russian Mafia, Chinese, Central and South American communists. smuggled across our southern boarder.

Read about Great Britain's crime rate, higher than ours and they have no guns! "PRINCETON, NJ -- The United States is often seen from abroad as a relatively lawless society, with murders and gun-related crimes aplenty. But a recent series of Gallup surveys in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States suggests that the image may be somewhat distorted. According to the surveys, the overall crime rate in the United States is lower than in Britain and about the same as in Canada. The polls also show that, among citizens in the three countries, Britons appear to have the least confidence in their police, while Canadians have the most. Britons are also the most likely to say that they live near an area where they would be afraid to walk alone at night."

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime-Rate-Lower-United-States-Canada-Than-Britain.aspx "

Fire Mike wrote on Apr 22, 2009 9:11 PM:

" Steph – I never said “we don't need the second amendment right.” I merely suggested that since the conditions which warranted its inclusion in the Constitution no longer exist, it is reasonable to revisit the issue and discuss what might be the best course of action in light of our current circumstances. Do you agree that it is best if our policies reflect the reality of the twenty-first rather than the eighteenth century?

And to your question: “Isn't your ultimate goal to rid society of all guns?” the simple answer is “no.” I think a more worthwhile goal is a comprehensive reassessment of the role of guns in our culture, and constructive dialog about how to move forward and make all of us safer. Guns have a mystique in our country bordering on the sacred; perhaps this is an inheritance from our frontier days. But this reverence for guns has made it nearly impossible to talk about regulating guns as we regulate other dangerous commodities. Certainly no one claims a “right” to own pipe bombs or artillery or anthrax – we recognize that these are dangerous and we prohibit their use. But it is nearly impossible to have a rational conversation about the merits of gun ownership. I find it interesting (but not constructive) that so-called “gun rights” proponents reflexively slip into the false “all or nothing” argument, claiming that any attempt to regulate firearms is tantamount to forcibly disarming the entire populace, and promising not to give up their guns until they are pried from their “cold, dead hands.” Such arguments are not helpful.

And just for the record, please don’t include me with the “anti-gun folks.” I happen to be a gun-owner "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 22, 2009 9:23 PM:

" Pos-it, dell and all the others-

How many gun laws do you need?

Federal gun law in 2005:
93,354 words in 271 numbered statutes

Arizona gun law in 2006:
36,645 words in 183 numbered statutes

Virginia gun law in 2006:
45,494 words in 191 numbered statutes

Texas gun law in 2005:
49,442 words in 226 numbered statutes

California gun law in 1998:
158,643 words in 541 numbered statutes

Florida gun law in 1998:
46,585 words in 229 numbered statutes

FYI, the Supreme Court had heard 92 gun-related cases through 2002 (totalling 337,141 words in our book Supreme Court Gun Cases), and three more cases through 2005, making Heller, in 2008, the 96th gun-related case.

I think that 541 in California are enough. Everything a criminal can do with a gun is already illegal, what more do you want. Or the better question is, which freedom do you want to give up next. As one goes so go the rest. I think your Messiah wants them all gone so we cannot resisit the New regime! "

Tim wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:05 PM:

" Proper training with guns/rifles does work and a society with an overwhelming amount of guns and rifles doesn't mean it will be dangerous...if trained properly.

Switzerland's "Militia Army" defense requires all men above the age of 20 to be ready for call-up for national service and to keep a fully automatic SIG Sturmgewehr 90 military rifle in their homes.
There are about 500,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, Additionally, there are some 400,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

With a population of 7.5 million people, gun ownership numbers are staggering.

Yet in 2006 there were only 34 deaths by firearms (69 with knives.)

Thus proving just because lots of guns are available...it doesn't mean people will automatically use them to kill others. "

MyWrites wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:04 AM:

" Jeeez freeport56! Now you're counting words? What a joke! So how do your statutes add up to 20,000? They don't, so you (NRA?) resort to counting words. What distortion!

And what are you doing trying to turn a Gallup OPINION poll into hard fact and real stats? Yours are perfect examples of misinformation so willingly and desparately used to support personal bias.

Kool Aid anyone? "

rogers wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:38 AM:

" kevin wrote " From what I've been able to research, it appears you are incorrect, a teacher...There are approximately 62 million cars and about 200 million guns.”

Actually you are wrong kevin. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows the total number of registered vehicles in the US as of 2006 to be 250 million. Your stats on the number of guns are reasonable at 200 million. So more people are killed by cars, trucks, motorcycles and buses than by guns. But there are more of them and vehicles are operated much more frequently than the firearms people own.

I would argue that the vast majority of guns are seldom used. Even so, we lose 75% of the total of vehicle deaths (vehicles@40,000/year and guns@30,000/year). It appears that guns are inherently far riskier when it comes to life or death.

As far as personal safety, most people would be safer and healthier taking a self-defense class rather than relying on a gun which a burglar may find in your home and use against you. Most gun owners I have known don’t store their guns in a gun safe and many had no intention of using the trigger lock that came with the weapon. You may conclude they weren’t well trained and I would have to agree with you.

Most people are better trained to operate a car than the gun they own. As a gun owner, I am completely comfortable with requiring gun users to take approved courses and prove competence of the law and the weapon before they are issued a license to buy ammo or other guns.

I agree with 5th generation napan “I do believe in the right to bear arms, but not the right to arm the stupid!" "

OU now wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Raven. I said live like there IS a god. If you don't beleive that's your choice but we should live like there is one. My God is not your white mans God. He has no race. He does not think like you or me. And I don't make the choice who needs killing and who does'nt. It's our fault and the courts we trust that we have a problem because we live like there is no God "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:18 AM:

" rogers states: "Most gun owners I have known don’t store their guns in a gun safe and many had no intention of using the trigger lock that came with the weapon."

"IF" your purpose of owning a gun is self defence, why would your gun be locked up so you can't use it??

I don't like having the stupid armed either, but many of the stupid pass tests and we arm them with 5000 pound weapons.......some call the automobile.

What do we do with those stupid people? We take away their privledge, but unfortunately only AFTER they prove their supidity.

I think they call it a "free society." "

Raven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:34 AM:

" OU...

You don't make the choice but you feel the number of innocents killed is justified by the number of those you feel deserve to to die? sort of like chopping off four of your fingers to get the thumb that is diseased?

'White man's god'? and you know he is a he because of? Personally I don't have a lot of truck for a god who wants the sacrifice of innocents. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:45 AM:

" So far, Rocketman, I’ve been in agreement with the following ideas/beliefs, and have indicated my agreement with some of them in my posts:
•“I like the ordinance in Sacramento, where ammunition sales are documented. " Misfit
•“that Hollywood didn't glorify killing, that video games didn't glorify killing, and that hard core rock bands & rappers didn't "sing" killing into glory” sdnapa
•“[those who are] either afraid of guns or have not had gun experience and gun safety courses, should not be able to obtain a gun. Parents with guns and children in the the home should either use trigger locks or lock their guns up so that minors do not have access to them, in other words be responsible for their guns and for their children.” Cab e-girl
•“law's preventing citizens from carrying a concealed weapon. Citizens must have a permit and fairly extensive training, usually from someone in law enforcement.” Cab e-girl
•“federal law that requires gun owners to demonstrate that they are minimally competent to own and use a firearm” Joanne
•“Lock up the guns, keep them away from kids, and know what the heck your kids are doing! Parent them! " Freeport56
•“better educational and economic opportunities for America's youth” steph
•“taking away television and video games reduced violent behavior dramatically and kids actually did better in school.” Rocketman
•“hold parents responsible for their kids….more mental health help for troubled kids....violent criminals should never be parolled unless they have electronic monitors 24/7…. each state need to create a work farm for parolled criminals to do labor and street sweeping and other tasks while getting professional counseling about how to stay out of trouble.” Littlered56 "

rogers wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:49 AM:

" Ahhhh, rocketman, you prove my point! In your attempt to have quick access to your weapon (for self-defense) you unwittingly endanger yourself. May you never encounter a burglar pointing your own loaded weapon at you.

I think you and your family might be safer keeping a big can of bear pepper spray close at hand rather than unsecured guns. Firearms are not always the best solution, unfortunately some consider them to be the only solution.

Incidentally, many of those who would presume to enact their privilege of a driver's license don't necessarily get their way when they can't prove knowledge or competence at the DMV - as it should be! Why not apply that public demand for competence to firearms? Once you prove your knowledge and competence, THEN you can exercise your right to bear arms.

Incidentally no one fires a shot in basic military training until they can show they understand the rules and the weapon first. Now why would they do that? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:28 AM:

" One more, Rocketman (thank you, rogers):

"Why not apply that public demand for competence to firearms? Once you prove your knowledge and competence, THEN you can exercise your right to bear arms." rogers

That, in addition to being able to track ammunition and guns so we can find out how those who commit crimes are getting the weapons so we can stop the illegal weapon trade at its source, may be the most important regulatory approaches that I can see.

I don't think that deprives any "law abiding" citizen of their constitutional right to own a gun.

The rest of the solution deals mostly with social ills and irresponsibility, as many above have implied. So it's likely to include broad and effective education--including critical thinking, ethics and community values; attention to poverty and other circumstances that contribute to violence; and a penal system that works to keep violent criminals off the streets, rather than wasting resources retaining perpetrators of "victimless" crimes.

That just scratches the surface, I think. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:37 AM:

" rogers.........

point 1..........you are assuming I am leaving my gun in a place that a burglar will know where it is. I'll take the chance.

point 2 .......yeah, lets spray the intruder with pepper spray and really p1ss him off.

point 3........It is eazy to fake it for a day for driving or firearms tests.........then what?

point 4......military vs. civilian use is a little different wouldn't you think?? People show they understand the rules of the road and then what?? "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:43 AM:

" della,

point 1.......gun sales are documented and it doesn't seem to work so why ammo?
point 2......first amendment
point 3.....be responsible.......we agree.
point 4.....already in place.
point 5.....like we do with cars?? one day event.
point 6.......parental issue.....OK
point 7.......no argument.
point 8......thanks for the plug!!
point 9.......full agreement "

rogers wrote on Apr 23, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Thank you dellasumbrella (and others) for being solution oriented rather than obstinate.

Personally I'm fed up with those who declare their "right to bear arms" a god-given right. It's a believer's rationale that tries to infuse the argument with religious integrity.

These are the same people who see the "founders" as holy saints and the Constitution as holy dogma that should never be tampered with, even though the writer's of the document intended that it be enduring by being versatile and adjustable to challenges beyond their times and scope of understanding. That was the wonderful gift these MEN crafted for the rest of us.

They crafted the 2nd amendment just as other men and governments elsewhere have passed law to take the guns away. Our constitutional founders were prudent and sensible.

But the strident and vociferous voices of the pro gun crowd here refuse to acknowledge that the current situation might need adjusting, that we might hold people to a tougher standard. Any change is a threat to their paranoia. Any addition or modification to existing law is an attempt to "take their guns away".

If you don't agree with them they resort to name calling..."socialist", "communist", "liberal" or "French", naive, and so on. That is the result of those who apply a faith-based mindset to a secular political issue. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 11:07 AM:

" Thank YOU, rogers! "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 23, 2009 11:49 AM:

" Rogers-

Deal with it!

I never tire of defending my rights or the constitution. Restricting the sale of ammunition is an infringement of our rights. Just as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld. The constitution makes it perfectly clear "Shall Not Be Infringed"

My suggestion would be, don't read the blogs. It is kind of like turning the channel when you don't like the program.

By the way this is not a Political Issue, this about our Rights as granted by the constitution. there is a copy at the library if you have not read it in a while. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:08 PM:

" Thank YOU....freeport56!! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:25 PM:

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:32 PM:

" I don't claim to be a scholar on this issue. This guy says it better than I could.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Far ahead of their time........not sure things were really all that different back then.........were they?? "

post-it wrote on Apr 23, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Rocketman, freeport and other gun rights supporters.

If you want to keep guns out of any person's hands, such as criminals, by statute, you too are a gun banner. You are clearly infringing on their right to defend themselves. Period. As you have noted again and again "Shall not be infringed" means what it says.

By the way, you NRA members can blame your own for some of these laws. The then President of the NRA Karl Frederick helped PASS the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Read all about it:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

And take note at the "spin" put on it in the introduction! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:19 PM:

" post-it..........you try to put words in our mouths that is inconsistent with our position. People can abuse rights and those rights need to be taken away. The pro-gunners (including me) have stated over and over again that we are not opposed to laws regarding guns.......as long as they are reasonable. Criminals should not have guns period! Most people go through life without committing crimes, yet the gun banners want laws that infringe on the law-abiding citizens. That's why we fight it. We keeping giving in and the liberals just keep saying....."well that didn't work so let's make a new law." If we didn't act accordingly, guns would be banned just like in England. I think we gave up on their type of government back in the 1700's! Criminals by nature violate laws, more laws regarding guns are useless! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:36 PM:

" District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) United States Supreme Court:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

3. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Sounds like President Frederick understood the Constitution. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:38 PM:

" "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
--Thomas Jefferson

Operative words: "firm conviction in the minds of the people" -- Said, quite possibly, because he understood human nature. When people are still at what Kohlberg has called the "pre-conventional" level of morality--i.e. obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?), the wrath of god is the ultimate motivation for them to honor those liberties. The founding fathers were well aware of the need to motivate people to honor the law of the land.

Jefferson also said of God,
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787 "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Some other possible approaches to address misuse of guns (gleaned from a survey found at From: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070410.guns.norc.pdf which reports public Support for various measures to regulate firearms (2006)):

91% for Prohibiting Gun Use When Under the Influence of Alcohol
85% for Limiting Sales of High Power/50-caliber Rifles
82% for Limiting Sales of Semi-automatic Assault Weapons
80% for Criminal Background Checks for Private Gun Sales
79% for Police Permits to Purchase Guns
76% for Stricter Gun Control after Terrorist Attacks
54% for Illegal Gun Sales to be Punished More than Illegal Drugs

Source: 2006 General Social Survey, (n=1364), 1972-2006: The GSS is a full-probability sample of adults living in households in the United States using in-person interviews. For more details, see Davis, Smith, and Marsden, 2007. GSS gets its main funding from the National Science Foundation.

I probably agree with the 1st & last most, but am merely reporting the results of a survey on public support for possible regulations on guns. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:46 PM:

" If laws are useless because criminals by nature violate laws, then would the solution be lawlessness?

Anarchy, anyone? "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:54 PM:

" I agree with most that said with both sides. The REAL problem is the Judges, Lawyers, Loopholes, and elegant arguments that make it ok for irresponsible criminals to use weapons and getaway with it! What good are laws (agreed upon by people) that have no consequences?
I also find it interesting that the interperted commandment "thow shalt not kill" was in its original hebrew version "thow shall not "murder"". Hummm, that mean capital punishment is ok for murders. An thats good enough in my book. Blood thirsty? No, Right from Wrong.
They are right a gun never killed anyone, it was the finger attached to it. So, the area of focus needs to be: Is the finger educated enough, is the finger a criminal, is the finger of sound mind, is the finger going to be punished if it twiches. Or are we going to have mommy keep kissing the finger and keep hearing oh it was a boo boo, and will not happen again. We need to make sure the finger follows the law! But the finger keeps being waved in our face. You can bear your arms but control the finger! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 1:54 PM:

" .........laws are useless if you keep make new ones that criminals continue to violate and citizens have their rights infringed...........keep with the subject matter......... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 2:28 PM:

" ...........Della and Rogers............let's just say we agree to disagree.........you will never change my mind and I yours.

I will keep my guns and you will seek "more" reasonable legislation.

I will sleep safe, knowing I can protect all of us!! For I am a Sheepdog!! "

post-it wrote on Apr 23, 2009 2:33 PM:

" Rocketman,

I guess so long as the "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment meets with your approval you don't have any issues.... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:03 PM:

" Yes post-it..........which appears to be consistent with THIS US Supreme Court...... "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 3:29 PM:

" ..........and to think..........this all started with Craig Payne making an uninformed comment: "However, there must be a distinction between automatic weapons and rifles. The manufacture and sale of automatic weapons must be outlawed in our country."

Think that happened, quite a few years ago!! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 23, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Okay, I've had enough too. Just want to highlight one last quote, from the case cited above:

"3. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." "

antipc wrote on Apr 23, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Raven, the explosion of gun sales is an easy one. Americans don't want to live in fear of criminals or under a socialist regime.

The current economy has emboldened criminals & the current administration has us on the fast track toward socialism. "

antipc wrote on Apr 23, 2009 7:00 PM:

" Raven, thanks for your service (I think).

But you are not asking for reasonable weapons control you're advocating a re-write of the 2nd amendment at the expense of the law abiding citizen while not addressing the real issue which is the criminals.

As for the French, they're a bunch of holier than thou backstabbers that we've bailed out of nearly every conflict in the 20th century. "

antipc wrote on Apr 23, 2009 7:10 PM:

" Rogers, the reason we believe there is an attempt to take away our 2nd amendment rights is because that's how socialists work......baby steps, one piece at a time. You've had 30 years of regulations that have done zero to curb the problem yet you want more.

No more inches. Either address the real problem or find another cause. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:05 PM:

" " Raven, the explosion of gun sales is an easy one. Americans don't want to live in fear of criminals or under a socialist regime."

You know, antipc, I think America is a couple of Columbine or VA Techs away from being more afraid of the people with the legal guns. "

Raven wrote on Apr 23, 2009 8:59 PM:

" Nothing like a backhanded thank you.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment or the court's decision that prohibits reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms. The key is what do you think its reasonable... I think requiring the same training we do of our military and even our police officers is not unreasonable when you are dealing with something whose sole purpose is to kill.

Jeez, We require more regulation of people we allow to drive cars. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 23, 2009 9:39 PM:

" ..........................done.......................... "

post-it wrote on Apr 24, 2009 7:03 AM:

" Rocketman,

I guess so long as the "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment meets with your approval you don't have any issues.... "

antipc wrote on Apr 24, 2009 7:26 AM:

" No Teach, I think we should be more worried about the Janet Napolitano's in the administration referring to our returning veterans as vulnerable to recruitment by right-wing extremists. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 7:46 AM:

" The real question you all should ask is why the current laws on the books, which i enumerated above, are not working. Everything that criminals can do ilegally with guns is already outlawed.

New laws attack law abiding citizens, not criminals. the 2nd Amendment is a right we all share. Criminals who act outside the law are not protected, felons loose their civil rights. Denying the right to keep and nare arms by law abiding citizens leaves guns in the hands of Law Enforcement and criminals alone. Law Enforcement CANNOT protect us. They are and after the fact responder. We have the right of self-defense in our laws as the result of natural as voiced by the Founders.

When the criminals start being punished appropriately, our southern boarders sealed to stop smuggling, the in-flow of more criminals from the boarder, and gangs delt with more harshly, this violence will stop.

Punishing law abiding people for enjoying their sport, their right has never, and will never solve the problem. Gun volence effects us all. Criminals hurt us all. denying and restricting rights only serves the government and not society. "

Raven wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:17 AM:

" "in fear of criminals or under a socialist regime."

and neither of those reasons are rational ones antipc ... crime rates are down, even locally accoridng to the NVR...and the 'army' of new minuteman' is more likely to shoot each other than anything else.

Of course the originals did actually drill so they could become a militia if needed. When was the last time you and your neighbors drilled or did any kind of training to become ready to repel that regime? "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 24, 2009 8:48 AM:

" Rocketman, define arms, to me its anything thats handheld and launches a projectile. Thats a single shot deringer to a stinger missle and everything inbetween.

Now the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
#1) whatever happended to the well regulated Milita part?
#2) you keep telling me to stay on the subject matter. I have never said take your guns away. (I did say it for military style weapons, but if your part of a "well regulated milita and not a gand or a stupid individual then its ok)
So why does everyone keep pounding on the "right to bear arms"? Because the forefathers were talking about a local civil defence system. And the point is innocent people are dying by unregulated useage of guns. THAT my friend is the grey area no one wants to address. So certain weapons get picked on, like automatic weapons. I do agree with you criminals violoate laws. Your concern is laws only apply to "responsible" citizens. Don't you think THAT IS the problem? We need Good Laws, and Enforced Laws that punish the irresponsible. By your definition I have read, it's perfectly ok for an 8 yo to go to school with his automatic machine pistol because he feel threaten by gangs. Their HAS to be other ways. My God I hope you agree. How do you propose to make it safe for people to walk the streets if they opt not to carry a weapon. And if everyone carries weapons how do you differ between a heated argument gone ary and self defence where you life might not have really been endanger?
I am open to solutions. "

post-it wrote on Apr 24, 2009 10:58 AM:

" Freeport,

The simple reason the laws are not effective is like water that flows to the path of least resistance, criminals will do the same. A restrictive gun law in DC means nothing if a criminal can go next door to VA or MD and buy a gun no questions asked at a gun show or in a person to person sale. There is no border check at the city limits and most would decry that as an illegal search.

There needs to be minimum standards for the sale and transfer of weapons that are uniform across all states. Straw sales can be easily made and the legal weapons transferred to criminals in states that have more stringent laws.

Sure, there will be those who will again try to circumvent these more stringent regulations. However, with more records, comes more chances for law enforcement to find the perpetrator. If your loved one is killed by a gun, don't you want the police to find and prosecute the criminal? Why make it easier for the criminals? Law abiding citizens are not burdened by this. As I have said before, 99.999% of people going through the security scan at the airport are innocent, yet they will submit to search to prevent the minuscule risk of a hijacking. What many pro gun folks want is equivalent to a separate no-security line for some to use and no rationale for who gets to use it. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 12:03 PM:

" But, how many more laws will the criminals not follow. Your logic makes no sense. California has 541 gun laws on the books. When law enforcement is supported by the courts that is when criminals will get the message. There are gun purchasing laws in every state that require a Federal form to be filled out, a waiting period where a criminal background check is conducted. In California that is 10 days. Criminal investigations reveal how the firearm was obtained either by theft (vast majority), retail sale (straw purchase), and the smuggled gun (not made\sold in US).

tell us how to stop a straw purchase. The mayor of NY does just to go after gun dealers. When a law abiding citizen with no criminal record wants to buy a gun, why should they not be allowed. If there intent is criminal, how is anyone else supposed to know?

More laws and more restrictions are not the answer. enforce what is on the books, give Law enforcement the tools they need to do investigations and seal the southern boarder to stop the flow of illegal arms into this country.

enough already! "

post-it wrote on Apr 24, 2009 12:43 PM:

" freeport,

Yes, you are right, so it is futile so let's do less. Surely that will make it better. And since hijackers will still want to hijack planes, let's do away with the TSA while were at it. Let's get rid of department of homeland security too. Cripes, why not just get rid of the police force while were at it because we still have crime with police officers on the street. Now, Who's argument makes no sense?

Bottom line is we can enact any gun law we want, but there are already 280 million guns in America. If the owners of those can't keep and handle them responsibly nothing will change. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 24, 2009 12:44 PM:

" Guess your right. Trying to figure out how to bring ciminals to justice and how to enforce laws is just to to hard to find a solution for. Your right, lets arm everyone whether they want to or not and hope who ever is left from the second amendment civil war hopefully will be the good law abiding citizens. "

greenridgedoug wrote on Apr 24, 2009 1:02 PM:

" no waiting period in oregon. they check you out right at the counter, it takes about 10 minutes "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 1:46 PM:

" 5th Generation-

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Source: U.S. Code

Arms has come to mean rifles, pistols, and shot guns. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 3:07 PM:

" Results: For 2006, a total of 15,007 fatal incidents involving 15,395 violent deaths occurred in the 16 NVDRS states included in this report. The majority (55.9%) of deaths were suicides, followed by homicides and deaths involving legal intervention (e.g. a suspect is killed by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty)(28.2%), violent deaths of undetermined intent (15.1%), and unintentional firearm deaths (0.7%). Suicides occurred at higher rates among males, American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), non-Hispanic whites, and persons aged 45--54 years and occurred most often in a house or apartment and involved the use of firearms. Suicides were precipitated primarily by mental-health, intimate-partner, or physical-health problems or by a crisis during the preceding 2 weeks. Homicides occurred at higher rates among males and persons aged 20--24 years; rates were highest among non-Hispanic black males. The majority of homicides involved the use of a firearm and occurred in a house or apartment or on a street/highway. Homicides were precipitated primarily by arguments and interpersonal conflicts or in conjunction with another crime. Other manners of death and special situations or populations also are highlighted in this report.

Morbidity & mortality Weekly Report CDC March 20, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5801a1.htm "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 24, 2009 3:08 PM:

" Thank you freepor56. I was confused. I saw the comma in the sentence

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and though the "people" refered to were the people of the militia and they had the right to keep their fire arm home.

Anyway I agree you should beable to have guns. I strongly feel its not what you have, but who has it, who gets to keep it and enforced punishment for irresponsibility. You have a freedom to have a gun BUT you do not have the freedom to use it to kill anyone you want. Otherwise why do we have laws, and a Judicial branch. Because even the forefathers knew we'd be living in a Feudal society without LAWS, and these LAWS need enforcement. So where is the passion, effort, furry, and intensity to demand the laws protecting people be enforced. Can't everyone focus on the responsibility of gun ownership? If we have done such a good job in this education why are an average of 87 people a day dying? For what? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time? This is why I have no use for humanity, because people are self centered and dont care about each other. This debat proves it. Everyone has been arguing about the wrong thing. I look at the people dying thats the issue! Not a piece of metal. I had a friend die from 27 stab wound from a screw driver. I guess a gun would have been more humane huh. The RESPONSIBILITY OF PEOPLE is the issue. If the same energy was put toward that, your gun issue wouldn't be an issue. "

Mr4 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 5:32 PM:

" Food for thought for fellow conservatives:

Nuclear Weapons are considered "arms". Should we have a right to possess them? Of course not.

Reasonable controls on the possession and use of certain firearms seems appropriate. If we overstate the rights provided by the Second Amendment we give the leftists a means to gain power by scaring the heck out of the general population. They make the association between the violent fringe (e.g. skin-heads) and mainstream conservatives, thereby weakening our political clout.

Just one man's opinion. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 24, 2009 6:13 PM:

" Here is an interesting resource:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/

it is the Death\Life Clock it shows, as the time clicks by, home many died from each type of occurrance, tabacco, Traffic, Doctor's Mistakes (that's a Biggie), Alcohol, Suicide, Drug Abuse, i think you get the drift.

However, at the bottom of the clock is an even more interesting statistic that is virtually never reported. It is how many lives were saved when a firearm is used in self-defense. Of the 2.5 million occurances each year you may hear about a couple high profile ones. Like the female security guard that shot and killed a gunman at a church last year.

Imagine that 2.5 million lives saved because some one was either carrying a concealed weapon or had one close by in their home, car, or office. It is very interesting that you never hear about these lives being saved. For every gun death from violence listed above 162.4 were saved because some one had a gun.

God Bless America! "

sheepdog wrote on Apr 24, 2009 10:55 PM:

" OK, I heard someone say "take a self defense class" what would you recommend???

Also could someone please tell me what a military weapon or assault weapon looks like and what makes them different from what's being sold out there now to civilans??? "

rogers wrote on Apr 24, 2009 11:16 PM:

" Great freeport56! After listening to all the hype about the 20,000 plus laws hampering gun owners (brought to us from the NRA), you expect us to believe an inflated number of lives saved from an intervention of firearms? And that too from the same source. Is it possible that number just might be a bit speculative?

Come on now, try thinking! How could you possibly know or predict how many lives were saved at that church by the security guard. It's speculation - not hard fact. Quit buying into propaganda! "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 25, 2009 7:30 AM:

" I am back in this fray only to answer sheepdog's question. An assault weapon is defined as follows: Very generally speaking, a firearm is defined by laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor. Much of the military weapons have the capability of full automatic firepower.

These weapons are not necessarily more powerful than non-assault weapons. As described above, it mostly has to do with features.

Ironically, most assault weapons are not used in crimes by the shear nature of their features. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 25, 2009 8:31 AM:

" Rogers-

First and foremost, I do not supply propaganda. While I know it is very difficult for you to comprehend that someone would actually be saved by using a concealed weapon or a weapon contained within the home or office, it is not for me. I know how the MSM loves to sensationalize gun violence and not the benefits of self-defense.

Here is a link for you to see some empirical data: http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

As to your last sentence regarding how many lives would be saved because of the security guard's actions. Would you prefer that next time a crazy tries something like this, the one armed person in the room refrain to test YOUR theory?

As for your lack of knowledge, every issue of The American Rifleman contains a section called the Armed Citizen, vignettes about armed citizens protecting their lives and property from criminals. These are not stories created by the NRA, but culled from Newspapers from around the country. Here is the link:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

While you maybe suffering from the effects of the MSM's propaganda yourself, I do trust the NRA as a defender of my freedom a heck of a lot more than the ACLU or you!

What if a teacher or teachers, or even a few lawyers had been armed at Colubine or 101 California?? things may have been different. As long as they remain unarmed we will never know and lives will continue to lost. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 25, 2009 9:14 AM:

" I agree with Mr4 (except for the leftist taking over business).

I think if you asked the average American about the 2nd Amendment, they would have no problem. Most people, I believe, have no problem with having a pistol or a shotgun for home defense, or hunting or target shooting. What they have a problem with is the guy guy who has an arsenal in their basement, gang bangers terrorizing their neighbor hoods, criminals who use their weapons and nut cases who murder large numbers of people, often with legally obtained weapons. 30,000+ deaths a year is not a trivial figure, it's a scary one.

The left does not drive the gun control argument, the public does. The DC law that was struck down by the Supreme Court was originally voted in by the DC city council by a margin of 12 to 1 and widely supported by the public. Every incident where a gun is used in a shocking crime starts people wondering why we have to be armed to the teeth. "

Rocketman wrote on Apr 25, 2009 9:20 AM:

" oh I forgot.........some weapons that also have a bayonet lug can make the weapon an assault weapon. You don't have to have a bayonet attached.

So I guess that dangerous lug is something we need to concern our self with!! "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 25, 2009 12:58 PM:

" a teacher-

I disagree with your statement about the left. As the MSM is found of scaring the heck out of the average citizen, they never report on a law abiding citizen stopping a crime with their own gun.

They also do not go after violators of the law, but instead try to keep passing laws that ONLY effect law abiding citizens. The DC council hardly reflects the will of the citizens of DC. They wanted their guns as they watched their city become torn by violent crime. Besides, the gun ban in DC is the perfect example of a gun NOT working!

I guess the 95 million gun owners in America would think differently "

aknra wrote on Apr 25, 2009 3:02 PM:

" a teacher, I have to correct your pronouncement that the public drives gun control. It is the Democrat Party that drives gun control. If you do a search on all the gun bills that come before the California state politicians, 99% of them originate from a democrat politician. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 25, 2009 6:50 PM:

" Perhaps bills originate from politicians, but they are driven by the politicians' constituents -- the public.

In California, that's often the Democratic public.

In a post above, I have listed the percentages of the public in favor of certain types of gun regulations -- this was a community survey, not a political poll. And the questions, listed on the website cited, were worded in a neutral fashion. They weren't questions like "Do you trust the gun-hating Congress", which is how the NRA started its latest telephone perception management "survey". "

a teacher wrote on Apr 25, 2009 9:44 PM:

" Freeport and AKNRA, I'm sorry, but the public does not agree. Consistently over the last 8 years, several different polls show while most Americans support the right to bear arms, they also believe that regulation is more important than gun rights.

In other words, Americans don't want to take your guns, they want to be safe.

It's not a leftist plot... "

Raven wrote on Apr 25, 2009 11:56 PM:

" If they are culling the stories from newspapers then they have some anecdotal evidence which is quite different from hard, empirical data freeport. The data you link to is from 1995 according to the page and even that site says the numbers surveys runs between 800k and 2.5 millions, so somebody's numbers are way off when you have such a large range between surveys. "

jwk wrote on Apr 26, 2009 7:43 AM:

" The 2nd Amendment was all about protecting us from an OUT of CONTROL and overbearing Government like we have now. They do deter some criminals and criminal acts but not all. I'll take my chances Gun on Gun against a bad guy in lieu of Gun against Words, Speeches and the court system everytime. I for one may die at the hands of a gun (Doubt it though), BUT it'll be a fair fight. A Knife or Cell Phone or Baseball Bat is no match for even a .22 Cal. Now if we can just keep our Guns and protect ourselves for 1364 more days until we get what's left of our country back after the Incompetent Naive Girly man Prez is out!! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:19 AM:

" jwk -- I think you just unwittingly summarized the crux of the whole problem:

"I'll take my chances Gun on Gun against a bad guy in lieu of Gun against Words, Speeches and the court system everytime."

Clearly, words are wasted against this rationale. "

aknra wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:45 AM:

" Yes, words from future victims ARE wasted. Those like jwk and I own gun and train with them because we intend to be protected from the worst our criminal sub cultures that cause the headline crime in the first place. Criminal animals that don’t give a hoot about ANY gun laws! "

Raven wrote on Apr 26, 2009 3:57 PM:

" aknra....future victims?. telling the future now are we?....is this the same crystal ball that thought McCain would win? "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:26 AM:

" a teacher-

I guess the 95 million and growing gun owners just sidestepped your polls. guns are probably the most regulated items in this country. You saw the stats I post above, how many more regulations do you want?

They are not working because they are not enforced. In 8 years of Bill Clinton, not 1 federal firearms violation was prosecuted, not one! Why, to scare the heck out of everyone to get....more gun regulations. At what point does thsi ever stop. Criminals do not obey the lay, hence the name criminals. You cannot regulate them with more laws they just will not care! "

rogers wrote on Apr 27, 2009 12:24 PM:

" The free and easy access to weapons has always been the problem. The NRA lobby and the gun manufacturers it serves are the single greatest contributor to crime in this nation. They appear more interested that everybody have a gun than finding ways to close loopholes and shut down black market networks.

The NRA has consistently pushed for full automatic weapons and the right for all Americans to carry a concealed weapon. They have fought for the sale of .50 cal rifles to average Americans. This is simply not common sense.

No one here is trying to take anyone's rights away to own a weapon. And I bet not one of the gun owners here have not been able to legally buy any weapon they have wanted. Yes, they may have waited 30 days before they could pick it up, but in the end they got their toys or tools unless they were trying to purchase weapons that are illegal. Unfortunately, some of these extremists think they should have the right to own a bazooka, stinger missile or hand grenades.

But the gun lobbyists aren't interested in practical solutions; they want the world their way and only their way. I wonder how many here have personally used a gun to stop crime or a threat against themselves or their family? They don't want any other alternatives like a safe zone in the home or chemical deterrents or an alarm system or a taser or running like he**. No it's gotta be a gun and going mano a mano.

It's that absolute and obstinate refusal to enable common sense laws for gun sales, purchase and use that enables the criminals in this country. "

Raven wrote on Apr 27, 2009 12:25 PM:

" so freeport, take a look at the mass shootings that took place in February and March of this year....how many of them were done by criminals and how many by law abiding citizens who obtained their firearms legally?

(btw arent most firearms laws state and local so the federal govt probably wouldn't be involved in prosecuting them) "

rogers wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:05 PM:

" Lastly...

Obama agrees and supports the Supreme Court decision on Heller. So do I. But the fear some of you attempt to spread about your gun rights being taken away by the current administration, are not only unfounded but little more than fabricated hot-button issues that you insist are true.

However the court (on Heller) also insisted that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, "...should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

When I read comments here that essentially insist 30,000 yearly gun related deaths is the price we must pay for freedom, how does that reconcile with a general stance on right to life?

You are not protecting my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by inflicting your perceived right to easy access of weapons in this nation.

Incidentally, I am neither a "socialist", French, nor a supporter of the ACLU. I am a gun owner. "

antipc wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Rogers I notice you didn't say "registered gun owner". You may want to check the model number on your weapon because I don't think Red Ryders count. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:10 AM:

" Well I now see what the critics have been saying about the NVR censor's. My last two logs have not made it. Well one was long and in four parts. Its amazing how the NVR counter differs from the Microsoft Word counter.
Anyway I'll summarize. First I have always said its the laws dealing with crime that needs to be enforced. My example (a lot less emotional now) was last Sundays gunning down of a 14 and 4 yo kid in Oakland caught in the crossfire between two gangs. I dont think everyone on the street would have made this any less tradgic.

Second, this is an interesting statement I whole heartedly agree with and is worth reading.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp

Statement by Darrel Scott father of Rachael Scott, victim of the Columbine Shooting.

Its time to figure out what works and what doesn't. We need to find solutions to the real problem, and thats how to prevent people from being killed. Guns are not the problem its people. Solving problems thru armed confict has never solved anything long term and never will. We need to use our brains and find real solutions! Thats were the effort needs to be. And all those who say, the only way to handle a ciminal is to shoot him when he trys something on me, you really are not helping. Bottom line is the second amendment arguments are tthe same as dealing with a feavor, and ignoring the infection from the cut! Until you solve the infection (in this case irresponsible people) the fevor will never go away. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:26 AM:

" Freeport: 95 million is still a minority (around 28% of the population). We still live in a democracy. 20000 gun laws is nonsense, it's more like 300. Guns are not over regulated, anyone can go into a store in CA and get a shot gun and only have to pass the background check. It's only pistols that are highly regulated. AND that's in CA. In other places the rules are much more lenient.

You guys are your own worst enemies. NO ONE WANTS YOUR GUNS! But you sound like a bunch of wild eyed revolutionaries threatening to march on Washington locked and loaded. The average, reasonable American would be concerned reading your comments. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:23 AM:

" a teacher -- You got that right, and I AM concerned, which is why I keep coming back, I guess.

Also continue to be concerned about this type of news:

"Three dead, two hurt in Ga. shooting" -- suspect is a marketing professor, a person with "no disciplinary problems" at his job, but according to a neighbor, "a 'kind of strange character' who would sometimes walk off in the middle of a conversation." -- NVR, 4/26/09.

"2 Fla. sheriff's deputies fatally shot" -- at Shoal River Sporting Clays & Shooting Center, where they were responding to a call. -- NVR, 4/26/09.

I'll just repeat what I said in another blogstream:
It's not just criminals and the “mentally ill” (inadequately defined) who may be a problem. It’s the people who lack insight and can't or won't admit to problems -- anger, substance abuse, prejudice, paranoia, narcissism, histrionics, oppositionality, risk-taking, poor judgment and suggestibility, not to mention unidentified sociopaths, that I worry about more.

I know it’ll never happen, but I wish everyone, in order to buy a gun, would have a full-blown psychiatric assessment to determine if they have qualities such as these which would predict violent or impulsive behavior. Having a history of "mental illness" just doesn't cover the risk. "

glenroy wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:59 PM:

" Della…indeed it is people lacking 'insight' who perpetuate the myth that guns kill people.

Take some time and gain a little 'insight' into the ratio of repeat offenders…. remove repeat offenders from the equation and there isn't much of a gun problem.....as least compared to lifestyle deaths, drug deaths, slip fall bathtube deaths, wife's killing husbands, J-walking deaths etc. "

Raven wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:54 PM:

" glenroy did you even read the post.....all one had to do to prevent those deaths is remove firearms from the equation - unless you are saying they would have grabbed a kitchen knife and committed the same crime....and tell the families of those victims that ya know, there really isn't much of a gun problem, I am sure they will feel so much better about your concern.

It does strike me that many posting opposition to even modest, common sense regulation of firearms appear to be very casual with other people's lives.... "

a teacher wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:49 PM:

" I was looking up some stats on gun violence and I came across this:

"http://www.christiangunowner.com/worst_gun_laws.html"

The worst gun laws in the USA - according to someone who is not a friend of the gun control. They are:

Worst- California
2) Massachusetts
3) New York
4) Illinois
5) New Jersey
6) Hawaii
7) a tie- Connecticut and Maryland

Later, I came across this:

"http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000"

Firearms deaths per 100,000 US States.

From lowest:
1) Hawaii (2.8 per 100k)
2) Massachusetts (3.1)
3) Connecticut (4.3)
4) New Jersey (4.9)
5) a tie New York and Rhode Island(5.1)

California is #30 at 9.8 and Maryland #22 at 11.5. For comparison, the worst is DC at 31.2 and Alaska at 20.

Since the gentleman at "Worst Gun Laws" used Brady Campaigns rankings I wondered which states would have "Best Gun Laws". These presumably rank at the bottom of the Brady list. They are (from the bottom- thier rank on the Gun Deaths per 100K and number of Gun deaths per 100k)):

Oklahoma #13 at 13.1
Louisiana #3 at 19.5
Kentucky #17 at 13.1
West Virginia #12 at 14.7
Utah #13 at 9.7
North Dakota #37 at 9.1
Missouri #19 at 9.3
Alaska #2 at 19.5

Hmmmmmm.... looks to me that restrictive gun laws equals fewer gun deaths. "

antipc wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:16 PM:

" Teach, why don't you apply the same standards of your last post to homosexual marriage & abortion.

Takes some of the fight out of your arguement doesn't it. "

antipc wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:28 PM:

" O.K. 5th gener, because you're trying to find a middle ground....... how many existing laws SHOULD have kept those two kids alive & how many worked? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:47 PM:

" This bears repeating:

"States with softer gun laws have higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study due out in January 2009."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-higher-murder-rates-related-gun-laws "

a teacher wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:09 PM:

" AntiPC, the difference is that NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOU R GUNS. You may keep you guns. Use them in good health. Prop 8, on the other hand, is denying people rights.

No matter. In both cases demographics are against you. The youth coming up will vote for same sex marriage and for sane gun laws. "

5th generation napan wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:59 AM:

" antipc, We start with kids that use guns for crimes like this are prosecuted as adults with capital punishment a possibility. It might not have saved these kids but years of young gangs knowing the laws differ because of their age and with this knowledge "adults" recruiting kids telling them they can get away with this is a factor.
Education. It may seem stupid but when I hear crippled gang members trying to educate kids saying "gee I didn't know it would hurt when I got shot. It was a supprise, after all I see guys on TV and Movies get shot 30 times and I doesn't look like it hurt". That tells me kids are desensitised and ignorant to reality. Growing up on a ranch you know guns kill. Inter urban kids carrying them around for effect really dont know this until they us it. At 12 yo I had to take a 6 week course in hunters safety to get my hunting license.
Laws should be uniform across the us. But more importantly, when cops make arrests the court should back them and not have people get off on "legal technicalities". This is where I guess I'm weird. I believe there is Right and Wrong. We overenforce the "grey areas" to the determent of whats Right and Wrong.
Beat cops help. Knowing and trusting the guy trying to help you and busting the guy trying to take advantage of you makes a difference.
If I knew what laws or things make a difference antipc, I'd run for office to make a change. But I don't have the answers, I just know we need a mindset change in this country and not get wrapped up in distracting issues away from root problems like hopelessness. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:58 PM:

" You what I can't figure out. Why is it that most of the people who are pro guns here, love the NRA, but probably have a huge problem with the ACLU. When you think about it, they do the same thing. The ACLU defends the 1st Amendment whilst the NRA defends the 2nd Amendment.

The ACLU would defend a Nazi's right to spew hate and the NRA would defend that same Nazi's right to own an arsenal. I don't like some of the NRA's stands, but I admire thier passion in defending the rights of Americans. The same goes for the ACLU. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:21 PM:

" "States with softer gun laws have higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study due out in January 2009."

Della- great argument for "Shall Carry" Laws to be enacted. Those communities that allow concealed carry of a weapon have a lower crime rate.

Thank you for the support.

a teacher- If you think no one is coming for our guns read H.R. 45. That Bill alone will make a law abiding citizen a criminal. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:21 PM:

" a teacher-

an "A++" for your proaganda and misleading statistics. I too followed your posted links to see for myself the statistics you posted.

Very interesting the first site christiangunpower.com does a good job of listing each state and their reasons for ranking the states for the "Worst Gun Laws". Next I went to Statemaster.com, where their statistical breakdown was just a list by firearm death rate without any breakdown of what that number means. As a math teacher you are well aware of using numbers to say anything. You post would have had more "oumph" had the number per 100,000 been more clearly define.

How many were bad guys being killed by bad guys, killed by police, killed in self-defense, by accident, hunting...etc.

And at the end you made a blanket statement based on numbers that were just there and notr broked out. This is so not like you.

So as punishment you must write 1,000 times. " I will work harder at posting correct statistics from relevent sources". "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:26 PM:

" "Nearly all guns recovered in crimes are initially sold legally, the report says. Many that wind up on the black market were stolen from homes, stores or vehicles. Others were sold without background checks, at gun shows by unlicensed dealers or by licensed dealers to "straw purchasers," who purchase guns for those prohibited from buying them. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120403333_2.html?sid=ST2008120500767

Seems to me "shall carry" laws would just make more guns available to steal. "

Raven wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:28 PM:

" so, freeport, explain to us all how any law-abiding citizen would become a criminal ... unless they decide to not abide by the law? "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:45 PM:

" della-

Another form of propaganda from the Times regarding gun shows, there is still federal paperwork to fill out. All gun dealersa are licensed by the ATF. Your killing me with hilarity. Have you had your husband get rid of his guns yet della?

The statistics refute your arguement della.

Raven, read the bill, it violates the 10th Amendment and does not apply at all to criminal law! if a law abiding citizen violates even by accident, they become a federal felon, not good! "

antipc wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:54 PM:

" You see teach I've lived long enough to know how the left works. "No one's trying to take your gun rights away". Yeah right, tell that Australians & the Brits. The right I'm fighting for is GUARATEED by the Bill of Rights. The rights you're talking about never existed until groups like the ACLU came along.

The youth you're so fond of is largely uneducated & has had decades of purely liberal indoctrination that now passes for education.

Again you're redirecting the argument, if you continue to ignore that criminals are the problem your ideas will never be part of the solution & will only result in a repressed society where rights are issued by whomever is in charge at any given time. You would be wise to acknowledge that the statists in charge now won't be in charge much forever. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:56 PM:

" Raven-

If I move and forget to tell the Federal AG, I am fined and can spend 2 years in a Federal prision. As all of my firearms are already registered no I have to apply to the federal government for a license (TAX) to own my guns, that I already own.

This law is an "Infringement" that I do not put by the left to try and pass. The Author is Bobby Rush Congreesman from Chicago and former Black Panther.

Yeah, this is one the criminals will really follow. Another waste of legislation, taxpayer dollars, violation of the 10th Amendment, and a blatant attempt to infringe our rights as lawful gun owners. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:01 PM:

" The CDc did a study on Gun Laws and their effectiveness on the increase or decrease in violence committed with a gun. One name kept repeating itself when the case studies were listed at the end of the study; Gary Kleck.

I will apologize to most of you now, he makes you guys look like conservatives, he is that liberal. But, his research is amazing, especially if the CDC used it over and over again. So for those that just want to believe that Gun Control is the only answer, here is the link to the difinative gun violence researcher;

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

After reading this brief about Dr. Kleck I will be awaiting your replies. remember, he is the most cited reference in the Center for Disease Control's Study on Gun Violence. He is to be respected.

P.S.- the study was inconclusive..... "

Raven wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:13 PM:

" I read the bill ... it doesn't violate the 10th amendment - providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people - because the courts have held that reasonable firearms control is within the gov't purview

If you follow the provisions you are not a criminal.

Oh and one more thing it doesn't stand a chance of making it through congress "

rogers wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:14 PM:

" Well not so sure here about Kleck's study! Apparently antipc can't correctly interpret the data. The NRA Life/Death clock alludes to lives saved by having access to a gun or convincing a potential attacker that one had a gun (true or otherwise).

antipc - Kleck claims 2,000,000 DUG's (Defensive Gun Uses) per year; NOT lives saved. Based on his interviews (not sure what his interview pool size was) he came to the conclusion that 598,000 lives were saved.

Table 3 of one of your cited addresses indicates that these surveys are purely speculative. They are estimates of the defender's PERCEPTION that someone might have died had a gun not been used for protection.

How is a defender/victim's opinion of what might have happened solid evidence that lives were saved? Only 30% of the respondents responded with "probably would have" or "certainly would have" (been deaths).

People are asked to GUESS what MIGHT have happened if they didn't or hadn't pretended to have a gun. How can that be considered solid research? it's an opinion poll. Yet the NRA posts this as fact and you guys lick it up. Until you have dead bodies at the scene, you have no real facts.

Getting back to the armed security guard who shot and killed the shooter at a church in 2007 - good for her, that's her vocation, she's a trained professional. But how many lives would the NRA claim were saved that day? 2, 8, 90, 200? You simply can't say because that is speculating. Capisce? "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:11 AM:

" I dunno Freeport. I went to the CDC website and searched for Dr. Kleck. He came up 7 times, three for the same paper (Firearms Laws and the reduction of Violence) where he was cited one(1) time.

I know who he is. He claims that gun ownership reduces crime. His studies are impreesive, but the thing is, he is the only researcher claiming that. That is not a good sign in science. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:19 AM:

" The problem I have with the good doctor Kleck is that his study implies a level of violence in this country that doesn't exist. He is claiming that A HALF MILLION people would have been killed if they didn't have a gun. The thing is, only about 30% of Americans own guns. Not all of them can carry them around. THerefore, only a small part of Americans could show a gun to a potential attacker.

Why aren't more Americans murdered then? "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:02 AM:

" again a teacher you are making an assumption that all cases involve concealed carry of a firearm. Most involve home break ins, store robberies...etc. Places where a firearm can be stored for accessibility.

Other than the Fed survey, which had a intimidation factor because a Law Enforcement agency was conducting it. I think it also tells you less than a handful of studies have been done. Why? Who knows, maybe the people conducting the studies are the only ones interested in the answers.

My real interest in Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott is that they are both liberals stunned by the research they conducted. The went out with the mind set to the complete opposite of what their research showed. Both used statistical data in a more scientific method that the others. While the data on defensive gun use, varying from a just a few studies, none the less shows anywhere from 400,000 to at least 2 million incidents per year of individuals saved because a firearm was available for defensive purposes.

Raven- I agree it will not pass. As the (th Circuit Court of Appeals just stated that the 2 Amendment is embedded in the states and local government as well. I see it, as do others, that firearm regulation is states rights issue, not a federal one.

I will add another resource for Dr. Kleck's use as a reference;

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/supportingmaterials/ISfirearms.html "

opiniagirl wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Wow, I am shocked that there is so much confusion on this issue....seems simple to me! This is what my 12 year old says about this issue (he passed firearms safety at age 10 with a 93% score)...

Good guys owns guns to protect themselves..

Bad guys want to own guns to hurt people...

Good guys follow laws...

Bad guys dont follow laws...

If a law is passed the good guys will have no guns and the bad guys will still have guns...

Remember...the bad guys want to hurt people...

Hope that clears things up for you all!!!

Now why is this complicated???? "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:47 AM:

" "" again a teacher you are making an assumption that all cases involve concealed carry of a firearm. Most involve home break ins, store robberies...etc. Places where a firearm can be stored for accessibility."

That chages nothing. The number 500,000 prevented deaths STILL implies a level of criminality that doesn't exist. That is more casualties than the US suffered in 4 years of WW2. "

opiniagirl wrote on Apr 30, 2009 9:06 AM:

" OK here is a scenario..

100 kids attend a boarding school. 5 of the kids are crazy! They run around, hurt people, fight, break all the rules and beat the other 95 kids. There are no rules that these 5 kids aren't unwilling to break. The school administration stops them if they are present, but they can't always be around. Recently the 5 troublemakers started beating the other 95 students will sticks...some of them even died. Finally the students fight back! They get sticks of their own. Uh-oh, now there is a problem, there are sticks everywhere!!!

The school administration reviews the problem and their answer is to make a rule that kids can't carry sticks!

93 kids turn in their sticks...guess who doesn't???

The problem is not the choice of weapon...the problem is the "rule-breakers" themselves, get that under control...and then you can ask for my gun! Until then ... NOT A CHANCE! "

Raven wrote on Apr 30, 2009 10:14 AM:

" so opiniagirl...take a look at the men who killed in the mass murders during February and March...how many of them were your 'good guys' and how many were your bad guys? "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 10:40 AM:

" I LOVE hypothetical scenarios that aren't realistic and don't match the real situation, anyway.

In a REAL boarding school, those 5 students would be expelled. The rest of the student's parents would threaten to pull their kids out and that would be the end of the school.

Now if it were a public school...

But that is a different thread. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 10:49 AM:

" a teacher-

It must be nice to pick and choose statistics. Especially from you since you are constantly quoting the CDC statistics. Now, you do not want to believe not only the CDC, Kleck, but the Federal Government as well. This brings a whole new dynamic to the discussion.

opiniagirl- that is the clearest most succinct explanation on this page. Thank for teaching your son to be responsible and safe. "

rogers wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:01 AM:

" opiniagirl, you and your son still have this wrong, no one here wants to take your guns! My congratulations to your son for doing so well with his training. As a child he received training; why would you not want adults to prove the same level of competence.

Other than military service, I would suggest the vast number of American citizens have had no training with the use of firearms. Going out to the hills and sighting-in a scope or learning to shoot accurately with a handgun is not proof of competence and knowledge of the laws in regard to using firearms.

Yes, I would like to see any gun owner licensed and required to take a battery of competency tests plus those background checks which have kept 10s of thousands of former felons from buying more guns. And I have a question - when someone attempts to buy a firearm and fails a background check, are they reported to the authorities?

My wife put herself through a rigorous firearms training program at NVC Administration of Justice program before applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. She said the training was invaluable. We demand accountability everywhere but not when it comes to private citizens and guns.

And I wholeheartedly disagree that choice of weapon should not be regulated. If you are an avid hunter or target shooter, you aren't using assault weapons that can easily be converted to fully automatic.

There is no reason any civilian should be allowed to buy a 50 cal. Barrett sniper rifle. What next? No restriction on landmines or hand grenades? "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:51 AM:

" Gun Control:

"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 12:58 PM:

" Freeport, what stats am i selectively choosing? I went to the CDC website. I entered Gary Kleck into there search engine. His name came up as I reported, seven times. One would think if, as you say, "he is the most cited reference in the Center for Disease Control's Study on Gun Violence", his name would come up more often.

I am familiar with his name and his work. I stated the reasons I question his conclusions. They are not unreasonable objections.

'Now, you do not want to believe not only the CDC, Kleck, but the Federal Government as well."

Is there a federal study you want to elighten us about? "

rogers wrote on Apr 30, 2009 1:00 PM:

" freeport56, why do you insist on repeating a commonly used pro-gun internet argument? Isn't your example just fear mongering, especially to women? No one here is suggesting that you shouldn't be able to have a gun for self-protection.

If you obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it seems prudent to have a bit more training than the 2 hours of lecture required in Florida. They don't even require a field test to see if the person knows how to safely handle the weapon. That's absolutely nuts!

Your sense of entitlement contradicts safe practice. Common sense is the least common of the senses. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2009 1:03 PM:

" "If a law is passed the good guys will have no guns and the bad guys will still have guns..."

Now, here is another thing I don't get. What law is preventing anyone from having a gun? I haven't read about a law banning guns. I can't imagine one being passed by the current congress or signed by the current president. I can't imagine it being supported by a population that population that by a 2 to 1 margin supports the 2nd amendment.

Once again: NO ONE IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS. I just want reasonable, commonsense laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who would misuse them. The ones we have now are apparently not working very well.

Is that too much to ask? "

antipc wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:35 PM:

" Teach,
all you have to do is show me a law the criminals will abide by, but you can't. So yes, it is too much to ask.

We are sensitive to eroding gun rights because to date the ends have not justified the means. And once again I refer you to England & Australia.

There are certain guns that CA laws prevent me from owning even though they are legal in OR & NV, why?

It's that simple, nothing more, nothing less. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 3:48 PM:

" There are numerous laws being passed that will take away your right to possess a firearm.

Last year our dear governor signed into law a bill that would require firearms to microstamp all casings fired from a gun. The technology is flawed and after the third firing no longer leave a legiable imprint. There are bills currently under consideration that will limit the purchase and transfer of ammunition. All these laws are backdoor attempts at making guns impotent. lets not even bring up the gun show myth that della has been spreading.

Calguns.net has a whole list of pending legislation that is only designed to effect the law abiding gun owner.

rogers-

it is not fear mongering, in many cases it is the truth. how many people go missing every year and are never heard from again. Too many in my book. Had those three women in Yosenite been armed, they may still be alive, same for Columbine, VA Tech, 101 California...You will never be able to stop a crazy person no matter what you think. Why not keep the playing filed even.

When you start saying "Oh, a little restriction is good", the powers that be will sell on a little more, and a little more, and then one day you cannot go to Sacramento unless you have the right papers. You stand in line to buy food because the government farm cannot produce enough...etc. "

rogers wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:38 PM:

" Sorry freeport56, I cannot buy that logic. Your reasoning says that everyone should be armed to the teeth, only then will we have parity and equivalent defense against the criminals.

And where do you draw the line? Any age limits? Do you give junior high kids the right to carry concealed weapons? If I were a teacher in a classroom with kids carrying guns, not sure I would want to fail anybody - especially the immature ones.

I'm sure you don't like the idea of Mexico, Iran, Cuba or Somalia getting hold of nuclear weapons. But by your logic, every nation should be able to have nukes for equal protection. We tried that before, remember MAD (mutually assured destruction).

If we decide to arm everyone (so we can be just like Israel or Switzerland) do you think we should require compulsory training and qualification? Or does that seem too socialistic for you?

If criminals aren't being caught or held accountable, why does the US imprison a higher percentage of its population than any of the other industrialized nations, including China?

Your logic didn't work in the old west and it doesn't work today. "

freeport56 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:34 PM:

" Now Rogers, you know I never said "everyone should be armed to the teeth".

Rogers, take a pill and chill. I am all for the right to own firearms, any firearm you want that is reasonable. No flamethrowers, bazookas, high exposives...etc. I like the Israeli and Swiss Models because they work. I think serving your country for two years and then being on active reserve is a good thing. The training alone is invaluable in the development of a person. Ask any former or current Marine.

Actually you have watched too many westerns and obviously do not care what any studies say. You are of the mind set that only the police and the criminals should be armed. Those are your words from above. Rogers, the police will and cannot protect you. The will investigate your murder then hire someone to clean up the mess. It is our god-given right to be able to defend ourselves and that is what I am standing up for and always will.

A safe, law abiding citizen has that right. If I choose to an AR-15, that only shoots one round for every trigger pull, why shouldn't I have that right.

By your logic, they will find that woman in the alley, by mine they will be carting off one more dead bad guy. Then we can all sleep better at night.
One more thing, as the economy begins to spiral down from the weight of the funny money, crime will increase. Look at the armed robberies in Napa the last couple of weeks. I choose not to be a victim, how about you? "

opiniagirl wrote on Apr 30, 2009 9:45 PM:

" In the "analogy" the students are pople in our society and the school is our community, the admin would be the government...now how would we "throw" criminals out of the country, fire the goverment and shut down the community.

I used analogy to help people realize how ridiculous it is to expect criminals to "pass tests" or "register" before they own guns, and CRIMINALS are the ones we need to worry about! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:13 PM:

" Okay, don’t like Washington Post, FP 56? We’ll go right to the source, then, the study sponsored by mayors against illegal guns:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

This study, summarized in an earlier post, starts with “two propositions that almost all sides agree on….the vast majority of gun owners in this country are law-abiding citizens; most gun crimes are committed by a small minority of the gun-owning population….[and] gun laws must be designed to keep firearms away from the criminal minority without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding majority.”

Agree so far, FP? Agree, opiniagirl?

ATF trace data is used in the study to determine where guns used in crimes originated from. This study wasn’t possible until the end of last year, thanks to the “Tiahrt amendment” passed in 2003 with the urging of the NRA.

The study found the states which “export” crime guns to other states at the highest rates (2 ½ times the national average), on the basis of both population and gun sales volume, were West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, and North Carolina. These were also the states with the most lax gun laws.

This is the same study cited earlier which found strong correlation between softest gun laws, highest crime gun export rates and highest gun murder rates within the state. These high export states have almost three times as many fatal shootings of police officers as the lower gun supplying states. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:29 PM:

" Opiniagirl, you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Here are the gun laws the mayors’ study found made it LESS likely guns would be exported to other states to end up in the hands of criminals (and also resulted in lower rates of gun homicides and police murder):

Background checks for handgun sales at gun shows

Purchase permits

Reporting lost or stolen guns

Local (city) control of firearms regulations

State inspection of gun dealers

The states that had these laws in place had the lowest rates of crime gun export rates. It’s just that simple. Of course, the NRA did it’s best to keep that information from seeing the light of day in order to protect their dealers. They’d rather have you think that there’s no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so you'll buy one believing you can actually protect yourself with it.

One last thing: No one’s trying to take anyone’s guns away from them. We have nothing to lose by having reasonable regulation. "

a teacher wrote on May 1, 2009 6:34 AM:

" " Teach,
all you have to do is show me a law the criminals will abide by, but you can't. So yes, it is too much to ask."

Of course criminals won't follow the law. However, they will be less well armed.

"We are sensitive to eroding gun rights because to date the ends have not justified the means. And once again I refer you to England & Australia."

Perhaps you should stop using England and Australia as examples. They both have far, far lower rates of crime, violence and deaths by firearms than the USA. That's the other sides argument.

"There are certain guns that CA laws prevent me from owning even though they are legal in OR & NV, why?"

Different states, different laws. The 10th amendment I believe. I was downtown at the Gun Exchange the other day. It's a pretty nice selection available to you. Was there something in particular you were looking for? Sniper rifle? Bazooka? M60 machine gun? "

a teacher wrote on May 1, 2009 6:37 AM:

" Opinagirl wrote:
"" In the "analogy" the students are pople in our society and the school is our community, the admin would be the government...now how would we "throw" criminals out of the country, fire the goverment and shut down the community.

I used analogy to help people realize how ridiculous it is to expect criminals to "pass tests" or "register" before they own guns, and CRIMINALS are the ones we need to worry about! "

Hence the problem with analogies, especially unrealistic ones that present a straw man argument. "

OU now wrote on May 1, 2009 11:08 AM:

" NRA people quit living in fear that you will lose your guns. realize that the NRA is a business that makes money off your fear. Not all regs. are bad. Anti's quit thinking every gun owner is out to shoot you. Both sides keep throwing out stats pro and con. The truth is more people protect their lives with guns every year than are murderd with guns. That crime is bad because of our justice system. People are going to die,thats life. Della fears herself,lacking self control and shooting a wall, feels anyone can do this. Raven feels the need to control the world because the lack of structure after leaving the military. Teacher has a fair handle on the subject with just a little too much fear. The rest of you are paranoid pro and con. If they take away our guns, shoot a bow! and if they do take guns away, America will be no safer then it is today. Its time to quit mourning those who have died, time to quit worring about those who will die and LIVE your life for today. "

freeport56 wrote on May 1, 2009 1:11 PM:

" della-

so now you use New York Mayor Blumberg's anti-gun organization as a reference....hilarious.

He has broken the law by sending others to make straw purchases for him.

"most gun crimes are committed by a small minority of the gun-owning population(CRIMINALS)….[and] gun laws must be designed to keep firearms away from the criminal minority without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding majority.”

Those laws are already on the books dear. The background check is a Federal regulation mandated for each state.

As for state inspection, the ATF and most states already do that. Blumberg is spreading anti-gun myths left and right. It is nice to see you buy into it all.

Why don't you do some research on one of the most violent societies on the world right now, Great Britain. Since the citizens have been unarmed, violence has increased to the point now that all the Bobbies are armed.

a teacher- you comments re; Bazooka and M60 are totally unwarranted and out of place.

OU now- the NRA does not work on our fear, the far left does. The NRA is the only organization that is standing up for a right that all Americans have. What we truly fear ids living in a country where only the state and the criminals are armed and we citizens have become defenseless subjects.
I was raised with firearms, taught to handle and use them safely just like millions of others. as for the paranoia, not me, just standing up for what I believe in! "

Raven wrote on May 1, 2009 6:13 PM:

" "the NRA does not work on our fear,"

so when was the last time the far left sent out mailers calling ATF agents jack-booted stormtroopers and warning all that 'they' are coming to confiscate your firearms?

If you stop and actually read most of the pots here you would find that most people here have no interest in confiscating your firearms...we want sensible, reasonable regulation of who uses them. "

a teacher wrote on May 1, 2009 10:33 PM:

" "a teacher- you comments re; Bazooka and M60 are totally unwarranted and out of place."

But you're OK with the sniper rifle... "

a teacher wrote on May 1, 2009 10:35 PM:

" "Why don't you do some research on one of the most violent societies on the world right now, Great Britain. Since the citizens have been unarmed, violence has increased to the point now that all the Bobbies are armed."

Are you serious? Are you reading science fiction to us now? Based on what? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: