Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Guns Save Lives
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glen Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Higene
You asserted that because modern ammunition did not exist in 1791, it is not protected by the Second Amendment...

The Internet is then not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech either under your ill-conceived logic, so shut the hell up and stop posting things on the Internet because it's not protected speech.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Response to Higene
The definition of a conservative is a liberal thats been mugged. ;)

I fear you are going to have an epiphany one day when you or someone you know gets assaulted or worse because you didn't have the good sense to provide the means of self defense.

You are actually benefitting from gun owners right now. Why? Because the bad people have to guess if you can defend yourself or not. You shouldn't advertise that you don't have a gun.

Joe i - Are you serious?
House to House confiscations. That is your solution. Every gun control politician has said that this is not a viable option in the United States. There are not enough police in the US to pull this off. I will defend myself if someone attempts to enter my home to take away my firearms, regardless of who it is.

I know that this will of course be retorted that I am just being macho but I am not macho character. I simply will defend to the death my right to just that, defend myself. After a few houses inhabited with people that feel the way I do, the police will not have the man power to complete said confiscations.

Keep dreaming of your communistic ways and do me a favor and move to Russia if you like the system so much.

Guns and the "free zones"
There is no law and especially not a sign that will ever be able to prevent the misuse of a gun. Like others have stated: prohibition laws, illegal drug laws, and immigration laws have not been successful because like the saying says “rules are made to be broken.” Everyone seems to think that the “no-gun zones” are effective, but that is actually a target for criminals to hit because they know that most of those people will be unarmed. As a child I do not ever remember my school giving us a lecture about guns and their misuse. Instead of a sign with “This is a Gun-Free Zone” why not just place a metal detector without notice? That sign is just an invitation for “Unarmed People Here!” Now, I am not saying the anti-gun laws are useless, but they will not prevent the misuse of guns.

aurorawatcher
I liked your post, but I tend to stay clear of terms like "cop killer" bullets. For one thing, it is the kind of term the anti-gun folks love to grab onto. For another, the term is really something of a misnomer. Most pistol rounds (even 357 mag) wont punch through a tactical kevlar vest, especially if it is augmented with ballistic plating.

Most rifle rounds on the other hand will punch right through a tac-vest, but that hardly makes them "cop-killers" since they will kill pretty much anyone. I realize your wording was not meant to be controversial, but hey, lets not give the anti gun folks any more ammunition...excuse the pun.

I own a gun
It has never killed anyone -- at least not since I've owned it (it had a previous owner, so I can't speak for all of its history). It's a 357 magnum and I load cop-killers because, hey, I live in Alaska, where bears share my woods. I've never needed it for that reason, but I did shoot a moose with it a few years ago. She was kicking to death a sled dog team that we skied up to. The musher, who was from Germany and didn't believe in guns (until that day) was helpless to protect her team. I pulled out the trusty side arm and shot the moose twice. The first bullet killed it, but neither of us knew that, so the second bullet severed its spinal column.

I guess we could count that as a murder and some of the posters on this thread would, but shouldn't we also count the death of three dogs as murder in that instance? No, of course not. They weren't shot with a hand gun.

I will also note that my mother (when I was 12) scared off three men who went down the road and raped a girl after they beat her father into unconsciousness. The only difference between my tiny little mother and that girl's large construction worker father was Mom had a gun. I suppose being raped wouldn't have ended my life, but it sure would have put a crimp in my emotional stability.

The way i see it...
Did anyone see the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that took a look at "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?"

which can be found here
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kat esMauseronline.pdf

here is data from one of the tables.
Nation, Handgun Policy, Murder Rate (per 100,000), Year
A. Belarus, banned, 10.40, late 1990s
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Poland, allowed, 1.98, 2003
Russia, banned, 20.54, 2002

B. Luxembourg, banned, 9.01, 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Belgium, allowed, 1.70, late 1990s
France, allowed, 1.65, 2003
Germany, allowed, 0.93, 2003

C. Russia, banned, 20.54, 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Finland, allowed, 1.98, 2004
Norway, allowed, 0.81, 2001

So as you can see strict gun control actually increases the murder rate. There was recently an article in the Dallas Morning News about the castle law in Texas. To paraphrase what one gentleman said, every job has its hazards. Firefighters have to worry about being burned, construction workers being injured by heavy equipment, miners have cave-ins, and criminals have the possibility of being killed or wounded by those they mean to do harm to.

As a side note I have been shot and suffer from constant pain from the injury the bullet inflicted on me, but i am still an avid gun owner, and would not hesitate using deadly force on someone who was trying to inflict harm on me or a member of my family.

Will's morality
Will writes: Wednesday, February, 27, 2008 12:49 AM
AliveInHim
Maybe all you evangelicals will be able to pack some heat in Heaven. After all, eternity is a VERY long time & there are bound to be a few bad apples in the bunch up there, especially after a million years or so of singing HIS praises....
-------------
Again, Will, you should the inability of a drama queen to refrain from inciting emotional discontent. You should print this response out so that next time you wonder if anything in this life is a choice you have already provided yourself with concrete proof.

animalgirl gets destroyed!
Classic! What an absolute tool she is. A tool for the leftist dribble on the Kos. ha ha
Whiny emotionalism scores ZERO points here. Get a life.

Why do people still answer lilly the troll? She was tiresome after her first post.

Will "The United States has by far..."
The statistical breakdown on who is being killed is essential. A politically useful but logically meaningless result comes from summing the counts of criminals stopped by deadly force by gun, criminals whacked by other criminals by gun, gun-suiciders, gun-accident victims, and innocent victims of intentional gunfire. And that is what this study, as reported by you, seems to do.

Also, the study was evidently not conducted decades ago, when gun-ownership rights were as libertarian as are now being advocated by guns-rights folks but was conducted in modern times, when numerous gun-free zones and other restrictions were already in effect. How do you know that these restrictions--which are probably nowhere near numerous and comprehensive as you would like--how do you know they aren't the CAUSE of the ill effects that you're attributing to libertarian gun ownership?

Lower rates of death-by-gun in other countries could mean that in those countries, a larger fraction of criminals who legally deserve to be killed aren't, in fact, being killed, because of innocent people's general inabililty to use guns to defend themselves. Instead of being stopped by deadly force from the barrel of a gun, the criminals in other countries are raping, robbing, and murdering (by knife), and they're living to do it multiple times.

In other words, it's possible for the rate of death-by-gun in a society to be TOO LOW. What is an "appropriate" rate could be very hard to estimate, but it is a positively sloped function of the percentage of the population that is actively violently criminal. Every society has some violent criminals who ought to be stopped with lethal force from the citizen's gun at the approriate time.

Rob Ratten
"Apparently saying so makes it true. Ok, Mr. Stossel, where are your statistics? "
Apparently, the same place your statistics are that show guns don't save lives. Talk about you're wasted space.

Guns save lives
Apparently saying so makes it true. Ok, Mr. Stossel, where are your statistics? To site an example or two hardly makes a compelling case. This article was pretty much a waste of space.

Yes, guns are dangerous
So are any number of objects we are given free access to. To me that alone is not enough for me to jump on the "ban" bandwagon.

As for our german friend who stated that there are fewer murders in his country, I would agree that this is true. My brother inlaw has lived in Berlin for almost 16 years now. And the fact is, they have less murders of EVERY kind. Less beating deaths, less stabbing deaths. Even less deaths from things like poisoning. And I am talking PER capita. That said, it is not a gun problem, but a violence problem we have in the US. Picking out guns as the step child you wish to beat will not solve that problem.

J Cordova is Clearly Afraid of Guns
"A gun is called a weapon for a reason;"

Yah, coz, y'know, that's what it is.


"If we give people the opportunity to easy gun access then injuries due to violence will turn into deaths."

And deaths caused by criminals turn into criminals running scared.


"Allowing guns with little difficulty gives people a right to kill."

Here's a statement made with very little thought.



"children do not need to be raised knowing how to aim a shoot a gun."

WHY NOT?


"Guns lead to violence"

Patently false.


"Guns are lethal weapons;"

Well DUH!


"They are basically obsolete."

Yah, that's why the LAPD all carry numchucks and samarai swords, like the Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles.


"Cops now use taizzer guns or shoot beanbag like bullets to stop a criminal."

Yah, that's why Rodney King got a beating. The taizer didn't work.

They only shoot beanbag bullets for crowd control. For criminals, they still use lead.


"Ease up on gun laws and crime will increase as well as violence, innocent deaths,"

Historically proven to be false.

To J Cordova
"A gun is called a weapon for a reason; it cannot be used to save lives. One may be able to save the life of an innocent being attacked but at the expense of another life."
Except, of course, when a gun is used to kill someone before he kills lots of other people. Then one has saved the lives of many innocents. Works for me.

To J Cordova
You're exactly right, using a gun to save an innocent person probably will result in the loss of another life. Hmmm, let me think, what can I live with easier....knowing my wife or daughter was raped and killed, or knowing that I killed the scum trying to rape or kill them. Kind of a no brainer for me! And yes you are right, kids, criminals the mentally unstable should not have guns. I have yet to hear any serious gun rights advocate say that there should be no restrictions on who has guns. There should be restrictions to at least attempt to stop those people from getting guns, while at the same time allowing LAW ABIDING citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun free zones are a nice idea, but how many people have to die before we figure out that CRIMINALS don't give a crap about our laws? How many laws does a murderer or rapist ignore when he commits a murder or rape? Do you really believe any law banning guns will be any different? The majority of gun crimes are already committed by guns that have been illegally obtained. As far as your statement that guns make it easier to claim self defense, you're dead wrong. The laws in most states are already extremely tight concerning self defense. All us "average citizens" want is to be on an equal footing with the criminals.

Guns Don't Save Lives
A gun is called a weapon for a reason; it cannot be used to save lives. One may be able to save the life of an innocent being attacked but at the expense of another life. There are many “what if” and “in this case” situations where some live may be saved due to a gun, however guns do not kill people. When a person wants to kill they will kill. If we give people the opportunity to easy gun access then injuries due to violence will turn into deaths. Allowing guns with little difficulty gives people a right to kill. It will be easier for people to claim self defense and find loopholes to protect them. Gun free zones are positive programs for our society children do not need to be raised knowing how to aim a shoot a gun. Guns lead to violence and children cannot be raised in violent environments. Guns are lethal weapons; even cops and border patrol can only use them in extreme situations. They are basically obsolete. Cops now use taizzer guns or shoot beanbag like bullets to stop a criminal. Therefore why should an average citizen be given the right to use a gun as they please? Government has reasons for strict gun laws and they are trying to protect society as a whole. Therefore why are we fighting government and trying to find very extreme positive cases to try to twist the picture. There is no reason for a youth, criminal offender, or mental patient to have a gun. There is also no reason to carry a lethal weapon. People can use guns for revenge, to gain unearn money, and ultimately to kill. Ease up on gun laws and crime will increase as well as violence, innocent deaths, and the list goes on and on. People save lives while guns were made to kill.

guns
gun free zone only makes it safe for the criminal,we would all be much safer and society would be much politer if everyone carried a handgun

Unca Alby
As I recall, and I really try not to pay too much attention to these things, the assailant was paranoid about something and used the weapon at hand. Moose antlers are large and hard and apparently when you beat someone around the head with one, they suffer closed-head injury and die.

The one that gets me is the guy in the hospital for the criminally insane who used his bed as a weapon. He rigged it to spring up when the attendant opened the door. It slammed the guy and threw him into a wall on the far side of the corridor, killing him instantly.

As I said, in the absence of guns, people will use something else. In my experience -- and I've had some -- criminals don't want to go after people they suspect have guns because they recognize that whatever crime they want to do might end in their own death. Robberies are nil in Alaska, which is the most heavily armed state in the union.

BTW, animalgirl, North Dakota has a low murder rate, but everybody there has a gun, almost as much as Alaska. I've got family there and that's what they report. So, how do you explain that? Maybe it's the high percentage of Swedes. They just can't get excited enough to use guns for what they obviously demand to be used for -- murder. Yeah, those Swedes (my dad was one), they're so calm.

Or maybe it's just that the gun ownership in ND being so high, criminals don't spend a lot of time there, so there's less of them dying by law-abiding citizens protecting their property and persons. Kind of like robbery and burglary in Alaska where the Swedes ... gosh, I think when Dad died he was the last one.

Some Just Shouldn't Have Them
Ladies and gentlemen, It is in society's best interest that AnimalBeast not own weapons.
She is way to unbalanced to exercise that right.

Cactus

To FRieke:
Wrong, guns don't kill. Guns are inanimate objects that have to be operated by a person. People kill, and yes many of those people use guns to kill. People also use cars, knives, clubs, hands etc to kill. People who chose to kill (or rob, rape, assault) other people have made a concious decision to ignore a whole slew of laws. Do you really believe if guns were banned, these people would suddenly obey that particular law? Somehow, I just don't think so. And yes taking a human life, even if it's a criminal's life, is a huge responsibility. And yes, I'm sure that for the majority of people in the world, taking a life would be something that would affect them for a long time. However, I would venture to say that it would be easier to live with that than living with the fact that your wife or daughter was killed or raped because you couldn't defend them.

Guns do not save, they kill
I disagree with John Stossel's statement that guns save lives, actually the guns take them away. Most murders are executed by a simple gun which can be bought in every Wal Mart, and most times the victims not even had a chance to reach their own guns, if they had one. A strict gun control starts at the selling of firearms, not in the control of where guns are allowed to carry and where not. If murders do not get weapons, they can not shoot, it is no utopia to have a whole gun free state. In Germany, where I grew up, guns are forbidden to civilians, and so there are very few murders in Germany.

The most dramatic shootings are the ones of unprofessionals, who would not even have a gun if our laws were more strict. These shooters maybe did not even plan to kill, but acted on situation. Guns do not protect, guns do kill, that is the only purpose their are build for. We have to fight murders similar like we fight pest plants, do not try to cut the blooms, they will regrew, destroy the roots and the plant will fade. When killing someone, no matter if he is a criminal or not, the problem of the conscience comes, which can change a human mind drastically.There are better methods for self-defense, like pepper spray, which cause no dead. So firearms should only be owned by responsible persons, and only very few can take the responsibility over life and death.

gunny
"Go buy some carbon credits, the Goreacle needs to pay his A/C bill."

That was as classic as AnimalGirl is stupid.

Guns Don't Discriminate
Lives are taken day by day, 365 days a year, every year. Firearms contribute to a large majority of these; either taking lives by accident on purpose. However, it seems to me that lately the majority of these stolen lives occur in “gun-free” zones. Guns placed in the wrong hands take innocent lives like they are nothing but a grain of sand amongst a strong wind. What people need to realize is that guns don’t discriminate, they don’t think, and they are at the hands of their operators; and when the operator himself could care less about the “gun-free” zone, so can the gun. However, in these gun-free zones, had these innocent victims been armed themselves, protection would have emerged at its strongest and thus, less overall lives taken. It’s simply illogical to think that criminals intended on mass murder would seem to abide by a “gun-free” zone, let alone not flock there as it would be a perfect crime scene. The only possible way to hinder criminals is to place the same fear in them. If firearm laws allowed the average American to carry a loaded firearm with them for protection, these “gun-free” zones would turn into “gun-protected” zones, instilling a fear and concern in criminals themselves and resulting in a large decrease in number of deaths. Citizens and law makers who fear self protection and strive to make the world a “gun-free” zone itself are again, illogical. There will always be criminals with intent to kill, and thus always murder weapons. If guns are taken away, they will find something else. With the right protection laws in place the number of lives taken day by day may decrease to week by week, or better yet, month by month.

-Brian Foster

jackie briones
VMI was a "gun-free zone". Did that stop the killer? No, just meant no one to resist.

The SCOTUS will probably rule against that "gun free" zone known as Washington DC, which has one of the highest violent crime rates in the USA.

Think.

Gun-free zones
Gun-free zones are very important and is something Congress should really take into consideration. I think that criminals will not stop committing these crimes although this law is up, but indeed they will think twice and death rates can go down a great deal. The banning of guns is a noble idea because if guns are available to anyone, it is more likely for others to commit crimes. People feel they have a certain power by carrying a firearm, and this “power” can lead to disaster. If the use of guns is legalized the likelihood of a person dying or hurting another is extremely high. Firearms in the hands of the wrong people is a very disturbing thought. Thus, Congress should especially take into consideration the gun-free zones.

House to House confiscations
I agree with gun control. Since inner cities have the largest murder by gun rate, we should do a house to house search of EVERY domicile in the inner cities and begin forcefully confiscating guns.

Thats the only "gun control" plan that would actually work.

Mother of 4
The primary flaw in the liberals "thinking" is that they don't. Emotionalism (like seventh graders expecting protection and handouts) is NOT thinking. Nor is it reasoning. Nor is it measured intellect.


To animalgirl
and I for one would never be so foolish as to have one with your attitude in MINE.

To, h20skier
The laws that these legislators write are not now, nor have they ever been about deterring crime. The U.S. currently has more people incarcerated per capita than any other nation on planet earth.

The laws are designed to provide a false sense of security.
They create jobs.jobs. jobs. Federal Prison Industries, The American Legal System and all the leaches who latch on to and lobby for more law, more law, and more mandates (always accompanied with fines, fees, and penalties)
They create cottage industries wrapped up in the psychological industry
They create additional classes of citizens
They make the lawmakers appear to be MORE NEEDED than they actually are.

But, do the stop crime? No. they literally create more crime, more criminals and more and more reason to keep this spiraling nonesense going. It also and here is the kicker,creates generations of dependent, dumbed down and emotionally retarded individuals who falsely believe the law, law makers and their enforcers are there to PROTECT THEM.

Question. who or what is going to protect us from the LAW MAKERS?

Scary sound for bad guy

The sound of a 12 ga. being chambered/cocked.


Slacker
For some reason, there are folks who grab onto an idea with both hands and refuse to let go.

They can be bombarded with information that shows their idea to be extremely impractical or even redundant...but they do not care.

Why is that? Why-for example- do you seem married to this bullet stamping idea? You have been bombarded with reasons why it would be absurdly expensive and a nightmare to impliment. Yet you refuse to move on. Why?

If I did not know better I would think you bought stock in some research company in the field of bullet stamping.

Slacker
I said your idea was practical? When did I do that? Actually I stated that it is NOT practical.

I also pointed out that the system you desire already exists as a normal part of the manufacturing process. Every gun with rifling, leaves unique marks on the round it fires. That round can be readily traced back to the gun, provided the round it not too badly deformed.

Frankly, with roughly 200 million guns in the nation, and billions of rounds, the data base you would need would be so large that nobody could manage all the data. Again, I am not saying it would be impossible. I am saying it is so impractical that it may as WELL be impossible.

I have to give you some advice: Every inventor in history, came to a point where they had to abandon a given idea and move in another direction. You have reached that point with this idea. Time to move on.

One more time again

And how are you going to track .22 cal or more to the point shotgun shell (imagine trying to individualize each BB)

Before we implement new technology, how about enforcing current laws.

When was the last time you heard about a shooting in a bar?

What was the penalty for the perp?


Wrat
Yes, you can swap a barrel if you want to throw off the cops, but fortunately for us, most criminals are too stupid to do this.

As for your statement on the 1911, I too am a fan of that sidearm. I own a nice A1 in the traditional GI style. No bells or whistles or night sights. It is perhaps the fourth 1911 A1 I have owned and it is still my favorite handgun, though I own many others weapons.

Frankly, John Browning was a genius. His designs advanced weapon's design significantly. But it seems I do not need to tell you that.

I will repeat

Google zip guns and weapons of the Viet Cong

and see what can be done with A. a pipe, some black powder (from firecrackers no less) or gunpowder and a marble or ball bearing

B. A piece of metal and a file.

So many people, so clueless about what can be done by a determined person.

Wrat, Just trying to be practical
No system is ever perfect. If we wait for a "perfect" system we will never do anything.

Thus, as Ragnar and Bob to some extent pointed out my proposal is reasonable & practical. It is true though, that I do not have a motivation to get rid of all guns. So it won't satisfy anyone who has that motive. However, if properly put into practice, with a national registry available to local law enforcement, it could make it more likely that the areas that make it nearly impossible to get a carry permit would reconsider.

My motives are to reduce the percentage of guns in the hands of the criminally insane, and increase the percentage of guns in the hands of people who have been trained to know how to use, safeguard them, and maintain them properly. And, as the parent of a police officer, to make life as easy as possible for law enforcement to have a starting point and as many clues as possible when investigating crimes involving fire arms.

Calling Slack Brain!
Have you EVER fired a Colt Model 1911? In case you don't know what it is it's called "the warhorse", "old slabsides" or simply "a .45". The genius of John Moses Browning was in designing a reliable hard-hitting autopistol (just shy of a century ago) which was able to be used by untrained officers who'd never fired a pistol before. It has a LOT of safety features. It is also pathetically easy to strip down, clean and reassemble. The barrel comes out VERY easily. All you have to do is swap the barrel you shot for another one and the rifling marks WON'T match for love or money.

There was a graphic novel featuring a conspiracy plot YOU'D love. Some group wanted to assassinate Reagan. They sent coded messages to a killer by shooting homeless bums with a .45ACP. The barrels of the gun had been inscribed with a barcode. When read in the right sequence on a barcode scanner they instructed the assassin as to when, where and who to shoot. The weapon for the hit was an "iron monster". Basically that's a bolt action sans stock welded onto a section of I-bar (steel girder) for stability.

-Ray
NRA Life

niadhf
You’re wasting your time on animalgirl, (aka “Ms. Swoop & Poop), and Lilly, aka (“The Seagull”). They’re long gone; having dropped their load of BULL SH1T and flown off to another TH blog. This is their typical tactic.

Free Gun Zones
The idea that “free gun zones” will decrease violence and murder is incorrect. As it has been stated time after time “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, the truth is with or without guns, violence will never decrease for it is controlled by instincts of human nature. There are so many ways in which homicides and crime can be committed with out even touching a gun such as; rape, suffocation, stabbing, and counts of terrorism bombings and torture. No mater how much something is forbidden there is no way our government can control all aspects of the issue. It is just like in the early 1900’s when prohibition existed and speakeasies were created. The government was unable to forbid the action of drinking. Others may state that there have been too many killings due to lack of gun control, but in reality what counts are the factor behind the shootings. At times parents leave guns at an open view easy for children to reach and the most recent shooting at an Illinois college was believed to be in a way caused by a lack of medication the shooter was on. This once again simply strengthens the idea that no matter what the situation it is the person who is in all the cause of murder not guns.

Free Gun Zones
The idea that “free gun zones” will decrease violence and murder is incorrect. As it has been stated time after time “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, the truth is with or without guns, violence will never decrease for it is controlled by instincts of human nature. There are so many ways in which homicides and crime can be committed with out even touching a gun such as; rape, suffocation, stabbing, and counts of terrorism bombings and torture. No mater how much something is forbidden there is no way our government can control all aspects of the issue. It is just like in the early 1900’s when prohibition existed and speakeasies were created. The government was unable to forbid the action of drinking. Others may state that there have been too many killings due to lack of gun control, but in reality what counts are the factor behind the shootings. At times parents leave guns at an open view easy for children to reach and the most recent shooting at an Illinois college was believed to be in a way caused by a lack of medication the shooter was on. This once again simply strengthens the idea that no matter what the situation it is the person who is in all the cause of murder not guns.

Why is it that....
I am going to Adress this to Animal Girl and Lilly, as they appear to be of a liberal bent. As such i will make a few assumptions in this post, as I am sure they will of me from my post.

First assumption. That as liberals they are pro-choice.
Why is it ok for the governtment to make laws that restrict our rights, and you support these in the issue of gun control? Yet, again assuming based on typical liberal bent, may very well have one of those famous bumper stickers "keep your laws off my body"
I will ignore the whole statistics argument- hammered to death and even in one post, cited to further the argument against you. (Vermont gun laws. oh thats rich). Likewise i know i will be unable to convince you to see what i see, as frankly you will be unable to convince me. So lets take it out of that arena into a new one.

WHY? Your laws are now affecting MY body. And my RIGHT to defend that body.


scooternyc
Re: CCW carry in NYC. I also live in a State which refuses to issue CCW permits to most citizens, but coincidently, the one encounter I had which required me to use my gun occurred in NYC. Yes, I was carrying “illegally”, but having a gun once saved my butt. See my post of 1:12 PM. So you might consider doing what I still do in The PSRC: “Peoples Socialist Republik of California”. Ignore the law and carry anyway.

Micro-stamping
All gun owners (or at least those who like to go the shooting range regularly) should be very afraid of the whole micro-stamping/bullet serialization idea. Legislation requiring these measures has been proposed in several states. This is just another cheap attempt by the anti-gun crowd to make all the guns go away. The whole database, and registered to the buyer, etc, would likely not be any more painful than the current background check and such when buying a gun. The real pain would come from the cost, and that is what they really want. If it costs too much to shoot, maybe all of us gun folks would just disappear.
The cost to the manufacturer who would have to retool the machinery to make the different markings for every box or bullet would be passed on to the consumer. And one of the hardest hit consumers would be the military and the police. A large part of our military small arms ammo comes from civilian manufacturers. Even if the military could bypass the cost increase, the slowdown in production would be crippling.
Keep an eye on your state and local politicians and don't let this kind of legislation get through on the sly.

Not about guns
If the libs argument that more gun control would decrease crime was true, I guess that would have to mean that if all guns just suddenly vanished, then violent crime would vanish at the same time. If that were the case, then I guess back before guns were invented there weren't any murders, rapes, robberies, or any other violent crimes. I'm not a college educated historian, but somehow I seriously doubt that is the case.
The fact is that for as long as there have been people there have been those that believe they are entitled to do whatever they want no matter who gets hurt in the proccess. I have never begun to understand how anyone can believe that someone who has no concern for laws prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, etc, would even think about a law that says they can't have a gun.
Bottom line, gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. For those who do not want to own a gun, that's fine, that's their choice. I am a gun owner, Concealed Carry permit holder, and I carry my gun(s). Gun owners should also understand their obligation to learn firearm safety, justifiable use of force, and everything else that goes with owning a weapon. As for the legal issues that go with using a gun for self defense, knowing the law is part of responsible gun ownership. An earlier poster's message also said, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6". I'd add to that, "I'd rather be tried by 12, than have to watch my wife or daughter carried by 6"!

Who
Who are these idiot Anti-Americans trying to restrict our freedoms?

I live in New York and it would do us very well to be able to carry guns, not everyone would but it would give the bullies in the city and on the subway second thoughts before attempting to attack someone.

Do you ever notice how Liberals are anything BUT liberal?

slacker -- Guilty until proven Innocent
"But wait, don't we already have much of this?? I understand that this is in fact what happens, since CSI teams can tell if two bullets have been fired from the same weapon."

This is true, thus rendering any further identification moot.



"So all we have to do is require all weapons to be test fired before they are sold"

It's painfully easy to modify a weapon after it's been "registered", whereas modifications after a crime has been committed can be detected, and compared. I.e., the original scratches created in the gun barrel ought to still be there.

More importantly, I don't particularly like your "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

You might just easily proscribe that everyone submit their DNA and fingerprints, "just in case" they commit a crime one day.

Nevermind that we're certainly headed in that direction anyway.

slacker
Sorry, I just caught a typo in my previous post. I typed "lands and grooves"...I meant LANS and Grooves. Sorry about that. Call it a brain fart

slacker
Oh as an aside, shotguns do not have the aformentioned rifling. But these fire clusters of pellets that would be impossible to mark from a practical standpoint.

Slacker
Let me see if I understand this. You suggest that a gun, mark every bullet at the time it is fired. And that way it can be traced back to the gun that fired it. Is that correct?

What you suggest does not need to be invented. It allready exists. And each bullet IS marked by the gun that fired it.

Every rifle or pistol barrel has rifling that impart spin to the round when it is fired. This series of "lands and grooves" is like a finger print. EACH weapon's rifling is unique and forensics experts can easily match the round to the gun it was fired from, provided they have the gun of course.

This procedure is done by federal and state crime labs all the time. So what you want, we all ready have.

Slacker
As mentioned in my response to Bob at 5:53 PM.

Yes. An increased tax on Ammo would increase costs, as would a tax increase on guns. Note: There’s already taxes on both just as there's now EXTREME taxes on cigarettes. But it hasn’t significantly reduced smoking. Note that making ammo and guns more expensive will NOT reduce the numbers now in circulation.
FACT: There are presently about 190,000,000 Registered guns in circulation and an estimated 120,000, 000 Unregistered, according to DOJ. They estimate a total of HALF BILLIOON by 2009. And the stock pile of ammo is now staggering. So the only people to be affected by price increase are hunters, (to a slight extent) and target shooters, (significantly), so as to make this sport prohibitively expensive.
Who will proposed high cost on ammo have ZERO effect?
1: Criminals. It’s not as if they shoot hundreds of rounds a week: Only when there’s a need to gang bang or commit a robbery.
2: People keeping guns for self defense. Such people usually never, or rarely fire their guns, unless it’s to practice; which they’d do less often with expensive ammo. Yes; even smuggled or the reloaded ammo Im capable of producing in mass quantities would be more expensive under your scenario, but still plentiful.

Note: The suggestion of data based bullet lans marking would actually be a viable and practical alternative. But the true agenda of extreme gun grabbers has nothing to do with practicality. It's Prohibition. But this has already been tried with alcohol and drugs. And we know how effective that was. Any other suggestions?

AnimalGirl
"I would never be so foolish as to have a firearm in my house."

Good to know. Where do you live?

AnimalGirl
"I would never be so foolish as to have a firearm in my house."

Good to know. Where do you live?

Slacker re; Bullet ID data base
Re: your suggestion for an NCIC data base of presale gun lans marking ID. Yes, this would work and has been suggested for many years. However, this is NOT the true agenda for extreme gun grabbers. It’s too practical and does nothing to reduce availability of guns or ammo. So you’ll not hear any of them suggesting it.

And regarding your post of 11:51 AM re: “the ease of getting a CCW permit”.
Any further comment re my response of 1:12pm?

Sorry Ragnar
My last idea trashes your retirement plans if some techno-genius comes up with a tamper proof way of making weapons stamp the bullet rather than the manufacturer.

It is still not practical, though, because of the cost of getting the weapon registration up and running and accessible to local law enforcement.

But Wait!!! Why not just tax the ammo when it is bought and weapons when they are purchased new or change hands and are registered. With all the people out there buying and selling weapons all the time the tax may not even need to be very large and would keep a nice stream of money coming in to the ATF to maintain the system.

Now let anyone who can take the training and pass the test can get a weapon so long as they properly register it. People should be responsible for their weapons, so they should have no problem notifying the ATF whenever a weapon they registered is lost, sold, or stolen. So, if a weapon they registered but did not de-register when they lost possession of it is used in a crime they should face a large fine as an incentive to keep up the registration. Frequent reports of stolen or lost weapons should also draw a large fine.

Of course career criminals won't want to register their weapons, but this would shrink the pool of untraceable weapons available to them. It would also make it reasonable to let responsible people have as many weapons as they want and give police an easy place to start investigating most crimes that involve fire arms.

Wait I think the technology EXISTS!!!!
I never said that markings to ID a bullet needed to be human readable. The technology does not have to render the ID visible to the naked eye.

Thinking more about it after the comments I have read to my original post, in fact it is probably desirable that it is ONLY machine readable, AND that it be added to the bullet at the time it is fired, not when it is manufactured. That way it can't be easily defaced or removed.

But wait, don't we already have much of this?? I understand that this is in fact what happens, since CSI teams can tell if two bullets have been fired from the same weapon.

So all we have to do is require all weapons to be test fired before they are sold and their bullet "signatures" registered in a national database accessible to local law enforcement. Finally, add to that database the ownership history of each leagally purchased each weapon.

We already keep this kind of information for cars, so it is possible and practical.

Now I can take a bullet recovered from a crime scene and have a chance to match it up with a weapon and who last legally owned that weapon.

Of course that does not prove the person is the person who fired the gun that fired the bullet during the crime. However it is a good place to start. And we all DO want the police to solve crimes, don't we? So whatever we can give them to make their jobs easier and them more efficient the better.

bob
I agree that micro-stamping bullets would not be feasible. But it would drive ammo costs up considerably. So would extreme ammo taxes. Both ideas have been suggested and are the real agenda of people like animalgirl, and Lilly. But what they fail to consider, IF either were to happen, (which isn’t likely), is that this would in turn, create a new cottage industry, (in addition to smuggling), for tens of thousands of people like me who own reloading equipment. In the highly doubtful event this ever happens, it will make my retirement financially Very comfortable but not put the slightest dent in availability of either guns or ammo. So gun grabbers will have to rethink their plans for a gun free utopia. So far none have ever been able to suggest a practical, feasible way to create this fantasy. And I maintain they NEVER WILL. Any takers? Didn’t think so.
And don’t expect replies from Higene, animalgirl aka “Ms Swoop & Poop” or Lilly, aka “The Seagull”. They’re long gone from this thread, having been shot down in flames too many times. LMAO

Natural Soros constituents
I have yet to meet a rabid anti-gunner who wasn't a closet kommisar wannabe wearing a tinfoil hat. These people ARE dangerous. A LOT more dangerous than every legal gun in America combined.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Oh and Slacker...
the data base that would need to be created to track the manufacture and sales of bullets would drive the cost of ammunition up one hundred fold. Between you and me, I think Higene would not have a problem with that. In fact, I think it is probably one of the reasons he supports such an absurd idea. And it is absurd. On the surface, in the middle, and on the bottom.

And you have another problem: you would have to stop importing any ammo from outside the country AND keep it from crossing our borders illegally.

Either that or get the rest of the world to make these mystical bullets, AND link into the same data base. Actually, this sounds like the kind of project we would need the UN to handle.
It is right up their alley in its complete lack of pragmatic thought.

Slacker
I did not tell Higene his idea was impossible. I said it was not feasable. I realize those words are very close definitionally speaking, but I was speaking of the practicality of his suggestion. Frankly almost everything is possible when one tosses out such things as real world practicality.

Yes, what he suggests could be done, to the tune of millions or billions, but its real world effectiveness at stopping crime would be marginal at best. I doubt even that, quite frankly.

aurorawatcher -- Wow!!
"Understand that all of these weapons have been used by [mental health] clients to kill people in my town in the last 15 years. Big butcher knife, hammer, car, rope, picture wire, screw driver, gun, big butcher knife, machete, moose antler, 4-wheeler, fire. So one gun used out of 12 crimes -- that I can think of."


Wow!!

I'm scared to ask -- moose antler?

How did THAT come about?

I'd have never figured on that for a murder weapon, unless of course, y'know, you're a moose.

Slacker and animal girl
Slacker: Go to a shooting range and pull a few spent bullets out of the backstop. Would you be able to read anything printed on them? I think not.

Animal girl: "In that case, you are just putting a 'I have what you want in here!" sign on your front door. Might as well also post an inventory of your consumer electronics and nice jewelry. Help the criminals know that you're worth the time."

Because we all know that gun owners are universally careless and don't secure their firearms. Riiiight.

If this is the case, why is it that cases involving stolen handguns make news, hmm? From what you're saying it should sound more like the national debt increasing.

Oh, and I wish you people would learn to control yourselves when responding to Lilly. There's no reason to stoop to invective in countering her points, which she at least raises in a reasonable manner. Counter them, by all means, but at least be nice about it, hmm? Return that favour she shows you?

Slacker
Slacker in his post of 11:51 AM states:.........

“I don’t believe it’s difficult for someone wanting to carry a concealed weapon to get a permit”

Obviously Slacker doesn’t live in one of the remaining 10 States that for all practical purposes refuse to issue CCW permits to anyone who isn’t a politician, a celebrity or willing to “contribute” a hefty sum to the local Sheriffs election campaign or “Favorite Charity”. Many of us are unfortunate enough to live in such States and unable to move for professional / work related, or family reasons. Therefore, many in such circumstances are now doing what Ive been doing for many years: We defy the our States’ Unconstitutional laws and carry guns without a permit. In CA it’s a misdemeanor. And yes, my defiance of the law once saved my life.
As the old adage goes: “Better judged by 12 than buried by 6”.



slacker
So you prove who bought the bullet,
then what are you going to do?

Some one steals your car, runs over a cop. They know who owns the car. Should they come after you??

Have you ever seen a .22 bullet after it hits bone? Have you seen a bird shot with birdshot?

You are talking "Star Trek" technology, not real world. ( Not even the writers for CSI try to go this far)

Bob and Packrat and Higene
While I don't agree with everything Higene says, I doubt that it is literally impossible to imprint a serial number or identifying marker on bulllets. Technology has a way of making fools of everyone who says something is "impossible" or "impractical".

So assuming that it is possible and practical, today or some time in the future, his idea makes sense to me. The real issue is the database that would have to be built and maintained to do anything with the identifying info on a bullet.

Just like DNA evidence, if I find it at a crime scene, I have to have a way to trace it to a suspect. There is no DNA registry, but at least if I have DNA evidence and a suspect I can see if they match. With a bullet with an ID, without a database, it only tells me who made the bullet and when. What I would need is a database that registers and is updated every time the bullet is sold or changes hands.

Now I am not saying that is impossible either. We "sort of" come close to doing that for pharmaceuticals and other things that we need to be able to track down and recall in case of manufacturing problems that could kill people. But the issue will be cost to deal with the underlying complexity. I do not think our society is willing to pay that cost, which would be very expensive.

Still, Higene's idea is worth thinking about. It WOULD be nice for law enforcemnt if it got hold of a bullet from a crime scene to be able to quickly identify the last person who legally bought that bullet.

I don't get it
I do not believe it is difficult for someone who wants to carry a concealed weapon to get a permit to carry one. In my state you have to take some training and pass a test, but if you are unable to do that I don't think you are bright and able bodied enough to carry and use a weapon.

I think this is true for most states. Sure, there are places like large metro areas where this is not the case, but that is what the people who live there vote for. If you don't like it, and it is important enough to you, don't live there.

I also think that property owners and people who run businesses or public spaces have a right to declare whether they allow weapons brought into them or not. This includes bars, nightclubs, stadiums, office buildings and yes schools and colleges. Leave your weapon in your car or don't carry it at all, or don't go into those places. They don't want your business if you demand to conduct it while carrying a weapon.

If you need your weapon in those places, you will have to go back to your car to get it. Then if you can do some good or save some lives while risking your own, no one, including me will stand in your way. Of course there is some risk that you will be too late or not have your weapon at the exact moment you want it in your hand. But, life is full of risks. This is not the largest one you face by far.

And of course no one can deny that ultimate solution is one LESS weapon. The one in the hands of the insane murderers committing these random crimes. How DO these crazy people get all these weapons anyway? With all our technology isn't it possible to identify people with mental problems or criminal backgrounds and make it very difficult for them to buy or sell weapons?

Bob
Thanks for the comment,
I meant to say black powder , which will propel a lead slug fast enough to kill an animal( black powder hunting season)

Thanks for illustrating my point about trying to put a serial number on a .22 shell casing.

Can you see some one etching numbers on each of the BB's in a shotgun shell ( Sarcasms alert)?

Will
you are a liar. And a stupid one too. Here is a good link for you to check out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html
All of you anti-gun loons need to start telling the truth.
Here is another link:
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

Doctor errors cause between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths in the USA (there are more that go unreported). Should we declare doctor-free zones? They are more dangerous than guns:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

Suing gun makers and dealers
For those of you who want to sue gun companies and dealers when guns are used illegally, I have some information you might not know:

EVERY gun manufacturer in this nation must follow strict federal guidelines in the production and distribution of their product. And they can NOT sell directly to the public. Let me say that again. NO gun makers can sell a weapon to you or anyone else. They must be sold to licensed dealers who THEN sell to the public.

Those dealers are licensed by the BATF. A FEDERAL agency. Now if the BATF finds that a dealer is breaking the law, his license can be revoked and he can be prosecuted.

Knowing this, I wonder how many victims of gun crime have attempted to sue the federal government for poor oversight when a licenced dealer goes bad? I am guessing not many.


animalgirl
What you said is patently and demonstrably false.

Places with stricter gun control have higher gun crimes than those where gun laws are more lax. Dont believe me? Check the FBI crime statistics.

In DC and LA it is virtually impossible to carry a weapon...and yet they have some of the highest gun crimes in the nation. They are two of many many examples.

As for weapons being brought from states were it is easier to get them, that only makes sense since criminals can sell those weapons for three or four times retail in places where they are illegal. And that would happen even with a nation wide ban on guns. Or do you think the drug cartels who ship tons of cocaine into this nation would hesitate to start shipping weapons here as well?

I assure you, the day this nation bans guns, they will begin flooding the borders with the same regularity as illegal narcotics.

Frankly, my problem with people like you is your desire to treat so many of your decent responsible countrymen like children, or worse, criminals. YOU dont like guns, so naturally nobody should have them. Frankly it is a position I will never agree with.

Higene
Nobody wants to force you to carry a gun. But if the scumbag who wants to shoot up a mall thinks you MIGHT have one, that alone may keep him from choosing that particular mall.

As for me, I do not think I should be made to suffer because of your rather naive world view.

I always posit this hypothetical:

If a criminal breaks into my home with a gun, I will act very much like you would.

I would lock myself in a relatively safe place and call the police. Then I would wait for the police. I expect you would do the same. But what would you do if the criminal found you first?

Would you plead with him not to tie you up and rape a loved one, or worse still, shoot your family?

I assure you, if such a person entered my home and the police did not show up in time, that criminal would find himself in a gunfight. This is not meant to be some Ramboesque, "look at what a tough guy I am" post. It is merely a decision I made long ago to NEVER let the scum of society place me or my loved ones at their mercy.

Ivon
The problem with your assertion is that it is not backed up by the statistics.

Those places where it is almost impossible to legally own a gun in this nation, have higher levels of gun crime. Those places where it is relatively easy to legally carry a weapon have less gun crime. Frankly this idea that places where people can legally carry become like the shootem up wild west, have been shown to be false.

I have been to gatherings where I knew for a fact that 5 people in the room had a weapon tucked in their purse or waste band. And during even the most heated discussions, nobody every yanked out his or her weapon and began firing.

Frankly, those who do almost always have a history of criminality. Please, do not take my word for this; The FBI has a data base that follows such things as gun crime.

Higene
You have put forth this absurd idea before. I wonder, do you read the posts of others in this forum. Or better still, do you ever read anything?

So you want a serial number on each bullet? Will every bullet's number be unique, or will the same number be on batches on 100, or 1000 bullets? Considering we produce BILLIONS of rounds a year, you begin to see the absurdity of your plan. Imagine trying to stamp this on something the size of your thumb nail: 12849539485488392349. You see the problem?
Now consider that if the bullet hits something solid it will become so deformed that the numbers may be impossible to read.

My problem with folks like you is, you THINK you have these astounding plans, and yet you do not have the ability to use simple logic to see that what you want is not feasable.

Forget that your idea that, "bullets" did not exist when the nation was founed is mired in historical ignorance. Frankly my friend, you seem to be drifting rudderless through the sea of ideas.

packrat
Actually that formula is only used rarely these days. Totay's smokeless powder is actually "nitrocellulose"....Essentially cotton saturated with nitric acid, though it is a little more complicated than that obviously.

That distinction made, your point was a good one and one I agree with.

Futher comment

Are you familiar with potassium chloride, sulphur , and charcoal? Are you going to ban the possession of these chemicals?

PS It's gunpowder. Now google " zip guns" and see what a tube, a marble, and somegunpowder can do.

Higene

Numbering bullets?

Considered , dismissed as unworkable.
Can you imagine imprinting an 8 digit number on each .22 cartridge. ( Have to do that to insure "unique" number, otherwise invalid)

How about that ammo Grannie has squirred away from 1955?

Attention Higene
Are you serious? "By controlling access to ammunition, that’s how. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the right to ‘bear ammunition’, and if you think that goes without saying, recall that bullets hadn’t been invented yet in 1789 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified."

Bullets hadn't been invented yet? LMAO. Bullet weren't invented... Sorry can't breath. I think that you are meaning to say "Smokeless powder brass cartridges weren't invented yet". Bullets have been around since the 1500's. Yet more uninformed individuals spouting pointless ideas.

animalgirl - To add to the drubbing...
--
Consider - beyond the states' relatively "permissive" status you mention without confirmatory citation...

(And just how in God's name do you conceive that the American citizen requires the "permission" of any local, state, or federal government officer to exercise a right that is explicitly refused any lawful government power to infringe?)

...you would do better to look at county-by-county statistics on firearms ownership and the inverse correlation between high rates in that area and low rates of violent crime.

Even in an extremely small "totally metropolitan" state like New Jersey, the differences between Cumberland County (down here in South Jersey) and Essex County (poisonously close to New York the Damned) are so vast that they may as well be - indeed, *OUGHT* to be - in completely different states.

County-by-county figures provide a greater degree of discrimation for the purposes of the analysis you supposedly support.

And they blow you utterly and abjectly out of the water.




---------
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon - rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything - any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

-- L. Neil Smith, "The Atlanta Declaration"

animal girl
(part II):

So say I am grossly exaggerating the gun control issue here, but it's a perfectly logical and valid argument. In theory (to some) that whole scene may be a wonderful Socialist Utopian society; but it makes the fatal assumption that all of the criminals will simply lose all motivation to commit crimes against others, and just go home to their gov't issued block homes at the end of the day to the same miserable, equal life as everyone else. Not likely.

animal girl
posts (part I):

"Unless you are clearly not home and they are a criminal who wants to steal guns so he can distribute them to criminals. (the vast, vast majority of burglaries happen during the day, NOT when anyone is home."


It amazes me how the gun control proponents try to paint this picture of (lawful) gun owners being trigger-happy rednecks with guns lying under the sofa cushions at home. When I leave the house to travel, my gun goes with me. When I am not home for brief periods of time or when I cannot take my firearm with me, it is locked in a safe. MOST gun owners have either had to take a gun safety course, voluntarily educate and/or train in the use of a firearm, or have military experience. They are smart enough to know how to store, carry, and discharge their weapons.

Sure, there are plenty of idiots that get behind the wheel of a car, knowing it is illegal and dangerous, and that doesn't stop them; some gun owners may be the same way. But your logic falls apart when people on this site ask if we should outlaw cars because of the number of vehicular deaths each year. Based on that line of thinking, the safest way to live must be to: a) not own real estate; b) not have anything of any value stored in your dwelling; c) not own a vehicle; d) not have ANY currency, either on your person or in the bank; e) exemplify poor personal hygiene, so that you will not provoke sexual assault; and f) allow yourself to become completely and in every way dependent on the government to provide you with all the basic necessities of life AND 'round the clock protection (oh, and won't that be fun, once the police have been disarmed?).

I will not be a victim
Disallowing citizens, at any time, the ability to protect themselves is abhorrent, a sin.
I legally carry and regularly train for the worst. I carry my firearm everywhere.
Proper concealment training teaches one to avoid conflict not pursue it. In addition, emphasizing the dire consequences and potential loss of freedom for acting irresponsibly.
The greatest regret or guilt I think possible would to be in a critical situation and my firearm was left home, or in my car.
Then, what is my option?
Like the kids and faculty involved in these shootings, I guess I cower in a corner and wait to die.
I will not be a victim.

animalgirl
The overal murder rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington D.C is 8% higher than the rest of the Nation.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209

___________________________________
And dammit! I just hit print instead of printscreen and printed a 22 page document!

Re: animalgirl.....post of 9:34 PM
animalgirl states in her post of 9:39PM...
“What are the three states with the lowest violent crime rates?
New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and North Dakota.

I see a bit of a pattern...”

Im not sure what “pattern” you see, since you just mentioned some of the most Permissive gun States, including Vermont which is THE MOST PERMISSIVE. It allows adults to carry; with NO permit required. And you’re right. It has the Lowest crime rate in the nation. The 3 other States you mention also rank in the bottom 10% in violent crime.. THANKS FOR MAKING MY CASE, AND IN DOING SO, SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT. I just love it when people like you destroy yourself with your own arguments. LMAO.

Now if you’re willing to attempt to answer the question I put to you in my post of 11:24 AM you can complete your own destruction. But none of us are holding our breath since answering tough questions is NOT what you’re good at. I wish all Libs were as easy to shoot down in flames as you are.

animal girl
I see a pattern too

New Hampshire , only lace you can not carry a gun : the court house

Vermont: may carry firearm, no carry permit required.

Maine issues CCW permits.

I see a pattern, and you forgot about the cautionary note reference the data:
Cautionary note about rankings
The ranks in some tables are based on estimates derived from a sample(s). Because of sampling and nonsampling errors associated with the estimates, the ranking of the estimates does not necessarily reflect the correct ranking of the unknown true values. Thus, caution should be used when making inferences or statements about the states' true values based on a ranking of the estimates. As an example, the estimated total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A may be larger than the estimates for all other states. This does not necessarily mean that the true total (average, percent, ratio, etc.) for State A is larger than those for all other states. Such an inference typically depends on --among other factors-- the size of the difference(s) between the estimates in question, and the size of their associated standard errors.


dueling arguments
When I see folks arguing two apparently reasonable, but opposite trains of logic, I find the only way out of this conundrum is to refer to the statistics. Fortunately, our founders' experiment in federalism still makes this possible, what with different states having different laws- we can actually compare one to another. John Lott has done an admirable job of compiling those statistics, and I'm convinced. The people who would wish those numbers away counter his data with "cherry-picked" information that doesn't appear to stand up to objective scrutiny.

I have noticed that the people who have the greatest fear of guns seem to be the ones with the least experience and knowledge of them. Perhaps some training is in order.

BTW, I am not what some might call a "gun nut". I'm not an NRA member (though perhaps I will join), I do not own a gun, and I haven't picked one up in years. That said, if I felt the need to own one, then by GOD, I sure as hell want to be able to get one.


animalgirl
My 8:59 contains links to links for every firearms statistic there is.

The NRA was the first to catch you Progressives lying about firearms statistics and quoting FBI Unified Crime Statistics for things the FBI does not even keep records for!

If a Progressive posts a statistic without providing a reliable source it is autonomically assumed to be a fabrication.

Post a link!
Like if I was to state that the top Democratic leaders were all Communists, I would post this link;
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0 &SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&Ink=b&ItemID=164

SHOW US A RELIABLE SOURCE or stop posting fiction!

animalgirl
No so long ago in the scheme of human history, a group of rather gifted individuals got together and hammered out a little document as the basis for running a government. They called it The Constitution. They ratified with it the inclusion of some especially significant rights, they called Amendments. Does it give you any pause to realize you are aurgueing not just with other posters on TH, but with our Founding Fathers?

Gun states
What is the state with the highest violent crime rate?

South Carolina. Some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation.

Second? Tennessee. Also permissive gun laws.

Third, Fourth and Fifth? Florida, Maryland, New Mexico.

What are the three states with the lowest violent crime rates?
New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and North Dakota.

I see a bit of a pattern....

animalgirl
I did not notice you providing any links for your rebuttal of GunnyG's post.

When you challenge someone's links you should provide the source for your challenge.

Like if I was to state that your Progressive leaders procure children for pedophiles I would post a link, like;
http://hollycrud.com/2006/10/nancy-girl-wants-old-gays-with -young.html

POST YOUR SOURCE!

tq
"It would be like posting an NRA sticker in my car window and on the window of the front door. I wouldn't even need to own a gun; they bad guys would just go to my neighbor's house and his gun free zone."

Unless you are clearly not home and they are a criminal who wants to steal guns so he can distribute them to criminals. (the vast, vast majority of burglaries happen during the day, NOT when anyone is home.

In that case, you are just putting a 'I have what you want in here!" sign on your front door. Might as well also post an inventory of your consumer electronics and nice jewelry. Help the criminals know that you're worth the time.

GunnyG
HAHAHAHA! You are quoting WorldNetDaily as a source (who of course doesn't give the source of their 'statistics'--in fact, they are the mayors made-up lies, that don't match the real numbers).

WND is a site that can't even get the spelling of people's names right on their sites. And they report on demons inhabiting towns. And they just lost a defamation suit when it came out they completely fabricated statements about someone.

Sorry, if it's on WND, it's more likely to be untrue than true.

You poor, deluded man. You need to learn how to tell fact from fiction. WND is principally fiction.

Anti-Gun Laws?
Based upon emotion rather than logic, The "Gun Control Act of 1968" was passed .
The murder rate averaged %50 higher during the next five years, 75% higher during the next five years and 81% during the next five years and other crimes increased proportionately.

Those are not just numbers on paper, these numbers are family members being murdered, teenage girls suffering nightmares caused by being raped and not knowing if they are now pregnant, or have AIDS or syphilis or? Little old grandmothers beaten and crippled during muggings that should never have happened!
These numbers are people just like you, just like your friends & family!

People who encourage simplistic legislation to disarm honest citizens and make crime safer are directly responsible for the added crime that results.

We now have over 20,000 (and counting), simplistic anti-gun laws that were passed as placebos to pacify simple minded people who just can't comprehend the fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws! Many criminals are unaware most anti-gun laws exist.
Legislators don't care about your safety. They carry guns and have armed guards.
They know anti-gun laws endanger us peasants but they will still give you placebo legislation to get your vote.
Only honest citizens who are being disarmed and made into helpless victims will obey anti-gun laws and when they do, people like you are responsible for them being robbed, raped and murdered.

Every gun in the hands of an honest person increases the odds against criminals and makes you and those you love a little bit safer.
Criminals know how long it takes Police to respond. Police arrive after the crime and fill out forms. Only someone armed and nearby can stop a crime.
Criminals know the response time of an armed neighbor is about 90 seconds, bullets do not plea bargain and graveyards do not grant parole!
Just an NRA bumper sticker on your neighbor's vehicle makes you home safer.

Just for those who need statistics.
There is really no need for lilly and the other Communist liars to invent their own statistics.
Here are a whole bunch of firearms statistics!

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=127

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=128

And even these statistics do not cancel out deliberate omissions.
Like the sudden drop in firearms suicide after England confiscated firearms was accompanied by a similar rise in suicide by hanging.

When someone wants to do something you are no going to stop them by removing one single option.

Oh yeah,
Would somebody please persuede Stoessel to run for public office. Seems the man has common sense.

Grassroots
I like that,"you don't need statistics to prove your Constitutional right" kind of says it all. If it is your thought, you are to be commended, if you are just passing it along, thanks. I should come as no suprise that someone with my handle is a 2nd amendment supporter. One of the best arguements I have heard is that many tyrants, such as Stalin and Hussein, have something in common, just prior to atrocities from mass murder to confistication of private property, they enact gun laws.

The assumptions are your own
Don't try to stick your assumptions in my mouth. I am merely telling you to consider the matter dispassionately. If you were the least bit attentive or took a few minutes to read my blog, you would understand where I stand. I never advocated every person having an armed guard, but if you always went in a group and you knew they were packing and competent, it would be just as well. I merely pointed out that having an armed guard is a step up.

I don't take the issue of guns lightly. I would be happy if every last person was armed, but even more happy if every last armed person could use that weapon. Guns don't protect people. People protect people--guns just help in some cases.

My original point was that lilly made some important observations. It was a group of hotheads that read so much into it.

You don't need statistics to prove your Constiutional right.

Ragnar Deneskjold
Ragnar says: "Has anyone noticed that people like Lilly & animalgirl post their rants early on these threads. But once they get caught and sufficiently bashed for their illogical arguments, often containing distortions, NON facts and occasional lies, they quickly disappear when unable defend their irrational position."

Yep, we've noticed. Animalgirl is a bit of a scrapper, but Lilly won't defend her ridiculous liberal fluff.

Some time back a TH'er coined the perfect term for posts like Lilly's by calling it a "swoop and poop". I love it!!

ModMark
Indeed. She is a great foil.

I too, hope she posts for a very long time. She's one of the very best at displaying the utter paucity of thought among the "socialist vermin" and thereby discrediting their positions.

You GO poster gurrrrrlll!!!

LobaAzul Re: Lilly
You mention that Lilly is in her eighties and "that’s an awful long time to be deliberately ignorant". Yes it is. And Lilly is the Poster Child for IGNORANCE. But what I find really disturbing and offensive about Socialist vermin like Lilly, is that for the better part of her 80 years she has poisoned the minds of several generations of our children with her vile political agenda.
THIS IS DISPICABLE!

Gun control works?
Just look at Illinois. Here, you have only one of two states which prohibits law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun. February 4, Tinley Park, Ill, five people shot to death in a Lane Bryant store. Ten days later, six shot to death at NIU. What does their Senator has to say about gun control? Oh, he is all for more control.

Go to Florida, where the first concealed handgun permits were issued, with the hard work of former NRA president, 5-feet tall, tough lady, Marion Hammer. Before and after murder rates declined, staggering. The same can be said at every state which subsequently legalized the concealed carry of guns. Whatever happened to the "wild west" shooting we were supposed to see in Florida and other states with concealed carry? Hey you liberals, any responses?

Animalgirl's stories
I suspect the author she is thinking of who refused to share his methodology and get his study peer reviewed is Arthur Kellerman of the CDC. He originally stated that if one has a firearm in the home, they are 44 times more likely to get shot. Then, mysteriously, that figure was changed to 2 times more likely - still no peer review. When asked, Dr. Kellerman said he would prefer that his wife be armed while he was away.

Remember that Bellesiles guy? *snort*!

If AG was a reporter in Kennesaw, perhaps she displayed yet another example of "reporting" what she wanted to see rather than what was.

Lilly has stated that she is in her eighties. That's an awful long time to be deliberately ignorant. She appears to have very little serious intellectual curiosity and is content to make stuff up then brazenly present her "wisdom" with such sagacity.

It's sad but at the the same time, very frightening that so many of our fellow citizens, think and behave the same way.

It's a mighty strange world where "teachers" can be some of the most stubbornly ignorant of all.

Oh and that Sophie chick -- She's even way better at the whole 'ignorant but with cutting witticism' thing. Master debater, that one!

Innocence
The language of the NYT editorial is very revealing:

"the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

"Innocence." That's a term we usually use in relationship to children, maidens and damsels in defense. Used in reference to Americans in general it shows that the NYT views U.S. citizens as innocent children who need to be protected, not free citizens capable of making responsible decisions in their own self-interest.

This is a perfect encapsulation of the elitist attitude -- the government of the elites will protect you from yourself, because it knows better than you. It knows you are but an innocent irresponsible child who can not be trusted to own or use a gun responsibly unless you are an agent of the state. The progressive infantilization of the American public is their goal.