Criminal Justice

"I support strict gun control because our addiction to guns has had two centuries to work and it has not succeeded in making us safer."

Oil "addiction"; gun "addiction". a big word to belittle anyone whom doesnt share your views. Condecending creep!

Gun rights are not about just crime. The right to keep arms is to keep a tyranical goverment in check. Hitler took away all the guns before he sent millions to their deaths.

There's going to come a day when a criminal can get a gun and you (a law abiding citizen) can't.  Look at how many innocent people die every year because they don't have a gun in order to protect themselves.  Let's face reality, stricter gun control  laws won't prevent criminals from murdering innocent people.  Keepon living in your FANTASY WORLD if that's what you think.

If guns don't reduce crime, then why outlaw them?

Why don't we put the focus on what ACTUALLY DOES cause crime?

It is not guns that cause violence it is our acceptance of violence. The majority probably over 90% of gun owners are law abiding citizens who have obtained our weapons legally. It is our violate society that causes murder. I suspect that our crime rate appears higher here in America because we prosecute crimes to a greater degree. Our prisons are over crowded because they are full of people with minor drug offences.
I oppose a national or any other kind of gun registry because it would ally an occupying government to round up all of our arms. That is the reason for the second admenment. Wer not focus our efforts on controling guns but controling the reckless use of guns. I suggest that armed gangs that commit crimes and murder be charged with terason.  As long as the government allows gansters to roam the streets in armed gangs I will contine to but and stock pile guns and amination. I have the right to own any weapon that can be used againt me.

"More guns means more gun suicides"

As a libertarian and a gun-owner I find this statement to be absolutely ridiculous.  Every individual owns their body and has the right to end their life whenever they please.  Who cares if they use a gun as a means to end their life or use the services of Dr. Kevorkian?   

Yes. Where would draw the line? Knives kill people. Don't forget cars. It is ridiculous to outlaw eveything that is harmful or could get one killed. Alcohol kills more people than guns. We tried to outlaw it but failed twice. There is always some do gooder that wants to outlaw something.

Hello.

I'm French, but I'm interested in this debate, because this question is very often approached in our english lessons. I want to give you a point of view from another country about guns. Here, in France, to possess a guns need an administrative authorization. And carry it in the public territory is forbidden, except for those who have another administrative authorization.

Few people have weapons : hunters, policemen, etc. In France, the recents riots of december 2006 causes a great shock, because fifty policemen were shot at, with small shot. A lot of policemen are wounded during duty, but very few are killed. Also, we have few murders.

In America, your gun's right is scary, because you have the impression you are alone to defend yourself. The great problem is : now you have hundred of millions weapons in the street, what can you do to prevent them to be in the wrong hand ?

For me, as non-american, I always hope that one day, you will succeed to create a society where having guns is not considerered as a right or as a need.

To the argument "knives also kills people", I'll quote Paul Giamatti in "Shoot'em Up" :
"Stop with that : guns don't kill people. But it's sure it help make it !".

Have a nice day ;).

The 2nd Amendment was obviously written at a time when the use of firearms was necessary for basic survival.  Without taking that basic right away, there is ample evidence for the need of responsible gun-control laws.  The paranoid argument of "Don't take my guns away!" should be replaced with "How can I reduce gun violence?"  The only realistic way to achieve reduced gun violence is to immediately restrict the manufacture and sale of all weapons.  As well, impose strict liabilities to the companies and retailers who sell guns when their products are used in violent crimes (we nailed the cigarette companies for their irresponsible products).

"Each year, more than a half million legal guns are stolen. Putting more legal guns in circulation would only cause this number to rise. More guns means more gun suicides, more accidents."

First of all, please provide reference to your claims in the form of footnote or properly documented references.  500K a year stolen? 

Secondly, can you tell me how many guns come into this country illegally via a shipping container or in an uninspected semi truck from Mexico?  No, you can not because less than one percent of shipping containers are actually searched/inspected. 

Thirdly, why do you think that all gun violence is the product of guns stolen from the American public?  Making guns difficult to obtain by law abiding citizens doesn't stop criminals from obtaining them illegally or from from abroad.  It only stacks the deck in the criminals favor.  They are brazen enough while knowing many of us are armed.  How do you think they will react when they know the odds are that the family they are getting ready to pillage only has a baseball bat?

"And the proposition that criminals will think twice before committing a crime because the victim might have a gun is preposterous."

I'll agree with you on this point, it won't and does not change their mind.  What's preposterous is your suggestion that we shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves.

to be completely honest, i dont have a position on this issue.  i see both sides of the debate to have valid points.  however, one thing i do not understand is the unwillingness of gun owners to have their guns registered and to go through the efforts of making sure that happens.  i know many people who own guns legally and even some who have a concealed weapons license.  they would never use their weapon for any other reason but recreation or self-defense (although, my personal opinion is that the only way to use a gun honestly in self-defense is if the other person has a gun pointed at you and by then--well, i have to imagine that it is unfortunately too late.) you have to have a license to drive a car, to own a pet, im sure some other innocuous things that no one balks at.  having a license to own a gun seems like such a non-issue to me. 

can anyone point me to a valid statistic that shows how many reported crimes where a gun has been fired involved illegal as opposed to legally owned guns?  people seem to throw out this argument all the time on both sides of the issue and im just wondering what the actual facts are in this matter.

"however, one thing i do not understand is the unwillingness of gun owners to have their guns registered and to go through the efforts of making sure that happens."Excellent question Rosanne.  Gun owners who procure their weapons legally pass an NCIS background check and the weapon is essentially tracked via the local dealer at point of sale and by whom.  "Registration" promotes a bad connotation to owners because most personal property that gets "registered" is subject to regular and reoccurring registration fees, yearly taxes, etc, much like your car or your home.  It becomes a slippery slope in that it allows the anti-gun lobby another vehicle to price Americans out of ownership.  It also causes several privacy issues.

It is not the fees. It is the fact that a gun registery would allow an occupying country to round up all guns. I support gun saftey laws and trigger locks. Anyone who allows a loaded gun to fall into the hands of a minor is and should be held responsible for that childs actions. Bbut it is up to us as citizens to control our own guns not the government. All of my guns and amination are locked away in a safe place but where I can get my habds on them if the need arises. To the anti gun lobby. No one is forcing you to own a gun or teach your childern to own them. I would like to see the world at peace but I am not stupid enough to expect terrorist to stop their war on scoiety by laying down my gun. I used a weapon in defense of my country and will use the same type of weapon to protect myself, family, property and country if need be. One da you might call on me to protect you.

Once again your first assumption that guns is the problem is faulted.
You ignore the fact that gun violence is caused by people without
regard for the law. All the gun restrictions in the world will not
keep them from obtaining guns. For the 90%+ law abiding Americans to
own guns is a right so basic to the American belief in individual
freedom. We do not reduce gun violence by taking guns away from law
abiding citizens. This ridiculous notion that that guns cause violence
keeps us looking in the wrong direction. Violence is caused by violent
people period. The focus should be on the flow on illegal weapons in
the hands of criminals. These do not come from licenced gun dealers.
We must secure our borders and stop the import of illegal weapons,
drugs and illegal aliens. I would call 12 million illegal immigrants
an invasion. It is time to call the National guard to surround the
border. Make it a crime of treason to bring weapons, drugs or people
across our boarder. Any foreign national doing so should be considered
an enemy combatant. In a time of war it is not the time to take
weapons away from those of us willing and able to defend our country.
The French position on guns allowed the Nazis to march unopposed into
Paris. I do not see America following France to surrender. Remember it
was Americans with guns who liberated you.

Also, why is this under the "Criminal Justice" category?  Shouldn't this discussion be in a Constitutional or Civil Liberties infringement section?

Oh yea, I forgot.  Guns and Crime are synonymous issues to the Left.

I suppose we should outlaw vehicles as well. I would be safe to say more than 30,000 people die from vehicular accidents each year. Its not the gun it is the person behind the gun. I am a non-gun owner and do not wish to own.
criminals buy guns on the black market. Rmember prohibition of alcohol. Nascar evolved from illegal liquor sales and distribution rings.

Say we outlaw vehicles. I am safe to say more than 30,000 people die due to vehicular accidents. People kill not guns, get it right. Cars do not kill people driving them do. If we do not have guns as the forefather feared, a dictator will cease the power and we will have rule by tyranny. The guns will be had as alcohol was in prohibition, as cocaine and crack is today, as methane is today, as abuse of pharmaceutical drugs are today.  Be real. Honor the constitution.

If you want to change the constitution and get things done, Lets have it amended to limit the terms of congress and senate to two terms. Then we would get things done.

Thanks everyone for your comments (except the person who called me a condescending creep, of course).

I think there are lots of great points here, and I want to respond to a few. First of all, I got the 500K stat from the NPR debate linked above, and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 600,000 guns were stolen in burglaries in 1997 (an old number, I realize). A USA Today article found that 131,000 guns were reported stolen in 2001 (the true number is probably higher because not all stolen guns were reported). http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm

I think I may not have been clear enough in my post, but I advocate gun control, not banning guns.

I believe in licensing (I think that civil liberties need to be balanced against public safety). I think the number of weapons a person can buy should be limited, to avoid black market resale to criminals. (There's no reason to allow someone to buy 80 guns in a day). California limits purchasers to one handgun per 30 days, which I think is perfectly reasonable.

And Daniel makes a good point above - guns don't commit crimes, people do. They are the tool used in many crimes. We are a violent society, and we have to deal with the causes of our violence (Our rate of violent crime is higher than other countries, not just our rate of prosecutions for violent crime). But while we're dealing with this difficult issue, let's pass responsible gun laws to keep guns off the black market and out of the hands of criminals.

Many of you make strong civil liberties arguments for gun rights. But do they reduce crime? We heard from Phil, who has personal experience protecting himself with a gun, and I'm sure his experience is not uncommon.

But if every American had a gun and carried it full time, as he suggests, would we see a drop in crime, or an increase?

If every law abiding citizen carried a gun it would reduce crime. Crimials prey on the weak not the armed.

Daniel, it's a revisionist position. We lose the war of France in 1940, because our army wasn't strong enough to stop the germans. The army is supposed to fight against invaders, because that's their jobs and they are trained to do it. And that was not old American farmers with old-timed Winchester who came in France in 1944, it was young GI's, trained as soldiers and fighting near some French to liberate Europe. The right to carry guns had nothing to deal with the 6th June 1944.

Do you think about yourself as a soldier ? Do all Americans trained in Marines bases ? I think that if you want a safer society, you have to put a little peace factor in it : if everyone has a weapon, damages are more importants. Everybody armed, at all moment of the day, doesn't seem to me to be the happiest society. Do you think that everybody should go to work, to travel, to the supermarket, to the church, to family dinners, to school with a gun and a bulletproof vest ?

If you answer yes to my question, I think you'd better come to Europe and see how we live, before criticize our way of life.

Yes, we frenchies are not armed. No, we don't need it to defend ourselves. No, it's not a constitutional right, but it doesn't prevent us to buy weapons or using it, because we have a strong law about it, which makes a difference between a competition weapon, a hunt rifle and a .45 pistol. And, today, we could be proud to tell the world that any french student came in a french high school to make a slaughter with a gun : these things never happens here.

I think the great problem you have to face is : how can you pass through your actual situation, where everybody got a weapon, to reach a situation were everybody could live in peace without guns at all moment of the day ? Wouldn't feel liberated to live without the fear of being attacked ?

It seems clear that if nobody had guns we would all be safer.  You just have to look at just about every other developed country in the world.  The vast majority have much stricter gun control laws and, surprise surprise, they shoot each other a lot less often than we do.

However my feeling is basically that the cat is already out of the bag.  With 240 million guns already in the country the criminals are going to be able to get their hands on them and I don't see a realistic way of getting to the point where that is no longer the case.

I'm concerned about the belief that guns would cause or prevent crime.  An individual is not motivated to commit an illegal act by owning or having access to a gun.  They are motivated by money, drugs or whatever else criminals need to maintain their criminal existence. 

I also do not believe that having an armed society will reduce crime as Daniel points out.  It will reduce the number of victims of crime in the short term.  However, criminals are like viruses or bacteria, they will learn to adapt and develop new tactics (think in terms of computer hackers...no software or computer hardware is completely impervious for long).  It is the behavior and motivations that must be addressed, not the tools and accessories that are involved.  If we subscribe to that belief why don't we go after the get-away car as well?

P.L., thank you for your thoughts on this issue and I can understand your far off view of America.  However, living and working in the 4th largest city in this GREAT country has its risks and rewards.  Personal defense is a must and my government will never be able to make the guarantee that criminals won't be able to access firearms from illegal black/grey markets.  If they legislate anti-gun laws guess what?  Criminals won't adhere to them, they are criminals and don't abide the law.  As Mark D. has very pointedly observed the cat is indeed out of the bag.  It has been since 1776 and then reinforced again in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.  Consider why our forefathers made the right to bear arms the second in a list of 12 amendments (there were originally 12 put forth to congress in 1789), right after the First amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They wanted to make sure we knew we had the right to protect the first amendment, because without free speech, press and petition this country would cease to exist.

As far as limiting the number of guns, keep in mind that a law such as that could impact a persons livelihood.  Think it through carefully before telling someone to find another way to put food on the table.  Many of us are enthusiasts (the only thing I hunt is paper targets) and collectors, no different than people who deal in high end sports cars, coins or vintage skateboards (believe it or not, there is a market for vintage boards).

Also...think about the fact the Chicago and Washington D.C. have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books.  Take a look at their crime rates (murder in particular) compared to other large cities. Specifically, large metropolises is Texas where concealed carry is common. Has more gun control helped their populations?

It is the price of freedom. But I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. You can keep you gun free society and I'll keep my society free with guns.

Matt,Thanks for the leads on the stolen gun numbers.  Some of those are quite old.  I would think that reliable, current numbers could be mined from state crime stats or insurance databases. I realize reliable unbiased research is difficult to come by. Some of those numbers come from sources like the "Americans for Gun Safety Foundation" or other gun control or other foundations with an agenda.  If we can agree to leave biased sources out, I promise not to spout out any NRA stats!

"Now, with the election of Barack Obama as the next President, gun sales have spiked as enthusiasts fear (contrary to his record and his stated positions) that he’s a “gun-snatcher.”"

According to his record, huh? In the 1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire, he was asked:

"35. Do you support state legislation: 
a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?
Yes. 
b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?
Yes."

Notice the word POSESSION.

He has also stated that he supports:

-Banning the sale of ammuniton for assault weapons
-Limiting the sale of handgun ammuniton
-500% tax on ammunition
-Eliminating right-to-carry laws

NOBAMA....Keep the change.

I am calling BS on this one. The US does not have the highest murder rate. Colombia does. In fact, the US murder rate rankst 24th  in the world. Quit it with the LIES already.
BB 

Confirmed...a quick google provides several references that show a murder rate of between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100K from 2000 to 2007.  Placing us around 24th for homicide.

Frenchee I fought for my country and will always bare arms in defence of my country. I was not saying farmers with Winchesters saved France. I know history. France surrendered to save Paris from destruction. Because France had a national gun registry the Nazis were able to march and take away all your guns.
We don't go around armed to a tee. We walk around free but unafraid. We are at war now. Where have you been sleeping. Terrorist are reason enough for me to continue stocking up on weapons and animation  If you don't like guns don't have them around. And don't worry the average American is are fun loving peace loving people.

If the people on the 9/11 planes had guns, would 9/11 have occurred? I rest my case.
At the rate which America is arming itself, we will have the equivalent of a plane filled with all armed passengers.  If the powers that be try something like removing the 2nd amendment from the Constitution, think about why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution in the first place. 
The government works for us and not vice versa, and they have not been listening very well to the American people, like the 90+% of citizens against the Bailout Bill.  With a 91% disapproval rating of our government, their time is coming to an end.

Daniel Ford writes:

"If every law abiding citizen carried a gun it would reduce crime. Crimials prey on the weak not the armed."

"I oppose a national or any other kind of gun registry because it would ally an occupying government to round up all of our arms."

I wonder how many more criminals we would make if every law abbidding citizen carried guns?  I simply cannot disagree more with this kind of silly argument.  Explain to me why countries like the United Kingdom have stricter gun control laws than we do and suffer less gun related crimes?

What occupying government were you referring to?  Last I checked that is not a serious threat for the US.  I do not mean to demean the rights of those Americans who would like to hold up in their respective homes and wait for the "big one"; however this is the paranoid argument made by many with little else to say.

Gun control is classist, racist, and sexist. I don’t support those things. The liberal thing to do would be to support personal liberty by opposing gun-laws and other government control schemes. We need to progress toward a future of freedom, not a system that reenacts past tyrannies. Why are gun control advocates so anti-freedom?

Since you are in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership, which is one of the enumerated rights in the Constitution, then you would of course be in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on free speech. For instance, the use of polysyllabic words should be restricted since they can confuse and anger the ignorant. Sentence structures should be limited to 10 words or less. Any words expressing certain ideas should be banned outright. Also, bans and "reasonable restrictions" should extend to what you are allowed to do in your own home, or on private property.

Folks, until you can regulate the human heart, you'll never get the world you want. On October 11, 1798, John Adams said in a speech the following words, "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

You, we, keep electing public figures who are utterly devoid of morality. We elect Presidents who cannot keep their pants zipped (Clinton, Democrat). We elect Senators who cannot resist fornicating in airport restrooms (Craig, Republican). We elect drunks who convict untried Marines in the press (Murtha, Democrat). We elect pedophiles who take advantage of their positions to exploit teenaged boys (Foley, Republican). We elect corrupt bribe takers who can be bought for a paltry few tens of thousands of dollars (Jefferson, Democrat). We elect pork barrel specialists who would fleece the taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars for bridges to nowhere (Stevens, Republican). We elect congressmen who's gay lovers run prostitution services out of their apartments, while the congressman simultaneously conducts an affair with an executive of the same bank which the congressman's committee is responsible for regulating (Frank, Democrat).

Do you get my drift here? What does it say about the morality of the electorate if THESE are the charlatans we keep sending back to Washington, and to whom we entrust our hard earned tax dollars? They are merely a reflection of us. You want moral government? Elect moral people. Period. If you elect moral people, then they show the rest of us the way, and perhaps the public morality improves. When the public morality improves, crime goes down. Period.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist so that I can hunt. It doesn't exist so that I can defend my home - although both of those propositions are legitimate. No. The 2nd Amendment exists so that The People will have recourse against a tyrannical government. You don't believe that to be true? Go read what the founders themselves said about why they included that Amendment. In fact, that is a valuable exercise for the entire Bill of Rights. If you have not read the Federalist Papers for yourself, then you are operating from a position of ignorance. Do not be ignorant. EDUCATE yourselves. Don't take MY word for it, and don't take Barack Obama's word for it either. DO IT. Do not be ignorant about your own Constitution. It's not a complicated document, and it was kept that way deliberately.

The bottom line is that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is what anchors and protects your other rights, particularly the one which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Chuck Hinshaw said, "Explain to me why countries like the United Kingdom have stricter gun control laws than we do and suffer less gun related crimes?"

Chuck, have you been reading the British papers lately? They STILL have gun crimes, only now, the law-abiding are no longer able to defend themselves. Now the Brits are talking about outlawing knives. So, a law-abiding man will not be able to defend himself with a knive against a criminal attacker armed with a knife or a gun. Where does it end, Chuck? British criminals don't care about their silly laws.

Are you going to outlaw baseball bats next? When you ban guns, you accomplish two very undesireable results: 1) you create a whole new pool of disarmed potential victims for predatory criminals; and 2) you instantly criminalize 100 million or more of your previously law-abiding fellow citizens. What's next? Kristallnacht?

I was under the impression that in the UK they are now making more restrictive laws regarding kitchen knives.

So now it isn't the guns, it is the knives.  Where does it end?  No one sees the Human Factor here?

Where is the human factor if everyone is forced to carry a gun for is own life ? As European, I pity you to live in a society like that. Where I live, I never saw a real gun, except in policemen or hunters, and we have only 400 homicides per year for 65 millions of people.

What you don't seem to understand is that your liberty allow an easiness to access to a gun and commit suicide or offense to laws. If I have access to a gun, it's easier to make a bank robbery : I have only access to forks, and I don't think that it's make me really dangerous for others or myself *joke*.

What I can't understand is what it brings to you, to your liberty, to be able to carry a gun. A gun is something created to kill or threatened. Without guns, you wouldn't have to fear for your life or family.

I have to comment on the last comment here about "without guns, you wouldn't have to fear for your life or family." If we didn't have guns. Criminals would find other ways to kill. They can easily get a knife (which causes more damage than a gunshot wound), a baseballs bat, gold club, 2x4, rope, a vehicle, glass bottles, and THE HUMAN HAND.

To the Europeans on here against owning firearms. Our country hasn't been since our revolution and probably never will be invaded half because of our civilians owning firearms. Just like the successful Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, we are a massive secondary army and WE are not afraid to fight for our freedom. Our military's soldiers are superior to other militaries partly due to them being raised with firearms and how to responsible own and operate them. You Europeans say to come to Europe and see how your lives are without guns. What happened in World War 2? We are two different people and cultures. Come to the United States and drive through a bad neighborhood at night. You may be attacked by numerous gang bangers or low lifes with clubs, knifes, or being assaulted by their fists or feet, not really by guns. So what you are saying is that you shouldn't have the right to protect yourself from say 5 guys without guns but with a dangerous weapons. The law abiding citizen is not out there committing crimes with guns. Criminals will always have access to weapons such as guns or non firearm weapons. Just like illegal drugs, you will never stop illegal gun ownership. The only realistic way to stop violence is to kill every human on this planet.

Now for those who support suing gun makers if one of their guns was involved in a crime. Now that is completely retarded and so are the supporters. If you can sue a gun maker then people should be able to sue knife and silverware, automobile, baseball bat, golf club, lumber, tool, chemical, rope, steel toed boot, steel, pillow, plastic bag, and most of all GOD for giving us hands and feet that we can use to kill with. Why aren't we suing the Russians for the AK-47. That rifle is used in a lot of crimes of criminals due to it being massed produced by countries which are not American. If we are going to sue gun makers. Let do it right and sue everyone who creates something used as a weapon. Its only fair.

Instead of creating strict gun laws or banning them to unsuccessfully control firearms crimes. Educate children early in school about firearms, especially those whose parents own them but didn't teach them proper ownership and safety. My 7 year old daughter has never tried to mess with any of my guns which she has easy access too because of my teachings. She even owns 2 rifles and owns them safely and properly. If children are kept from guns. They will not understand the dangers and responsibility. Then you will have another Columbine massacre. Create stricter sentences for criminals who commit crimes with weapons. Doesn't that sound smarter. But that won't stop firearms crimes but it may reduce it some. The best way to reduce firearms crimes is education and allowing children who never operated a firearm there chance in a safe environment so they know the potential dangers and consequences.

Some politicians want to restrict the number of rounds my magazines can hold. Wither I have 2 15 rounds mags or 3 10 round mags. I will still have 30 rounds and it only take me 1 to 3 seconds to chance them. But most of all, it only takes 1 bullet to kill. During the wild west, they used 6 shooters and crime wasn't curbed cause of the small number of rounds their guns held. During the period when all guns were single shot muzzle loaders and black powder guns. People were still shot. They want to ban guns with a pistol grip or foreword pistol grip. What relevance does that have with the path of the bullet. Some want to ban certain calibers. Wither you shoot someone with a .22 LR or a .50 BMG. You will still most likely kill them. In fact, a lot of crimes are committed with a .22 LR due to it being quiet, compact, and the bullet won't over travel.

Now for assault weapon haters. A assault weapon is a gun capable of full auto or fires a burst of rounds. But again, it only takes 1 bullet to kill. What is the problem of owning a assault weapon look alike such as an semi auto AR-15? They are reliable rifles that can be used for hunting, target practicing, and self defense in the right environments. Most of us assault weapon look a likes are former soldiers. They may be scary to some. But the legal owners of those weapons aren't out committing crimes with them. Many legal gun owners especially who hunt are just as deadly with a bow or crossbow. Those take time to reload and cause serious injury and people use them in crimes due to the inability to trace the arrow. Assault weapon look a likes or any semi auto weapons do not kill people. People kill people.

Lets stop blaming crimes on certain weapons unless we are going to blame all possible weapons. But lets be real. Weapons don't kill people. People kill people. If one wants to kill are harm someone. They will do it any way they can. I do not support allowing those who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. But they will get them anyways or some type of weapon. Why do some want to make it a crime to have the means of defending ourselves, family, home, and way of life. The American revolution was fought and won my gun bearing civilians hence our second amendment right. Now with the way the world is heading and the way other think of Americans. Does gun control for the law abiding citizens sound very smart. Our soldiers and police can't be there for us all the time. People will not give up their legal weapons if labeled illegal. Creating strict gun ineffective gun laws will just help the law abiding citizen easily commit a crime. Its not us society has to worry about. Its the criminal who will get what he wants or is set in that frame of mind. As a member of the NRA, I take gun education very seriously and I will volunteer my time to anyone to properly educate them in the safe operation and ownership regardless of age.

Who "is forced to carry a gun for his own life"?  In the United States we have a Constitutional right to maintain a militia and an individual right to bear arms, and this right is not to be infringed.

We grew up with over 200 years of enjoying this right.  The "right" is not an obligation to the citizenry of our country to do so.  If you do not want to bear arms, you do not have to.

I am one of those people that have a license to carry a concealed weapon.  I have been through an extensive background check.  I had to prove that I am current on child-support payments, student-loan repayments, never been charged with passing bad-checks and have no Felonies or serious Misdemeanors.

My intent in carrying a weapon is to protect myself and my family during that interval in time when a crime is committed that threatens our lives and when the police can actually be contacted and respond.  The average police response in the US is minutes.  Violent crime normally takes place in seconds.  Since I am not a President with a Secret Service contingent for protection, and I do not see Law Enforcement Officers following me around just to make sure that I am okay, I choose to accept responsibility for my families personal safety. 

And in all that time, I have never drawn my weapon.  I hope it stays that way.

I would say to Robert Nash that Europeans had World War 2 sixty years ago because of a European State (so far I remember, Canada never try to invade US...), but we never have any Columbine, Virginia tech or Red Lake slaughters today, to take the more shockings facts.

Your arguments aren't all false, but there's still the problem of the dead. USA have the record of the death by firearm (except conflicts zones) in the world. You see, I have think to emigrate to US, but I don't want to fear for my children's life.

We have a different way to envisage our lifes : it's not a reason to not be respectful to each other.

For those who have a few notions of french, I propose these report of the Group of Research & Information for security and peace.

http://www.grip.org/bdg/g4568.html

Have a nice day ;).

Leave our rights our rights.
In Jacksonville just this morning around 8:30 am, a wife of one of our workers was acosted at the post office by a gold tooth, knife yeilding perpetrator. He grab her by the hair threw her to the ground kicked her several times and cut her shirt with a knife. He wanted her money of which she had none. Did I mention she has a 14 month baby girl in the car! She does know how to shoot, however, she does not have a gun permit at this time. If she had a permit and gun this predator would not be able to harm another defenseless woman or worse yet "RAPE HER, KILL HER In front of her precious adorable baby" . The police officer advised her to get her classes for ownership of concealed weapon.
As a husband  and father of four who is not every moment with my wife  and family it was eye opening to see her fear. We need to protect ourselves. Go to hell with your comments of gun laws. You people are out of touch with the reality this world has become. Wake up you people singing cum-bye-ya with your heads in the sand. As the great one says "Get off the phone you Dummy".
Guns for those who desire them legally!!!!!!!

Bruce C.,
I have heard that using reasonable arguments in favor of gun rights should be replaced by appeals to emotion.
Is that what you are attempting to do here?

Chuck Hinshaw wrote:

"I wonder how many more criminals we would make if every law abbidding citizen carried guns? "

Eh?  I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Are you saying that by virtue of carrying a gun people would be compelled to commit crimes?

As far as the UK, you know they have a very different philosophy when it comes to law enforcement and what is also known as population control?  They have spent billions in their large cities to make sure that everything is on camera. Everything.  Big Brother to say the least.  This is an experiment that the rest of world is eagerly awaiting the results on.  Granted, they have less crime, but they also don't have as many large populated cities as we do.  Their population just passed 61 million.  We're right around 325 million.

But, I digress.  What's with your original comment on guns making criminals out of everyone who owns them?  Did I miss a study?  Please provide some references on this phenomenon of good citizens turned criminal by having possession of a firearm.

Chris Smith challenged me to educate myself regarding this issue and its constitutional connection.  I will.  Chris you have made an effective argument because I have maintained a position against unrestricted gun ownership simply because of things I have heard or read in news.  I would like to think there is some common sense position in all of this. 

I have never been an advocate of taking guns from responsible owners.  I just don't understand how we can assume everyone is a responsible gun owner he/she proves.  What can we do as a nation to reduce gun (weapon related) crimes?

I wrote:  "I have never been an advocate of taking guns from responsible owners.  I just don't understand how we can assume everyone is a responsible gun owner he/she proves.  What can we do as a nation to reduce gun (weapon related) crimes?"

Should read: I have never been an advocate of taking guns from responsible owners.  I just don't understand how we can assume everyone is a responsible gun owner until he/she proves otherwise.  What can we do as a nation to reduce gun (weapon related) crimes?

Sorry for the poor grammer.

Pierre L the U.S. is a safe place to live.  You sound like you believe we are a bunch of barbarians with guns and are just running around shooting everyone.  If you have lived here or spent alot time here, you would probably feel more comfortable with us ownnig firearms.  For 200 plus years, firearms have been part of our lives.  We use them responsibly except for the criminals, which will commit violent crimes anyways just as in your country or any other.  If you are so against owning a firearm.  Then don't buy one, but whats good for you isn't good for everyone.  People will kill some other way if you take all guns away.  I have read about criminals in France committing crimes with firearms and the victims don't have the means to defend theirselves.  Is that the life you want to live?  I have friends in England who own a bar that periodically gets robbed by criminals with guns and they have no way to defend their lives.  They have been beaten many times.  Police depts can't afford to give everyone their own personal police officer.  England has a firearms ban and doesn't France?  And look at the firearms crimes committed.  I have spent time all over Europe and have witnessed some violent acts or watched your news shows.  Your gun controls don't work.  Here in the U.S. whos states allow concealed carry handguns which we have to take special training and a background criminal investigation to obtain a permit.  There is statistical proof that crime including murders has decreased in those states.  Florida and Texas are ones who brags about that.  Do some research on that especially if you plan on moving here.  You and your family will be safe as long as you don't move to or hang out in bad neighborhoods.  Now for that Canada statement.  Why would they invade us.  We would whip there behinds.  Besides, they are our buddies, A!  I mentioned about someone never invading us, but I didn't mention any countries names.  I understand you are afraid because you are not used to being around decent people owning firearms.  When you have spent some time here, you will understand our views and come to enjoy our constitutional right.           

After I posted my last comment.  I did a search of countries and their murder statistics.  Their were about 7 countries on the list at nationmaster.com and I added their murders per captia and Europe has a higher murder rate compared to the U.S.  And that wasn't including the European part of Russia, which would dramatically raised the numbers.  The U.S. has a little over 303,000,000 people.  Europe has around 731,000,000 per wikipedia.com  And the U.S. murder rate per capita (1000 people) is much lower than Europe.  Most of those countries have strict gun control, but criminals are still using firearms.  What about the good people who can't defend theirselves and families? 

I carry a gun because a cop is to heavy enough said

In this country we need to enforce the gun laws that are on the books, not ban guns! All too often criminals that use guns are not convicted properly based on their use of guns during their crimes! All too many judges are simply soft on crime, and appear to believe that a second chance is deserved by all criminals. When we as a nation properly handle the criminals then we won't be seeing the guns deaths we see and hear of in this country.

Also, I believe some of the statistics cited by the original writer of this article are in error. In most states where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons crime does drop. I believe this is due to the criminals realizing that they are not the only ones that are armed!

Further, the very fact that we as a nation are still free says something for gun ownership! Any country that would ever attempt to breach our shores would have to realize that we are a free people and would do whatever we would need to do to keep our freedom intact! I will always hope that we the people can keep our guns!

You can't compare the U.S. with small European countries. The U.S. is large geographically and diverse.
I live in a relatively small town in Kentucky, and I don't own a gun. If someone is breaking into my home and I call 911, the police will be here in a matter of moments. However, my 71-year-old mother lives 13 miles from the nearest town. If she calls 911, it could take 45 minutes or more for the sheriff's department to get to her house. Does she own guns? Yes, she does, and she know how to use them. In more than one highly publicized case, elderly women have held criminals at bay with guns while waiting for police. In one case, the woman even made the criminal call the police himself.
Furthermore, Kentucky is a poor state where many people still put food on their tables by hunting. A deer in the freezer goes a long way to getting a family through the winter months, when there are few paying jobs to be had.
I don't think the federal government should be making strict gun control laws. The states know what is best for the citizens.

Lisa Dunbar said:
"I don't think the federal government should be making strict gun control laws. The states know what is best for the citizens."

Well said.

Lisa. What part of. "shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

God bless all of these pro-gun conservatives.  The question should not be, "Do guns reduce crime."  It should be, "How will law-abiding citizens defend themselves from gun-carrying criminals, etc."  God forbid any anti-gun legislation.  Without guns we will neither be safe from the criminal element nor "jack-booted thugs" in an out of control government.  The Second Amendment was written to protect us from both.

Obama and his gun hating politicians want to creat and enforce strict gun control.  All they are going to do is cause the law abiding citizens to be criminals.  We aren't going to give up our weapons that the government wants to label illegal.  Criminals such as the mafia and gangs are able to get full auto weapons.  Those aren't legal to own.  How do they get them?  If the government tries to take our guns.  Those criminals are still going to get those full autos or any other weapon.  Illegal guns are just like drugs.  You can't stop them from being smuggled.  Why should the law abiding citizen pay the penalty for these criminals that will NEVER be disarmed. 

With alot of the senate, house, and congress elected officials for 2009 being Democrate and mostly gun haters.  This scares me.  I have a feeling their gun controls plans are going to cause alot of chaos between the people and the government and start kind of another civil war.  If you are not a member of the NRA.  I urge you to join and help support our rights.

Finally, we've elected a Democrat to the White House!  And we’ve elected more Democrats to the House and Senate.  Please don't blow it for the 2010 election by resurrecting the gun control farce.  The NRA got Bush elected twice by energizing many millions of one-issue voters, millions more in 2004 than 2000.  This time, enough people believed that Barack Obama would not champion gun control efforts that they put aside their fears of it.  But that can easily become very temporary.

America is, and always will be, the nation with "a rifle behind every blade of grass" as well it should be.

Try to focus on the important issues at hand that really matter to our short- and long-term futures in the global marketplace that are not going to go away without our active efforts.

The problems that create violent crimes have to be solved at their roots and they do not involve the availability of guns.

If you think that banning guns will keep criminals from getting them, I'll send you a packet of information that I've sent to several Representatives and Senators describing how the cottage industry of making guns will dramatically grow and become ever more profitable.  All of us can make guns, any type of gun, from our homes or apartments without owning a single piece of equipment other than the tools commonly found in most men’s toolboxes.  No, I’m not going to describe how, although it certainly isn’t rocket science.  And selling them in a nation that has banned them, any of them, will be the easiest sale anyone can make.

In fact, those in the gun-making cottage industry are excited about the prospect of profit margins dramatically increasing from such efforts because of the much lower availability of guns.  And, as the prices of guns increase, criminals will need to obtain that money from—you guessed it:  law-abiding citizens.  Surely, you don't want to see "supply-side economics" at work in such manner.

Like a few others posting in this thread, I’ve had personal experience in protecting my life and, in this case, my wife’s.  I did it with a concealed handgun in my coat pocket; I didn’t have to draw it.  The form of the muzzle and front sight pressing against the material of my coat pocket was enough to cause two criminals to run away like Olympic sprinters.

There are already many active threads in many very active forums discussing how likely it is that we Democrats (Liberals) are going to run rampant and promote all sorts of gun control mechanisms with codes and legislation.  It's best to get real about this, put a stop to it, and do so in a hurry.  This will turn into a boil and will fester unless it is nipped in the bud.

Modern-day Democrats have much more in common with TRADITIONAL Republicans than do modern-day Republicans who are ruled by neo-cons.  That's why Obama got elected.  Let's keep it that way.

Please don't blow this opportunity to bring about the massive changes needed in our country by foolishly promoting policies related to gun control; such activities will make it extremely difficult for Democrats in 2010 and beyond.

"More guns means more gun suicides..."

This is one of the most ridiculou statements I have ever read. Have you ever spoken to someone who was seriously suicidal?

If a person is serious about killing himself, having or not having a gun is NOT going to keep him from doing it. If he has a gun, maybe he'll use that, but if he doesn't have a gun he's going to find a way to kill himself anyway.

Having a gun around would not lead someone to become suicidal and shoot himself. Chances are, anyone who uses a gun to commit suicide was going to do it anyway. So your statement, "More guns means more gun suicides," is ridiculous. Do you even have sources for these claims, or are you just making them up?

Thanks again everyone for all of your thoughtful comments - I'm really enjoying the discussion, and will continue to post on this issue in the future.

Alyssa - I just wanted to share my source about gun suicides - a Harvard School of Public Health study in 2007 found a strong connection between guns in the home and suicide rate - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

To those that point towards the terrible acts performed at Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc...I think there's one major point you're missing: these massacres occured on sites where guns were banned!  And the police response time for VA Tech in particular was downright insulting.  If just one teacher had been allowed to carry, how many fewer deaths would there have been?  If every teacher was allowed to carry, I seriously doubt the gunmen would have chosen that location to "go out, guns blazing."  (Note I say "allowed" to carry; I would not want to require it of every teacher, since each one has the right to decide if they're comfortable with it or not.)  In most instances of a lone gunner amassing substantial casualties before police arrive, you'll find they're in places where guns are prohibited (schools, malls, etc).  Not all, certainly, but then not all of the gunners were in a sound enough mind to think about what location best suited their dark agenda.

Jason I am a firm believer in the second amendment but I would strongly oppose allowing teachers to carry guns. It protects our rights own firearms not walk around armed. What you are proposing is both stupid and dangerous. What would have happened at Virgina Tech had teachers been armed would nothing less than the shoot out at the OK Carrol. It is ideas like this that give credence to anti gun legislation. The right to bare arms does not give us the right to walk around armed. That is covered in section 4 of article 4 which guarantees the right to protect from domestic violence to the states to set up police forces. This has been the opinion of the Supreme Court for 200 years. If you think it does then you are as ignorant as those who believe that the second amendment allows us to take up arms against our own leaders that would be treason.

WATCH OUT FOR BARRY'S CITIZEN SECURITY FORCE !
REMEMBER YOUR HISTORY!
FIRST THE SECURITY FORCE WAS PUT IN PLACE...
THEN OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS WERE BANNED...
THEN AFTER THE TAKE OVER THE WAR STARTED.
BUY NOW! HUNKER DOWN!
BETWEEN BARRY AND THE UN WE SHOULD BE SCARED...REALLY SCARED!

Duffy Spies,

Please confirm whether or not you're being sarcastic as I am not certain of it.

Thanks Bob because it is ignorant post like DS that make those of us who believe in the second amendment look like parinoid fools.

I was reading what Daniel Ford spoke smartly about and what Gary Nardo spoke on.  I've listen to many arguments and for and against.  Let's face it, if an individual is going to break the law, he's already made up his mind to disregard the law to start with.  Weather you have a gun, knife, or automobile. If an individual want to kill you, they will kill you with any means necessary.  That means from a sling shot to a pillow.  I have 3 guns, 357 magnum, 44 magnum and a 30-30 Marlin.  All three guns have been used to protect, gain food and target practice.  It goes back to the old saying..."Men don't kill people guns kill people."

"If every law abiding citizen carried a gun it would reduce crime. Crimials prey on the weak not the armed." Posted by Daniel Ford on 11/09/2008 @ 02:04PM PST

...did you suddenly waffle on your position, Daniel?  So it's ok for law abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themself, EXCEPT if they're a school teacher?  I think the OK Corral would have been preferable to Norris Hall.  And if more than one teacher could have responded to the shooting with adequate defense, the gunman would likely have been subdued before having a chance to "finish off" even the first room he entered, let alone the other three rooms of victims.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Funny; I don't see "only at home" in front of the comma...

No Jason. You just have not read the rest of the Constitution. Since the Constitution gives the states the right and yet duty to set up polices forces for the redress of domestic violence it is not infringing on anybodies right to allow the police to do their job. If you think that the second amendment allows walk around armed then you are no different than who believe guns are the problem. You see the Constitution assumes rightly that we are reasonalble people able to control ourselves. Your stastements would indicate utherwise. We have freedom of speech which I also cherished but reasonable people do not scream fire inacrowed theater.

-----
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse
Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:46:17 AM by Nathan Zachary WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...
-----
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/sterling/apr99.html
"
The government is not legally obligated to protect individuals, but the courts have determined that it is instituted to secure public order and safety."
-----
Their job, as the government sees it, is to restore order after a criminal incident has occurred; they are in no way obligated to prevent a murder from occurring.

"rightly assumes we are reasonable people able to control ourselves"?!?!?  What imaginary world are you living in?  If that were the case, we could close down the country's mental institutions and send everyone home, as well as release all those "wrongfully detained" pedophiles, abusive alcoholics, etc from our overcrowded prisons.  Heck, what's the use of prisons at all when we've got a country full of reasonable, self-controlled people?  You're right: my statements DO indicate otherwise. 

Your last statement isn't accurate; that would be like me walking around saying "Hey everyone, I've got a gun!...why are you running?  I'm a nice guy, really!"  That indeed would be stupid.  However, I do intend to carry a CONCEALED weapon in order to have a chance to protect myself and my family before we're killed, instead of hoping the police catch my killer AFTER they respond to the 911 call.

And why do you keep mentioning this largely ignored Section 4?
-----
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/18.html#1
"No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored."

"On the ground that the issues were not justiciable, the Court in the early part of this century refused to pass on a number of challenges to state governmental reforms and thus made the clause in effect noncognizable by the courts in any matter,"

"In recent years, the authority of the United States to use troops and other forces in the States has not generally been derived from this clause and it has been of little importance."
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Obligations_of_the_United_States
"Section Four also requires the United States to protect each state from invasion, and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence. This provision supplied the basis for President Grover Cleveland's controversial dispatch of Federal troops during the Pullman Strike. Pursuant to the clause, Congress has authorized the President through the Insurrection Act to call up the state militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
-----
Still, I don't see how laws requiring the federal government to protect a state against large civil disrest has anything to do with an individual's rights to bear arms...

I believe the words our founding fathers used were wise and prudent. No I do not live in a violent world like you. I live on my own land in a small town in western North Carolina. I am a disabled veteran and seldom leave my property. When I to go say to Charlotte I carry my gun just like you. But that would be to protect myself not appoint myself the protector of society. Your logic though leaves a door open for vigilantly justice and that is neither wise or prudent. If we gun owners don't use prudence our rights will  be abridged and we will have no one to blame. For instance I do not believe that requiring  gun manufactures to put trigger locks on guns infringes on my right to bare arms. It is wise and prudent. No criminals are neither wise nor prudent and if they use guns to commit a crime their right to own a gun should be removed forever. However I oppose the Veteran,s Disarmament Act proposed by Bush that would strip veterans like me with PTSD of our right to bare arms. I bore arms to serve my country and have the arms to do so if the need a rises. I am no threat to civilized society.
I have followed the story that you refer to closely and the title of the article in incorrect. The case however tragic did not involve inaction by the police but 911. I disagree with the court decision but it still does not justify vigilantly justice.  Had she  been carrying a gun she would have been able to defend herself. Why she did not I do not know. But to think that the incident at Virginia Tech could have been could have been avoided if teachers were armed is foolish. Imagine the chaos if not one but ten teachers had guns. How many more innocent people would have died?

Daniel Ford,
You might consider reviewing the Supreme Court decisions that state that the police have an obligation to the general public and NOT to the individual.
That means that they cannot be sued for inaction.
Since I cannot carry a Police-Officer around for my personal protection, I elect to provide for my own defense.  I even watched an extremely violent James Bond movie the other day and did not feel compelled to draw my weapon and shoot at all of my fellow movie-goers.
You might also start reading things like the Federalist papers and correspondence from the framers of the Constitution that specifically state that those who would enjoy the fruits of liberty must be ready and willing to stand up to tyranny.  I don't think that they meant by "blogging".

I have read the Federalist Papers and disagree with their narrow interpertation of the Constitution. In my  opinion John Addams was one of the worst presidents that we have ever had until Bush. He used the Alien and Sedation acts to shut down newspapers who opposed him.  The Federalist do not believe in the separation of church and state. I will not give up one precious right granted to me in the constitution. If I allow the rights of one to be abridged then all of our liberty is in danger. The second amendment is not the entire Constitution. One can not interpret the Constitution without at least a working knowledge Declaration of Independence. Federalism is tyranny!
For those who have fought it freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.

Yes, there were blunders by the 911 operator, but also by dispatched policemen:
"Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived."
-----
"Imagine the chaos if not one but ten teachers had guns. How many more innocent people would have died?"

What do you think they'd do, just start randomly shooting every student in the room until they find the gunman??  Or perhaps instead they should take up a defensive position behind a wall of their students, and hope the gunman runs out of bullets before they're forced to defend themselves?  The teachers would not have been performing "vigilante justice"; they would've in fact been defending themselves, as the professor was the first one shot in each room Cho went into.

I do believe if teachers were allowed to carry, they should have to pass a course to do so (more than just the concealed carry course), and the school should require at least yearly a refresher course be taken. And they're not going to shoot each other, just because they're carrying guns--they work together all week long, so they'd recognize each other before they even spotted the gun in their hands.  (At least, so long as they've had the slightest margin of training, which as I said, they should be required to do so if they intend to carry.)

"For those who have fought it freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know."
While not one myself, my father and wife are both war veterans; neither agrees with your stance, so don't make that assumption.

Why is it that so many champion the 1st Amendment and choose to ignore or obfuscate the plain-language of the 2nd?

That continues to amaze me.

I make no assumptions but I know that you and I have reached an empass so let us agree to disagree and move on. Good luck in all things. Thank you father and wife for your freedom and never forget the fallen. Even though I do not believe in what you say I will defend with my life you right to say it.

That sounds quite reasonable.  :)  God willing, perhaps we'll make it through the upcoming presidential administration with all our rights intact!  ;)

I skipped over the comments, so I'm sure it's been said already, but you couldn't be more correct.

How anyone thinks we can solve gun crime with MORE guns is beyond rationalization.

Brian Edmison,

I highly recommend reading the comments.  You will see many examples of rationalization clearly demonstrating the fallacy of gun control.  If you then disagree, at least you will have actually read something on the subject in this thread--in which you're posting.

Brian, Your don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up attitude is what I find irrational.  I engaged on an excellent conversation here with a man I have gained respect for ever though we share somewhat different positions. He forced me to clarify my position and even though we disagree on some major parts of this conversation I benefited from the exchange. We ended agreeing to disagree. I would think you might find an island 90 miles south of Miami that suits you way of thinking better.

If I read the comments, I will see one side set in its ways, another side set in its ways, made-up statistics, tenuous logic, probably a little name-calling... and I would've lost 20 minutes of my life I could never get back.

I'll limit my loss to one or two minutes by saying this: Gun control is the easiest "issue" of our time. It's not foreign policy, it's not even abortion. It's as close to this or that as you can get (which is exactly why it's so polarizing).

Bye.

Brian Edmison,

You demonstrate the tenuous logic of which you speak, you being on one of the sides set in its ways and all.  And, indeed, it can be polarizing, thus the need for active debate.  That ol' participation-in-our-democratic-republic thing, y' know.

"How anyone thinks we can solve gun crime with MORE guns is beyond rationalization." Posted by Brian Edmison on 11/18/2008 @ 01:49PM PST

I wholeheartedly AGREE.

...surprised?  I also believe that we won't "solve" gun crime by confiscating every gun from every law-abiding citizen in America, either.  As has been mentioned before (which you admit not bothering to read), guns are smuggled into America right along with drugs, etc.  And you can bet there'll be black-market guns hand-made in garages nationwide, as well.  Criminals will get what they need however they can; if they're willing to steal and kill for drug money, etc, what care would they have for breaking one more law by possessing a firearm they purchased off the black market?

While I don't think more guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens will solve gun crime, I do believe it will help reduce it somewhat, or at least crime in general (assaults with knives, blunt weapons, etc).

You're not going to "solve" gun crime until you manage to eliminate evil from the hearts and minds of men.  So until the second coming, I intend to stay prepared to defend myself and my family against potential gun crimes toward us.

Unfortunatly there are many armed criminals in our country and in the world. Efforts to control criminals use of guns have not been very effective (more could be done in the direction of making it harder for criminals to get illegal guns). Criminals knowing that you might have a gun is a large deterrent as they go for the easier target. Law abiding concealed gun permit holders have a very good record. Gun control as it especially applies to criminals is a very good thing. Until crime is lowered by educating/ apprenticing/ and rehabilitating criminals, private citizens need the right to have guns for their protection.

This may be closer to reality than you think You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.Sound familiar?WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION."..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Highest Murder Rate  is not USA, sorry.. try again..

# 1   Colombia:0.617847 per 1,000 people 
# 2   South Africa:0.496008 per 1,000 people 
# 3   Jamaica:0.324196 per 1,000 people 
# 4   Venezuela:0.316138 per 1,000 people 
# 5   Russia:0.201534 per 1,000 people 
# 6   Mexico:0.130213 per 1,000 people 
# 7   Estonia:0.107277 per 1,000 people 
# 8   Latvia:0.10393 per 1,000 people 
# 9   Lithuania:0.102863 per 1,000 people 
# 10   Belarus:0.0983495 per 1,000 people 
# 11   Ukraine:0.094006 per 1,000 people 
# 12   Papua New Guinea:0.0838593 per 1,000 people 
# 13   Kyrgyzstan:0.0802565 per 1,000 people 
# 14   Thailand:0.0800798 per 1,000 people 
# 15   Moldova:0.0781145 per 1,000 people 
# 16   Zimbabwe:0.0749938 per 1,000 people 
# 17   Seychelles:0.0739025 per 1,000 people 
# 18   Zambia:0.070769 per 1,000 people 
# 19   Costa Rica:0.061006 per 1,000 people 
# 20   Poland:0.0562789 per 1,000 people 
# 21   Georgia:0.0511011 per 1,000 people 
# 22   Uruguay:0.045082 per 1,000 people 
# 23   Bulgaria:0.0445638 per 1,000 people 
# 24   United States:0.042802 per 1,000 people # 25   Armenia:0.0425746 per 1,000 people 
# 26   India:0.0344083 per 1,000 people 
# 27   Yemen:0.0336276 per 1,000 people
 # 28   Dominica:0.0289733 per 1,000 people 
# 29   Azerbaijan:0.0285642 per 1,000 people 
# 30   Finland:0.0283362 per 1,000 people 
# 31   Slovakia:0.0263303 per 1,000 people
 # 32   Romania:0.0250784 per 1,000 people 
# 33   Portugal:0.0233769 per 1,000 people 
# 34   Malaysia:0.0230034 per 1,000 people 
# 35   Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of:0.0229829 per 1,000 people 
# 36   Mauritius:0.021121 per 1,000 people 
# 37   Hungary:0.0204857 per 1,000 people 
# 38   Korea, South:0.0196336 per 1,000 people 
# 39   Slovenia:0.0179015 per 1,000 people 
# 40   France:0.0173272 per 1,000 people 
# 41   Czech Republic:0.0169905 per 1,000 people 
# 42   Iceland:0.0168499 per 1,000 people 
# 43   Australia:0.0150324 per 1,000 people 
# 44   Canada:0.0149063 per 1,000 people 
# 45   Chile:0.014705 per 1,000 people 
# 46   United Kingdom:0.0140633 per 1,000 people 
# 47   Italy:0.0128393 per 1,000 people 
# 48   Spain:0.0122456 per 1,000 people 
# 49   Germany:0.0116461 per 1,000 people 
# 50   Tunisia:0.0112159 per 1,000 people 
# 51   Netherlands:0.0111538 per 1,000 people 
# 52   New Zealand:0.0111524 per 1,000 people 
# 53   Denmark:0.0106775 per 1,000 people 
# 54   Norway:0.0106684 per 1,000 people 
# 55   Ireland:0.00946215 per 1,000 people 
# 56   Switzerland:0.00921351 per 1,000 people 
# 57   Indonesia:0.00910842 per 1,000 people 
# 58   Greece:0.0075928 per 1,000 people 
# 59   Hong Kong:0.00550804 per 1,000 people 
# 60   Japan:0.00499933 per 1,000 people 
# 61   Saudi Arabia:0.00397456 per 1,000 people 
# 62   Qatar:0.00115868 per 1,000 people 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

USA has a Bill of Rights which is the second amendment

Amendment II

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.

shall not be infringed means
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

In Latin in better terms:Latin nfringere, to destroy.

OBAMA took an OATH before taking the White House over.
Which this Oath can be found in THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.. 

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So Therefore..... Obama takes our Rights to Bear Arms, only proves he is Anti - American and Anti - Consitution.And should be Impeached.

I am not a Republican or a Democratic.  I am an American who loves this country and Defend the Consitution and our Bill of Rights with my heart and voice.

It is not the use of the gun that deters crime, it is the potential that someone might have one that does. 

Police, even if they could be trusted are not everywhere and some people are physically challenged.  A weapon, mace, taser or gun increases their odds.   When my girlfriend was being stalked and assaulted she carried a knife and mace. 

If everyone were to be armed people would tend to be more "diplomatic", "polite", their behavior would be modified to be respectful. 

Having said that, this trend to be armed with automatics and even semi-automatics with long clips is offensive.  These tools are to fight off an army, spray and prey strategies result in collateral damages.

In Australia approximately 14 years ago John Howard took an incredible step towards ensuring Australia would be a securer and safer country by banning the ownership of guns without a gun license. They raided houses and removed almost every gun in Australia and this significantly reduced the crime rate. Australia did not want to end up like America.
If guns had not been banned Australia would have turned into America with all the gang shootings and threats posed to the public even in the wealthiest of neighborhoods. 
Guns are owned by some individuals in Australia illegally but the police are always trying their hardest to reduce this potential threat. 
Banning guns was one of the greatest things that John Howard did. He has made Australia one of the leading nations in the world. Banning guns lowered our crime rate and in effect increased Australia's HDI rank and increased immigration. 

If four armed police officers have trouble stopping one gun toting maniac (PARKLAND, Wash November 29, 2009), what chance  does the average gun toting citizen have? Chances are probably better that the owner's gun gets stolen and used in a crime than the the owner stopping a crime.  If a person owns a gun and it is stolen and used in a crime, the  gun owner should be held responsible too.  I say outlaw all handguns.  Rifles are still legal though. Rifles can still be used to protect your house when criminals or the government attack. You are allowed to carry your rifle with you where ever you go. Wouldn't that be a great deterent.

N S in Australia.  Please take a look at UN statistics for crime in your country.  The UK has done pretty much the same thing as Australia and yet both Commonwealth nations have an INCREASINGLY higher violent crime rate.

Nate S. Your logic for not using a handgun would apply equally to Rifles.  Shouldn't the person stealing the gun (a crime) and using it in a crime be the one that is charged?  If someone steals my car and runs someone over, should I be charged for Vehicular Manslaughter? You might want to keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that Police do not have a responsibility to protect the individual, only to society in general. A Police Officer cannot be present when you are being assaulted in a dark alley, or your door is being kicked-in by armed intruders.  I am sure that the perpetrator of such crimes is not going to sit around and wait while you dial 911, hope that the dispatcher decides your call is genuine and merits a response, and then let you wait for the first responders to appear.  You can be the victim, I won't.