Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
More people own guns in the United States than in any other country on Earth, by some estimates as many as 80 million. People purchase firearms for a myriad of reasons, but what are the larger implications? Beyond the shooting ranges and hunting trails, what lies at the heart of American gun ownership?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Make it Harder for Dangerous People to Get Dangerous Weapons
- From Brady Campaign
By The Brady Campaign - To Prevent Gun Violence
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
knmbarker
I think if one would look at the laws passed,(and for that matter proposed, one will find that the law abiding citizen is the one impacted by gun control laws. It is a hard thing to deal with the reality that criminals do not buy their guns,they steal them, and then commit crimes. I am wondering where the criminals sense of being law abiding is. As a gun owner, I want more than most to see the crimes committed with a gun to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.I will say it again, in another way, send em to Gitmo. It infuriates me when I behave in a law abiding fashion, and have that behavior threaten my freedoms. As to those who think I should not have a gun just because it scares you, my apologies. You may not , however have my gun(s)
- knmbarker
November 11, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Focus on criminals, not gun owners.
If the government could pass laws that would make it harder for criminals to get guns without negatively affecting the rest of us gun owners.
The problem with the types of laws you support, is it makes it harder for EVERYONE to get a gun, not just criminals. Much like Illegal drugs, people will find ways to get whatever they want, no matter what restrictions you put on those items.
That's why I wish groups like yours would take emphasis off of gun restrictions, and focus more on the actual criminals that commit the actual crimes.
- Nitrogen
November 12, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
socialist gun control
the brady campaign is a dangerous organization! They seek to change our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is very clear on its intent. It is to protect us from our government should it become our enemy which happens worldwide. where we live it takes cops a half and hour to arrive in the event that your life is in danger. The right to self defense is a god given right,not necessary to get permission from the brady communist campaign to protect our own life. these people that support the brady bunch would have done well when adolf hitler was in power. use violence to subdue the citizens and if they dont agree with you,kill them.
- Jackattack
November 12, 2008 10:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absurd analogy
Even if you don't agree with the Brady Campaign's gun control agenda, it's ridiculous to somehow suggest that they're a Nazi organization of some sort, or would have been. In fact that comparison is even more misguided when you consider that Hitler did not win over the German people through violence but through propaganda, fear and nationalism. I by no means advocate revoking the right of anyone to legally own a firearm, but comments like this are precisely the reason gun control has become such a divisive and polarizing issue.
- Langston Burroughs
November 12, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply to brady campaign fanatic
I dont know if you are aware of the fact that one of the first things hitler did was take away the right to bear arms from the german people. he would send them into battle to die,but you were not allowed to own a firearm. my grandparents were from germany. and propaganda is one of the things that the brady bunch thrives on. doctors kill untold thousands with their daily meds,alchohol kills around 400,000 people a year,but the brady bunch worries about firearms. and yes the brady bunch is a subversive ,lying bunch of anti constitution socialists who thinks the government should meddle in every aspect of our lives. grow up! you listen to tv propaganda too much.
- Jackattack
November 12, 2008 1:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady
Then why did Sarah Brady stand on the senate floor and state "How are we to bring about a socialistic form of government, if every American citizen has a right to own and bear arms." ???????????????
- shadow
November 23, 2008 3:44AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Militia...
Yes, truly the amendment had no intention of saying the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the militia, but to all citizens. That's only why the word is in there.... just to confuse you and entangle the issue. There's no point in having guns under the guise of protecting ourselves from our government, now is there? Maybe if there had been enforcement of the law from the beginning, we wouldn't have a large federal Army... and Navy... and Airforce. Oh, yeah... Marines, too. Instead we would have large state militias... all whose members have the *unique right* that was expressly guaranteed by the Constitution to own their weaponry. Not only own it, but were trained in its usage. But crap... it's 2009 and that train left the station and blew up some 230+ years ago. So now what?
Now everyone needs the right to protect themselves from other people.
As if the right to self defense includes having to defend yourself from any person at all who hasn't committed a felony. and actually... all anyone has to do is buy from a "private seller" at a gun show. No background check required. Psycho females may blow up the phone line, but they also take the gun out of the glove box and start shooting at people who cut them off in traffic. Guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill another person in the home, or be used against the home owner. A large portion of gun owners don't know jack about how to shoot or maintain a gun.
Not to mention that the love of guns is ingrained. It's glamorous. We idolize the gun. Imagine you're 18. How many times a day are you exposed to guns? Video games? Commercials for video games? Mtv? Song lyrics?
There are toy guns at the grocery store. And that's really cool because the average 5 year old is going to know that guns aren't toys. The average 5 year old doesn't fully comprehend death, even if exposed to it.
So foget about the second amendment, the only reason we don't go by that rule is because *just* *too* raging hard. What are we supposed to do? Round up all the hand guns and semi automatics? Muy Impossible, even 100 years ago. We could stop producing ammunition... that might help.
And, could you help me out on this one? Why would armor piercing bullets be sold to the general public? I'd just like to know what your view is on this one. It's a little off subject... kind of sort of.
But how much good would it really do?
Is it better to do nothing? That's what you seem to suggest.... but that's not going to help anything either.
What ever way you want to look at it, people get screwed by other people who shouldn't have guns everyday. Whether it's the kid who's shot in his front lawn, the girl shot in the front closet by her dad, the store owner, the 7 yr old who shoots his brother, whatever....
The only kind of gun reform that would ever do any good isn't going to be a useless law or three about who gets guns... it's going to change how society views guns, how guns can be marketed, and the perception of the uses of guns.
It's different where I live. Almost everyone I know owns at least one gun. Most people I know shoot their own food and gut it. We know what our guns are for. We know how to use them. Our kids know what guns are for and what they do. Some kids start earlier than others, but I like 8 to go out hunting... not with a gun... but just along. To see what happens. And what a gun can do.
But it's just not so if you don't live in a rural area - which most of the population does not. So what to do?
What do you do?
Ban these video games where the most fun is had stealing cars and shooting people? Make kids watch footage of actual war? With actual guns? Require gun safety before graduating 6th grade (the only reason I say 6th is because by highschool, it's a little late to start)? Maybe again for highschool? Put an end to private selling of guns? Require tests like: Can you shoot this gun? Offer training if you can't? Many people volunteer for this... it doesn't have to cost a dime. Are you on anti-depressants or have you been known to freak out, or have road rage? I don't know.. stuff like that.
Those are the only "solutions" I can come up with. It's kind of pointless to try and ban guns in the same way it's pointless to have abstinence only sex education policies.... kids are going to have sex anyway just like people are going to have guns anyway... why not make education and proper usage of your gun (completely intentional pun) the focal point?
All I know is, I will never own a handgun. I think they're cowardly. That's just my opinion.
And I'm also ignoring that beautiful red herring you've cooked up about the Brady Campaign and, which was it? Socialism? Communism? Doesn't matter. It just discredits whatever you have to say. ...Besides, I would have preferred you to have caught me a delicious bass.
- SocialistBetty
January 4, 2009 1:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Attempt at Answers
You brought up a lot of points so I am going to try and discuss each one separately and in order.
First of all the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment is an individual right after looking at what the founding fathers wrote in letters, memos, etc.. at the time not to mention the state constitutions that were written at the time. Is it crappy language? Possibly but since the militia is any citizen from 17-45 that includes most everyone anyways so I am not going to say anything else about that.
You can purchase a firearm from any person legally able to own a firearm at any time gun shows have nothing to do with it. Also you have to be residents of the same state to make a private purchase of a firearm. So leave the gun shows out of it all the vendors selling there are federally licensed and bound by law to do background checks.
Guns in a home are not more likely to injure or kill another person in the home the USDOJ estimates guns are used 2.5 million times a year to prevent a violent crime. since there are only about 1000 accidental deaths a year caused by firearms I fail to see how that correlates to being more likely to get injured or die.
Gun owners must know something they have a better shooting record than cops according to the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. This limits it down to concealed weapon permit holders but according to all of the ones I have met all permit holders are gun guys who practice a lot but not all cops I have met are gun guys and some have admitted to only going to the range once a year to qualify.
As for the rest of your discussion I agree completely that the biggest problem in the US is the perception of firearms specially the problem with how they are portrayed in the media. I think that a firearms education class would be a wonderful idea and it wouldn't be to hard to teach along side sex-ed(since most kids go through that about then, well at least I did). I am aware that shooting tests are not required to purchase a gun that would completely overload the system and probably make the class so short it would be pointless, but most states do require a class with a shooting test to get your concealed weapons permit. I doubt asking questions would get you anywhere people would just lie that's human nature. But I completely agree with the education part that is why I am getting my instructor certification this summer and I attempt to take as many people out to the range as possible to teach them about firearms and the safe ways to handle them.
As for your statement that handguns are cowardly I wholly resent that remark. It is your choice to say you will never own or carry one but to say those that do are cowardly is crossing the line. So that makes every cop in America a coward because they carry a handgun. I admit I carry a handgun on a daily basis because I accept the responsibility for my personal safety I don't leave it up to someone else and I also accept the fact that bad things can happen. I also carry because I will do anything and everything in my power to protect those that I love so why not be able to carry and use the best weapon at your disposal instead of carrying something that might work(such as mace) or study a martial art for years that is completely negated when some punk walks up with a gun of his own and is out of arms reach(right now I know you are saying "you wouldn't have time to draw or drawing a gun on a drawn gun is stupid which is very true but if you see the attacker coming and you cant get away then you have time to draw and yes I have drawn my handgun in self defense against an attempted car jacking with a knife.)
So all in all I really wish we could better educated the kids in this country about firearms but sadly instead of taking a proactive approach the politicians decide to attempt to ban them instead, which you said yourself wont work not to mention its been proven not to work in several countries including England and Australia.
- tenmaster96
January 28, 2009 12:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
GET REAL
Why don't you go talk to the dead Jews from Germany ???OR, all the WWII casualties,or all the dead Iraqies, who fought against the similar views you try to propogate...
- nobody February 1, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
alright, I've got to end this.
You keep talking about how its just the militia that is allowed to carry and bear arms. and then you go into your
All militia are citizens.
I'm a citizen
Therefor I'm in the militia
Now I'm going to break this down.
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
"A well regulated Militia," This means that yes the citizenry should know how to operate and use their arms. They should also know how to fight if they are needed to. However a militia is not a required cohesive body. It is the PEOPLE of an area who had arms and have amassed to defend themselves.
" being necessary to the security of a free State" This means that a well armed populace "IE Militia" is needed to keep the people safe .
"The right of the People to keep and BEAR arms shall not be Infringed." I don't know how it could get any more cut and dry than that. No reasonable infringements without due process of law . None at all.
Now as for something I would consider a reasonable gun control , would be people being taught how to use and operate a firearm. Taught the basics of how to use a firearm and how they work. They should also fire one.
In my opinion (In all its high and mighty glory) gun use and safety should be a high school class, right in there with government and economics. If you had never driven a car you might be afraid of them. If you've never fired or used a gun you might be afraid of them. However if you've never seen what they can do you can become careless. A little fear is good, so long as its justified.
"A large portion of gun owners don't know jack about how to shoot or maintain a gun."
I can load a gun in the dark or blind folded. I practice this regularly. I can maintain all of my firearms . I can hit a quarter at 60 yards with my rifles. All of the gun owners I associate with have similar skill with their firearms. (although some are not as good of shots, and some are better) however I don't think I've ever met a person in real life who has no clue how to take care of their firearm.
And, could you help me out on this one? Why would armor piercing bullets be sold to the general public? I'd just like to know what your view is on this one. It's a little off subject... kind of sort of.
If you have the means to cast and reload your own bullets you could make AP rounds. They only require a steel rod in the core. However I do think that any person buying AP rounds when there is nothing going on should be looked at with some suspicion. But yes they should be available.
"Not to mention that the love of guns is ingrained. It's glamorous. We idolize the gun. Imagine you're 18. How many times a day are you exposed to guns? Video games? Commercials for video games ? Mtv? Song lyrics?
There are toy guns at the grocery store. And that's really cool because the average 5 year old is going to know that guns aren't toys. The average 5 year old doesn't fully comprehend death, even if exposed to it"
I fully agree with you. We should be more careful with how guns are portrayed. They are tools and powerful tools at that. I can tell you now every time one is in my hands I get an instant adrenaline rush. I know that I must be careful of everything because I hold power in my hands, and I'm the only restraint on it.
"Ban these video games where the most fun is had stealing cars and shooting people? Make kids watch footage of actual war ? With actual guns? Require gun safety before graduating 6th grade (the only reason I say 6th is because by highschool, it's a little late to start)? Maybe again for highschool? Put an end to private selling of guns? Require tests like: Can you shoot this gun? Offer training if you can't? Many people volunteer for this... it doesn't have to cost a dime. Are you on anti-depressants or have you been known to freak out, or have road rage? I don't know.. stuff like that.
Those are the only "solutions" I can come up with. It's kind of pointless to try and ban guns in the same way it's pointless to have abstinence only sex education policies.... kids are going to have sex anyway just like people are going to have guns anyway... why not make education and proper usage of your gun (completely intentional pun) the focal point?"
Again I agree with you on the most part. While people should be allowed to play their violent video games (I detest grand theft auto, but play some WW2 games) they should know how guns are in real life. I also don't believe in giving children toy guns.
I especially agree with gun ed. We give sex ed , drivers ed, economics, home ec and government so we should also give gun ed. They are an important part of our culture and can very easily be abused by the ignorant. I also believe that they should be allowed to shoot a gun at a target (ballistics gel would be good) to see what happens when you shoot something.
- Nivarion
January 10, 2010 12:25AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reign in the attack there, bud.
While I agree with your basic point, (I think) you certainly come off as irrational and a tad bit crazy. It just gives the other side more ammunition. Is the Brady Campaing dangerous? Yes. Does that statement need to be the first line with an exclaimation point, in an argument that isn't even about the Brady Campaign? No. You're on the right track, but you need to take a chill pill and present your arguments in a calm, rational and reasonable way. If you sound like a crazy person, you're not going to convince them that letting you keep your guns is a good idea.
- richardsonkr
January 15, 2009 7:47PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership
Unfortunately, Paul Helmke has such a proclivity for stretching the truth or outright lying, that I can hardly bring myself to believe that he ever shot at the YMCA. The only reason I could believe it is that he grew up in Indiana where they actually honor the Second Amendment to the Untied States Constitution for the most part. Paul Helmke says, "Guns are always going to be available to law-abiding citizens. But we can take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons." Unfortunately Mr. Helmke is not being completely honest here. What he leaves out is that SOME guns will always be available to law-abiding citizens (unless we at the Brady Campaign have our way). If you look at the Brady Campaign's history they have always supported gun bans, and such severe restrictions and taxes, that guns would only be available to the richest Americans. Please take a look at the laws on the books, all 20,000 or more and tell me if there is anything that should be illegal for someone to do with a gun that is not already illegal. Once you have done that, ask yourself, "Why doesn't the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence focus on preventing gun violence?" They could easily do this by lobbying for harsher punishment of people who buy guns for someone who is not legally allowed to (commonly called straw purchasers), and by arresting people for attempting to buy guns when they are ineligible and they know it (like a felon trying to buy a gun to commit yet another crime). If they focused on these things along with educated children on what to do when they find a gun, they might actually accomplish their stated purpose... reducing gun violence. They won't do those things because they WANT gun violence to be high so that they can continue to push banning guns and further restricting guns so that fewer and fewer people own them. The Brady Campaign has no shame in its push to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" which are really just semi-automatic guns, no different, and in fact less powerful than 90% of hunting rifles, because they claim that these rifles are only used for mass killings and assaults. The problem with that logic is that less than 1% of all gun related crime is committed with these so-called "assault weapons". So obviously when the Brady Campaign says that all they want is logical compromise, what they really mean is outright bans on all guns, except those that they personally approve of.
-Matt
- mobilemarvel
November 12, 2008 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The brady campaign has no intentions of being reasonable
Never has an anti-gun organization proposed anything that could ever be misconstrued as 'reasonable'
Spokeswoman and representative Sarah Brady pushed for the legislation of HR 1022 with the Law Enforcement protection act in 2007 without even knowing what some of the things she was trying to have banned do. This was most emphasized in her video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
She outright lied saying that the original assault weapons ban was a ban on weapons most used to kill our officers when in actuality the weapons banned turned up in less than 2% of all violent crimes involving guns.
She also mentioned large capacity clips- which do not exist, but large capacity magazines do.
but then when directly asked what barrel shrouds are, and their function, and after 3 unsuccessful dodges, she admitted she had no idea.
How could we, the gun community ever expect anything reasonable to come from an organization which has representatives that do not even understand their own position and proposed legislation?
Also Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, is the same gentleman that started a fundraiser on their website the day after the Virginia Tech Massacre. He is a man of no moral compass who has used tragedy to further his personal agenda and line his own pockets.
- MikesSpot
November 12, 2008 1:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Motive?
I'm am going to be insulting here, but some of these posts sound nuts. What possible motivation would the people at the Brady Campaign have for holding the views and goals that you are ascribing to them? It doesn't add up. You can disagree with their conclusions, refute their underlying premises, or propose alternate actions all without suggesting that they have non-sensical motivations or some kind of clinical delusion.
- Adam Hammond
November 12, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed Adam
I'm going to have to agree with Adam here. I understand that the Brady Campaign is looked upon with disdain by some gun owners, and that those people are reasonably worried about their second amendment rights being infringed or even terminated. But comments suggesting that the Brady Campaign is part of some sort of conspiracy with the government to take away guns from citizens so they can control the populace, a la Nazi Germany, seem almost paranoid.
I live in Los Angeles, where my experiences with guns are perhaps far different from those who own guns to hunt or even for protection. My community has been terrorized by criminals with fire arms, many of whom have large scale automatic weapons. It's simply not possible to equivalently arm myself or my neighbors to combat these crimes, at least without some sort of terrible civil war breaking out. The only solution to me is to prevent these criminals from possessing these guns in the first place, and I'm in favor of whatever restrictions accomplish this. However, I also don't wish to take away any law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun. Certainly there's some sort of reasonable middle ground that all parties can agree on.
- Langston Burroughs
November 12, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no middle ground
the only middle ground that the brady bunch agrees with is total and complete disarmament. criminals will always find guns! the only hope is to jail repeat offenders and keep them off the streets! punishing legal working class gun owners by confiscation will only create a bigger problem. England pretty much disarmed their citizens and crime has skyrocketed! you are not allowed to defend yourself and are at the mercy of any criminals element. only concealed carry in 38 states allowed the crime rate to drop 20 to 30 percent. I think down deep your a boob and are afraid of guns. where I live it takes a half and hour to get a cop to your house. if you dont defend yourself you will be history.
- Jackattack
November 12, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No More Compromise
Gun owners have compromised away most of our rights. More than 20,000 gun laws nation wide and bad people are still killing innocent people. If we were really allowed to defend ourselves (all things being equal, assuming the use of deadly force to be determined to be lawful and justified) without fear of prosecution and civil suit, perhaps we could reduce the number of criminals, especially those with illegal guns. The fact is, many law-abiding gun owners fear using a gun to defend life and family that they don't do it. Think about your community of criminals KNEW that EVERYONE except them were disarmed. Additionally, WTSHTF and we are faced with TEOTWAWKI and criminals are not detered by the police, we must be our own last line of defense.
- daveinvegas
November 13, 2008 1:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I dunna ken.
I cannot imagine what their motives might be. Perhaps some are honestly fearful, but the sordid history of weapons control indicates that restricting weapons to some favored groups or to the state causes more bloodshed than it prevents.
- MilitiaJim November 12, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bloodshed
Only the NRA is talking about restricting weapons to some favored group. They constantly argue against it. I couldn't agree more, but it is an easy argument to win, being a straw-man.
- Adam Hammond
November 12, 2008 5:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Policemen are not a favored group?
Given the history of tyrants in the past century, I would hesitate to restrict any citizen's ability to buy any weapon they can afford. Perhaps anti-armor rockets should have a unique identifier, but bad things happen when armed revolt is impossible.
- MilitiaJim November 12, 2008 6:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Brady Bunch Motive?
If you do an internet search on the Brady Bunch you will find that they do advovate totally disarming the entire population. There are probably a number of reasons for this so just consider this one possibility: the belief in a utopian society. I am always concerned when people push Utopia. It is unattainable except at the cost of the people. I would not care to live in the sterile environment of such a society in which freedom lost is the cost. Further, consider who the allies of the Brady Bunch are: DiFi, Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck U Schumer, et al. Research their anti-gun positions.
- daveinvegas
November 13, 2008 1:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Brady Bunch?
Honestly, you expect me to consider your point when you can't even afford them common courtesy? I'm supposed to believe that your some proponent of rational informed discourse? When I do the search you suggest, I see a bunch of biased commentary saying that the Brady Campaign supports a disarmament or the repeal of the second amendment, but when I go to their site they say the opposite, quite clearly. Nobody is pushing a utopia. The people and organizations that you vilify are simply working for the good of the people as they see it. They are good Americans just like you.
- Adam Hammond
November 13, 2008 2:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Brady Bunch
Let me be brutally honest, I have no respect for anyone attempting to disarm the law-abiding population of this country. Further, I am not a proponent of rational informed discourse, at least not as you see it. I dispise these people. I will no longer tolerate compromise with them or anyone like them. My fight is for liberty and against tyranny. I cannot be courteous to the Brady Bunch (a term I coined, by the way. Arrogant, ain't I?). However, if you decide not to consider my arguement because you consider me to be discourteous that is up to you. The truth about the Brady Bunch is there for you to see. I have come to the conclusion that one cannot change another person's opinion or point of view if there are not open minded in the first place. But, I still feel compelled to set forth my position whether you are convinced or not.
The fact remains that these people are deceptive and are determined to disarm us incrementally. Check for yourself. Every time they manage to get some oppressive, Draconian anti-gun law passed, they always say that this is only a first step in removing firearms from private ownership. This must not be allowed to happen.
Try this: http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog /
O bama has not consistantly supported the Second Amendment. Look into his time in the Illinoise State Senate and you see that not to be true. Therefore, Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch is lying. He is a liar. How can you ever trust anyone who lies?
Helmke says: "As Sen. Obama said in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
The way they do this is to make semi-auto rifles illegal to own, possess, use, etc.
- daveinvegas
November 13, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are closed minded and recursively lauding your own internal logic
When millions of rational patriotic Americans appear to be confused or foolish, you should step back for a moment and consider an alternate possibility. There are many rational defenders of the second amendment. You are not one. Check for yourself.
- Adam Hammond
November 13, 2008 4:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady Campaign
Adam-
The reason we feel the Brady Campaign is pushing for total disarmament is this (forgive me I'm going to give a number of links and explanations):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=sns
note the above first- the brady campaign seeker tighter regulation of the firearms industry with regards to safety. Outwardly it seems like a very reasonable policy, make safe tools for people to use safely. No one would be against such a thing.
However, these regulations are already in place, things like transfer bar safeties, drop test requirements, and a variety of other safety features are included in all firearms of modern manufacture.
the firearm described by the Brady campaign in that section, with shorter barrel lengths, is actually THE IDEAL handgun for self defense because they lend themselves to actually being carried. eliminating guns with barrel lengths under 3 in eliminates the compact auto and compact revolver market- driving several gun manufacturers completely out of business; despite the fact that their products are very accurate, safe, and useful.
I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear, but they are not pushing for the elimination of junk guns, but the total elimination of a style of extremely useful defensive gun utilized heavily by private citizens.
then lets look at the assault weapons ban
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
besides a number of bans by name, the parameters for the ban eliminate a number of other guns as well. Handguns over 50 oz for instance eliminate a number of excellent hunting pistols (mine included) most importantly however, they ban a number of guns that really aren't used in crimes. In my original post some ways up the 1994 AWB stopped citizens from buying guns that were involved in less than 2% of gun related crimes. NONE of which are easily converted to full auto, despite what the Brady Campaign will say.
They also put up wildly inaccurate information. if you look under assault rifles vs hunting rifles, where 'assault rifles are meant to be spray fired from the hip' that is a totally made up assessment. No 'assault rifle' (which for the most part are not available to citizens because a true assault rifle is fully automatic, so already they are dishonest with their naming) is intended to be used in such an inaccurate manner. Ask any military friend what happened if they tried to fire their m16 from the hip. I bet their Drill Instructor gave them a verbal berating they wouldn't soon forget.
Also- the difference between a hunting rifle and a assault rifle by their definition, is the stock, magazine, and in some ways the barrel configuration. All of these are readily changeable parts on a firearm. This allows the Brady Campaign to ban hunting rifles just by saying they can be easily converted to assault rifles- allowing them to extend their ban to eliminate virtually all semi-automatic weapons.
People can talk about legitimate sporting purposes all they want, but the fact is, I own a number of military style weapons, both rifles and handguns, and am completely safe. To limit my rights on strawman arguments against crimes that frankly have not occurred is a complete disservice to me as a citizen.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=second
above note the dreaded 'gunshow' loophole.
I'll be brief with this section as it is so fraught with error it is insulting to have listed such a thing as fact. To say that a full quarter of gunshow tables do not have gun licenses may be accurate, simply because there are easily that many tables at a gun show NOT selling guns of any sort.
- MikesSpot
December 3, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
continuation of post
Private citizens can access the NICS background system if they are a firearms collector, and you can refuse sale to any private person if you have the slightest suspicion they are in anyway dishonest. I have done a number of these 'dastardly private transactions' and I can say with 100% certainty that in my experience, this 'loophole' is non-existent. records are still always kept by both sides, usually a copy of a drivers license at the minimum, and often, if one party has any kind of status to call in background checks they do so on behalf of both parties to keep everyone happy and safe.
Further- in many states the private sale of handguns is regulated so that even if you want to sell a firearm privately, you still must do so at the pistol licensing authority, in the local sheriff dept, transferring serial number locks, and other required bits of information. The Brady Campaign completely ignores that fact.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=licreg
this is a final point about registration. Much of what they propose already happens, and much of what the rest of they propose here is meant to increase the cost of firearm ownership to the point as to price much of the middle class out of the market. (the lower class, as a result of regulations like this have already been priced out in many areas)
The Brady Campaign has softened their outward exterior in an attempt to gain favor with the public. They were too extreme with their views in the 90s; however the people have not changed, nor has their mission. They just repackaged themselves in an attempt to confuse and mislead people into following their agenda.
sorry it took so long to respond, your arguments are valid and deserved an adequate response.
- MikesSpot
December 3, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Some people have a clinical phobia about guns
Need a motive-- Many of the antigunners have a frank clinical phobia about firearms in the same way others are phobic about heights, snakes, etc.. Difference is that the latter phobics would get laughed at for attempting to legislate their phobia.
- sesquiculus
February 17, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Some people? Many antigunners?
You are making stuff up now. How convenient to ascribe a clinical mental illness to the people who disagree with you. I am now laughing at you.
- Adam Hammond
February 17, 2009 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Some antigunners are frankly phobic
I'm a physician. I know a phobia when I see one...
Merck Manual on-line:
" Phobic disorders consist of persistent, unreasonable, intense fears (phobias) of situations, circumstances, or objects. The fears provoke anxiety and avoidance."
" Specific phobias are the most common anxiety disorders......Specific phobias affect about 13% of women and 4% of men during any 12-mo period.... Phobia of blood (hemophobia), injections (trypanophobia), needles or other sharp objects (belonephobia), or injury (traumatophobia) occurs to some degree in at least 5% of the population. "
NB: I suspect many rabid antigunners have some variation of traumatophobia.
"The prognosis for specific phobias is more variable when untreated because it may be easy to avoid the situation or object that causes fear and anxiety.
Or alternately-- pass a law against it...
- sesquiculus
February 17, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If you are an MD then you should know better.
You know it when you see it! What a riot. How many of these "clinically ill" people have you actually examined? What percentage of the Brady Campaign directors does that include? What is your estimate of a statistically meaningful sample size in this case? What is the composition of your control group? Most medical curricula don't even require a mental health rotation. Do you have any experience with diagnosing mental illness?
Or are you suggesting that you can diagnose mental disorders by reading online blog posts? You should not have made this appeal to authority. Either you are lying, which is sad enough, or you are making a mockery of your hard-earned education, which is sad and embarrassing.
I am a supporter of gun rights. There are good rational reasons to defend the second amendment. It is small-minded and ultimately counter-productive to universally vilify well-intentioned, rational Americans who disagree with you. Wait until they say something truly irrational and stupid.
- Adam Hammond
February 17, 2009 3:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Firearms phobias.
Most psych diagnoses are made on the basis of what you get told. I.e., strictly speaking you don't necessarily need to see the patient. The seemingly irrational behavior and pronouncments of many antigunners tells me plenty.
BTW, a phobia is a "neurosis", i.e., a fairly low-grade psych disorder.
Object phobias tend to develop to potentially harmful objects or situations. If people can develop phobias to stuff like heights, needles, knives, etc., it is reasonable they can develop them to firearms.
As noted above, object phobias are quite common. Are you asserting that antigunners are spared them? Anyway, a high incidence of object phobia to guns explains a lot. For one thing, it explains why we gunners keep making deals and then get screwed. A person with an object phobia may go to extraordinary lengths to abolish the object.
BTW, one source of object phobias is that the object reminds the phobic of unpleasant supressed thoughts and feelings. E.g., someone with difficulty handling aggressive impulses may develop an object phobia to knives, guns, etc. as a purely defensive measure. Same with people who have suicidal thoughts who develop a phobia to guns because of them. Winston Churchill had endogenous depression and admitted to a fear of heights because of it.
BTW, note I say only "some" antigunners have an object phobia to guns. Many of the rest are the usual busybody doo-gooders, friady-cats, and/or people on a mission from God.
Don't forget the ones trying to achieve closure. "My husband was killed by a madman with a gun, so I'm going to bring meaning to it by prohibiting guns", etc. Too bad if this means trampling on the rights of people who do no harm.
Similarly, an unknown number of antigunners are standard-issue racists who just want to keep firearms out of the hands of lesser, more highly-melanized breeds. Where our ancestors would just use the "N-word", these folks use euphonisms like "inner city" and "youth violence". But we all know what they mean.
- sesquiculus
February 17, 2009 5:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Look at the Founding Fathers' Intentions.
The days of people truly needing guns in their everyday lives to protect themselves from predatory animals are gone, at least in the vast majority of the United States (even Montana) Predatory people, on the other hand, are something else entirely. Nowhere do law abiding citizens need guns more than in poor urban communities rocked by gang violence. Gangsters do not follow the laws, nor do they get their guns legally. Those who intend to use their guns for less-than-legal purposes will aquire them in less-than-legal ways. The only way to insure that the common man can bring the same firepower as a hardened ganster to the fight at his front door is to lift firearm restrictions. Gangsters are not the only predatory people out there, however. In the Declaration of Independence, it is written, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." The Second Amendment was written to insure that should this country come to such dire straits, the people would be able to fight back. It is for that reason that any and all restrictions on the Constitutional right to bear arms are unacceptable. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers for citizens to possess military-grade weapons to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds. The Supreme Court is NOT the last word against tyranny, it is an educated and well-armed populace. That is what firearms (and arms in general, as technology advances) mean in America.
- richardsonkr
December 3, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pity about the collateral damage
Talk about the intentions of the founding fathers is all very well. However, the collateral damage of American gun culture is such that reasonable people want to do something to reduce the damage. I am surprised that the idea of restricting firearms causes such anger.
- Michael Glass
January 9, 2009 4:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Question is Guns in AMERICA!
I realize that you don't much care for the Constitution and the basis for American life over in Australia, but the question is about the USA, and they are an important part of what it means to be Free here. About the collateral damage, I don't see what you're talking about. Gang violence is an entirely different beast than the culture of armed, law-abiding citizens. True American gun culture puts a gun in the hand of a single mother defending her home from an intruder, in the hand of a young woman who would otherwise be raped, in the hands of a minority fending off an angry mob, and in the hands of freedom loving citizen standing in the face of tyranny. It is this group of gun owners that regulation will harm, not the horrific perversion of gangsters, drug lords, and the disturbed, who generally acquire their guns illegally anyway. Legal firearms are the best defense against these pervesions, not restrictions that will leave them easy prey.
- richardsonkr
January 15, 2009 7:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
collateral damage still applies
It's one thing to fantasize about law abiding citizens holding back the threat of intruders, rapists, angry mobs and tyrants. it may be comforting to imagine that restrictions on guns will only inconvenience the law abiding. Even if all this is true, America appears to pay a heavy price for this position on guns.
Here are some comparative figures in gun-related deaths in various countries:
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
My source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Canada has less than a third of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States.
Australia has less than a fifth of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States.
England and Wales have less than a thirtieth of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States
So the United States bears a great burden from those extra gun related deaths
- Michael Glass
January 16, 2009 6:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Differences
There is a difference between a gun death and a gun crime. If an innocent woman is raped, there is neither gun death nor gun crime. If an innocent woman defends herself from a would-be rapist with a firearm, you have a gun death, but not a gun crime. If a gangbanger shoots somebody for their shoes, you now have a gun death and a gun crime. Gun deaths are not a good way to show the "collateral damage" of the evil "American gun culture," because, quite frankly, I don't care if a rapist gets shot. In fact, it makes me glad to know that he is not going to hurt anyone else. It would be interesting to see a similar study on gun crime, as opposed to gun deaths, and also on crime in general. There is not better reason not to break into a house than that the owner could be home and armed.
- richardsonkr
January 16, 2009 7:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Crime rates
I checked out some comparative crime rates by country. In other crimes the United States didn't fare too well, but they were not as outstanding as they were with gun deaths. So it seems that only in gun deaths does the United States really stand out.
- Michael Glass
January 16, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Look at your own country
Australia banned firearms in March of 2000 and guess what happened crime went up. Weird. Here are the stats:
Crime rose after a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity.353354 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.
according to Australian Institute of Criminology, “Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002", April 2003
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Gun murders up 19%
• Armed robbery up 69%
• Home invasions up 21%
The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation:
• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%.
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
Gun crimes are rising throughout Australia after guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more in the previous year.
according to The Sydney Morning Herald, “Costa targets armed robbers”, April 4, 2002
A ten year study that concluded Australian firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates.
According to "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?", Dr. Jeanine Baker and Dr. Samara McPhedran, British Journal of Criminology, November 2006.
So as you can see we want to ban guns too because it worked out so well in Australia.
Also concerning your claim that there are 39892 gun deaths in the US in 1994 according to your 45% of the total stat. According to the FBI website there were only 16,305 murders in 1994. Wow that takes that number down quite a bit, the rest are suicides the estimate from the department of Justice is about 54% that's 21,541 so that leaves 2,046 deaths attributed to unintentional, and undetermined reasons. So taking out just suicides (studies have shown rates don't change with or without guns present so these people would kill themselves anyways), that leaves 18,351 gun deaths in 1994. That's brings it down to 6.55 per 100,000. We can even go lower also according to the FBI in the early 90's approximately 5,000 of the murders a year were committed by people on parole or had an early release for felonies that brings it down to 4.77 because as we all know it is illegal for felons to have guns and as they have proved before they always follow the law not to mention a lot of them got out early and committed another violent crime. Also according to the Department of Justice the homicide rate in 1994 for non-gun deaths was 3.1 wow that still puts us in the top ten on your chart. Also the US isn't even in the Top 10 for homicides in a country according to the UN Office on Drug and Crime from 1998-2000.
I could sit on here and give facts and stats all day long but I doubt that would ever change your mind. It all comes down to the fact that more people die from diseases, car wrecks from drunk driving incidents than are killed my guns in a year. Last I checked cancer doesn't save any lives so why not focus the money/time/effort on a bigger problem and leave our one true way to defend ourselves alone.
- tenmaster96
January 28, 2009 12:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is much more to take into account !
While examining these figures, one must not neglect to consider the unique demographics that we have in the United States. Please don't interpret this as racist . . . I'm just trying to make a point: If all black crimes were taken out of these figures then the United States would have one of the LOWEST rates of gun violence. Anyone who has studied statistics on even a master's level knows that you have to adjust for these things in order to formulate a conclusion so this point is very salient.
- gjdagis
February 4, 2009 6:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is your evidence for this claim?
What evidence do you have that black crimes were taken out of the gun violence figures, the United States would have one of the lowest rates of gun violence? Here is evidence of gun deaths in a number of countries:
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
My source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Now where is your source to back up your claim?
- Michael Glass
February 5, 2009 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gun violence in the US is mostly confined to specific groups.
Apples and oranges. The US is a pretty diverse place. Gun violence here tends to be confined to specific cultural groups that flatly don't exist in most other places. How many inner city black gangs do you-all have in Australia?
E.g., roughly half of all US murders are committed by blacks, who represent 14% of the population. Of this, the predominant part is committed by inner minority city males between 17-35 years of age, about 4% of the population. Much is related to the drug trade.
Hispanics and rural white southerners are also disproportionately represented. The unifying factor seems to be an "Honor culture", where interpersonal disputes are traditionally resolved by violence. It is not particularly related to the presence or absence of firearms, which may actually be scarce overall in high crime areas.
If memory serves, the murder rates among Americans of European descent tends to resemble that of where their ancestors immigrated from.
- sesquiculus
February 17, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You may be right, but where's your source?
You have made an interesting argument, but you haven't backed it up with any credible source. Remember that the US is not the only multicultural country. But let's say your figures were right, and 86% of the people were responsible for half the gun deaths. That still wouldn't bring down the non-black US gun death rate to the gun death rate of Northern Ireland. So even if your figures were right, and you have supplied no evidence to show that they are right, they don't explain away the statistics.
- Michael Glass
April 15, 2009 4:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
National crime reports
Look up "National crime report" on google. I don't have time or inclination to get them. But nobody seems to argue with them.
The average Brit (or aussie) being more civilized than us free-range Americans, the UK has always had a low murder rate, guns or not. In fact, around 1900, all you had to do was pay a 10 shilling tax to carry concealed.
Yet the murder rate was lower than now. The book "Against the Odds" (look it up) notes that even in the mid 1600's london had only a dozen murders or less a year, compared to one a day or so for Paris.
The sociologists tell us the the main varible in the white non-hispanic US murder rate is to be of southern US extraction, which I am, partly. Look up ( Virginia senator ) James Webb's book on us, aptly-entitled "Born fighting". An honor culture again. Don't mess with 'em.
OTOH, my Danish- immigrant ancestors up north universally own firearms . It's a farm tool like any other. Flatly-stated, they just don't shoot each other.
- sesquiculus
April 15, 2009 11:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The US political class once had a high gun murdr rate
My favorite example of how murder rates are culturally-set is the six "Founding Fathers" pictured on US currency. As with inner city minorities now, they had a dueling culture.
Thus, ex-US vice president Aaron Burr killed ex US-treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton ($10 bill), in a duel. Similarly, US President Andrew Jackson ($20 bill ) killed at least one man in a duel, perhaps more. All with guns , naturally.
These days, high-level US politicians no longer kill each other. So there is hope for us all yet.
- sesquiculus
April 16, 2009 1:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
slim
Sorry buddy. I googled your referance and found '0', nothing, nada, of your stats as stated. therefore what you say must be a lie. google GUN FACTS or GUN FACTS 4.0 or GUN FACTS 5.0 and get the REAL facts that are documented on every page. check these government sources out which are all public record. they disagree completely with everything you have put in your article. people if you want truth you must frequent where truth is told. Real! Honest! Proven! facts that are unimpeachable. anything else is a lie. the people who tell these lies are either BLANTANT DELIBERATE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE STOLEN THE TRUTH WHICH SHORT OF STEALING A LIFE IS THE WORST CRIME THAT CAN BE COMMITTED OR SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE MISTAKEN BRAINWASHED DUPES OF THE LIARS THEMSELVES. I am a sheep dog and proud of it. I am also a Christian and proud of it. unlike obummer i stood up and said i believe and was baptised. so i am not lying like his ilk and i do not pass the evil ones lies along. i fight those lies and i call the liars out. Christ has told me in the book that if I wish to protect myself and must kill to do so I am not a murderer. I am a sheep dog. I love my sheep. most of the people in the world are sheep. however there are also wolves. these wolves are the criminals who prey on my sheep. they are the criminals who kill my sheep. they are the criminals who maim and injure my sheep. they are the criminals who lie to my sheep in order to better prey on them. I do not like killing people and will not if i can get out of it. however if you prey on my sheep, I WILL KILL YOU IF, NECESSARY, TO MAKE YOU STOP. My dear sheep. Yes, I have fangs just like a wolf. Yes I am very capable of violence just like a wolf. However, just like you mr. or mrs. sheep, i cannot hurt a sheep except like you it is an accident. just like you an accident would devistate me. In reality I am a sheep with different abilities, some inherant and some acquired. I am a sheep dog both because i wish to be and because i cannot help myself. wolves are my enemy just as they are yours. i am your only defense. Do not pull my teeth. if you do we will all die. i will stilldo what i can to protect my sheep and indeed i will die doing just that just as many of us sheep dogs have died useing our teeth to protect you. without teeth we will just die trying and failing. get rid of the stupidity that the anti gun people have spoon fed you all these years. that stupidity will kill you.
WITH LOVE FROM YOUR LOCAL SHEEP DOG.
- SLIM May 8, 2009 1:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finally Someone who gets it!
You can count me in as one of the well-armed populace, and if the gun and ammo sales in the last 6-8 months is any indication there are a lot of us. More than 5 Billion rounds of ammunition sold, and more guns sold in the period since the election . That's more than was sold during the previous two years combined, if the gun blogs are accurate.
- ursamajor2004
June 22, 2009 4:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why...
does Handgun Control continue to embarass themselves with a bunch of half-truths when everyone with just a little knowledge knows their real agenda?
Lets take a look, Paul;
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
"The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."
Official Statement of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI)
"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.
"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you what the rest of the camel looks like."
HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."
William J. Clinton on "MTV" 1993
"We have a long way to go before we see a truly effective gun-control law in this country (the U.S.A.). But more and more, the lawmakers are understanding that the American people want change. The only people who still don't get it are the people over at the Evil Empire... the gun
lobby."
Jim Brady of Handgun Control, Inc., in The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 1994
"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997
"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88
"I don't care about crime , I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994
"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH) during Constitution Subcommittee 2/10/89
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of
handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
- John Q Citizen
June 9, 2009 8:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too Many Guns In The Wrong Hands
The numbers of guns in the United States vastly outnumber the population of the country (300 million). I am shocked to read news headlines mentioning the incidents involving young people and handguns. Nowadays it's not uncommon to read about teens killing other teens and adults in gang shootings, robberies gone bad, carjackings, or botched drug deals. The recent-history murders of church officials around the country and college -campus massacres of innocent people should serve as a reminder that gun violence in the hands of unstable people has gone too far, and government must do something to at least cut back on this pandemic before it consumes all of us. I believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not a carte blanche to allow anyone uncontrolled access and use to firearms , but rather is a protective measure to ensure the protection of citizens during times of war at home. In other words, I do not believe that the Constitution writers would have allowed unstable or questionable persons to have access to these weapons of mass destruction. And neither should we.
- camelcityman271
July 27, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Laws only affect those who abide by them
Most people can agree that we need "reasonable restrictions," but that is not what the Brady Campaign promotes. I can not think of an area in which there are not already a myriad of these so-called "reasonable restrictions."
No amount of "reasonable restrictions" are ever going to stop criminals from obtaining weapons, Just look at our prison system. Even at the most highly secured facilities, drugs and weapons "magically" appear inside. "Reasonable restrictions" don't apply to criminals. They'll tell you that themselves if you ask.
Gun regulations target a non-threat, law abiding citizens. Under the guise of promoting security with unnecessary, ineffective regulations, organizations like the Brady Campaign institutionalize victimization and put citizens' lives in danger.
- erik
January 6, 2010 7:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't want dangerous people, with dangerous weapons.
Yet that statement apply's to all law abiding citizens I know. The Brady Campaign gets folks on board with slogans like that, but if you go on their website you will see a big Starbucks intimidation Campaign, Where they want Starbucks to Kick out law abiding citizens.
These patriots are in no way causing harm, and I challenge the Brady campaign to Bring up one circumstance where a Open Carry event ended in shots fired . Furthermore the Brady Campaign accuses the Open Carry participants of intimidation, but fails to acknowledge the their tactics with Starbucks are one and the same.
- weezy February 5, 2010 1:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.