http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

So, what is your message? Do you agree with these reports or disagree?

The facts are in.

More Guns, Less Crime is more than a book title by Dr. Lott.

It's the truth. Look at Washington, DC and anywhere else the gun-banners have prevailed. Gun control is an abysmal failure.

If the bad guys know you're disarmed, they have you where they want.

Herb

I agree.

10 out of 10 Criminals agree that an unarmed citizen is the best target.

Saying that Gun Control reduces crime is a total myth.

Even the CDC can't prove that it reduces crime.

So I do not own a gun.

How many of you do?
Why do you have a gun?
Ever pointed it at someone?
Ever shot it at someone?
Ever shot at someone and hit them?
Did they have a gun too?
Did they shoot back?
Did they hit you?

I do.
Used to Hunt.
Not intentionally.
No.
No.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.

Not a hand gun though. It's a 7mm Mag hunting rifle that ain't been fired in at least 15 years. Cleaned and oiled regularly though and kept in a locked gun safe.

Sorry - yeah - I'm asking in a context of non-hunting.

Yes, many.
Hunt, target shoot, enjoyment, self protection and most importantly; it's my right to.
No.
No. (And hope I never have to, but am willing to if I have to)
No.
N/A
N/A
N/A

The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting.

I've also read that when criminals are interviewed, the single thing they fear most is an armed homeowner.

Herb

Yes, many
Collector
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
No

Megadittoes to Dark, Sky and Herb!

So Herb, you own a gun for a reason other than hunting?

I happen to really like guns. For all kinds of reasons. I have a young son though. So IF I were to own one, for say, protection in the house, I do not think it's realistic to keep it unloaded, with the bullets in another room, hidden in another safe or something - while and intruder is in the house.

Can anyone give me a workaround that elimintaes the risk for kids? I would probably have one if I didn't have a child.

I like the idea of a fingerprint safe mounted in the wall next to my bed. I've considered that for a while now.

Herb writes:
It's the truth. Look at Washington, DC and anywhere else the gun-banners have prevailed. Gun control is an abysmal failure.

So is drug control! Since Nixon launched the so-called "War on Drugs" they have become cheaper and more pervasive. And we've wasted billions on it - billions that could have gone to build bigger and more expensive weapons for the Pentagon or given Paris Hilton an even bigger tax cut.

So I assume you're also against drug control laws, Herb, since they have failed? How about meth sold at Walgreens?

Andrew

Yep. I'm in for that too. Same principal.

Chickenjuggler, the #1 thing to do is to teach the kids to respect firearms.

Treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded, don't touch them, call a parent if they find one, etc.

I had guns before kids, so they have grown up being around them. I take them out with me (the kids) whenever I can get them to go (They are 16 and 18). I taught them gun safety and the proper way to handle guns from the beginning. I bought my son a .410 shotgun for his 8th birthday. He knows where it is kept and has never once taken it out without me being right there.

For home defense, the best thing to have is a 12 Ga shotgun. A Remington 870T tactical would be a good choice for close quarters.

You could keep shells in the magazine but not have one chambered. Depending on the age of your kids, it would be real tough to load a shell and fire it.

Also, just the sound of a shotgun racking would be enough to scare off all but the most determined person.

I know if I was someplace that I shouldn't be and it was dark and I heard the "cachunk cachunk" of a shotgun being racked....I'm outa there!!

Don't know if that helps any but it a few thoughts anyway.

Skybill writes:
Chickenjuggler, the #1 thing to do is to teach the kids to respect firearms.

Treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded, don't touch them, call a parent if they find one, etc.

Right, and teach your kids not to have sex until they are old enough and mature enough to deal with the consequences. All sounds great on paper, which is why abstinence is so wonderfully effective in real life. Same with gun education. It's only so effective. Kids still do dumb things with them and get killed.

Andrew

"Chickenjuggler, the #1 thing to do is to teach the kids to respect firearms."

I understand that. It doesn't always work. And frankly, before I own a gun, I am going to find something that will always work - or I won't get one.

Andrew2,

You are correct. Kids will do stupid things. So will adults. (That’s why the jails are so full!)

Look how many drunks kill people on the road.

In one of the video clips, it says the CDC reports that there are only (but still way too many) about 50 accidental children’s deaths per year from firearms. (Does not count homicides or suicides)

I found a report on the web that was a 1995 study in Texas and it broke down children’s deaths from age 0 to 19.

There were a total of 1004 deaths. Here is how it broke down:
Motor Vehicle: 63%
Drowning: 14%
Other Accidents: 12%
Fire: 7%
Poisoning: 2%
Firearms: 2%

Here is the link to the report: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/ 5f/b8.pdf

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that while any child's accidental death is a tragedy, accidental deaths from firearms are not near as widespread as some in the government would like you to believe.

It's just a shame that it is usually an innocent that pay's the price for someone else's careless stupidity. Guns are lethal weapons and should always be handled and stored as such. RESPECT and treat every weapon as if it were loaded. Trigger guards and gun safes save lives. If you want something loaded for home protection get yourself a 410 shotgun and replace the pellets with rock salt. Guarantee that when shot with that the person will go down in agony and be incapacitated until you can further subdue them.

Yes, the facts are in! Have a gun in the house, and you are LESS safe. This is why the US has an enormous amount of gun deaths as compared to other industrialized countries. More guns = More gun deaths.

"One highly regarded study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that keeping a gun in your home actually increases by 2.7 times the risk that someone in that home would die in a homicide. Another found that it is 43 times more likely that a gun kept in the home will be used to kill a member of their home or their friends than to kill an intruder."

http://ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/ftcsum.html

"Grossman's study cites research that indicates that having a gun in the house increases the risk of suicide among teen-agers and young adults tenfold and the risk of homicide threefold."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B05E4D6173EF931A25755 C0A960958260

"And while having a gun in the house may make the gun owner feel more secure and safe, the problem with having guns in the home, argue gun control supporters, is that they are a temptation both for children and adults."

http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/9/Gun-control.html

"For every case of gun use for self-protection there are 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.3 murders, and
37 suicides. Having a gun in the house increases the chances of someone dying by suicide in that house by 5 times and by 9 times if the gun is kept loaded.

www.pgs.ca/updir/child=guns_final3.pdf

Family killings are the only category of homicide where women outnumber men as victims, with their male partner the most likely person to murder them. If her husband or boyfriend has access to a gun the chance of a woman being murdered by them increases five fold. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of a woman being murdered by 272 per cent (compared to 41 per cent for both men and women).

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/issue9_ImpactGunsWomen

Frankly, I don't advocate for the banning of gun ownership, but I will say, the gun lobby is FULL OF SHIT. Go ahead and pound your chest and show off your gun, just don't come crying to the rest of us when it kills someone you love rather than the intruder you think you need it for.

So Andrew's decision is to be a victim.

Fine. Go right ahead.

Just don't mess with my God-given and legal right to defend myself.

Herb

It's interesting, Herb (and not surprising), how you completely ignore what I wrote above and draw some unrelated (and wrong) conclusion. So I ask in a more direct way and see if you can answer directly:

Because you suggest that gun control has failed (and should be done away with?) because of the high gun crime in cities like Washington DC, should we then also get rid of the laws against drugs like Meth because they too have failed to stop the problem?

Or could it be that the gun laws actually reduce the gun violence in DC from what they WOULD be without such laws? And that keeping Meth illegal also actually does reduce its abuse and damage in society?

Andrew

It is our right to choose to have or not have a gun. That's what is great about this country.....we have the option if WE choose. There are other options prior to needing a weapon and applying deadly force. Alarm systems, removing large bushes from next to your house, outdoor illumination via the use of motion detectors, etc. Most homes are targeted due to the fact that there is obscured view, poor illumination, and just an EASY target. You have to remember that most home burglars are basically lazy and will take the easier target every time. Also you better be very prepared to defend yourself in a costly court battle if you kill someone in your home and they have no weapon on them. Shotgun with rock salt, mace, bean bag gun, big can of horn from the sporting goods store, light switch hooked up to a big ass siren in the attic (panic button). Some of these would be easy and relatively low cost to setup.

Edit Add:
Curious Random Thought.....
So Herb....would you agree that deadly force should only be used as a last option. With that do you have any other preventative measures in place to warn off intruders or do you just plan to shoot them? Seems to me that the christian thing would be to try and warn them off, or prevent it from happening in the first place, before sending them to HELL, wouldn't you agree?

An ounce of PREVENTION is worth a pound of CURE!

What "decision" have I supposedly made?

Andrew

"...should we then also get rid of the laws against drugs like Meth because they too have failed to stop the problem?"

Your lazy logic fails to take into account how bad our meth problem would be if we had done nothing. You want Needle Park? Most people don't. Placing society's stamp of approval on something doesn't make it any less toxic.

Herb

"...would you agree that deadly force should only be used as a last option."

Sure, in an ideal world. Bu you tell me-If your door is being broken down at 3 AM by a 250 lb. guy on PCP, you're going to try to wing him?

Not only are you putting your own life and the lives of your family at risk, the psychopath will likely end up owning your home...that is, if he doesn't take you out, first...because you were kind enough not to dispatch him.

It's all very well and good in the hypothetical. Reality is often different.

Herb

Sorry....got caught up in Herbs prior post and assumed you made a decision to not own a gun.

Ported edited for better clarity.

My question to Herb still stands though.

Do you have any other preventative measures in place to warn off intruders or do you just plan to shoot them?

Herb writes:
Your lazy logic fails to take into account how bad our meth problem would be if we had done nothing. You want Needle Park? Most people don't. Placing society's stamp of approval on something doesn't make it any less toxic.

You want the murder rate in DC to go up by 10X by getting rid of gun laws? You think guns will become less dangerous if it's easier for everyone in DC to carry a piece?

Andrew

"Do you have any other preventative measures in place..."

Of course. And the more, the better.
Use of lethal force should always be a last resort.
But as with Pearl Harbour, remember: The innocent victim didn't want to be attacked in the first place.

Herb

Herb, it's sort of unpatriotic to spell it "Pearl Harbour." It's like spelling George Washington's name a British way - sheesh! Have some respect will ya?

Andrew

"You want the murder rate in DC to go up by 10X by getting rid of gun laws? You think guns will become less dangerous if it's easier for everyone in DC to carry a piece?"

You are wrong in saying gun crime would go up at all. It will go down.

If you're a crook, are you going to be more likely to use a weapon when your victim might be packing? No. As I said, convicted criminals agree that they most fear an armed victim.

Again. Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr. John Lott. It's packed with solid data confirming that in areas where self defense with a gun is allowed, crime rates go down, decisively.

States with "Will Issue" concealed carry laws do quite well and it is often reported that it's a concealed carry holder who stops criminals in the act. You will not find a more law-abiding group of people than concealed carry holders. They have had background checks, been fingerprinted and have their mug shots on file with law enforcement. You should be so lucky to have a concealed carryholder nearby if you're ever assaulted.

Unlike you, most people believe self-defense is a right. And that right is often meaningless if one doesn't have a gun to do the job.

Herb

Yes it is never wanted, and we took quite a few "WRONG" preventative measures back then. The more the better......good thinking!

If after everything put in place to prevent it fails, then by all means take any and all necessary actions to protect yourself and your family. BUT.......shooting someone just to save "STUFF" is not right......"STUFF" can be replaced and a human life, no matter their current status, is more valueable than "STUFF". If you fear bodily harm the fire away.

BUT......if you do shoot better shoot to kill. If you wound and mame someone who broke into your house, with today's legal system, it will be his house next month and yours will be an Albertson's shopping cart!

Hey, leave Herb alone, it is obvious he is from Britain, which makes him an alien. Hopefully, though, not an illegal one, or Lars would put him on a boat home faster than you can say, Crikey, pass the bloody noose mate!

I think what most gun owners fail to realize in their zeal to be ready for an intruder is that if you have your gun properly stored, which means locked up and unloaded, how in the heck are you going to unlock the gun, load it, and use it when someone is kicking your door down? Talk about false logic. This is why it is true that owning a gun makes you FEEL safer, but the stats show that you and your loved ones are actually LESS safe.

More Facts the NRA doesn't like to talk about:

An average of 5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.
-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Injury Mortality Statistics, 1994-1998.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
-Journal of Trauma, 1998

In 1997, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age -- second only to motor vehicle crashes -- while the firearm injury death rate among males 15-24 years of age was 42% higher than the motor vehicle traffic injury death rate.
-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 1999

Studies show that guns in the home are the primary source for firearms that teenagers use to kill themselves.
-Injury Prevention, 1999

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings. That's more than 10 young people a day.
-Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 deaths in 1998.
-Johns Hopkins University Center of Gun Policy and Research, 1997/1998

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.

Guns stored in the home are used 72% of the time when children are accidentally killed and injured, commit suicide with a firearm.
-Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center Study, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, August 1999

"...stats show that you and your loved ones are actually LESS safe."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

FABLE I:
A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

FABLE II:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not
protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

FABLE III:
NRA opposes all "reasonable" gun regulations.

FABLE IV:
"Gun control" laws prevent crime.

FABLE V:
It is because of the Brady Act's five-day waiting period and
the "assault weapons" law that crime has decreased.

FABLE VI:
Since firearm accidents are a large and growing problem,
we need laws mandating how people store their firearms.

FABLE VII:
Allowing people to carry guns for protection will lead to
more violence and injuries.

FABLE VIII:
We should ban all firearms that have no legitimate,
"sporting" purpose.

FABLE IX:
Gun violence is an epidemic that can be cured by public health
measures.

FABLE X:
Firearms manufacturers should be financially liable for the
actions of criminals who misuse guns.

FABLE XI:
Firearms are unsafe because they are not regulated under
consumer protection laws.

FABLE XII:
Hunting and the "gun culture" teach our kids to be violent.

FABLE XIII:
Foreign countries such as England and Japan have much less
crime than the U.S. because of their stronger gun laws.

FABLE XIV:
There are too many gun dealers in the U.S.

FABLE XV:
A gun show "loophole" exists that allows many criminals and
terrorists to purchase guns.


http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE%20VII:

Herb

Stats from an NRA website are not gonna cut it.

Major crimes occur in Japan at a very low rate. In 1989 Japan experienced 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population, compared with 48.6 for West Germany, 65.8 for Great Britain, and 233.0 for the United States; and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan

The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

Stats from leftist shills of the anti-gunners ain't gonna cut it.

Like I told Andrew. You wanna be a victim, that's your deal. Feel free to give the bad guys a leg up on your own life.

For the vast majority of Americans, the right to self defense is as basic as it gets. And one of the first things Hitler did when he gained power was to confiscate firearms.

Herb

I enjoy guns, but did not have any in the house until very recently.

Educating the kids on firearms is a good idea period, gun owner or not. I did this, and the kids did fine. All of them more or less know what guns are all about, but didn't focus on them. All but the youngest one. He likes things like this, so we've worked to get it done.

First thing we did was wait.

He's 13 now, and more than capable. He has a gun, but we simply don't keep bullets. When it's time to go shooting, we get ammo and use it. All of it. He likes to skeet shoot, and do archery.

We keep the gun in our room, he knows where it is, and knows it's gone if the rules are ever broken. It's been a complete non-issue. We are open about it, why and how.

As for protection, there is very little I have that is worth using a gun over. People are priceless, things just are not. We've the usual assortment of goodies for protection, Dog, Bats, etc...

It's never even come up. The closest event was some bozo trying to steal the car in my old neighborhood. One look, and he was GONE, minus some really great tools.

(yeah, I kept those)

I've had to talk down someone pointing a gun at me once. Horrible feeling. Got it done, tossed it far away, and let the situation end with that person in jail. (and it was loaded, the whole deal --just like on TV)

If I were in a more rural setting, I would keep and maintain guns for protection. Interestingly, here in the city, I've zero need for that. Why escalate things?

Animals, and people were one is isolated is one matter. Knowing who you live near, lighting, dog, etc... is another.

If you've got rational reasons for guns, I'm all for it. If it's out of fear, that's just not good. Better to take a hard look at that fear and see what you can do about it. There are lots of options.

I'm totally with Vitalogy. Keeping a gun safe, for protection doesn't work. If that is necessary, then it will also be worth it to make sure all involved share the risk. That means everybody knows where the gun is, how to use it, etc...

If that chain of trust can't be established, you've either got to change up the people you are with, or lose the gun.

And that's exactly why I didn't have one after having kids.

The very best protection you've got is between your ears. Leverage everything around you, plan ahead, and think about the implications of things. This done properly cuts the risk substantially.

I think having guns should be accepted. I also think we do not do the right things, as a nation, to properly address the needs that come with having them around.

I also favor gun controls and or registration on a lot of models. Essentially, any rapid fire, high overall impact, small, etc... guns need considerable thought applied to owning them. Too tempting to use.

(I know, I've seen Red Dawn too)

Frankly, having guns tied to gun owners does considerably increase potential liability. I'm ok with that. If it gets to Red Dawn levels, it's gonna be a nasty fight anyway. If it's our own government we've got to deal with, same story.

That leaves Bob gun owner, worried that somebody might do something stupid with his gun and he would catch hell for it. Exactly the way it should be, frankly.

Anything that reduces the escalation currently going on is good. There is zero reason for it.

Then there is Chris Rock and bullet control! He's right! Guns are not the problem, ammo is. All of that should be traceable and those that purchase should know where every last round is.

I wasn't aware that the Center's for Disease Control, Journal of Trauma, Injury Prevention, and Harborview Injury Prevention are "leftist shills". But, I do know what what kind of shill the NRA is for gun ownership and would expect nothing less than a thorough spinning of factual information in order to support their ONLY cause which brings death to US residents at a far higher rate than any other country.

Herb, I don't want to be a victim, that's why I don't have a gun in the house. I'm a stats kind of guy, and the stats are pretty clear to me that I increase my chances of being killed or killing a loved one by having a gun in the house.

And to bring Hitler into this conversation tells me you're really not able to refute the stats I've shown, so you go for the emotional pull. Remember, I'm not advocating banning firearms.

If you're not advocating banning firearms, you're thankfully in the minority on the left.

Dr. Lott's facts are solid:

FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."


Herb

The pro-gun lobby will twist and distort things as much as they can, but the stats are the stats. Having a gun increases your chances of being the victim of gun violence. More guns = more gun related deaths. End of story.

Herb writes:
You are wrong in saying gun crime would go up at all. It will go down.

How the hell could you POSSIBLY know that?

And how do you know drug crime wouldn't go down - WAY DOWN - if drugs were legalized? You still haven't addressed that question.

Unlike you, most people believe self-defense is a right. And that right is often meaningless if one doesn't have a gun to do the job.

How the hell would you know whether I think it is a right or not??? I never made any such statement for or against.

Andrew

Typical liberal phiisophy, someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife and daughters, but hey no one got hurt. you didnt shoot anyone.

Andrew2 Wrote: You want the murder rate in DC to go up by 10X by getting rid of gun laws? You think guns will become less dangerous if it's easier for everyone in DC to carry a piece?

Andrew, do you actually think that the people that are going to commit murder and robbery give a fat rats a## about gun laws?

I can see the conversation now:

Joe Hoodlum: Yo dude. I need a fix and there be this liquor store wit lotsa cash. I wanna boost the place. You wit me? Where's your piece in case we gotta bust a cap in the dude's head?

Joe Gang Member: Man what up wit you? We in DC and it are illegal to have a piece.

Joe Hoodlum: Damn, man. I be foregettin about that. I guess I be getting a job to get my fix money.

Yeah, right.

Its funny how no matter how many studies are done, I haven't seen one that states the number of crimes committed by people who LEGALLY acquire their firearm.

Remember the bumper sticker: Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

I got this in the mail yesterday. It's pretty fair, and takes a mind with a special twist to disagree with it them. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

"Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist

" IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!!

RIGHT ON....WELL SAID Mr. Jackson!

Skybill writes:
Andrew, do you actually think that the people that are going to commit murder and robbery give a fat rats a## about gun laws?

Do you think the people who use illegal drugs today give a rat's ass about the drug laws? So why have drug laws then? Could it be that MORE people who aren't using drugs now might start using them if there were no drug laws, just as perhaps more people might start killing (or, killing more with more powerful weapons) if guns could be purchased at Walgreens without an ID?

Andrew

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

If meth was no illegal tons more would use and distrubute it.

If automatic weapons were not illegal tons of people would own and use them as well.

It's really quite simple....the more guns there are the more they will get used and not always for legit reason's!

Edit Add:
But............current gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of those trying to purchase them legally. Anyone can obtain a fully auto Mach10 or other weapon through illegal methods....only costs green!

Touche Skybill and Stonewall.

How about this one:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six in a casket."

Herbert Milhous

More guns = more death by guns. It's a pretty simple equation, and one the the US proves every year. And thanks to the gun culture of the US, more people here are carried by 6 than judged by 12.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States. Why so many in the US? Could the correlation be the number of guns in circulation?

Absolutely.

Vitalogy writes:
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States. Why so many in the US? Could the correlation be the number of guns in circulation?

Not according to Michael Moore, who correctly points out that Canadians have as many guns per capita as the US does. I did not see "Bowling for Columbine" but as I understand it, in that film Moore explores the cultural aspect of gun violence.

I do think that if guns were easier to get in America, there would be more gun violence. I think that a lot of the gun violence now is between people who are already armed, and if you make it even easier for more people to get armed, you could make things a lot worse, especially in the murder "hot spots" in cities like Washington, DC.

Andrew

"Canada was in the mid-range of firearms ownership. Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands."
http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1997/crime-rpt_e.asp

Why not just come out and say it: You want to take guns away from the law abiding.
Criminals will always have guns. That's because breaking laws is no big deal to them.

This is such a classic example of how wrong-headed the left has become. Like so many other areas, including abortion, the left's solution is to go after the innocent and spare the perpetrators.

It's not difficult.

Don't penalize the innocent gun owner. Go after the guilty criminal.

Herb

Speaking of abortion...

For or against contraception?

BTW: I harbor no illusions about gun ownership. We are gonna have guns. Some of us won't, some of us will.

So, we've got an education problem, that's it.

I'm all for guns in everyone's house!!!! I'm very rp NRA!

OOPS!
pro NRA

Since I don't carry water for the pope, I have less of a problem with contraception.

Herb

I don't really have an argument in this case. Not yet. I would like to know, though, how many gun-in-the-household accidents ( ALL virieties - kids using the gun at school, accidntal discharge, drunken fights with your aunt when the gun gets waived around vs. you know, protection against an intruder ) there are. I mean, the sense I get is that that stat is quite low ( from gun owners ). Then I would like to see that stat compared to how many times a gun has been used successfully against an intruder. And all of THAT compared to people who at home during an intruder's, uh, intrusion.

Does anyone else think that would be a fair way to assess risk vs. necessity? At least a START in the right direction? Or is it " It's needed at all time on all occasions? "

Ah, Darktemper, automatic weapons aren't illegal. They are in some states, but you can get a federal permit to own a fully automatic weapon. I have one. They have competitions in some southern states, where everyone brings a fully auto.

My point was that a person not willing to go through that process to get one can't legally and probably won't get one. Now.....those who cannot legally get one for whatever reason, want one and have the money, can pretty much get whatever their money can buy and probably will.

One thing which I don't think has been mentioned, is the huge number of good citizens who are turned into criminals, and victims by many of the "feel good" gun laws around the country. Many of which ban ownership, much less carrying them, having them ready to use at home, or killing some lowlife who breaks into your home, or holds you up on the street.

If these criminal statutes don't get you, the civil suits filed, even if you win, will ruin you financialy. How many "murders" on the books were self defense in the truest sense, because of some honest citizen's justifiable fear of what the law, and courts would do to them for doing nothing worse than defending themselves, their family, or even a stranger in need.

See number 17 above. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

Andrew: Skybill writes:
Andrew, do you actually think that the people that are going to commit murder and robbery give a fat rats a## about gun laws?

Do you think the people who use illegal drugs today give a rat's ass about the drug laws? So why have drug laws then? Could it be that MORE people who aren't using drugs now might start using them if there were no drug laws, just as perhaps more people might start killing (or, killing more with more powerful weapons) if guns could be purchased at Walgreens without an ID?

You argument doesn't hold water.

First off, you can't buy a gun at Walgreens or any place else legally without an ID and NOBODY is suggesting that we do away with the existing gun laws. Currently if you go to Sportsman's Warehouse, or GI Joes or a pawn shop or any place else to purchase a gun, you have to provide ID and in the case of a handgun, you have to have a FBI check called in and wait 3 days to pick it up.

In order to legally carry a concealed weapon, here in WA, you must fill out a form, take it to the Clark County Sherriff’s office (or whatever county you live in), pay the fee ($60) and give them your finger prints. They then do a background check on you and if you pass they send you your CC permit.

Nobody here is suggesting we change that.

Also, the people who have a penchant (how's that for a 50 cent word!) towards gun violence and crime DON"T go buy guns from dealers. They buy them out of the trunk of some dude's car. No paperwork, no record.

By increasing gun laws or by outlawing guns, all you are going to do is affect the law abiding gun owner.

The thugs and crack heads are still going to have their ILLEGAL guns no matter how many gun laws there are.

Just like drug laws. I think that you could probably put the death penalty into drug laws and people would still use illegal drugs.

So in the end, what's being said is for those of us that want to own guns legally, don't infringe on our right. If you don't want to own a gun, more power to you.

That's your choice and that is why this is a great country. (albeit with some problems, but STILL the best country in the world}

"Why not just come out and say it: You want to take guns away from the law abiding."

Not at all Herb. Just so you know, if there was a measure to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I would not vote for it. I believe in the right to own a gun. I may want to own one someday myself. But like Chickenjuggler said, you must assess risk vs. necessity. I don't see a necessity for me personally to have a gun which would expose me to risk. More bad can happen than good. That's the way I see it. And I think the stats back it up. For every one time someone's gun actually is there to do what it's supposed to do, many many more times it does stuff you wished it didn't do. And when guns and screw ups are involved, people die. It's a net loss overall if you ask me. My Louisville Slugger will take care of me without putting myself or my household at risk of gun violence. I think guns are evil, should not be celebrated or championed in the least. Guns are probably the worst manmade invention ever. Why promote them? They are a drain on society.

Ever stabbed anyone? That would be traumatic, I bet. For at least two people.

But back to guns for a second. And I realize this is an stereotype - so it's not wholly accurate - but the vast majority of people who like to talk about their guns as often as some of my friends do, I find that there are other things about their personality to which I just don't relate. There is a higher prevalence of paranoia ( and believe me, I have a pretty high threshold for that kind of mindset ). And then there are some that truly see it as an extension of their dick. Others see it as power. I mean power in a way that is kind of laughable sometimes.

Somehow, it's the people that don't talk about their guns all the time that seem to make the most rational points in ownership.

Collecting them doesn't count. I actually get that.

"Why promote them?"

Then you have a problem with the Founding Fathers.

"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.."

The 2nd Amendment backs up the 1st Amendment.

Herb

I rest my case.

"There is a higher prevalence of paranoia.."

Perhaps you're talking with people who have actually witnessed acts of evil first-hand, or those like Nwokie who have been in the military and know what bad people will do to the innocent.

Many of us walk around in a self-deceiving bubble, never realizing what crime victims have been through. As a Christian, using a weapon against even a guilty felon is not my wish. But if someone means me or my family harm, self defense is acceptable.

Herb

You know what works best against an intruder?

A black baseball bat.

Like guns, it is as American as apple pie and mommy. Unlike guns, you never need to register it. Safe around most kids. Never glistens in the dark. No cocking noise. Never runs out of bullets. No wounded criminal remembering your face or address. Combined with a wool blanket, it can render even the most amped meth freak totally harmless before strike two. If you go nine innings, the blanket helps with the mess.

Bullet wounds are for bragging about at the bar, but major head trauma is a gift that keeps on giving. It erases the memory of the event and affects them forever. If the law lets them skate, you can still be comforted by the pudding above their shoulders. If the worst possible scenario unfolds, an intruder who dies a baseball bat death is open and shut for most investigators.

The best part is that you can use it for baseball almost all of the time.

Or maybe they are just overly paranoid. Or as they say " Are you paranoid ENOUGH? "

But to be more specific, I am talking about friends ( and I use that term loosely ) that seem overly eager to use the guns. But in their mind, there is palpable trouble in every parking lot. Mostly from black people and other minorities.

It weakens their case, in my opinion. I'm not saying " Therefore there IS not a case to be made." I'm saying there is a OFTEN a reason. But the people who are so eager to tell me they wn a gun never really experience that case.

That's my circumstance. I have the ability to realize that it's not always the case. But they make it hard sometimes.

And the founding fathers stuff doesn't work on me for this one. There are plenty more worthy points that could convince me of that. There just are.

A bat is better than nothing.

However, problems with a baseball bat include the need to get close to the intruder, along with the reality that the assailant may be armed with a gun, knife, or other perhaps more lethal weapon.

And the fact that you have to cock it to get much punch telegraphs when and where you're striking. This makes it easier to defend against.

Herb

Herb, if he is a threat in my home, I can move silently anywhere in here. I know my hardwood floors -- he does not. Remember, if you let them poke around, be comfortable and get busy thieving, it is a helluvalot easier to knock their brains out. Get 'em with an armload of stuff.

This is not about confrontation at all. This is about a quick and potentially quiet solution to a very very rare problem. I do not want to be seen, heard or remembered by the perp. The neighbors need not be disturbed at a late hour, but if it is necessary, like many neighborhoods, we are armed to the teeth.

Knife? No sweat at all -- especially with a blanket. Gun? Yeah, a problem if you are surprised, but having a gun in your face and a gun in the nightstand is useless in any case. A gun in the back of his pants when his arms are full of stereo gear? No sweat.

When I lay back and wait for the pitch, I can hit a softball over 300 feet with a short swift stroke. My windup is faster than cocking a pistol or pumping a shotgun. It is all about the element of surprise Herb. Remember hide and seek? Or capture the flag?

"This is about a quick and potentially quiet solution to a very very rare problem."

I work this way too.

That's fine if the guy isn't hopped up on meth or PCP, I guess.

Whatever defends the innocent from a potentially lethal intruder. A man's house is his castle...especially with the human beings in it.

Herb

Meth is cool isn't it? It sure is great that a bunch of whiny snotheads are more important than every other member of the population. Cowboy up, grab a hanky and blow you sissy. I am tired of seeing people hurt for your blessed sinuses. Hey wheezy, folks are dying every day for your beak.

Perhaps if the Kleenex Army had local honey -- like every sane person in the uncounted millennia before allergy pills -- we all might have a natural solution to both problems. Of course it would hurt the pharmamonsters and large agribusiness, but so what? We can practically ban smoking, but not one kind of allergy medicine?

If only people were less selfish about their hypochondria, but this is the age of the miracle pill. In a more enlightened era, we could have threads to talk about the joy of neighbors coming over for a barbeque, instead of discussions about the potential demise of uninvited guests hopped up on bathtub cocaine.

Chickenjuggler took the words right out of my mouth. Those that brag about guns have small dicks and are paranoid. Period. The odds of actually needing a gun because of an intruder is statistically small (just like their penis). I think it's more of a fantasy for the paranoid/small dick crowd to actually think about the possibility of using the gun on an intruder.

I think the Louisville Slugger, signed by Johnny Bench, will do just fine should someone decide to enter my home unannounced. And in fact, should that happen, brain damage would be a best case scenario. I'll go Marsellus on those muthafuckas.

Littlesongs said: We can practically ban smoking, but not one kind of allergy medicine?

This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our judicial system and the morons that have been elected.

I have Spring Hay Fever and I take Drixoral for it. For me, it works great. It doesn't make me sleepy and keeps me breathing freely for 10-12 hours with one pill.

I used to be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick up several boxes of it when it was on sale and I'd be set for the season.

Not anymore. Because our judicial system would rather punish the law abiding citizens rather than go after the meth cookers and crack heads, I now have to take a silly little card to the Pharmacist and give them my driver’s license and sign for them. And I can only buy 1 box at a time.

Sometimes I go from store to store and buy a box at each store on the same day in hopes that it will piss off some moron that made the rules. Also when I sign for the pills, I usually sign it Joe Blow, put an "X", or scribble, or I write "Signed under Duress". Hopefully it'll piss off somebody!

See, the cops are too busy giving people tickets for not wearing their seat belts or having a burned out headlight. They don't have time to go after the druggies.

Actually what it boils down to be is that busting a meth cooker costs the city/county money. Writing tickets generates revenue for city/county.

Don't let anyone try and fool you. It all hinges on the almighty dollar.

It is moronic things like this that the government does that piss me off so badly that I'm at the point where the bumper sticker I saw a few years back is going to be my new political mantra: NEVER Reelect ANYONE.

BOOM!

There, my 14 y/o son took care of that 250lb intruder banging on the front door. Heh. Wait. It was me. My son shot ME! I lost my keys and was pounding on the door trying to wake someone up. Aw geez. I'm in Heaven now. Bummer. Hey, its God! DD's not coming up to Heaven, right? (God shakes his head.) Jerry Falwell is not here either, right? (Shakes head again.)

OK....enough already...everyone skip the guns and get these:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6816080958753001860&q=blow+darts&total=9 25&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Multi-use and non-lethal!

Darktemper, Tanks for that link to the blow darts.

While watching it I found this one.

For anyone that plays darts, this is cool and a dream (At least the way I play it is!)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6244483407818881146

Sorry for the hijack!

Good hijack here! This brings back some great childhood memories!

That's a great video! "Direct Hit!"

Anyway, as kids we made blow darts that were quite potent. Say what you want, I was young, living in a small town ok? Got on the idea from some jungle movie, shown on KPTV. It was literally, "Hey! Let's go make blow darts! Ok. Cool."

We didn't shoot anybody. I suspect if we had, it would have been serious. And some people are worried about guns and kids? (we didn't ask to make the dart guns, just made them, went to the back 40 and used them.) Heh...

Half the fun was shooting the darts, seeing who got good at it. The other half was the search for the sweet combination of dart construction and overall tube length. Somebody was always coming up with a better dart.

The only way to play darts, IMHO.

No Problem!

I "Aim To Please"!

HA

The Media and Gun Control.....

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/eoc/2007/pdf/eoc-20070827.pdf