The NRA:

[Pamela Barnes]

I know we have had this discussion before but I still don`t fully understand all this gun stuff in the USA.

Susan Howard is really pro guns, thinking that they are part of USA heritage, see that sequence where she said that in the UK there were riots when gun registration came in force? what crap. Patrick Duffy says he hates her and the NRA scaremongering tactics and hes all for gun registration and will be first in line to get it done, he is aganist all they stand for. He also said the NRA need to get out of the dark ages and into this century and it will take some time for them as they hate change. Good for Patrick.
I always liked Susan but she came across as some cult member.
I don`t wish to put the USA down at all and I adore its people but why are guns such a huge part of the culture? how did this come into being? They interviewer made it very clear to Susan that in the UK we don`t understand it as it seems obvious that guns being easily obtainable results in many issues. I guess guns have not been such a huge part of the UK society and I have to agree with Patrick Duffy.

[Jarrett]

I for one am proud of Susan Howard. She is standing up for our rights. There was riots in the UK, Australia, and Canada as they were shown here. The NRA has more members now than ever. Thats really manly of pat duffy to "hate" susan howard, in fact most likely he was part of the screw job that cost susan her job on dallas. He was the reason the show lost all reality when he returned. Some familys have guns that have been passed down through generations. Some anti-gun folk think if you have gun control it will stop crime. WAKE UP PEOPLE you will never take the guns from the criminals. I can't believe some think gun control will erase crime from the face of the earth. We have strayed way to far from what our forefathers set for us. All I can say is I respect susan howard for her beliefs.

------------------
Proud member of the Ray Krebbs Fanclub
Member of the send SueEllen back to the sanitarium taskforce

[Jock]

Now this is getting good, lol. That's funny you mention that Pam, because I was watching a police UK documentary as they showed a US clip of a policeman approcahing a man in a car. The narrator said "Because of all the guns in the US, the officer must draw his weapon" or something like that. He was baffled as to why the US likes their guns.

Anyway, I think the answer falls somewhere in between both sides of the argument (as usual). Both positions will not budge so middle ground cannot be met and things have escalated to a point where neither side can back down.

As for why, Jarrett may be better suited than I to answer, but I understand the view is if the government has unlimited assess to guns, and the bad guys (as they always will no matter what the laws are) have access to guns, and it is made impossible for citizens to get guns, then the population is now in a very bad position to be victimized from all sides.

For whatever the reasons, being spoiled, ungrateful Americans, lol, the level of freedoms, the mass differences in rich and poor, etc., the US has a lot of guns. It's a reality, like the drug problem that will not be changed by law. There are gun laws in place currently that do no good.

For each thing you gain, you give something up. For freedoms we are granted, we lose other things. If you subscribe that we must be free, than it has to apply across the board. Free speech must apply to unpopular speech for example, and people must have the right to own guns if they choose. It's a by-product of the US theory and if you go by it, then you can't pick & choose which areas are to be applied. I don't feel personally, it's out of line to be checked out and registered or even put a safety on triggers, but like I say, neither side will budge.

That's just my meaningless take on it anyway, haha. Jarrett makes a good point in that in light of Duffy's attitude, it may have been him and not Hagman that muscled her out of the show. OK, Pam, you opened the can of worms, lol...let the games begin, haha :-)

[Aileen]

I am a strong believer in reasonable regulations for guns, particularly handguns. I live in Texas and in this state, you can buy a handgun more easily than you can buy a prescription flu medicine. I do not believe that guns should be illegal; I believe that their ownership should be regulated in a similar manner to automobiles: registration, licensing, evidence of training in their safe and proper use, and required insurance in the event of accidents. Guns are inherently dangerous objects; they are designed to do bodily harm. I, for one, have never understood why law-abiding gun owners who will supposedly use their guns in a safe manner resist such regulations. As it stands now, anyone can buy a gun in Texas like they are buying a box of cereal off a grocery store shelf.
As to why Americans have such a love affair with guns, all Americans DO NOT. The ones that do seem to need something extra to feel safe and/or powerful in their lives; I think they are kind of sad. I, for one, am not worried about the government breaking down my door and taking away my "freedom"; I don't need a gun to protect me from my own government. How free am I anyway, if I'm worried about every joker on the street packing a gun he can use any time he gets mad? How free am I if I'm scared to death of my child being the victim of gun violence?

Also, the Second Amendment, which the gun groups stand on, referred to the formation of local militias, not individual gun ownership (according to every constitutional and historical scholar I have read). The gun lobby has never challenged gun regulations in court, a natural course of action if such regulations violate the second amendment, because they know a court would not find in their favor, based on an accurate interpretation of the historical context of the Second Amendment.

I did not see the UK Dallas special, but I must say I respect Patrick Duffy's position. His disagreement with Susan Howard on this issue doesn't mean he was responsible for her leaving the show, for heaven's sake. That's a bit of a leap, don't you think?


[This message has been edited by Aileen (edited 05-23-2000).]

[JockEwing]

Politics, politics, politics. I can understand both sides to this issue, to a point. I think that gun-control will not work because criminals don't obey laws and this will just create a blackmarket for them.
But I also think if you feel the need for a handgun, there is no reason you can't wait a week or so to get it. This way a proper backround check can be done. This would also eliminate the inpulsive kid or employee from getting a gun and going columbine at school or work. I can respect the issue, but
it's hard to stomach the NRA crowd. Unfortunately, the US has a large population
of red-necks, hence the popularity of handguns, WWf Wrestling and Nascar. I think these people are an embarrassment! The US is really about 10 different countries, depending on where you are. This is why I will never leave California, not to mention the weather. Pat Duffy and Susan Howard are about as different as they come.

[Jock]

Could be a bit of a leap, but the exercise does me good :-). I'm just saying if a woman takes a strong position like that, she's more likely to be alienated, but it's mere speculation on my part. And I, like JockEwing (took politics to bring him out again, haha) see both sides of the issue so I was generalizing. Not all Americans yearn to bear arms. Some of them like to bear legs, and other various parts as well :-).

But I basically agree if you want a gun and don't have plans to use it nefariously, you should have no objection to registering it, etc, but like auto reg, my problem is they charge you money for it which to me is a bit of a scam. And saying the 2nd amendment is to organizae malitias (bad spelling sorry), don't give any more people ideas, haha :-).

[Anti-Krebbs]

With Jarrett, and NRA fanatics alike, they use any tactic necessary to get away from answering straight out any question that is asked. If you have ever seen an NRA person interviewed, it is a purely sickening sight, and the reporter should recieve an award for even bothering. I watched Maria Shriver interview Cheif-Ass Charlton Heston. He dodged every question she gave him, changing the subject to some obscure shooting death of a police officer (or some such).

The NRA and its cult of followers gets NO respect from me. You don't need to be a fanatic to support guns.

My theory as to why guns are such a big part of the US is because of its history. Without guns, the colonists could not have defeated the mother country, and the US would not have existed (or its existace would have been delayed). The colonists used guns to gain their freedom, and felt the need to keep them, in the event that their freedom or safety would ever be in jeopardy of being taken away.

My thing with the 2nd Amendment is this: Things change. When the Constitution was written, they didn't have handguns. They didnt have machine guns. They didnt have tanks and bazookas. You know what the had? MUSKETS. So let's see, they wrote the 2nd amendment when you had to sit and load a musket five minutes before firing. Now, you can kill 20 people in less than a minute with a gun. Something tells me there should be a little addition to the law.

Yes, guns are important. Without the right to own a gun, there is that chance that your private property could be taken away from you, as minute a chance as it is. You should have the access to be able to protect your home in case of intrusion. If someone is going to cause you and your family or property harm, you should have the right and ability to stop them, by any means necessary.

But, like Aileen says, there should be registration and licenses for guns. Reasonable and responsible gun buyers and owners would have no problem filling out a paper and letting themselves be subject to background checks. A person of that nature would, or should, have no prior troubles. No trouble at all, wait a few days while some checks go through, and there you go, you can own a gun.

It is when the fanatics of the NRA would won't budge a single inch (and who are the National Rifle Association, not the National Handgun Association, which they seem to forget like the asses they are), that there are problems. Right now, most people who are against the NRA are only asking for there to be background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun. These people arent saying that there should be ABSOLUTELY no guns allowed.

Damn straight there should be background checks. If those checks save at least ONE person's live, where a psycho could not get a gun because of the checks, then it is worth it.

True, there is no way to eliminate the illegal buying and selling of guns. How asinine to think that by putting checks on guns, no more "bad guys" will be able to get ahold of guns and commit violent crimes.

But, these checks could, and would, prevent SOME people from getting guns, and in turn saving lives. As I said, any reasonable person would be willing to wait a day or so to get a gun if it involved getting checked. Reasonable people understand that owning a gun is a responsiblity and they also understand it would keep some people not worthy of owning a gun from getting one.

The NRA is sick. Basically, a controlling cult. You see Susan Howard. She is nothing but a puppet on the hand of the evil Charlton Heston. Any group that can be that sick and twisted should not be given the time of day, which unforunately, they are given.

------------------
"Steal me away..."

[Jarrett]

"I, for one, have never understood why law-abiding gun owners who will supposedly use their guns in a safe manner resist such regulations"

*** The problem here is once the government starts regulations they will not stop until they have everyone's guns. I know alot think well thats not going to happen! Well look at Canada, UK, and Australia where it is. The crime rate is exploding. ***

"As to why Americans have such a love affair with guns, all Americans DO NOT. The ones that do seem to need something extra to feel safe and/or powerful in their lives; I think they are kind of sad."

*** So I guess police officers need guns to feel safe? Guns are a part of american heritage and culture. I dont think anyone "loves" guns. ***

"I, for one, am not worried about the government breaking down my door and taking away my "freedom"; I don't need a gun to protect me from my own government."

*** I wouldent trust them as far as I could throw them. Anyone that still maintains the single bullet theory is truth I dont believe at all. Government is power pure and simple. If I recall correctly Hitler had the Jews guns taken from them too. ***

"How free am I anyway, if I'm worried about every joker on the street packing a gun he can use any time he gets mad? How free am I if I'm scared to death of my child being the victim of gun violence?"

*** If they take guns, none of us are free anymore. The criminals will be the only ones to have guns. Still it wont help school violence. Has drug laws reduced kids on drugs? ***


I really do like this subject to hear all sides. Yes there are alot of rednecks out there. About 10 milion households watch wrestling on monday nights. And its funny back east here we assume california as hippies, drug wars, gangs, and LA as sin city. So I see the thoughts vary per region.

P.S. (No offence Jock lol)


------------------
Proud member of the Ray Krebbs Fanclub
Member of the send SueEllen back to the sanitarium taskforce

[JockEwing]

Anti-Krebbs, you should change your name to Anti-Heston. I think you make some good points, the constitution was written before handguns and should be amended, but what a fuss that will cause.I can't believe a liberal like Donna Krebbs would support the NRA! It must have made Susan Howard sick to play the part of left-wing Donna! Jock, I have been kind of quiet lately, (too busy),
and some of the posts have been a little weak, but it's nice to hear some of the heavy-hitters back. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we hear Sonohwolf(sp)
and Pam Ewing's take on this! (I hope)
remember, have a take and do not suck!.
Jim Rome

[Jarrett]

Well AK, I dont think I am a fanatic. and I dont need a minor to speak for me. If I am a fanatic I will tell you, but not be told so. I am not a spokesman for the NRA, but if I am asked my views I will gladly tell them. I am a staunch liberal, but I dont agree with some of their liberal views. I think if they would concentrate on ridding the semi-automatic guns that would be better. But they dont worry about that.

As far as the media goes, I would keep my mouth shut as well, because they can take one word and make a major story from it. I respect Ak's views on the matter. Nobody has to join by force. All I know is that the membership level is record breaking.

I am also for registration, but once again if a criminal wants a gun he wont think twice about getting it from black market. Bombs are the 2nd big problem. Are they going to ban fertilizer as well?

All Susan is doing is speaking what she believes you cant tell people what to think, and she was there longer than heston anyway. If it would be Larry hagman or any bigger celebrity I think people would think differently.


------------------
Proud member of the Ray Krebbs Fanclub
Member of the send SueEllen back to the sanitarium taskforce

[JockEwing]

Hey Jarrett,
have you ever been to Austraila, the UK, or
Canada? when I was in Austraila they were asking me about the crime in America. There
was little or no crime, because if you commit a crimre there, the police beat the hell out of you, without their guns. Maybe this is a good idea. A gun is not going to protect you from the government, if they want you, they are going to get you.

[Pamela Barnes]

Politics this may be but very much Dallas related. In actual fact Jock Larry Hagman is also aganist the NRA, I will have to rewatch the Larry Hagman uncut interview (please Colin get me the uncut Susan Howard asap) because he reveals his politics in it.

The point about guns is that the NRA are scared of change, they want to hang onto their ancient ideals. Jarrett there was ONE small march by a group of upper class fox hunters and that was shown by Susan Howard on her show in such a manipulated scare mongering fashion that it proved totally to me her objectives and underhand way of achiveing them.
She talks about educating people people about guns, gee thats going to work?? Um no I don`t think so. Guns seem to have become a status symbol and a way of life that is a very dangerous situation. How many deaths and mass shootings does it take to wake up to the situation? Who shall we blame? the parents? school? Yes easy options and steers away from the real issue. Being able to buy guns easily is saying that it is ok to shoot people. Guns kill, I personally I don`t care if they are used for sport , the fact remains they are weapons of destruction and have led to mass killings, and of children and even children killing other children and they are not isolated cases they are becoming more common. Isn`t it time a message was portrayed that guns are bad? That guns kill?? "Oh I need a gun to protect myself from other gun holders" is one argument I hear, what nonsense, isn`t that just fueling the situation. There needs to be a mass change in thinking. When I was in LA I was told to sleep on the floor and not at window level because I was in gun zone, people I spoke to said how easy it was to get guns, I spoke to people whos kids had been shot. What does it take to realise what kind of society making guns acceptable creates? what message does this relay to the children? I am very confused by the thinking here.

[Jock]

That the 2nd Amend should only apply to muskets as that was it's original intent means you don't want women to vote or blacks to have rights as that was original intent as well. I don't see why Jarrett must be a fanatic if he sees things a certain way. We don't need loud mouthed, beach ball face Rosie O' Donnel (who sold guns herself for K-Mart while telling us they were wrong) or Chuckie Heston and his wig to make up our minds as to what policy should be or why we should be lumped in with them if we see it either way. They are a couple of bubble headed celebrities. It's been decided by laws that aren't enforced. We are lawed to death while what is on the books would meet the middle ground if properly applied. I agree the NRA is being unreasonable, but so is the other side. This is because if you disagree with either camp, you are labeled a fanatic. Maybe we could do what is logical instead, fixing the system as oppossed to a knee jerk reaction to school shootings more a result of poor parenting. It must be very hard to overlook your child building an arsenal, but even a half ass parent could handle it I think.

As for the gov't, if you really dig into the cases of Ruby Ridge and Waco, I think even the least conspiracy minded person would see we have need for some reservations regarding their decision making process.

Again, just my views, I'm not in either bed. Mine is a quest for good sense from a world that has little :-).

[Pamela Barnes]

Hey Jock get off the fence lol http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So Jock what is the solution? Just a question? Do you or anybody feel there is one? Or should everyone just ignore all the shootings and stick their heads in the sand?

http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif lol

[Jock]

Yes, I'm for sticking my head in the sand. That sounds like the best solution, lol.
Seriously, the people getting those guns in LA Pam are not people like you and me. They are the people that will always have guns while we do not. I don't own a gun, but I could see why someone that lives in a war zone like that would need protection. Not that it's right, but what can they do? The gun is only the end result of a far deeper problem.

I don't think there really is an answer when people are involved. We can't even agree on a forum to disagree without it always taking a turn eventually (me usually being guilty, haha). I think if someone goes nuts and doesn't have a gun, they'll find a way to kill. It sounds like a cop out, but you have to look past the end result and start going back to find the catalyst that sets the chain of events. Much is upbringing, parenting, personal responsibility & swift consequences (not a way out if you weren't hugged enough or have enough money to hire a dream team, haha). Like I say, I think both sides are a little extreme & volitile which is why no solution will come.

If I knew the answer, I'd be on the lecture circuit with self help books & not posting because I'm bored stiff at my job, lol :-). But I think we attack symptoms, not causes. Violence is the result. Does TV violence make people violent, or is it merely a relection of the world we created?

[This message has been edited by Jock (edited 05-23-2000).]

[Anti-Krebbs]

Yes, as I said, an NRA nut does anything they can to avoid questions. Notice how Jarrett dismissed what I said because I am a minor. I am not surprised at that either, I have come to expect nothing better.

A fanatic to me is someone who is so caught up in their side, they can't see change. I dont see that the Anti-NRA side is like that, as a whole, because not a whole hell of a lot has been done. The NRA, on the other hand, has kept a lot from getting done in the gun-control process, and will continue to until everyone sees them for what they really are.

Also, Jock is sounding more and more NRA by the minute. I said the 2nd amendment was written at the time of muskets. That needs changed, as times have changed.

He questions whether that meant I thought blacks and women should not have the right to vote? Well, both of those things have been changed, because we have come to see the error in the eyes of which our country was founded. Why not come to terms that something needs to be done with the 2nd Amendment as well?

------------------
"Steal me away..."

[Pamela Barnes]

Also I don`t recall voting rights and the rights of certain oppressed groups resulting in mass killings?

I hear this freedom stuff all the time, you can`t compare voting rights to gun rights.
I have the right to own a murderous weapon, I have the right to vote.......um there is a slight difference and that is one is allowing freedom the other is allowing murder.

[Aileen]

Jarrett - I have no problem with police officers having guns. It is part of their profession and necessary to the work they do. But most law enforcement groups that I've heard speak out on the gun regulation issue support increased gun regulation, not less. And I respect their opinion as to what would be more effective for crime prevention and law enforcement.

I know many people who are in favor of stricter gun regulation, and very few of them support the banning of guns outright. I agree with the pro-gun argument that a gun is a tool, but since it is a powerful tool that when misused, creates serious harm and often death, it is a tool that should be monitored and its use regulated. We regulate the sale of drugs and our food supply, the safety of our transportation system, the quality of our air and water. I still don't understand why regulation of ownership of a device solely designed to hurt or kill people is an "attack on freedom". Why does a gun owner's right to own any type of gun in any quantity he wants supercede my right to feel safe from gun violence?

[Pamela Barnes]

Exactly Aileen you said it so well http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pamela wrote:
"I know we have had this discussion before but I still don`t fully understand all this gun stuff in the USA."

Define "Gun stuff" if you c/would.
The whole "stuff" is about keeping the Constitution of the United States alive and well.
There are certain factors against us, AKA the Liberals and Socialists, that want to change the greatest country known to mankind, into yet another dump where mobs and the elite rule.
In order to do that, they have to strip the most important rights away first.
Taking the first, forth , fifth, and ninth amendments didn't work because we have the second...and they DID try!
So, they are after the second.
(these people are slow and stupid after all)
If that succeeds, then the rest is easy.
It's NOT going to be an easy fight for them considering how many of us truly DO want the Constitution kept intact, regardless of what Rosie O'donnell says.
THAT'S why and how I interpret your meaning of "gun stuff" is, and why you are so confused.
Gore and his ilk once wanted to ban music made by Donny and Marie Osmond!

The time to end this country has come to an end!

[Pamela Barnes]

Ok 12345 by gunstuff I am referring to the whole gun issue in the States, trying to understand why guns are such an integral part of society and what the whole issue is with registration?

I am also interesting to know what people who believe in freedom with guns feel the solution is to the mass shootings and easy access of guns? Do you feel its right guns are easily available?

This sad, sad, sad conversation.

There is no firearms "problem" in America. To the extent people "believe" there is, the references are quickly revealed to be rehash of media lies.

I repeat: there is no firearms "problem" in America.

FACT
According to the FBI's annual UCR, the number of firearms in the possession of Americans increases annually, yet, the firearms homicide rate declines. Where's the correlation? There is none.

FACT
The _per capita_ number of homicides of WHITE Americans barely exceeds that of most European countries. And we own 230,000,000 firearms!!!!!!!!!!!!! According to the hysterics, we ought to be embroiled in wholesale SLAUGHTER.

It is due to the inclusion of the astronomical BLACK homicide figures that the American homicide figures are so distorted.

Since figures indicate lawful firearm possession is more prevalent among white households, and the white homicide figure is so low, obviously, again, there is no correlation between firearms and homicide.

FACT
Firearms are offered as a _motive_ for suicides in the United States. This is curious since, although the white firearm suicide figure is 76%, the black suicide figure is a mere 2%. And this in spite of the fact that the black firearm homicide figures are astronomical. Again, clearly, there is no correlational evidence to suggest a clear linkage to the existence, availability or presence of a firearm for suicide.

Read the FBI figures. Read the rabid anti-gun CDC figures. Learn a little about a subject before you contribute your worthless "beliefs" and "opinions" absent facts.

Incidentally, Norway, Switzerland and Israel all have higher firearm possession ratios than the U.S. Canadian per capita firearm possession equals that of the U.S.

In the end, the misconception of a "firearms" issue is in all reality an economics issue in which a violent, drug-addicted criminal underclass wages a war on itself. To support this belief, merely look to Mexico, Brazil, South Africa or Jamaica.

Poverty, not guns, is a cause of homicide. Poor communities in the U.S. suffer the greatest firearms homicide rates.

Homicide and guns? Pfffffff.

Homicide and poverty? Definitely.

You want to reduce firearms crime in the U.S.? Bring the American underclass into the mainstream.

I'm through here.

[Aileen]

So gun violence in the black community doesn't count?

(I thought this board was going to go to "registered only" posters. Who are these guys?)

[This message has been edited by Aileen (edited 05-23-2000).]

[Pamela Barnes]

Ronin you make a statment like that then say your through here?

I am confused by your post, are you saying that the black community is so oppressed and isolated that it leads to crime and needs to be brought into line with the white people?

i think your post has confused the issue totally and running off without explaing yourself does not help

[Anti-Krebbs]

Well I bow down to your almighty knowledge, ronin. Thank you for making everything so clear as to you are right and everyone else is stupid.

How much could I have wagered that a nutjob would come out of the wood work to post on the thread?

It's great to have our opinions dismissed by an outsider/troll. We all love that.

The next time you walk into a conversation and attempt to post your "facts" and opinions, do so with a better attitude. Your kind is not wanted here.

And Aileen - The registered thing should be going back very very shortly. I dont know how it got switched, but it will be changed.

------------------
"Steal me away..."

I hadn't expected msg. traffic so quickly. I'll elaborate. As to the immediate ad hominem "troll" "nutcase" references...

Prove your superior etiquette, and refrain from slanders. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I have not called anyone here a "nut" or a "troll" for merely entertaining an "opinion."

My initial point on the sadness of this exchange is that, as usual, it proceeds down the usual path. Persons espousing "feelings" and "opinions." All opinions are not equal merely for being expressed, and a rude opinion that offends is not necessarily dismissed because it offends your sensibilities. If you believe in universal truths, and I do, than you can deal with this.

Pam, thank you for your attentive reading.
No. This is _not_ about racism. This is, I repeat, about economics. Where poverty festers, misery and crime color the palette of life. That firearms, like other inanimate instruments, are an element of that equation, is a given. Unless you believe that the root causes of black poverty are racist, which would constitute a digression.

But no, I am not advancing a "racist" agenda. White lower class families are beset by the same problems as that disadvantaged segment of the black population. It is therefore quite simply, and obviously, an economics issue, not a "gun" issue. But otherwise, the immediate reference to "racism" are almost humurous. Heaven forbid one professes an "opinion" not "polite" enough because race or ethnicity are invoked. Oh troll, oh nutcase.


To guide this around to the suggested topic--silly regulations and more laws will not resolve anything. To change the equation of firearm criminality in the U.S., or anywhere in the world for that matter, people need to have tangible alternatives to drugs, family break-up, violence, abuse and the cycle of death that pervade their lives. THAT is the solution to "firearms" issues. But as I have said, there is no such thing as a "firearms" issue.

[Pamela Barnes]

Yes Ronin but don`t you think that regulating guns is at least a start to addressing the issue? I agree totally with your statement but I also think this works hand in hand with registering for guns.
I believe that the class divide is such that of course it plays a role in violence, but at the moment you have segments of the community who are angry or mentally unstable for various issues but you also have a system where these people have easy gun access. Making guns less accessable would surely go someway to stop crime, if its even one life surely that is one life enough.
Of course creating some kind of equality would go someway towards resolving the issue, but lets remove guns from being easily obtainable.

[Cliff_Barnes]

Well, I guess it is time for me to add my two cents. I just want to address one topic that has come up here in this thread. Someone earlier was stating that by outlawing guns, only the criminals would have guns and I for one must agree with that,but I also feels that it goes a little deeper.

In 1920 to 1933 the United States entered a period know as prohibition. During this time all importing, exporting, transporting, selling, and manufacturing of intoxicating liquor was outlawed. One would initially think that this would greatly decrease the use of alchol in the United States,but in fact the opposet is true. In fact this event lead to a great increase in criminal activity by creating this new black market for alcohol. It also surprisinly caused an increase in alcohol comsuption. The drop in alcohol related deaths before prohibition quickly rose during prohibition. Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, while arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent during prohibition.

I think that this piece of history should be taken into consideration while people are trying to take America down the road of a "gun prohibition" If we learn from the past we see that somthing of this nature would not have a positive effect on our great nation and could possibly have a devestating effect and increase in our difficulties.

Pamela:

I apologize for the lengthy replies, but it's just not as simple as "register guns."

Cars are registered, but it has nothing to do with vehicle safety, it's for the purpose of taxation. Vehicle registration and licensing has had _no_ impact on reducing vehicular deaths. None. The numbers are out there. See for yourself.

Why would a purely bureaucratic effort have a tangible impact on matters of criminality?

As I've mentioned before, I believe there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime. I likewise believe there is a strong correlation between the illegal drugtrade and firearms crime. How would another administrative effort impact this? It wouldn't. It hasn't. It won't.

What I would say is, _prove_ that registration would have an impact you suggest, and _prove_ it will not infringe on my rights, and it is more likely to sway me than simply saying, "We need registration because it will reduce fatalities."

It is, in fact, a completely unproven assertion. Worse still, it can be _disproven_.

One question: are you comparing guns to cars as far as registration and licensing are concerned? If you are, I may have some more unpleasant suggestions, especially if the comparison is rigorously made.

[jmwildenthal]

There were several points raised. I will respond in multiple posts, in the order the posts were raised.

Those thinking that guns were never a large part of the U.K. are not familiar with the history of firearms in the U.K. There were NO regulations (except for a nominal excise tax imposed at the turn of the century) from the Industrial Revolution until 1920.

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Colin Greenwood, _Firearms Control,_ (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

Inspector Greenwood took a one year sabbatical at Cambridge to do his study. He started his research believing that registration would easily be proved beneficial. More on registration later http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Probably the most obvious political ramification of the right to defensive arms is the deterrent effect of the power to disarm dissenters in a violence-ridden society. Until the early nineteenth century England was an enormously violent country overrun with cutthroats, cutpurses, burglars, and highwaymen, and in which rioting over social and political matters was endemic. Moreover, until 1829 it had no police. So when the seventeenth century Stuart Kings began selectively disarming their enemies the effect was not simply to safeguard the throne, but to severely penalize dissent. Those who had opposed the King were left helpless against either felons or rioters --who, by the very fact, were encouraged to attack them. The_in terrorem_effect upon dissent of knowing that to speak might render one's family defenseless while targeting them for every felon, and every enemy who might want to whip up riotous public sentiment against them, is obvious." - Don B. Kates, Jr, "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of
Self-Protection," _Constitutional Commentary,_ vol. 9, p.98 (1992)

Note that crime decreased as guns became more reliable and more widely available throughout the 1800s.

Lastly, weapons were the mark of a responsible citizen. That is why we have the following statement:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi _Gandhi, An Autobiography_, M. K. Gandhi, page 446

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-24-2000).]

[jacey_ewing]

ok jock ewing, WHAT IS WRONG WITH NASCAR? if you can believe this, i am a nascar fan who does not own a gun, nor am i a redneck! i do not see what the two thngs have to do with each other,and im not going to deep on this issue-all i know is that i have a 4 mnth old baby and it scares the hell out of me to think that she will not even be safe to go to school! that is ridiculous! is anybody thinking of he children? they are all that matters-they are the future! oooh, scary,huh.....

------------------


JR IS GOD!

[jmwildenthal]

I'd like to discuss availability: Prior to 1968 most residents of the U.S. could buy any rifle, pistol, shotgun, trench mortar, or bazooka (and ammo for each) by mail, without any effective age or background check. Yet the crime rate from the 1940s through 1960s was much lower than the current crime rate.
If availability truly is the problem, then there should have been much more crime back then. There wasn't. Availability is lower now.

As for purchasing guns in Texas, purchasing from a dealer requires an FBI background check on the purchaser (NICS or prior check done for Concealed Handgun License). Buying from a private individual does not require any background check but the seller cannot legally transfer the firearm if they suspect the buyer is a felon, or that the buyer will use the firearm to commit a crime, or that the buyer is purchasing for someone else (other than as a gift), or that the buyer is in any way prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Guns as cars is treated at length in the following article:

http://reason.com/9911/fe.dk.taking.html

Those interested in understanding the Second Amendment should check out www.2ndLawLib.org (http://www.2ndLawLib.org) as it has papers by law professors on both sides. Not all papers are there, but the full list runs about 45 : 5 in favor of "individual rights," as do three US Supreme Court decisions.

[jmwildenthal]

Waiting periods don't deter criminals. They don't use legitimate means to get them. Waiting periods do prevent individuals from getting needed protection from stalkers or abusive family members.

As for repealing the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right existed prior to the Constitution and is not dependent on the Constitution for it's existence. It is one of the rights we are "endowed by Our Creator" to borrow from the Declaration of Independence.

There are several arguments against registration or licensing. The first is that it makes it easy to later change the law and confiscate guns. The second is that they have never been shown to do any good:

Inspector Greenwood of England again:

"In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these [gun registration] records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of this study could offer any evidence to establish the value of the system of registering weapons." - Colin Greenwood, _Firearms Control,_ (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972,) p. 246

During his study he contacted almost every police agency in England.

Victoria, Australia:

"The main purpose of this paper has been to examine the viability of firearms registration and the control of the licensing of people to use and possess firearms. I have read many articles on the matters and interviewed several people from both sides of the fence. Without meaning to pre-empt some of the areas under examination I find conclusively that firearms registration is an exercise in futility." - Senior Sergeant S. W. Waterman, Victoria Police Inspectors' Course No. 51 - 1986

New Zealand:

"The Police remain opposed to registering all firearms, the previous system (of firearm registration) was inefficient, ineffective and expensive." - Chief Inspector G Jones, Coordinator: Firearms & Tactical Groups, March 18 1992 in a letter to the Auckland, New Zealand, Fish and Game Council.

And here Inspector Greenwood explains why registration and licensing don't work:

"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the 'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Colin Greenwood, "Shooting Back," Police Review, 10 November 1978 page 1668

[jmwildenthal]

There is this misconception that gun technology has greatly changed. Handguns have been around since long before the Constitution. The first functional revolver predated the American Revolution by several decades (Puckle gun). Semiauto handguns have been around for over 100 years (Mauser C96). Rifles with detachable magazines have been around since WWI. And prior to 1968 you could order them by mail.

Mass killings are lower where guns are most prevalent. The Israelis had problems with Palestinian terrorists attacking the schools. This means the attackers were trained and determined. The Israeli response was to arm the teachers and let parents and grandparents sit around the playground with Galils (M-16s). The number of terrorist attacks on schools quickly went to zero.

Let me pose a question: What about firearms in Utopia? In the mind of most procontrol people, there are no guns as they are banned. In the mind of most proRKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) people, anyone can carry any gun they want because they are trusted. We proRKBA individuals think citizens (can vote and serve at all levels of juries) are to be trusted, kind of like "innocent until proven guilty."

As for whether guns are bad or good, examining only the costs and not the benefits will often lead to incorrect conclusions. Doctors are estimated to kill about 90000 people each year through negligence and other malpractice. That is about six times the number killed by the illicit use of firearms. Yet we don't ban doctors because we also look at the good they do.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, _The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology_, Fall 1995

Dr. Wolfgang is on record stating that the police should be disarmed, too.

There are at least half a dozen scholarly studies on the benefits of guns that conclude that they are used about 2m times per year for defense. Is that not valuable? Is rape prevented not valuable?

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-24-2000).]

[Ewing 84]

ugh how do you know so much about guns? thats scary...

[jmwildenthal]

If we want to discuss whether someone is responsible enough to own firearms in the context of voting, I think the following quote states the case fairly well:

"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?" - Dr. Alan Keyes

I would support one regulation on firearm transfers: No transfer without the buyer showing a valid voter's registration certificate. The people who cannot legally own guns are (with a few exceptions) the same people who cannot legally vote. This would reduce voter fraud, not create a confiscation list, and provide the opportunity for a background check of every potential purchaser every two years (IIRC, four is the BATF regulations).

FYI, when I started discussing this issue (with my cousin, a liberal Democrat law professor who thought guns should be banned), I thought registration and licensing should be implemented. Then I did some research....

Ewing 84: You think studying the use and misuse of firearms is scary? I find suggesting and making public policy without a full understanding of the issues to be scarier.

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-24-2000).]

[Pamela Barnes]

The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of a book by Dr. John Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago, which claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed-carry handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature -- and his findings dismissed by a growing list of prominent researchers -- the gun lobby successfully used it to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.

This study conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as follows:

For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen - but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.

Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much -- by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.

Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.

From 1992 to 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for the 11 states that had liberal CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants) during this entire period dropped only 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was twice that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the six-year period. New York experienced a 43% decline and California experienced a 37% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.

On another note of course the UK had a huge gun culture, gee we forced ourselves on other countries using guns creating the British Empire, and yes we had a violent society and still do, but personally I would not know where to get a gun, none of my family have guns, friends, in fact nobody I know has a gun. Isn`t that a positive thing? Guns are not easily accessable, yes if I realy and truly had a desire to get a gun I am sure I could find one or buy one but that fact is that with them not being in my face there is less desire for me to go out and get one. Isn`t there rather a pressure to own a weapon when they become part of a society? Yes the UK has had a violent history but by the mass there is no percieved need to have a gun, isn`t that a shift in thinking? Of course gun control will not solve all the problems but it would go towards changing the mindset that guns are o.k. I find Aileens comment about guns very scary, being able to purchase one so easily, take away this accessability, start telling people guns are wrong. I really don`t feel it creates a positive society by telling children "hey its ok to have a gun but be safe with it". You mention cars, cars were not built to kill people, lets face the facts that nowadays that is what guns are used for, to commit acts of violence aganist an other human being. We have all mentioned statistics, facts and opinions but at what point does common sense prevail? It seems obvious to me that shifting thinking that guns are good is obviously going to go someway towards resolving part of the issue.

One argument I hear is that the government are dictating what is right and wrong, that the government have too much control. Then why not legalise all forms of drugs? and other things. You say more guns means less violence, isn`t that like saying more drugs leads to less drug taking?



[This message has been edited by Pamela (edited 05-24-2000).]

[Aileen]

Pamela, I agree with your well-argued points. Further regulations of gun ownership would make a values statement, that we as a society believe that such ownership is a serious responsibility to be undertaken soberly. Our lax attitude toward guns as expressed by our lax regulating of them is part of the problem of gun violence, I believe.

[JockEwing]

I find Pamela's latest comments very interesting. Do some of you NRA types think
drugs should be legalized? I personally think certain "drugs" should be legal, I mean
marijuana is a lot less addicting and causes alot less trouble than Nicotine or Alcohol
and even caffeine is legal. I don't think speed, cocaine or herioen should be legal,
but would you support this? If you truly believe your argument about the government not being in your private life, than why have any laws? In regards to Nascar, I didn't mean to single oput anyone, but when you make a broad statement, you sometimes do, but overall these NRA, WWF, and NAscar types seem to have similar intellectual levels, they are also the same people who watch Steven Segal movies. I'm sure there are exptions to this rule, but if you look at them as a group, you'll find the majority are moronic red-necks. I was meerly trying to enlighten some of our European friends as
to why some of these stupid things are popular in the US. Lastly, I hope 123456 isn't someone without the guts to post under their name.

[Jock]

The problem w/statistics is the originator of the study & their agenda. As we've seen here, one set of numbers is discredited by another study, who recrunched the numbers to benefit their thesis. To me, as important as the study is the group originating it. It's more about proving the person right than addressing the cause of the problem.

Also, the population is now much higher, so historical statistics must take that into consideration. As you can see from the many posts, this issue will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because no one opens to middle ground or tolerates another's take on a solution to generate a discussion to resolve the issue.

Many good points on all sides. I know Pam will call me a fence sitter, lol, but it's taking thoughts into consideration, weighing them free of intense passion, emotion, and making it personal (Mr. Spock, haha) that will finally address the real matters that cause these problems. To be proved right at the expense of solving the problem (which NRA & opponents do) will only make it go around in circles. To me the answer lies somewhere in the middle (the fence, lol).

I think there are indeed economic issues and injustices causing the anger that brings a person to the position where they feel the need to act out. This is due to many causes that if addressed would decimate the disease as opposed to the symptom. We always chase the end result and throw grant money to generate useless studys (because the numbers are skewed) instead of attacking a root cause. The gov't has always made it racial when it's economical because that will keep us divided from seeing the scam to keep them in power (divide & conquer).


I also agree with Cliff that you can't make something illegal after it has been legal or it creates a backlash black market which will only makes matters worse. The only hope is sensible (a tough word for extremists, lol), which if law abiding, shouldn't be a problem. It has to be designed to help, not just generate another reg fee to misuse or take more from the everyday working man. Oops, fell off my soap box, haha :-)

[Jock]

Separate post to JockEwing, lol :-). Yes, I think there would be less crime if many drugs were legalized and regulated by some authority. Think of the gang members instantly put out of biz with one stroke.

There are always exceptions to the rule and it's not good to generalize, but he makes a point about the intellectual levels of some Americans in the group he speaks of and does it in a humerous way which is always a plus, lol :-).

More members in the NRA?
More Columbines is the price. Enjoy
your 'freedom' whilst six year olds shoot each other in school!

[JockEwing]

Who are all these people coming out of the woodwork? Gee, have the gonads to stand behind your posts! I didn't realize so many people cruise in and out of this forum lol,
which leads me to believe these are registered people without the guts to stand behind their opinion.

[Jock]

Mr. Craplin (because you are anonymus, I will have a bit of fun with your chosen fake name--no offense, lol), it's all black and white to you which is the problem.

Let's say there were no guns ever. The kids of Columbine wouldn't have done something violent anyway that cost lives? The 6 year old didn't have his problem already? Where is the root? Where does it start? The gun is the end, but what is the cause of the behavior? Until you attack that you solve nothing. It's shortsighted to say a gun ban will solve everything. We'll next have to ban anything sharp, all ingredients that go into a bomb, etc. To me, this isn't even a gun debate. Find the cause, solve the problem. I'm repeating myself from before, but a zealot is a zealot, regardless of what side you fall on. Let's shake the hysteria and unyeilding extremism on both sides and solve the real problems. Everything else will fall into place.

[Jarrett]

If you want to blame someone for the school shootings then blame the damn parents. The columbine kids that murdered were not loved at home. The parents paid so much attention that they never saw the bomb materials laying in plain view in the kids bedroom. Thats the trouble with both parents working, the child gets no attention. Listen people guns dont kill.

[Pamela Barnes]

Blame the parents!! I always hear this one. Why not blame the parents parents, or their parents, infact lets blame anyone we can to avoid the real issue.

If your looking at parents being uncaring then that is an issue about the issues in society or with certain less fortunate groups in society.

People kill guns don`t, yes that is true but guns are used to kill. We wear coats when we`re cold, we wear glasses to see and guns to kill. Glasses do no see on their own, and coats don`t keep themselves warm and guns are abused because they are readily available.
Isn`t it time that people took responsibility for the issues that unfold, its very nice being an ostrich and burying heads in sand.
The arguments for guns so far are so full of holes, one hand holding this ideal of less government control. Where do you people want control? Or do you think it should be free for all and let anarcy rule.
I am actually talking about a shift in thinking, sending out a message that killing is bad, right now it seems to me the message being created is thet guns are ok and lets fact it thats what guns are used for. Last time we had this discussion someone said how they took rifle lessons at school. Gee whizz that is unreal, what is that saying?
Isn`t it time a different form of morals was set in stone and those morals would say that killing is wrong and so are guns. Rather than teaching a dumb rifle lesson I would much prefer my child to learn how to value and respect other human beings and if my child was in a system where that was on the curriculum I would find them a new school.

[Jarrett]

Well the real issue is the parents. Who buys the guns? People are afraid of the truth. 30 years ago we had no crime in schools, and you wanna know why? Because the mothers were home while her husband provided the income thats why. Kids making bombs at home right in their bedroom and thats avoiding the issue?

As far as guns used to kill, anything can be used to kill. So I guess we should have registration for knives, screwdrivers, wire, rope, etc?

If you take the source of the weapon(the parents guns left unlocked in their cabinet)the kids will look elsewhere. We will have to lock all knives away, the hardwares will stop selling its merchandise like fertilizer and nails which is crazy.

I blame the courts for leaving criminals off way to easy. People like OJ Simpson are rolemodels, and it makes me sick. So far we cant blame the parents, the system, so who do we blame?

[JockEwing]

Jarrett makes some good points this time, parents need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, but mothers should be allowed to work and not fear that their kids will turn into killers. His point is good as well regarding the criminal justice system in America, we are letting killers go off scott-free, so we can keep drug-addicts and dealers in prison. We need to spend whatever
it takes to keep any violent criminal in prison, and stop wasting time with all these petty drug addicts. Another culprit is the media, constantly glorifying these sick serial killers and murderers. Just look at what the media did to Princess Diane. We can all do our part to not watch or participate in any media who pesters celebrities or keeps re-running these stories and creating all these copycat killers. before 5 years or
so ago, we never heard of kids ambushing everyone at school, then one does it, they become almost a celebrity and then all these copycats come out of the woodwork. Don't watch it.

The "big deal" about guns in the US is like this: For generations, Americans have observed the atrocities commited by foriegn tyrants and felt comfortable with the belief that 'It can't happen here'. We owe that sense of security to the Second Amendment.

The NRA does not care about public safety, children, or people's welfare. They are only concerned about every American having the right to carry a gun. Why? Why do we need to carry guns? We are not the pilgrims, if we need food we go to the grocery store, no gun needed. Crime is not so bad that you must have your house and lawn fortified, there is no civil war in progress. There is no place for guns in this society, for adults or children. Think of all the people who would be alive, if it wasen't for guns. I'm sure we all know someone who has been killed or shot by a gun, I know I do. Take time to think about it. Are guns so important to our society, that we must risk people's lives to have them?

[jmwildenthal]

Pamela:

I'm happy to discuss individual research efforts. Let's first discuss what makes for a strong test of a statistical model:

1) There should be lots of data.

a) If we are looking for trends over time, the longer the time period, the better.

b) Smaller clumps are better than larger clumps. Aggregation is not good.

c) If we can get more detailed data, that will be better. Then we can control for more of the underlying variation.

The CPHV study looked at 7 years of data. Lott originally looked at 15, but he extended his dataset to include the 7 covered by the CPHV dataset. His results haven't changed.

The CPHV study used state rates. Lott used county rates.

The CPHV merely looked at the averages over time. Lott controlled for arrest rates, conviction rates, ethnic composition, income distribution, firearm registration schemes, firearm owner licensing, CHL regime....

Lastly, using the county level data, the direction change in rates for the non-CCW states is solely attributable to NYC. Remove NYC and the direction reverses.

As for attacks on Lott's research, the best known is Black & Nagin. First they dropped all of the (rural) counties with a population less than 100,000. Then they dropped Florida. Even after that they couldn't get the sign to change - more guns still meant less crime. The only thing they could do is make the confidence interval on that parameter include 0.

HCI, CPHV, etc. have a horrible research reputation. In a survey of "honesty" of different lobbying groups, the NRA was in the top 10. HCI, CPHV, et al weren't even in the top 50. Why? Because of shoddy and biased research. As one example:

"[I]n an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60). In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1). Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; _Point Blank_;Chapter 10)...." Gary Kleck, _Targeting Guns_, pg 42.

Kleck is a self-described liberal Democrat, card-carrying ACLU member who started his research thinking he'd prove that gun laws worked.

For a discussion of some of the other "public health" research, read the following link:

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/journals/tennmed.html

England and availability, next... http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-25-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Yes England is violent, more violent than the US:

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/98/10/11/stinwenws01035.html?999

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm if you want to read the study itself.

Nevertheless, violent crime was lower 80 years ago, 90 years ago, 100 years ago, ... and guns were readily available. If availability is the problem, violent crime should have been worse. There were no background checks - criminals and mentally ill could buy guns. No age checks - kids could buy guns. High capacity semiauto handguns were available (1896 "C96" Mausers could hold up to 20 rounds). Semiauto rifles were available. Machine guns and machine pistols were available. If availability is the problem why weren't things worse?

I've made the same point about the U.S. in relation to 1968. If availability is the problem, why weren't things worse back then?

Back in the 1960s, kids often took rifles and shotguns to school. They took them to shop to fix them. They shot rifles in ranges. Even in New York City. There wasn't a problem with school shootings back then. How is availability the problem if they were more available back then and there were fewer (virtually none) school shootings?

As for "guns are wrong," guns are tools. Right and wrong are attributes of actions, not attributes of items. The user imparts the final purpose.

Violence is not necessarily wrong. If it was, we wouldn't have police since their job frequently entails violent actions against suspected criminals. I am 100% against violence towards the innocent. I am 100% for violence towards a criminal predator during commission of a crime if that violence helps the victim.

Side note on drugs, next....

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-25-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

My personal feelings on drugs is the same I have for other "victimless" crimes (prostitution, gambling, etc.). Legalize them all for consenting adults. And not just recreational drugs, but medical drugs as well.

Aside on the theory why guns in the hands of potential victims reduce confrontational crime:

Becker (economist, not tennis player) pointed out that crime follows the laws of supply and demand. If you raise the cost of crime to the criminal, they commit (demand) fewer crimes. Increasing the chance the criminal will run into an armed intended victim is one way to increase the perceived cost to criminals, particularly since criminals are very "present" oriented and highly discount the possible future costs.

Gun Values:

Restrictions do not reduce crime (see the above quote from Kleck, or the quote from Greenwood).

The problem of gun-related violence is concentrated amongst convicted violent felons. They commit more than 70% of the homicides facilitated by firearms. They are already prohibited by law (federal felony) from even attempting to possess firearms. If you are serious about seeing these people not get guns, then call the Clinton/Reno Justice Department and ask why only 2% of known felons attempting to buy firearms during the first year of the "Instant Check" system have been investigated. Ask why less than 0.2% are being prosecuted as of the end of that year.

Cite: http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd120199c.html

If you want to emphasize safety and responsibility, let all law-abiding citizens carry. Show them that you think that they are responsible. But maybe you don't trust your fellow citizens. Maybe your Utopia is one of distrust of citizens that are assumed to be irresponsible.

[jmwildenthal]

Jock:

What I find frustrating is that the procontrol and proRKBA people state they want the same thing: reduced crime. The primary difference I've found is that the procontrol researchers have to severely manipulate their studies in order to get the results they want. Most of the procontrol individuals either don't understand how to compare studies or don't care.

You will find that no researcher has ever started out proRKBA and switched to procontrol. You will find many who started out procontrol and switched to proRKBA.

Please read the link I posted about the quality of pro-control research. Here it is again:

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/journals/tennmed.html

Next, Columbine (and don't forget that teens in the 1960s could bring longguns to school)....

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-25-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Once upon a time (during the Reagan administration), there were US Marines in Beirut. Then one day, a truck drove up with a fuel-air bomb. More than 200 Marines died.

How powerful are fuel-air bombs? The Japanese originally thought Hiroshima was hit by a large one.

What is a fuel-air bomb? It is a bomb where a gas is spread through a large volume of air and then ignited. A gas like propane. Like the two "gas grill" propane cylinders Harris and Klebold had armed and left in the cafeteria. If those bombs had gone off, the death toll would have been several hundred.

Should we outlaw portable propane cylinders?

[jmwildenthal]

Pamela:

I regularly (legally) carry a gun. I don't carry it to kill. I carry for the same reason police officers carry - as an "ace-in-the-hole" for defense of myself and those around me.

The "arguments for guns so far are full of holes?"

I'm still waiting for you to explain why availability is negatively correlated with violent crime (more guns, less crime). The single study you've cited is amazingly flawed, as I detailed. I hope you'll read the article (by a lawyer, two doctors, and a biostatistician) about the poor (biased and intentionally dishonest also come to mind) research methodology of the "public health"/guns-are-bad scholars. Maybe another scholarly study (besides Kleck and Greenwood, I never cited Lott until you brought him up) might help:

"[W]hen used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." - Toch, H. and Lizotte, A., "Research and policy: The case of gun control." In Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. (eds.) _Psychology and Social Policy_. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1991

Dr. Toch is another former gun control supporter, like Kleck and Greenwood.

I'm still waiting for you to mention some shred of scholarly evidence that registration or licensing actually reduces crime. I've produced citations from police officers in three different countries with experience in registration and after study, all of them stated that registration isn't anywhere near worth the cost.

Maybe I should have started with the police officer who was in charge of registration for Victoria, Australia. This paper was only wrested out by a "Freedom of Information" type lawsuit:

"It, (registration), seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily unidentified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case".

Further:

"Previous experience in New Zealand, and South Australia, and now indeed in the State of Victoria, indicates that firearms registration in the way in which it is implemented is costly, ineffective, and achieves little. In my view it does not repress or control the criminal misuse of, or irresponsible use of firearms... I do not believe firearms registration is the answer to the problem" ("Registration Firearms System" CRB File 39-1-1385/84, Chief Inspector Newgreen)

Control? What one feels is necessary depends on what one thinks citizens need. Evidently you feel citizens are relatively incompetent to make rational moral judgements about right and wrong. If that is the true state of affairs, we shouldn't have juries or elections, either.

Is killing someone attempting to rape you or a family member or friend bad? Is killing someone attempting to kill you or a family member or friend bad? Killing isn't necessarily bad. If it was, we wouldn't let cops have guns.

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-25-2000).]

[Pamela Barnes]

Lets face facts, for every piece of research, theory, hypothesis that you come up with Jim I could come up with another that would contradict yours.
What the NRA trys to create is a moral panic, creating a need for a gun. You have stated that the USA is less violent than the UK. Factually we have less gun crimes, but saying that if it is so you have lower crime than why the need to have a gun? Surely thats a contradiction, unless you are saying the fact you carry a gun creates this lower crime rate.
On a personal level I have been attacked, thank the lord I didn`t have a gun, perhaps if I did I would of used it because I would of felt able to do so. In fact I relied on my wits and common sense not a gun. Of course there have been times when I have wished I could of dished out a gun to feel powerful or in control of a situation but logically thinking I am glad that I have not been able to.
There is a lot more to this than just "guns" as I have already said. Maybe its a sad sign of the times BUT that is no excuse and it needs to be addressed. How many more school shootings will it take? Your alternative would say that all children should carry a gun. Imagine that!! Teacher pisses you off. BANG. Or your employee fires you BANG. Seems to me that guns become an option for an angry, frustrated, isolated, opressed section of the community.

[Pamela Barnes]

Jarrett wrote "30 years ago we had no crime in schools, and you wanna know why? Because the mothers were home while her husband provided the income thats why. Kids making bombs at home right in their bedroom and thats avoiding the issue?"

Jarrett this unreal and used by men to keep women oppressed. You are blameing the issues of society on women, because they finally in certain situations are no longer under the thumb of their husbands, this is the year 2000 and the years of Doris Day in the kitchen are over.
If you want someone to blame, lets start with ourselves and the system we have in place which creates such vast divides between certain groups in society, a system which tells people what they should have yet creates a system where they can`t get them. This alone creates frustration, anger, and feelings of failure resulting in irrational thinking and a need to feel powerful by any means. It also makes people not care, about others or themselves. If the system in place continually reinforces that you are a failure you will feel a failure, you end up not caring about yourself or others, you take more risks because you havn`t got much to loose by taking them, the consquences become less.

Back to the gun as a tool. I was also once threatened with a knife due to my line of work. A 13 year old boy put a knife to my chest and asked what I would do if he stuck it in me. I was able to diffuse this situation because a knife, scrwedriver whatever is something that is less controlled than a gun. If this child had a gun all he had to do was press a trigger and BANG. I had far more chance with the knife than if he had a gun. I am not saying that the UK has LESS crime just LESS gun crime, in fact we have all the issues the USA does but the lack of access to guns is a very positive thing.
I believe all you NRA people seem so focused on your own needs that you arnt even bothering to look at the whole picture.
As long as your alright thats all that seems to matter.

It boggles the mind that so many of you are truly ignorant of history. You will never realize the true reasons for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States unless you open a history book...and your immature minds. The Founding Fathers of this country understood the natural tendency of power to corrupt, and of government to try to increase itself. That's why we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. In the end, the only rights you have are the ones you can defend. Think about it. You've had it so good for so long here in paradise that you have no idea of what it was like before our people were free. Your freedom was bought at a price, with bloodshed and much loss of life. You spit on the graves of all those who gave their lives for your freedom when you advocate the incremental disarming of America. If you want crime to go down, punish the criminals and leave the rest of us alone. We are armed for a purpose that you will never understand...until you try to take away our rights. Again, the only rights you have, are the ones you can defend. What will you defend your rights with when the government no longer abides by the law?

[Pamela Barnes]

And you my dear spit on the graves of all those poor children who get shot in schools and other such circumstances.
All this "free" crap that you spurt, exactly the same drivel that Susan Howard spurts out.
You may feel free but take a look around you, not everyone has the prividlges you do. Your idea of freedom is very different to another.
If this is your idea of paradise rather than peering in your history book I would take a look at whats happening in the real world.

If anyone is ignorant than my friend it is you, history is important but if that means ignoring the present and creating a future based on violence than I pity your paradise.

The definition of "reasonable" is the sticking point. Most American think it is reasonable to use a gun to defend self-home and friends. We know the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, we know the history. We also do not ignore all the current problems with firearms misuse.

We oppose trigger locks, child safety features, smart-guns and registration because these things will cost lives. Just the other day, here in Wichita, a girl saved the life of her grandmother by shooting the man who was hitting her in the head with a hammer. The girl shot the man when he stopped the attack on grandma when she shouted "Get the gun" and he came after the girl. The man was the insane son of the woman and the father of the girl, so I guess this will be listed as a family shooting.
Read the story at: http://www.wichitaeagle.com/news/local/crime-courts/docs/shooting0519_txt.htm

[JockEwing]

This is getting too weird, with some obviously tweeked individuals posting. The constitution was not written and we did not fight the British solely for the right to use guns. The more important reason was what this world is all about, MONEY. We didn't want to send our tax revenue back to a king who was giving us nothing in return, we didn't want to be governed by someone across the ocean.
the 2nd amendment is for the right to form militias, not for some Jackass to stroll around pretending to be some kind of cowboy.
We have police and the military to protect us, and I'm for the right to have a gun in your home, but if a background check saves 1 life, then IT WORKS. Look at what happened to those A-HOLES at Ruby Ridge. They fought the government and where did it get them? DEAD
I agree, we need to punish violent criminals,
and I am in favor of using the death penalty
to do so, but I think our forefathers who you claim we are spiting on would be apalled by you extremists. The constitution is not a pretzel to twist anyway you want.

[Oblong]

Yes! I see this was started a few days ago and there are already this many posts. Good to "see" everybody again.

Let me first say that I didn't read all the responses because I'm at work and "dont have time".

I don't own a gun. However, our founding fathers thought they were important enough to include it in the Constitution. I believe in the second amendment and that gun ownership is a right. If it weren't for gun ownership, we would still have a British flag flying over our soil. (No offense to Brits). That is why guns are ingrained in our culture.

It is always tragic when someone loses their life. However, it isn't the guns that caused it. It is illegal activity. I could take a revolver, place a bullet in it, **** the hammer, and set it on my desk pointing at me. The gun will not go off unless some outside agent forces it to. Therefore, guns do not kill. I know it sounds like some crazy rant, but it is true. Passing laws wil not stop crime. Criminals by definiton do not obey the laws. Here are my responses to what some call "common sense" controls.

1) More Gun Laws - Those kids at Columbine violated 17 laws that already were in existence. Furthermore, they had explosives that if worked properly, would have killed everybody in the building. There are already laws on the books and those need to be inforced. Passing more laws only puts law abiding citizens at risk as they are the ones who will abide by it. Those who abide are the ones you dn't have to worry about.

2) Trigger Locks - Trigger locks are only installed on unloaded guns? If they are installed on loaded guns, they are a safety hazard. So then, what is the point? If a person or child can remove the lock, then they certainly can load the gun. It is redundant.

3) Registration - Most crimes committed with guns involve guns that are stolen. The point is made that we have to register our cars, then why not guns? Well, ownership of a car isn't protected by the constitution. Also, registration makes it easier for a corrupt government to reclaim them (the principal reason behind gun rights in the first place).

4) Children's lives are at stake - Think about this one carefully. When you see the gun crime stats about children, keep in mind that the majority of those involve 16-18 year olds. I would hardly classify them as kids. Alot of those are gang related. It is tragic, yet keep it in perspective. It isn't all 7 year olds who find dads gun in the closet. Also, more kids die from drowning than guns. Should we ban pools?

Sorry to be long winded but I had to say it. Your thoughts are welcome.

[wesjones]

Pamela said: "Jarrett this unreal and used by men to keep women oppressed. You are blameing the issues of society on women, because they finally in certain situations are no longer under the thumb of their husbands, this is the year 2000 and the years of Doris Day in the kitchen are over. If you want someone to blame, lets start with ourselves and the system we have in place which"

It is undeniable that things were better when a home had one parent in it most of the time. Sure times have changed. I see the problem as the current need for two incomes to support the lifestyle desired. To me it doesn't matter which parent stays home (I'm male and have taken both roles for extended times) as long as one does. Children need loving supervision.


And then: "I am not saying that the UK has LESS crime just LESS gun crime, in fact we have all the issues the USA does but the lack of access to guns is a very positive thing."


The UK had much less gun related crime even when they were very available. It seems to have been a cultural thing...that is a person who resorted to using a gun to settle anything was seen as less of a person than if they chose another more socially acceptable way. In other times and places this was (is) not the case. Cultural differences are far more responsible for variations in the misuse of firearms in different societies than any other factor.

Switzerland has more guns in households that about anywhere and guns are seldom used in crime there. Israel too has an abundance of guns and little crime in which a gun is used. Japan has virtually no guns and a very low crime rate overall. Almost no gun crime there either. The UK has few guns available and a dairly high crime rate with gun crimes rising rapidly according the the BBC. There is no meaningful correlation between the availability of guns and their use in crime.

And also: "I believe all you NRA people seem so focused on your own needs that you aren't even bothering to look at the whole picture."

It is you who are not looking at the whole picture. Mountainous studies show gun controls have little to no affect on gun crime yet you insist more regulation is the right thing to do. Others show a decrease in crime when more people are armed. In the 1970's Kennisaw, Georgia passed a city law requiring every household to have a firearm. Crime plummeted almost overnight and remains low today. The District of Columbia has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US and nearly, if not actually, the highest incidence of crimes with guns in the nation.

Best, wes

[jmwildenthal]

Actually, for every research paper you could pull up, I could probably find three or more on the other side. But what is more important than quantity in this area is quality.

Consider the discussion to be taking place as a trial with us as opposing attorneys. Each of us is calling witnesses. One thing examined in a trial is the trustworthiness of the witnesses. As Kleck and others have documented, the vast majority of procontrol research is either

1) extremely shoddy and/or carelessly done
or
2) outright lies and distortions.

I suggest once again that you look at an article detailing some of the more egregious abuses:

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/journals/tennmed.html

It's amazing how angry some people get when they figure out they've been lied to by people they trusted. I don't think you would knowingly or intentionally repeat lies. I don't think you're that kind of person. But I do think you've been reading procontrol research that falls into one of the two above categories. If you have trouble understanding some of the terminology, feel free to contact my via private email. You're an administrator and therefore have access to my registration information, including my real email address.

The UK has always had less gun crimes. But what you keep ignoring is that when guns were much more easily available, the UK had even *less* gun crimes. As Greenwood pointed out,
"Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms,

but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries

in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."

[separation for emphasis, see earlier posting for fuller quote with cite]. If more guns meant more crime, there should have been more (much more?) gun crime prior to 1920. There wasn't.

As for the utility of carrying a gun, I normally compare it to the utility of using the seatbelt in a car. You aren't likely to need either during any day, week, month, or year (and hopefully decade). But when you do need one, there are really no good substitutes.

If you feel you are not able to control your emotions sufficiently then I'm glad you don't carry a gun. I think you give yourself too little credit. After all, I don't think you want to kill anyone any more than I do. The fact that you recognize you might have such limitations shows a high degree of maturity. But don't mistake your perceived limitations as being my limitations. I've had legal opportunities to display. I've never pulled out my gun.

The only people I'd advocate having a fundamental right to carry within schools would be the adults who have the right to carry outside of the schools. I have pointed out that in the past, kids did bring guns to school regularly, and it caused no problems back then. I think similar restrictions (bring it to school, leave it in the principal's office or in the range cabinet) could work. But as long as schools think law-abiding adults are incompetent, I don't expect them to feel that their students are competent.

As for mass-killings facilitated by firearms (in schools or any location), such killings are lowest where there are high concentrations of people carrying. Have you ever noticed that there are very few shootings in Israel? Is it because the Palestinians (Hezbollah, Hamas) can't get guns in? No. It is because the shooters don't survive long enough to kill many. That's why they have switched to bombs.

As an example, about six weeks before the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting, three terrorists walked into a crowded Tel Aviv deli at lunch. They pulled out their fully automatic firearms and began to fire. One Israeli was killed. Two of the three terrorists were killed by the return fire from the armed citizens. The surviving terrorist made a statement (leaked/broadcast to the media) that he and his colleagues didn't realize that ordinary Israelis were armed. They had planned to machine gun this deli then travel a mile down the road and repeat the process.

Criminals don't want to get shot anymore than you or I do. They avoid doing things that will get them shot.

As for privileges and rights, the US is relatively unique. And we do look at the present as well as the past. Greenwood's research on the UK is an example of that.

Once again, read

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/journals/tennmed.html

to get a feel for the quality of research that most of the procontrol people produce.

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-26-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

JockEwing:

I guess I must be one of those "tweaked" individuals http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, the Second Amendment is an individual right.

1) The use of a prefatory phrase is the weakest grammatical construction possible for providing an explanation. There is only one grammatical clause (has a subject and verb): the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2) Whose right? "of the people" This is also set out in at least three U.S. Supreme Court decisions (wish HTML or UBB was available):

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (1990)

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/court/fed/sc/494us259.html

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897)

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/court/fed/sc/165us275.html

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451 (1857)

http://www.2ndlawLib.org/court/fed/sc/60us393.html

3) The founders thought of it as an individual right. When the Bill of Rights was originally drafted, the Amendments were interleaved with the Constitution. The Second Amendment was placed with Habeus Corpus and other individual rights, instead of with the militia, military, or states' rights sections. The original proposal also contained much more about militias. The paring of those dependent clauses and phrases makes the focus on the single remaining clause that much stronger.

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-26-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Wanted to follow up on one of Oblong's points.

The "13 children per day" is a good example of the distortions used by the procontol researchers.

Their definition of children includes individuals who can vote (19 year olds are "children?"). If we remove 16 and up, the numbers drop more than 70%. Of the remaining, we should remove suicides since the evidence (from the psychology literature) suggests no relationship between gun availability and the overall suicide rate (suicidal individuals substitute equally lethal means such as CO, hanging, and jumping). That removes about 1/3 of the remainder.

Of the remaining deaths, shouldn't we remove the homicides by adults? If we do this, we are down to about 1.5 deaths per day. And that number has been declining for the last 80 years (thanks to education provided by groups such as the NRA). If procontrol people would educated their children about guns as adequately as they do about sex and drugs, the number would drop even further.

So from 13 to 1.5. The procontrol researchers only inflated the number by a factor of 8. I'd like to see 13 to 0. But banning guns isn't going to do it. And we still haven't covered the benefits of widespread private ownership, other than the tangential mention in the context of mass-killings. "If it saves one life" is actually more accurately used on the proRKBA side.

[Pamela Barnes]

Ok I`ll give you a situation.

You think everyone should be armed. Well at the moment people have easy access to guns and I gave you an example of a situation where I was attacked.
Ok so here it is: As a teacher im in a school setting, a child of 14 pulls out a gun (he is easily able to get it as Aileen as stated or as others have stated everyone should have one). Now what do I do? Get my gun out and shoot him? Try and calm him down? Tackle him? Or should laws be put in place that make it difficult for him to get it in the first place?

Please im interested in what people would do in this situation.

[Aileen]

The arguments about criminals thinking twice before committing crimes if they knew their potential victims were armed is disingenuous at best. Most crimes are committed with no thought at all by people who take action purely on the feeling of the moment: greed, anger, frustration, jealousy, boredom, hysteria, etc. These are people operating at about a 3-year-old level emotionally. They do not think through the consequences of their actions; otherwise why would they do such stupid things to begin with? It is in precisely these situations that the easy availability of guns presents such a problem. The scenario goes like this, "I'm angry, I'm jealous, I'm consumed with feeling of the moment - oh, here's a gun; I'll use this and it will make me feel better."

I'll agree that in other crime situations which require some advance planning, the possibility of capture, prosection, and encountering someone armed may present a certain deterrent. But for the many incredibly dysfunctional and immature people in the world who live completely in the moment, deterrence has little effect. Deterrence requires the ability to think about future consequences of the action about to be taken. I don't drive 80 mph on the freeway no matter how late I am or how good it would feel to drive that fast when I'm frustrated because a) I could get a ticket or b) I could kill myself.

I don't trust the decision making ability of most people; I don't trust them to make mature, reasoned decisions. And I feel I have the right to be safe from drastic and even fatal consequences of their immaturity by limiting such people's access to guns. Registration, licensing, and waiting periods would help accomplish this.

I work in the mental health field, and I am under no illusions as to the average level of functioning in American today. And yes, there are many causes for this and many solutions need to be adopted. But in the meantime, I don't want my life or my child's to be forfeited because guns are as easy to buy as toilet paper.

[Jock]

It should be made more difficult for him to get the gun (or whomever he got it from), but if you had a gun as well, you could shoot him before he kills you and dozens of others. You talk about if gun control laws save just one, than it's worth it. I agree, but to be protected may also save life as well. I don't have a gun or am a big fan of mowing people down, lol, but if I were in a daily position where it could be life or death, I wouldn't be opposed to buying one (going through any reg or waiting period) if it meant protecting me, my loved ones, and possibly innocent bystanders. In a perfect world would be one thing, but facts are, some people are no damn good, lol, and I think that will get worse before it gets better. And in some cases (riding a NY subway for example), I think it would be a good idea to have a gun and be ready to use it rather than be raped or killed (sure it's fun, lol) :-). Suppose Hitler had been shot after his first killings, how many lives would that have saved (just had to throw that in to get Pam going, haha). In any case, for those that have one, have a great holiday weekend. And it's nice to have a discussion like this without all the personal bashing (makes my blood tingle, haha).

[Oblong]

Aileen, it's easy to say that you don't trust people but with all due respect, I would rather have my safety in my hands rather than your hands.

Criminal deterrence is not reported. When a criminal decides not to break into a house or not to rob a person because they think the person is armed, they don't call the FBI and say "I was going to...".

Just like you say you have the right to be safe from those with guns, I have the right to be safe by protecting myself. That right is written into our Constitution. That document also preserves the right to free, speech, freedom of religion, etc. It isn't a coincidence that it is placed next to those other sacred rights. Don't tell me that I'm not smart enough or don't have the mental capacity to think for myself.

Those kids at Columbine illegally obtained those guns. Therefore, any "registration, licensing, and waiting periods" would not have stopped it. If proponents of gun control are going to use one incident to spur uneeded legislation, they they need to hold that incident up to the proposed legislation. If the legislation wouldnt have stopped the incident, then it is unwarranted.

[JR_Ewing]

Someone stated earlier about prohibition in the US, and how it resulted in more alcohol,etc, etc. They then stated that the same thing could happen with guns, that if they are made 'unavailable' then that could result in more guns.
I think that guns are a little different than alcohol, ok alcohol can be a killer, but anyone who drinks alcohol is inflicting the damage onto themselves, unlike guns where 6 year olds are going around killing other six year olds. Yes, making guns unavailable could result in more guns, but I think we can hardly compare that situation witht he priohibition laws.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the NRA, but the little bit I do know has not yet impressed me, and I am totally behind Patrick Duffy and Larry Hagman standing up for what they believe just like Susan Howard is.

------------------
JR

[Jarrett]

I read an article in the paper the other day. 400,000 more people are expected to join the NRA by the end of this year. Current membership is 3.6 million. If certain workplaces allowed a gun to be kept behind the counter to be used in self-defense, the tragedy in NYC could have been avoided.

[jmwildenthal]

Ok, a situation is fine. I'll put myself in the situation and assume I am armed and carrying what I usually carry.

First I'd try to talk him out of firing it. While talking I'd be looking at the gun to figure out if the safety is on (hint: revolvers don't have safeties). I'd be asking him to let the other children leave, if they were present. I'd offer to sit down and probably be somewhat obsequious. If he looks as if he is going to fire, I'd probably try grabbing the gun so as to either prevent firing (put some part of my hand between the hammer and the firing pin, push a semiauto out of battery, or simply hold the cylinder from turning in a revolver). I would continue to hold on to the gun as hard as I could even if it was fired. The survival rate for handgun chest wounds is about 85% in First World countries. If it was a semiauto and I could prevent it from properly cycling, it would jam.

Now, what if I were a teacher (and carrying) and saw a student behaving as you are saying toward another teacher? I'd shoot him if I thought I had a clear shot. I'd probablyy try to get his attention away from his intended victim first, if it would get him to point the gun away from his "hostage."

A gun isn't a magic talisman. It doesn't make anyone invincible. It isn't useful in every situation. But it is extraordinarily useful in some.

Have I covered that to your satisfaction?

Now, let me clear a few things up. I have never said carry should be mandatory. I have said that all citizens should have that right, whether they choose to exercise it or not.

What law do you suggest would stop the 14 year old? It is already against the law (state and federal) for individuals under 18 to possess a pistol off of private property. It is against the law to assault an individual with any weapon.

Perhaps you might suggest trigger locks? If the brigand isn't worried about scratching the finish on the gun, it takes about 5 minutes to break it off with pliers, a hammer, and a screwdriver.

Have you read any of the article I suggested? Or was Kleck's discussion of the poor research abilities of CPHV's Research Director enough meat on the quality issue?

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-26-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Aileen:

Go to your local library. Check out _Armed and Considered Dangerous_, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986) by James Wright and Peter Rossi. Dr. Wright is the former president of the American Sociological Association, the most prestigious group of sociologists in the U.S. In it, you will find Dr. Wright and Dr. Rossi document how criminal behavior is affected by the probability of intended victims being armed. Dr. Rossi *was* for gun prohibition when he started this research. Now he supports the RKBA.

As an example, one of the recent police chiefs of Charleston, SC, discussed an incident from his rookie years in NYC. His partner and he were driving through a very rough neighborhood. As they drove down the street, his partner pointed out a little old lady walking down the sidewalk carrying a paper grocery sack. The partner stated that the sack probably had 30k-50k in cash as she was a mule for the local numbers racket (think of a lottery but with a higher relative payoff). They watched as she walked past alleys occupied by known junkies, robbers, and plain thieves. The partner said she was perfectly safe because no one would ever mess with her more than once.

Another example is the relative rates of "hot" burglaries - burglaries when the burglar knows someone is home. In the U.S. that rate is generally very low. In countries where guns are controlled, it is much higher.

Or you might read about the Tel Aviv deli shooting I discussed a few messages back.

As for your mental health experience, my first question is whether you are seeing the "average" level of functioning in America, or the "average" level of functioning of mentally ill. I only go to doctors when I am sick or something is wrong with me. That would include mentally unwell, if or when that occurs. Perchance what you see is the average "sick" person?

[jmwildenthal]

Jock:

Drawing on someone who already has the bead on you is generally a bad idea. In my case, I *might* offer the little thug my wallet (as part of the obsequiousness). Of course, I do carry behind the hip, over the wallet, so my hand might actually get something else in it. Then I might say something like "Here! Catch!" while raising the gun as if throwing underhand, and firing when the gun gets close to eye level. This assumes a bit of separation. Closer, I'd pivot at the elbow and fire.

And yes, there is a pretty good argument that guns already protect more lives than they hurt. Last study I saw on this point (Kleck & Gertz, or Cook & Ludwig) estimated the usual several million defensive gun uses to protect life, limb, and property. But they also estimated defensive gun use which "almost certainly" saved a life was about 350,000. If that figure is off by a factor of 10, it is still almost three times the number of homicides facilitated by firearms.

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-26-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Oblong:

Aileen would rather give up freedom than take responsibility. Fortunately for her, Texas is a "shall-issue" state and criminals will be turning more and more to non-confrontational crimes.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755

If Aileen feels that strongly about the decision making ability of her fellow citizens, she may also want to restrict voting (or candidacy) and jury duty. We don't want poor decision makers voting or serving on juries. Then we would all be at the mercy of the government.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978, D-MN), in "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6

[Ewing 84]

You are one sick man. End of story, nothing else needs to be said. That phrase sums it up.

[jmwildenthal]

JR:

What is worse is how gun prohibition would allow criminals full reign over law-abiding citizens:

"Probably the most obvious political ramification of the right to defensive arms is the deterrent effect of the power to disarm dissenters in a violence-ridden society. Until the early nineteenth century England was an enormously violent country overrun with cutthroats, cutpurses, burglars, and highwaymen, and in which rioting over social and political matters was endemic. Moreover, until 1829 it had no police. So when the seventeenth century Stuart Kings began selectively disarming their enemies the effect was not simply to safeguard the throne, but to severely penalize dissent. Those who had opposed the King were left helpless against either felons or rioters --who, by the very fact, were encouraged to attack them. The_in terrorem_effect upon dissent of knowing that to speak might render one's family defenseless while targeting
them for every felon, and every enemy who might want to whip up riotous public sentiment against them, is obvious." - Don B. Kates, Jr, "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection," _Constitutional Commentary,_ vol. 9, p.98 (1992)

And England may be headed back that way:

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/98/10/11/stinwenws01035.html?999

Of course, that isn't really news:

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction [JW: any time prior to 1920]. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Colin Greenwood, _Firearms Control,_ (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

Perhaps you should call your MP and ask what he is planning on doing to protect citizens from criminals.

Prohibition isn't stopping the (illegal) importation of or modification of firearms in England:

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16/stinwenws02004.html

My hope is that after the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a Second Amendment case that there will be a quick appeal on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. After that, we'll likely have unlimited open carry on public property. After a few years, the other countries will notice the decline in crime to Old West levels and may start decriminalizing firearm ownership.

And what were Old West levels of crime? Read "Myth #7"

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176h.html

[jmwildenthal]

Ewing 84:

Some people might think a group discussing a defunct fictional television series would be sick. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To each his own (thank God). I'd be glad to answer any question you may have, or discuss any studies you have read, or thoughts you might have on the current subject.

I know, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

Oh, the reason I've studied it so thoroughly is
1) I've argued it with a Law professor, and
2) my area of research is behavioral game theory. I'm finishing my PhD and criminology has lots of applications for my toolset.

[Ewing 84]

Sorry about calling you names Jim. I am just a teenager concerned with the state of America.

Pamela, a very odd things happened today. Almost the exact situation you described earlier came true.

A 13 year old boy in Florida shot and killed his teacher right before school was let out for the summer.

[Pamela Barnes]

This all makes me rather sad to be honest.
We don`t have these situations like this in the U.K, you keep mentioning figures, we have the same problems in respect to divides within wealth and access to services etc etc and YEs we have all sorts of crime BUT not kids going into schools and shooting teachers, eachother etc etc. I don`t care how many books you have been read Im telling you the facts. You know I find it all rather disturbing that you advise me to shoot a 13 year old child if I can get a clear shot. Hells bells surely it needs to be looked at WHY these situations are occuring. Am I miss something here? These are children, chidren with guns. There is mention of parents, yes parents have a reponsibility and yes many parents don`t care and that in many cases is a consequnce of a society (like the UK) which is built on greed and self, the "ME" society. Are you saying then Jarrett that the UK has better parents because that is just not true but I can assure you we don`t have on the whole kids killing with guns.
So what gives? You know my main point is that there needs to be shift in thinking as I have repeatedly stated and right now the thinking is "Guns are fine, guns are cool,", the bottom line is this thinking needs to change and drastically.
Lets look at the case Ewing84 just brought forward. Now this kid in school feels a failure, as proven by the likes of Carl Rogers and other education thinkers the school system is not for everyone , it deems many as failures when they may have many other skills. But anyway, so this kid feels a failure, the school has not met his needs, hes pissed off. Now many of us have been in similar situations, either loosing a job, being treated badly at a job, bing chucked by a lover , whatever, all these situations make you feel bad because you feel a failure or frustrated as you are not the person in power and you want that power back, you need to feel better about yourself. So you think "bastards I`ll show them", I am sure many people have felt like this at some time. Now you have child feeling like that, now the rest of his life may not be too cosy either, but he/she doesn`t stop to think, many children just do. I know many kids who believe their lives are over at 18 because they feel failed, they just want to give up, some turn angry , some look for escape routes, drugs, crime, whatever, as a matter of survival. So in this case he grabs a gun and shoots his teacher. Classic case of failed child. In worse cases he/she may shoot the entire class. Its all about lack power and holding a gun you get an overwhelming feeling of power. Just having that gun in your hand makes you think "yeah Im in control, I have the power now".
The accessability needs to end, now if I walk down the street and I pass a clothes shop I may go in and buy something, I may not even want it, buts its there, its in my face, its accessable, im in there. Same with guns, available, easy access, easy option.

Now Jarrett you keep mentioning screwdrivers and knifes. I don`t recall the last time 20 kids were assasintaed in classroom by someone with a screwdriver. If you have any stats to prove otherwise I would love to see them. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And jmwildenthal yes we may well discuss a dead soap opera but I like to think we are a better class of viewer than your average Tv fan. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I can`t imagine a discussion like this on the Bold and the Beautiful forum. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[jmwildenthal]

Ewing 84:

I'm glad you're concerned. Now, how about getting informed on the issue, from both sides? You can't really understand the weaknesses of different positions until you've researched them from both sides.

My web recommendations are:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime51.html

for the best scholarly research on the subject of the use and misuse of firearms in the US. Several of the sublinks/papers are extensively footnoted back to the original research, particularly:
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html

If you prefer to read a book, Kleck's _Targeting Guns_ is pretty dry (academic research normally is) but it is the best "encyclopedia."

For Constitutional/legal issues, the reading is a bit difficult, but you might be up to it (do you have any relatives that are lawyers?):
http://www.2ndLawLib.org
has all the articles by law professors that the webmasters have been able to get legal permission to publish on the web as a public resource. The strong consensus is that the 2nd protects an individual right, not a collective right. If you have questions, feel free to email me through the address you can get as a forum administrator. That is my personal ISP email address, not a fake or redirect address. I've argued with several lawyers, and am related to several others, including two law professors and a judge. I'd be happy to help you with definitions and such.

Pamela:

I've never said that the crime rates are the same. I have pointed to a study that specifically states that the U.K. violent crime rate is lower in murder and rape, and higher in all other crimes.

Now, back to availability...

We didn't have the problems with students shooting teachers when guns were more available. Neither did England. If availability is the cause, we should have had more shootings in the 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, ... than we do today. We didn't. England should have had more shootings in the 1910s, and 1900s. They didn't. Heck, we didn't have as much violent crime, period (except maybe during Prohibition). Therefore ("Hell's bells") the real cause must be something *other* than availability.

Now, let me return to one point Greenwood raised:

"Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon."

If we remove firearms and don't treat the underlying problem (the lawlessness of a small subclass), the problem won't get fixed. We will merely descend into something like Russia (high level of violence and the crooks rule); or Japan (low level of violence where the Yakuza rules); or Nazi Germany (the level of violence you experience depends on how the government feels about your "group," and the crooks *are* the government).

If the "Wild" West is attainable again (and I believe it is), you have another choice: a very low level of violence where the rule-of-law predominates. All you have to do is trust your fellow citizens.

I was one of the outcasts at my school. I never considered shooting my tormentors. It never even crossed my mind.

And, yes, I'd shoot a child\youth in such a situation if it would likely save another's life. If we can achieve a peaceful solution, that *would* be better. But actions have consequences (and that sums up part of what has changed; the general devaluation of human life relative to status/lifestyle/possessions is the other and I'd argue more important). I value human life. I am willing to be inconvenienced to defend it. But I will defend it.

I'm glad some other teachers feel the same way. Joel Myrick stopped Luke Woodham with a .45 he had in his trunk (the Mississippi shooting). The caterer in the Pennsylvania shooting stopped the student with a shotgun. Both students were preparing to kill more people.

Oh, and about knives, thousands of children have recently been murdered by knives. You haven't forgotten Rwanda, have you? Government sanctioned violence on a disarmed minority....

England already bans carrying knives. I recall one individual getting arrested for carrying a box-cutting knife on the way to work a year ago or so. For those not familiar with the term, a box-cutting knife is one that holds a single sided razorblade that can be extended from the grip to roughly half the length of the blade (maybe 1"). My folding pocketknife and my Leatherman Wave (http://www.leatherman.com) are completely illegal to carry.

[jmwildenthal]

"jm" is my first two initials. If you want my name, look up Acts chapter 12, verse 12.

I think "Dallas" is/was light-years ahead of daytime soap operas. The comparison is like a modern jet to a single-engined prop plane. They have some similarities, but....

A discussion like this on the Bold and Beautiful? I don't like discussions with people that would likely degrade (quickly) to name-calling.

"Dallas" did cause my sister much exasperation, though. She spent one year of college studying in France, and being from Texas....

And how did I get assigned to "Ewing All Stars?" Draft? Random assignment? Point of entry to the website?

[This message has been edited by jmwildenthal (edited 05-27-2000).]

[jmwildenthal]

Ewing 84:

Possibly uncomfortable (for you) question:

What do you feel makes you and your peers less trustworthy and/or responsible than the teenagers of 35 or more years ago, and is that a good thing?

[Frankie]

jmwildenthal,

Do you believe that teenagers and their peers are less responsible and trustworthy then what they were 35 years ago?

I sure as hell don't believe that teens are. If you factor in that we live in a different day and age, and that times have changed, I believe that there are many teens that are both trustworthy and responsible. I don't mean to sound rude but I was just confused why a reply about teens would be made under a post for the NRA. I was just curious about what you were implying by this question. Are you saying the teens aren't mature enough to understand the major issues in this world, like the NRA, or are you trying to say that teens are part of the problem when it comes to the gun control issue?
Just curious.

[Dallas Pruitt]

I recently joined the N.R.A., and while I am not going to send them any more money, I was moved to put my thoughts on guns in America to paper. I would be obliged if you would read and consider my viewpoint.

My thoughts on firearms.

I recently joined the National Rifle Association. I didn’t really want to do it. I remember a time when I was growing up that I had every intention of enthusiastically joining as soon as I grew up. I remember N.R.A. sponsored firearms safety courses and their involvement with the Boy Scouts and the excellent magazine my dad used to get. My dad was in the Rangers 4th Battalion in WWII, and took a bullet in the shoulder. He has a healthy respect for guns and taught my brothers and I how to shoot when we were boys. If the N.R.A. was important to him, it would be important to me. But the N.R.A. has changed in the last twenty years and I have resisted joining because I felt they had turned into a distasteful political machine. I don’t mind if they disagree with the President of the United States, or members of the United States Congress, often I do too. I don’t mind if they disagree loudly. But they were duly elected to office by voting citizens and to speak of them in grossly disrespectful tones shows a disrespect to myself and every other American who votes that rubs me the wrong way. I joined anyway.

I am not a “gun nut”. Guns do not fascinate me the way they seem to some people. I own a gun for the same reason I own a tool box, a fire extinguisher, and a first aid kit. Buy the best one you can afford, learn how to use it properly, and hope you will never have to use it at all. These are things I hope I’ll never need, but if I do, I’ll need them in a bad way. In my book, you don’t respect a man for color of the BMW he drives, but for his ability to take care of himself and his family, especially when a dangerous situation arises. Calling for the police, a mechanic, the fire department, or an ambulance when a crisis arises is all very good, but it doesn’t buy you any respect from me. I was raised to believe that a good man should be able to take care of himself and his family, and that is why I own a gun.

The handgun I carry is a powerful and accurate semi-automatic with two high capacity magazines. It is no more dangerous than a bar of soap. I have been reading, seeing, and hearing a lot of talk about the problem of “gun violence” in our country. I am quite certain my handgun has never been violent or mad or stressed out or sad or moody or high on crack or anything really. It just kind of sits there. My point being that no gun, large or small, acts of its own free will. It simply can’t. Surely everyone must agree that a gun is only as good or bad as the person who is holding it. How could it be otherwise? I have carried a powerful handgun on my person pretty much every day for more than seven years and it has never endangered a single person because I have never endangered a single person.

I was taught long ago that there was exactly one valid reason to ever point a gun at another person. That being a direct and immediate threat to my life or the life of another innocent person. This is common sense. Every police officer should know this and every law abiding citizen should know this. My experience is that the vast majority do know and respect this. Unfortunately every time some small minded individual who, for a dizzying array of reasons, is unable to grasp this simple piece of common sense and decency and uses a gun to express their problems, the press makes headlines of it. Since there are an awful lot of people in this country it takes only a teeny tiny fraction of them to go bonkers to make it seem like everyone is in great danger from “gun violence”. I confess that it is hard to watch the evening news and not come away thinking “geez there are a lot of fruitcakes out there”. I suspect however that percentage wise, there are not that many more now than there have ever been and that the media is simply much more efficient in the reporting of tragic events that undoubtedly sell better than other news.

I have a great deal of sympathy for people who have lost loved ones at the hands of some sick coward or misguided youth who was simply allowed to grow up instead of being raised. I can understand why some people believe that we can address this problem by removing all guns from our society or at least making gun owners register their guns. It seems easier than trying to fix the complex societal problems of an ever increasing portion of our population, which is the root of the problem.

American families are increasingly struggling with both parents working too many hours to make ends meet, a hefty tax burden, overcrowded and under funded school systems, and an onslaught of mindlessly violent media. Too many American children reach adulthood without actually being raised. Too few parents find the time and make the effort necessary to instill a child with dignity, self-confidence, pride, and compassion. If our children can’t grasp the subtle but important difference between being feared and being respected, or they learn that even bad attention is better than no attention, then heaven help us, because these children grow up to be parents themselves. No gun law I’ve ever seen addresses the root cause of “gun violence”, which rests solely in the individual whose finger is on the trigger.

Aside from the fact that it is an attempt to treat the symptoms of our problems as opposed to the cause of our problems, gun control is pretty much a lost cause that mostly succeeds in getting a lot of good people upset with one another. The advent of firearms was much like the opening of Pandora’s box. They will never go entirely away. If all of them can not be removed, there is really no sense in removing any of them. To an unarmed person on the receiving end, the difference between a projectile from an assault rifle, a handgun, bolt action rifle, a shot gun, a .22 caliber derringer, or even a bow and arrow is only splitting hairs. In the hands of a bad person, each is very capable of causing death and terror.

I would argue that it is unfair and unwise to trade the right of every American to keep and bear arms for nothing more than addressing the symptoms of a societal problem that manifests itself in gun related violence in only a tiny fraction of the population. I love my country. I would give my life for my country if it came to it. I am proud that so many people in this country have firearms. Even if everyone had only a single box of ammunition the civilian population of my country poses a significant threat to any military in the world, including ours. I firmly believe it is important that American civilians pose a credible threat to our government and our military. I have heard arguments for banning high capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons because they are designed to efficiently kill people. I don’t see any reason why a civilian weapon shouldn’t be reasonably efficient for killing people. Our ancestors walked in and took this country from its impressively tough fighting original inhabitants because the natives had bows and arrows instead of repeating rifles. They didn’t lose for lack of courage but for, among other things, the lack of a relatively efficient weapon.

I believe that the gentlemen who founded our democratic government and penned our constitution and its amendments were nothing short of brilliant and possessed of uncanny foresight. They endeavored to create a stable democracy, which is no small task. It works for us because an elaborate series of checks and balances written into the constitution that were designed to largely prevent any one individual or group of individuals from seizing complete control of the government and doing things that the general voting population didn’t go along with. This system has worked so well for so long that too many of us take it for granted that it will never fail us. We are so confident that the system will work that a very significant portion of our population doesn’t bother to vote or pay any real attention to what goes on with our elected officials. How many people can even name the people who represent their state in Congress, much less where they stand on issues that might be important to them? I don’t know if the founding fathers could have foreseen the political apathy we Americans suffer from, but I do believe that they knew the system was not infallible, and that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was included as a last ditch check for the individual states and the individual citizens should the system fail. Even if a radical group of individuals managed to take majority control of the all three branches of government, (and if you think enough money couldn’t accomplish this, think again), that group would still face an armed populace if it succeeded in forcing though greatly unpopular laws. If such a group were strong enough, it is perfectly “legal” for it to make amendments to the Constitution and direct our military to enforce it. I believe that this is an unlikely scenario, especially given the fine character of nearly all the people I’ve ever met who were enlisted in our military, but it is never the less perfectly possible. I believe the founding fathers intended for the people of this country to be able to mount a successful revolution should the system fail and the government become unbearable to the general populace. It stands to reason that if you had serious intentions of gaining control of the government of the United States to further your cause, whatever it might be, you would want to reduce the effectiveness of and/or remove as many privately held weapons as possible before getting down to business. This scenario, however unlikely, is compelling enough and plausible enough to cause many Americans, including myself, to get uncomfortable when anyone mentions restrictions, registrations, or any other laws that even appear to limit our ready access to firearms or ammunition.

My experience has been that if you keep your nose clean, don’t get drunk or do drugs, and don’t hang around those who do, trouble doesn’t often come looking for you. In all the time I have carried my handgun, I am pleased to report that I have never needed it. There have been a number of times I was glad I had it, but I’ve never so much as felt the need to remove it from its holster. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that bad people won’t happen to good people. Violent crime is as much a fact of life today as it ever has been. If we wish to deter “gun violence”, we had best deter the criminals.

I believe that the best deterrent against “gun violence” is to put adult criminals who commit violent crimes with a short list of deadly weapons on a very short and public death row. Teenagers who commit such crimes should see serious prison time beyond their 18th birthday, and parents or guardians of younger children should be held accountable and sentenced to some prison time as well. Every citizen should know without ambiguity that if they are convicted of a violent crime in a court of law, they will be stoutly punished.

Our justice system was designed to err in favor of the criminal, and rightfully so. It always stings to see someone who is probably guilty go free, but that is the way the system is intended to work. It is always better to turn a criminal loose than to imprison or otherwise punish an innocent individual. But once a criminal is caught in the sieve of the criminal justice system, and a fair trial has proven an individual’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, life should get very hard for the criminal. Prison should not be a pleasant place. Every citizen should know that prison is not a pleasant place. Prisoners should be put to hard labor, preferably in the service of the public good. Taking an innocent and unarmed persons life with a firearm is the most lowly form of cowardice. Individuals who have been convicted of this crime should be promptly put to death. There is no honor in capital punishment, and it is not something we have to like, but it can and should serve as a very public deterrent to violent crime.

Late on a snowy night a few years ago my wife and I and my infant son were driving along a desolate stretch of road between Farmington and Albuquerque, New Mexico. We passed a small car on the side of the road with its emergency blinkers on. There was no one standing outside of the vehicle and there was no obvious problem. I decided to turn around and see if we could offer assistance. I knew that it might endanger my family, but I also knew that I could offer stiff resistance if it went bad. I approached with all due caution only to find a slightly frightened, grateful, and cold young mother with her very cold toddler. When we ascertained that the distributor was not turning when the motor was turned over, and that the car could not be repaired without parts, we made room in our car for them and took them to their destination in Albuquerque. A number of cars had passed them while they sat there, but it was a dark and desolate place, and there was no way of knowing what kind of people were in that vehicle. It worked out fine for everyone, but I might not have stopped had I not felt reasonably comfortable in dealing with the trouble that could potentially have been in that vehicle. I didn’t need my handgun, but I was sure glad I had it.

Particularly since the shootings at Columbine High School I have noted a disturbing number of newspaper articles and news programs and politicians that say that the majority of Americans favor some form of gun control. I hope this is not true. I joined the N.R.A. just in case it is true. In any event, I implore anyone who reads this to consider such a notion very seriously before voting for someone who can make gun control come about. Please do not do anything that will an any way threaten the right of law abiding American citizens from keeping and bearing arms if they see fit, and to protect themselves and their families from danger because a few cowardly losers misuse firearms and attack innocent people. It would be tragically ironic if the result of all of this publicity was that the innocent people lost the ability and right to shoot back. Surely we Americans have more sense than that.

Respectfully,

Dallas Pruitt
Tucson, Arizona
Pruittjd@prodigy.net

Please reprint this letter only in its entirety and with the author’s name intact.

[Aileen]

For clarification, I have never stated that I believe that guns should be illegal and that no one should have the right to own one. Most of you who have posted here seem to be educated thinking individuals (even though I disagree with your opinions on this topic), the kind of people that could meet more stringent tests for gun ownership. You are not the people that I worry about.

I also think it is worth noting that there is a significant gender difference on this issue, with most men supporting gun laws as they exist, and more women supporting increased gun ownership regulation. Could it be that men are programmed to consider first their responsibility to themselves, i.e. their "rights", and women have a greater tendency to consider their community, not just themselves?

(I know I'll get blasted for this, so bring it on.)

[Jock]

No, I wont blast you, haha :-). I think you're assesment is probably right. I wish I knew the reason these youngsters are taking up weapons. Just don't seem to be any more accessible then they were, and yet this type of crime is on the increase, which to me, means there is a deeper cause that needs to be uncovered to better prevent this situation. Is it the media glorifying these kids and giving them the very fame they seek? Is it a copycat situation? Is it being too spoiled or unclear to see the big picture as to what they really have over most of the world in spite of being an outcast or loner? It's very easy to be overwhelmed and not take that step back to evaluate before making a rash decision. It used to be suicide as now it seems, take a few with you. Is it violence on TV, video games, a "the world owes me" mentality? I think to restrict guns is an oversimplification as to the true root of the problem. Different countries/cultures handle things in different ways as the people are different in how they were raised, what they thought, etc. So to compare US to UK is a bit of apples and oranges, as individual consideration may better isolate our individual problems, country wise. I don't know, it does seem to be more male aggression so maybe that should be mixed into the equation as well.

The point I make is we through good money after bad into studies that are meaningless when that manpower should be applied into looking into the root causes of the modern problem. I think part of the problem is, that's not where the grant money is so we try to solve the problem after it happens as opposed to trying to get it at the root. I too think it's sad a teacher feels he may have to mow down a gun toting student to save lives, but if I were a teacher right now, I wouldn't fault them for wanting a gun.

In a perfect world we could specualte, but I'm afraid the reality is a solution may never be in tow. Happy memorial day, lol :-).
Don't mean to be a pessimist, but I too, am perplexed by these shootings and what can be done. I just think guns is the symptom and not the source of the disease that has inflicted us. Just my meaningless take on it, lol:-). I love this thread though and hope it stays a healthy debate and not a personal attack thing (as it has for the most part). We have some intelligent people out here in cyberland, and I agree a Bold and Beautiful board would not contain such insights, haha

[jmwildenthal]

Frankie:

35 years ago teens in most states could walk into a retail gun store (most commonly the local hardware store) with cash and walk out with a rifle and ammo. 35 years ago many schools (even schools in NYC) had shooting competitions where the students brought rifles to school.

Why do we not allow today's teens to buy guns and ammo when that didn't cause problems 35 years ago? Why don't we have firearm competitions at schools when that didn't cause problems 35 years ago? Are teens less responsible/trustworthy such that we need to restrict access, like we do with a preschooler and matches? What do you think has changed?

[jmwildenthal]

Followup on the Florida shooting:

The teen was sent home for throwing water balloons. He returned two hours later with the gun in his pocket. The paper says he stole the ammo from his grandfather, but doesn't say where he got the pistol. When a teacher found him at school again, the youth drew and fired once, hitting the teacher in the head. He later told police that he liked that teacher.

The student is/was an honors student.

More as I find out more. Bryan/College Station's newspaper doesn't carry much national news.

[jmwildenthal]

Aileen:

The stringent tests you might propose will not deter criminals from obtaining firearms. They mostly buy stolen guns or steal them themselves. If Houston is anything like B/CS, stolen guns are less expensive than retail or used guns (by 50% or more). Most studies report that convicted felons are responsible for the vast majority of firearm facilitated crime and they are already banned (federal felony) from possessing firearms.

The requirements you might suggest will differentially affect law-abiding citizens on the basis of education and/or income. Laws on "Saturday Night Specials" (itself a racist term originally preceded by the N word combined with "town") prevent the poor, the individuals most likely to need protection, from having that protection. Licensing laws that require any substantial outlay of cash for education or licensing would no doubt have the same effect.

"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." - Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), in the Washington Post, September 5, 1988

"Much of the contemporary crime that concerns Americans is in poor black neighborhoods and a case can be made that greater firearms restrictions might alleviate this tragedy. But another, perhaps stronger case can be made that a society with a dismal record of protecting a people has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them. Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right." - Robert J. Cottroll and Raymond T. Diamond, "The Second Amendment: Towards an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration," _Georgetown Law Journal,_ vol. 80, p. 361 (1991)

As for gender differences, I think you are mostly correct, but I would doubt that the disparity is very large. I personally did not become interested in firearms for protection until I had a family to protect. I hope my daughter and son will not make that judgement error when they are older.

I'd also note the following about protection, costs and benefits:

"Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. . . . Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection--the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." - Gary Kleck, _Point Blank_ p 304-305

If you ever have to defend yourself against a criminal, I hope you won't have to rely on 911 (they have gotten the average response time down below 10 minutes in most areas of Houston). Males (the predominant gender of criminals) tend to be taller, heavier, and with a higher proportion of muscle to weight. Most women don't stand much of a chance in unarmed combat. Guns are a very effective equalizer. Even Dr. Kellerman (who doesn't produce quality research on firearm use/misuse, but evidently can recognize it when he reads it) would agree:

"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." - Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Health Magazine (March/April 1994) p 61

[jmwildenthal]

Jock:

Sometimes I (in spite of my Libertarian leanings) wish we had a "Sunshine" restriction for news media. Something that required that lawful violence stories should get as much or more attention than unlawful violence stories. Unfortunately the media bias is strongly that "guns are bad" and so they do the reverse.

Imagine if everyone were repeatedly and prominently reminded that criminal actions occassionally get the perpetrator shot for their efforts. Do you think that might have an effect on crime as children see those stories over and over? Part of the current decline in crime rates is thought to be from the fact that many at-risk children saw what crack did in their communities and decided they wouldn't let it happen to them as they grew older.

I always like to point out "Oliver Twist" in this regard. What happened to the Bill Sikes in the end? What lesson do you think readers may have learned from this? Maybe, "crime doesn't pay?" That certainly isn't what they are learning from today's media.

People don't like to get shot, criminals included. I guess I could point to a program in one city in Florida in the 1960s where the police taught women how to handle firearms with an emphasis on stopping rapists. They even had billboards up. Rapes in that city declined about 80% in one year. Read (former procontrol advocate) Paxton Quigley's _Armed and Female_ for more details.

[Frankie]

Jmwildenthal,

Like I said, though, times have changed and so have the weapons that are used today.

Now let me ask you, do you think there is a difference between being responsible and trustworthy and still having the ability to kill?? Think about it. How many times in the news have you heard stories about adults who kill their spouses or co-workers?? When you hear the interviews, what is the first thing that the friends of the killer say. "He/she would never do something like this. I'm shocked. They were so kind and trusting, and you would never picture him/her doing something like this." Haven't you ever heard this on the news? Well I have.

So you can't sit there and question/state that the reasons we don't hold shooting matches is because teens are less responsible and trustworthy, when there are adults out there who are responsible and trustworthy, who shoot their co-workers and spouses out of cold blood or insanity.

That's at least what I think on the situation.

[jmwildenthal]

Frankie:

Firearms haven't changed appreciably. High capacity semiauto handguns have been available for over 100 years (look up the C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser which was the basis for Han Solo's blaster in Star Wars). High capacity semiauto rifles with detachable magazines have been around since WWI (The Browning Automatic Rifle). What other type or types of gun do you believe have changed over the last 50 or more years?

As for responsibility and the ability to kill, let me repeat a quote I've posted previously:

"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?" - Dr. Alan Keyes

Most of the shootings I hear about are by convicted felons (like the Wendy's shooting in NYC - five dead by a former employee previously convicted of armed robbery {IIRC, on probation for that one}, who was out on $3500 bail on another armed robbery charge and had missed his court date). The majority of the remainder I hear about are by troubled individuals (like the stereotypical "postal worker"). After we get down to the remainder, we are at a murder rate as low or lower than most Western European countries. I'd like zero, but serious gun control of the type HCI, et al want is more likely to *increase* unlawful homicide than to decrease unlawful homicide.

"One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization [Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc.] is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores. That's why they are criminals." - Josh Sugarmann, then the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns ("The NRA Is Right," The Washington Monthly, June 1987)

They aren't interested in passing laws to deter crime:

"You know, we're having trouble in the House. It's neck and neck on an assault weapons ban, which is a ban of the most obnoxious
kinds of weapons that nobody uses." - U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, at the press conference introducing "Brady II," February 28, 1994

"Nobody uses?" Then why ban them?

"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 Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," February 5, 1995

"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain . . . Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1996

Oh, and most spousal shootings are by women against abusive significant-others. Most men can beat their wives to death.

"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, _Patterns in Criminal Homicide,_ (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958) p. 82

"It is suggested that, in [domestic violence] at least, the presence or absence of a firearm, or of any other type of weapon, is of far less importance to the outcome than the passion generated in the attacker. The man who has lost control will cause serious injuries in many cases, quite irrespective of the weapon he uses and regardless of the certainty of detection and punishment." - Colin Greenwood, _Firearms Control,_ (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972,) p. 132

For more quotes and actual stats on spousal homicide and family violence history, try:

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176l.html
and
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176k.html

[jmwildenthal]

Frankie:

I forgot to answer (at least) one thing: I think the reason few (if any) schools have shooting competitions anymore is because the people in charge of schools are, at best, poorly informed (on this subject, at least), intentionally ignorant at worst.

If I missed any other points, feel free to bring them up again.

The gun debate has now become a major issue and everyone is going to have their own opinion. The anti gun folks want guns licenced and registered like automobiles. Pro-gun folks opposition to this is based on the argument that driving (unlike gun ownership which is a right)is a privelege and the govt can impose any restrictions they wish on driving without violating our rights. Another argument is that the 2nd Amend does not guarantee our right to own firearms. Well, I have three points to suggest otherwise. 1.The word militia does not refer to what we think of as the National Guard, but rather the private citizenry. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army and wanted to entrust as much power as possible into private citizens.
2. The 2nd Amend is placed right after the first amend which guarantees individual rights such as speech, religion, etc.
3. When the writers of the Constitution used the word "people" in the amendments, they always referred to private citizens. Ex. the right of the people to peaceably assemble, right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, right of the people to bear arms.
Gun violence is a problem in the U.S., however, it can be stopped without limiting our freedom. If you really think about the Constitution and our rights as Americans, the government has no right to impose control over the 2nd Amend any more than they do freedom of speech or religion. Compare these quotes from two very different people.
"No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms." Adolf Hitler

[Jarrett]

Gun Control Is For Wimps And Commies. Besides on dallas the women were the real gun slingers. The slutty shepard sisters Kristin and Sue Ellen both shot JR, Golddigger ellie pulled a gun on a reporter. Holly pulled a gun on JR, Katherine shot bobby. So on dallas women were really into guns.

------------------
Proud member of the Ray Krebbs Fanclub
Member of the send SueEllen back to the sanitarium taskforce

[Pamela Barnes]

First point, I can`t find the quote but have looked frantically but its dated BC and quotes about how the youth of today are out on control violent etc. That was BC gee , same old thing going on now. Yes there are different pressures on youth today, especially in regards to image and wanting to be seen to be in the credible crowd, wearing labels, saying and looking to do the right thing, which was further compounded and emphasised by the Thatcher and Reagan years.
I have read several reports again this week of shootings in the USA, please wake up.
People continually refer to the ammendments etc etc, can`t you think for yourselves? It almost feels like you are brainwashed from where I am sitting.

Explain to me what you mean by Freedom? Someone has quoted that the sociey is his idea of paradise. What do you all mean by this?
I don`t feel its just a woman thing Aileen, there are many men too. I strongly believe that certain people may be well informed about guns but when it comes to the whole picture and whats going on in the real world these people are totally clueless. They are stuck in the past and stuck with their own ideals which suit themselves, brainwashed , unable to have an open mind and reflect on the situation objectively.
You seem to live your lives based on quotes and documents rather than good old common sense. Like Pat Duffy stated in time you will all loose your control over guns and personally I look forward to it. Unfortunatly for those who graduated from gun high at some point this is going to happen, maybe not for a few years but it will happen as hopfully people will become more civilised.
You also talk about England controlling your country, when was this? last week? You know things do change, I hardly think Tony Blair will order a take back of the USA once your gun control is in.
In fact with that thinking nothing will ever change. Why not also keep an arc handy incase of sudden flooding. I mean come on.

[Aileen]

I agree with much of what has been posted regarding social ills that contribute to violence: poverty, breakdown of families, lack of proper parental supervision, absence of community, violence in the media, and proliferation of all forms of media that can further disconnect us from our communities. Solutions need to be found for all of these. I do not believe for one moment that the mere existence of a gun causes by itself an act of violence.

However, because the above-mentioned social ills do exist and they require long-term solutions, I believe that limiting access to guns is analagous to keeping the match away from the flammable materials while such materials are being cleaned up. Mixing guns with current social problems has been a disaster.

I can think of more than a few situations in my own life during times of immaturity and instability, when, had a gun been available (as in sitting in a drawer in my house), I might have done something outrageous with it.

[Pamela Barnes]

Yes Aileen that is exactly it, there are indeed social problems and they all need to be addressed and it goes back again to availability and thinking.
My WHOLE point is rather like the smoking issue, at one time smoking was an acceptable norm, it was fine to smoke, advertising was at its peak for cigerettes and the thinking was "smoking is cool, smoking is fine" etc etc. Now adverts for cigerettes is banned, restautants restrict smoking, hell in some towns smoking is not allowed. That is not to say smoking is ILLEGAL BUT the fact remains that thinking has been changed to say "No smoking is bad for you, do it if you must but we won`t encourage you, in fact we`ll make it difficult for you to smoke". Im saying the same should apply to guns, change the thinking, make it a bad thing, DONT encourage gun use.

(p.s world record forum post 100 replies)

Pamela, if we let the government change one amendment, it would set forth a precedent to change others in the future. Should we take away freedom of speech because some people misuse it? The constitution is the only document we have in the United States that protects our freedom. If it is rendered invalid, then every law in this country is invalid. I think American citizens have been free for so long that we currently take many of our freedoms for granted. We have to preserve freedom for future generations. If the Amendments ever lose their importance then the foundation of the United States will collapse. I do have a mind of my own and I do think for myself on this issue. I only use quotes and documents to back up my arguments and to demonstrate where particular people in the past have stood on this issue. (Remember, history repeats itself. We have to look back at history so we won't make the same mistakes twice.) I for one am not going to jump on the gun control bandwagon, I will voice my opinion if I believe it is right. Sometimes fighting for the right thing means taking an unpopular position. A majority of Americans during the American Revolution were loyal to the British, so the Founding Fathers were taking an unpopular position when they fought that war. African Americans fighting for civil rights in the United States were taking an unpopular position. (By the way, evil Charlton Heston participated in Martin Luther King Jr.'s march at a time that it was unpopular for Hollywood celebrities to take such a position.) The only way they won the civil rights cases was through the Constituion and the Amendments. If they had never proved in court that their rights were protected under the amendments they would never have won the civil rights war. That is the most significant way I can demonstrate the importance of the amendments. I admire Susan Howard for taking such a public stand on an issue that is unpopular among the Hollywood elite. It shows she has true character and that she has a mind of her own. She refuses to jump on the bandwagon. Understand, this is not a matter of living in the past, or not having an open mind, or refusal to change, or even being brainwashed. If we say certain rights and amendments are outdated, what is to keep us from saying the entire essence of the United States is outdated. I do realize the situation at hand. We do have problems in the United States with the youthful generation and guns. These problems should not be ignored and should be dealt with very quickly. So far, I don't think anyone has a perfect solution. We will never make this place a perfect world and we can never eliminate gun violence no matter what law is passed. We have still been unable to eliminate racism even after all these years. I think the main problem with the gun issue is that people just simply no longer care for each other. If simply owning a gun gives someone the urge to shoot another human being, then we have some serious psychological problems in the United States. Whatever happened to respect for your fellow man? I have never hated someone to the point that I wanted to just kill them. We can make the world a better place by making improvements and hope that these improvements are worthy enought to fix the problem, or at least solve part of the problem. However, as I said earlier, these problems should be solved without taking away freedom, or violating anyone's right under the Constitution. If we want to solve the gun problem, we have do it constitutionally. I do believe there should be limits on how guns are sold and the types of guns that are sold and to who they are sold. I know I'm on my soap box here, but I don't condemn anyone that thinks differently than me, thinking differently is what America is all about. If we were all forced to hold one view or opinion, then we have no freedom of thought or expression. In the end it's up to you to look at all the arguments from both sides and judge their importance and then make your own choice. Yes, your own choice because that is the definition of freedom.

[Frankie]

JR,

I believe that you should stand up for what you beleive even if it is the unpopular reason. Freedom and free speech is given to everyone, especially in this forum, but try to make sure you check your facts. The Government has changed amendments before. Prohibition was an amendment until they removed it back in the day. So, yes, it is both possible to change an amendment without having to have an outcry from people to change other amendments. And how can changing another amendment set a precedent, when one there was already one set over 80 years ago? And I think that the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment are both similar and different in many ways that are to closely related. Maybe that's why it's so hard for the government to fine a clear line between them. That's just my opinion on it at least, lol. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frankie,
"Is that a fact?", as the real J.R. would say.
That is a good point, we did have the 18th Amendment and it was repealed. However, there are some differences in that situation.

1. The 18th Amendment was not what you call a "rights" amendment. In fact it took away certain rights, (or privileges would probably be the better word to use.) It outlawed the use of alcoholic beverages. So the repeal of the 18th amendment did not effect our freedom or our rights in any way.

2. It was a bad idea from it's initial start. It only lasted, what, one decade? 1919 to the late 20's? Virtually the same legislators that wrote it, realized they made a mistake and decided to repeal it.

The 18th Amendment is concrete proof of why a gun amendment or law would not work. In the early 1900's people wanted to outlaw liquor because they believed it was corrupting American families leading to more violent crimes. Saloons that offered liquor brought gambling and prostitution. This usually created violent atmospheres. Americans believed that eliminating alcohol would put an end to this behavior. In fact, public outcry against alcohol was probably similar to the current outcry against guns. People pushed their legislators to outlaw the use of alcohol and thus the 18th Amendment was created.

President Wilson saw the flaws in this amendment and tried to veto it. However, congress was able to override his veto.

In a nutshell, instead of decreasing crime and corruption in the United States, the 18th Amendment led to more crime and more corruption. This is how the mafia and organized crime originated. People began to bootleg liquor and sold it on the black market. What was worse is the government did not even try to enforce this amendment properly. Similar to how the government refuses to enforce existing gun laws today. Well, anyway, things became so bad that the people changed their opinion about alcohol and realized they had made a bad situation worse. So the 18th Amendment was repealed.

That was what you call a situation amendment. The repeal of this amendment did not set a precedent because the amendment repealed was a mistake from the beginning.

This is fun, I enjoy reading the points of view everyone has to share.

[Pam Ewing]

After a long vacation I'm back, and yes, I felt compelled to voice my opinion on the subject of guns. Here goes.

I was attacked by a man much bigger than me once. The next day I went out and bought a gun to protect myself. NOBODY is going to beat me again. Have you ever been beaten? I'd rather kill first. (I lived in Texas then)

I don't see any problem with requiring gun registration because I think it would prevent SOME gun violence, but not all.

I agree with those who say that part of the problem isn't guns, but the way children are raised. As a working woman who intends to be a working mother some day, I absolutely disagree that it has to do with more women working. A lot of it has to do with the absence of fathers in children's lives, some of it has to do with parents not taking an interest in thier childrens' lives.

People always overlook one major factor which causes school shootings: children tormenting their peers. In EACH AND EVERY school shooting, the shooter had been teased and tormented by their peers. Why don't we teach our children tolerance and acceptance?

Laws should be harsh for criminals who commit crimes with guns. This would deter criminals from using guns.

If the 14year old, or anyone else, draws a gun on me? I wouldn't take the chance of talking him out of it. I'd draw my gun, tell him to drop his, and if he didn't, I'd shoot him.

I have to say now that my opinions are colored by the fact that I am required to carry a gun for work, and because I also have a personal gun which I usually keep in my bedside table. As a woman, those two factors probably make me fairly unique. NOBODY is going to break into my house in the middle of the night and rape me! I am thankful for this right, and I feel safer for it.

[Jarrett]

Hi Pam Ewing,

I agree with you 100%! Women should carry a gun for protection, and theirs not a darn thing wrong with that. I can't believe people say they can't wait for guns to be banned. All these teen shootings is the results of no moral upbringing at home. I know some here act like thats not the truth, but it is. We blame everything but ourselves. I know that I wont be robbed and murdered some night if a freak breaks in our home, and its a great feeling of safety. Guns dont kill. All I ask is if you was walking down a dark alley in some city at night would you sooner do so with or without protection?

[JockEwing]

Pam Ewing and Jarrett,
I agree with your posts for the most part,(especially Pam, good to see you back!)
but what if the criminal who breaks
into your home gets your gun and kills you with it? Obviously, you'd be dead, but my point is, you can turn a non-violent robbery into a deadly situation for yourself. Wouldn't happen with a stick!

[Pamela Barnes]

Yes, I mean if you have a gun it may make you feel better and in some situations perhaps it could help you. Like I have stated I have been attacked, infact the man tried to drag me into car. Looking at this situation with guns involved, the man who attacked me could of had a gun which is probable if he lived in the USA, he could of forced me at gun point. I could also have had a gun and shot him, or we both could of had guns. Now personally in my situation I am glad I didn`t have a gun and as know, as Iv thought about it a lot, I would of shot him if I had. Instead it didn`t come to that, but it would of if I had one.

Now my other point is this, if I have a gun in my purse and I am walkking down the street and some man or whomever comes up to me and sticks a gun in my back what use is my gun? "excuse me mr criminal I just need to get my gun out of my purse".

Or if they break into my house and point a gun at me, I would have to create an opportunity to get my gun. In fact any criminal in the USA would have to think that it is likely that their victim has a gun. So guns in fact are not helpful and by having a gun to `protect` you are indeed creating a vicious circle and a moral panic.





[This message has been edited by Pamela (edited 05-31-2000).]

[WestStar]

I just wanted to say how sad it is that so many shootings are now occuring in schools across America. This is a major problem that doesnt seem to be going away all by itself. Often we hear how the parents, of a child who just shot and killed other calssmates or teachers, left a loaded gun laying around the home, or that it was in a easibly reachable place. To me, this states that parents are not takeing the kind of responsibility that goes along with owning a gun very seriously. I still believe that a parent can be the greatest of influences over their children- IF they truly want to be.
Anyway, while I do feel Americans should have the right to own a gun, I totally agree with Pamela that the gun situation involving brutal crimes, school shootings, and other horrifying situations such as shootings in the workforce have gotten completely out of control. I never had to deal with all of this when I went to school, but I do know how difficult this must be for alot of school kids these days.
I believe that there should be no excuse for a criminal to go into a gun shop or gun show and walk out of there with whatever he wanted to purchase. That should never happen.
Heres hoping that parents start locking up their guns, start teaching their children how to respect their teachers and fellow students in a much better manner than what is currently occuring lately.
Thanks very much. WestStar

The NRA is TROUBLE, and nothing but TROUBLE!

The NRA wants people to carry guns, because it is their right (how stupid). But, they ALAWYS AVOID THE FACT that every year thousands of people die in the United States from gun shot wounds.

The life of just ONE person, is MUCH MUCH more important to me than some dumb right to carry a gun.

If the U.S. government wants to do something good for a change, they should outlaw & disband the NRA.

And all politicians should remember that this year is an election year.

And finally, why is it always the white, southern, beer drinking, "wife stay at home and raise the kids" type of men that join the NRA? Why?

Any thoughts???

[Jock]

I might have thoughts if you identified yourself so I knew that you were a real contributor to the conversation and not some troll trying to make problems by saying outrageous things about stay at home moms and southerners :-) (We knew it was only a matter of time, lol).

[Pamela Barnes]

But Jock he/she has got a point , http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif just kidding.

Actually visitor you are being rather sterotypical with your statement. I myself won`t claim to be an expert but I actually have for many year worked with street gangs so feel that I have an indepth insight into the thinking of people who abuse guns and infact of life in a deprived enviornment.
It is on this basis that I feel that gun restrictions should come in. I have not only worked with `gangs` ( i hate that term) or groups of young people in London but also in Los Angeles where I carried out an indepth study. It is on this basis that I know gun laws need to come in, not making them illegal but just making them less acceptable and a part of society. I do believe that many people are niave about what is happening in the real world, about the real struggles of these people you call `gangs`, and basically about life in general. Now im not being patronising by saying that because unless you work in that field or live that life you wouldn`t know, the information you will get is from the media and the media knee jerks and creates a moral panic and steers away from the whole picture.
I`m not going to sit here and indulge in my experinces from working in this field but I have to tell you that my vision of the future is very frightening unless something is done now and part of that is about guns and how people think about life and other people.
Now in the past I have been accused on this board of being left wing, commie, and a do gooder and maybe some people like to use that to undermine my statements to justify their own, but I base my thinking not on what I have read in the newspaper or seen on the television but on my training and what I see on a daily basis.

Pamela,

You do have a point. There is that possibility that a criminal could grab your gun in a struggle and shoot you with your own gun. No one is saying that a gun will guarantee safety. However, at least by having one, you have the opportunity of defending yourself, rather than being at the complete mercy of the criminal. Life is good and I think it is worth defending. If you refuse to defend yourself, then you really have no respect for your own life.

I totally agree with you Pamela http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There should be gun laws, not just in the United States, but worldwide.

And I also think that the term "gang" is outdated, politically incorrect, and it sends a bad message to people. I have also heard people refer to gangs as "cliques", "cults', and "followers". All very disturbing of course.

Why should we lable people with these names, espically children? You can meet some very talented people in gangs, from people who are great at art, to dancing, to singing, and just naturally smart and out going.

It would be nice if we as a society did not automatically condem, ignore and make false assumptions about "gangs" (bad term) and the people who are in them.

[Jock]

Yes, there are some great people in gangs. The way they car-jack, perform drive-by shootings, all with amazing precision. That takes real talent :-). I wish they would dance their way off the planet as all the talent in the world doesn't make up for the fact they'll shoot a baby if it's in the way of an opposing gang. I guess it's not right to be judgemental of these gangs (but it's OK to for Southerners). I'm not a Southerner by the way, just amazed at contradictions and kissing up to Pam. That's my job by the way, haha :-). In any case, my opinion, no offense "visitor" (if that is indeed your real name, haha).

[Pam Ewing]

Thanks for the welcome back JockEwing!

Talented gang members!!?? What's next? Sensitive serial killers? Seriously, I think there is a misunderstanding of the term gang.

Pamela and JockEwing: You both bring up very good points. It is a possibility that an attacker might take my gun from me and use it on me. That's why I learn defensive tactics, including battling men in padded suits so that I can practice fighting them off. In these drills, I've never lost my gun, and have always been able to escape my attackers(up to three at a time). I hope that when the time comes this training will help me. I encourage all women to learn defensive tactics.

I have also practiced scenarios for accessing my gun if confronted with an attacker.

Too many people are irresponsible with guns. That's why there are so many accidental shootings. By the same token that you say if abolishing guns saves one life it's worth it, then aren't guns worth it as they have protected at least one person from being killed, attacked or raped?

This is not a dig at the English at all, but I've heard that English police are somewhat made fun of. Might they command more respect if they had guns? I know that when apprehending/arresting criminals, U.S. Law Enforcement Officers may have trouble, but usually receive immediate respect and compliance when forced to draw their guns.

I feel that tougher sentences for criminals who use guns would reduce gun violence, as would more responsibility of gun owners, and more attention to children(from aprents and the community).

I'm not a member of the NRA, I don't know much about the fourth amendment, I'm not some gunhead with a hundred different guns. I'm just glad I have a gun to protect myself.

[Pamela Barnes]

Ok gun people I don`t want to sound harsh but I am hearing an awful lot of me me me. Now I sat in a bar last week and I spoke to me friends for hours about this issue as I explained what was being discussed here, I was told I needed to understand the the USA has guns ingrained into their society and my friend had a theory based on why that I won`t go into yet because Im sure its an area angels fear to tred. But I am not going to judge people as Im sure there are reasons behind it.

It also sounds like a power thing, who gives a damn if the police are made fun of, when I was in LA people laughed at the police and they have guns. In the UK actually, as most places the Police are normally the bad guys unless needed and in the Uk were recently found to be instistutionally racist which was HUGE as it was the first time an organisation of such power had been brought to task and challanged.

You see this is also the problem, you have now undermined what I said about gangs, now these are human beings, you know people sit here in their cosy worlds , sitting on their computers making judgements, this is part of the overall problem. I am in a prividgled position and I know it, I go to work see these people doing whatever they do then I come home to my nice house. In fact yes most of these young people are very intelligent, have many skills but are in a culture where they are oppressed and dissaffcted. This needs to be addressed to combat the problem.

Like I said before I don`t know one person in my circle of friends, work, etc that has a gun. I don`t have a gun, I`ll never have a gun, my parents don`t have guns. And you know what im pleased about that and yes I sleep quite well at night.
So why do you need guns and a majority of people in the UK don`t?
Let me ask what happened in the USA to bring about this thinking? Please don`t mention about being freed from the English argument, I can assure you Tony Blair is not planning an invasion. So lets look at now, tell me why the culture is such that people feel terrified of living their lives gun free. Please get to the point this time, down to basics. I want to know why without forefather etc. What are you so scared of?


-----------------------------------------
"He wasn`t man enough for me"



[This message has been edited by Pamela (edited 06-01-2000).]

Pamela,

Let me ask you a question. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that is your own personal choice. But why can't other people make their own choice by choosing to own a gun. Why must they be forced to accept your opinion that owning a gun is wrong. To me that sounds like a me me me on your part.

The argument I have been presenting does not state that everyone should be forced to own a gun, only that people should be allowed a choice. However, your argument states that no one should own a gun and that no one should have a choice on the matter.

In other words, my argument gives people a choice based on their own values and beliefs. If people want to own a gun, they can if they wish. If they choose not to own a gun, no one is forcing them to buy one. Your argument forces everyone to accept one view and one side by forcing everyone to accept the notion that guns are wrong and no one should own them. That sounds like a power thing to me, you want to have control over how people choose to live their lives.

By the way, what is all this nonsense about Tony Blair planning some kind of invasion?

[Pamela Barnes]

Oh I was referring to a post about people needing guns based on their use in making the USA independent.

Yes I hear what your saying JW but my point was and is and has been contiually to create a society where violence is seen as being wrong. You have spoken about teaching children values, isn`t it like telling them not to eat chocolate but having a huge pile of milky way on display just incase your peckish. I would consider that not only hippocritcal but also rather confusing. Teaching the child "yes its ok to end a persons life if need be". You will argue im sure "yes but teach the child to respect guns", yes all very nice but still creating a pro violent thinking.

But you still have not replied to my question which is why does it seem the majority of USA cizizens feel it essential to have a gun when the UK (as stated) has the same issues but not the same gun mentality? Again I ask what are you scared off? and what is this being "scared" based on? I am not being sarcatic with this question I am genuinely interested.

[Pam Ewing]

Pamela: perhaps this perception your friends have of the U.S. comes from movies and television shows, which portray all Americans as gun-loving. Also,(and this is not trying to stereotype)there are some areas and states in the U.S. where guns may be historically more accepted. For example, in the south and the west, where people hunt more.

I grew up in the northeast, and had never even seen a gun until I was issued one. I never felt the need for a gun until I was attacked (in Texas, coincidentally). The northeast is not known for citizens toting guns.

Why I feel I need a gun is simple. Before I had a gun I lived in mortal fear of being raped. Before I had a gun I once heard a woman screaming for help-I thought she was being raped. I ran out with a stick in my hands to help her before the police arrived. I would have probably suffered at the attacker's hands myself with only a stick to protect me. (I preferred to come to harm myself than allow a woman to be raped. Rape is a hideous, horrible assault on a woman's body and mind. The very thought of it petrifies me. Now you may understand my extreme reaction to the whole Lee Raintree thread) If I had a gun then, neither myself nor the woman would have been in danger.

That's why I feel I need a gun-to protect myself. I shoot well, I've practiced for the event of having to use the gun, and I feel safer. I don't think everyone should have guns.

[Pamela Barnes]

Ok yes I appreciate that Pam Ewing but why did you feel in mortal fear of being raped? That is so awful and I feel its terrible you felt like that. Was that a consequnce of being attacked or was it in general a fear based on crime in general?

[Aileen]

In the excellent film "Witness" (about a cop hiding out among the Amish), the Amish grandfather is talking to his grandson about the cop's gun. The little boy has seen a murder and is beginning to think that guns might be necessary to protect himself from the "bad men". The grandfather challenges him by saying of the gun, "What you take into your hand, you take into your heart." It is a powerful scene; if you haven't seen it, I recommend renting this film.

Yes, a gun might protect me in certain situations. (And God knows, we women need protection from all the violence that MALE perpetrators do). But I believe for myself, if I own a gun, I bring violence into my heart.

And let me say, one more time, that I do not believe that guns should be taken away from law abiding citizens or that they should be illegal. I believe that they should be harder to buy, with some demonstrated responsibility required before you can own one. I do not understand this paranoia that any discussion of gun regulation equals "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

[Jock]

I agree with you Aileen as you seem to see the sensible middle ground in this (as most issues have). The fear of "coming to take my guns away" is society's mistrust of the government. When the gov't overreacts or mishandles situations like Waco or Ruby Ridge (which the FBI readily admits the gov't botched), it fuels that fear that gun control is only a precursor to complete gun restriction in order to reduce the power of the common man and put us into a complete position of helplessness in terms of what the gov't decides it want to do with us. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but that is the reasoning, and was the reasoning when the founding fathers drafted the amendment.

It wasn't about protection from crime, but protection if the gov't raged out of control and the citizens had the need to rise up against it in order to not become another totalitarian regime. The fear is somewhat similar to if the gov't decided all nudie magazines would now be outlawed. Many people would find that a good thing, but now you've given gov't the power to decide what is ojectionable. Next, maybe Tom Sawyer is inapropriate because of its content. It's an extreme example I know, but I'm trying to shed light on the thought process as I've looked at this issue from both sides and think both sides have some bonafide concerns.

I think society should stress violence is wrong and the ills should be addressed, but I also see Pam Ewing's side of things where she wants some peace of mind and feels she is safer in her circumstances. Yes, bad things happen with guns. Bad things happen when a person willingly drives a car drunk. Anger to react and shoot, being drunk, both ACTIONS take something and make it lethally dangerous. Safeguards are taken regarding cars and licensing. If you are law abiding, I don't see you'd have a major problem with a similar process for guns. The problem is, the gov't turns car regs into money and a means to assume more power than they have, which is the fear people have if other things like 1st and 2nd amendment issues go in that way as well.

[jmwildenthal]

The only ancient quote in my quote file is:

"...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand." - (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD), _Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales,_[_Letters to Lucilius on Morals,_] Letter 87, c.63-65

The debate on weapons is very old....

Brainwashing has to do with ignoring evidence. When I have a physical health question, I go to an M.D. When I have a tooth question, I go to a D.D.S. When I have a question about suicides (why others do it), I go to a psychologist (preferably with a Ph.D.). When I have a question about criminals, I go to criminologists (again, with Ph.D.).

Gun control is such a powerful argument because it is simple, not because it is right. It is the same level of soundbite logic that politicians use to sell their wares. Search out the experts. Weigh all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your already held opinion. Anyone can have a poorly informed opinion. Why should you? If you don't understand the true causes of violence, then how are you ever going to be qualified to suggest accurate solutions to that violence?

I base my opinions on common sense tempered by the best evidence I can find. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not fire on their own. They cannot "cause" violence but they can facilitate it. A gun in the hand of a responsible person is not a threat to anyone who isn't presenting themselves as a threat to that citizen.

The gasoline-fire argument fails on that count. We let police carry because guns are so effective for self-defense (and Pamela, the UK cops want more guns for themselves. None of the restrictions on law-abiding citizens have even dented the market for illegal guns; the use of firearms in crime in England has consistently increased for the last 80 years). A gun in the hand of a responsible person is a damper on violent crime, not an accelerant.

If you feel you aren't safe or competent with a gun, don't buy one. The same goes for lawnmowers, kitchen knives, power tools, cars, and every other tool available.

[jmwildenthal]

Availability is NEGATIVELY correlated with violent crime. That means that higher availability is associated with lower levels of crime. Correlation is not causation, but the fact that the correlation is negative, and not the positive correlation procontrol people claim, should encourage people on both sides to examine the issue more closely.

If guns are "bad" please provide evidence of that claim. I still don't understand how inanimate objects can be "good" or "bad." Inanimate objects can be used for good and bad purposes. If they are used to facilitate crime, they are being used for a bad purpose. If they are used to defend the innocent, they are being used for a good purpose.

[jmwildenthal]

JR Davidson and Frankie:

The Second Amendment (and the First and Fourth) are "natural" rights and do not depend on the social contract for their existence. This principle has been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. What that means is that you can repeal the amendment, but that does not affect the right that the amendment proclaimed.

See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) http://www.2ndlawLib.org/court/fed/sc/92us542.html

[jmwildenthal]

JockEwing:

Criminals turn a victim's gun on them in less than 1% of all violent crime where the victim is armed with a firearm. The survey method used (FBI UCR) would suggest that the true percentage would be less than half of that since many crimes are not reported to the police, and crimes where the criminal shoots the victim are almost certain to be reported.

Pamela:

Criminals in the US avoid situations where they might get shot at, just like you would. That means that they try to make sure no one is home when they burglarize a house (less than 15% knowingly burglarize an occupied house, compared to 50% in Canada, UK, ....). Lott's study reinforced this - as confrontational crime went down in response to "shall-issue" legislation (more citizens carrying), nonconfrontational crime went up. Criminals didn't stop being criminals. They stopped being violent criminals.

[jmwildenthal]

WestStar:

I agree that parents aren't taking the time to train up their children. Kids in the 1960s (and earlier) had their own guns but we didn't have any problems then like we do now.

[jmwildenthal]

Pamela:

When you find a word you prefer over "gang," tell me. The problem is that the word covers anything from naughty social club type groups to criminal enterprises. On that note....

Why do you feel "gangs" of the 1950s and 1960s rarely chose to use firearms? My personal take is that there was nothing they had that they felt needed that level of protection. Thanks to the drug trade, many of today's "gangs" have considerably more to defend, including the ability to continue to produce that income stream.

Any thoughts?

[jmwildenthal]

Pamela:

The US believes in innocent until proven guilty. A corrolary is responsible until proven irresponsible. Our police can't just stop us and search us for fun. They must have probable cause for the search.

Guns, as weapons used for defense, free up people to take positive risks. I can stop to help cars on the side of the road, knowing that I have a viable tool for defending myself. Without the gun I carry, I'd drive on by. Surveys of "good samaritans" find that they are overwhelmingly gun owners and gun carriers.

Pam Ewing's experience is another example. There are some others like Pam, but most want something more than a stick if they are going to put themselves in danger. If the other choice is to wait for the cops, that takes time - time the victim may not have.

It is the procontrol people that live in fear. They fear that virtually every citizen is incapable of refraining from murder. I (and other proRKBA individuals) trust our fellow citizens.

Despite what you may believe, "gangs" are made out to be far far worse by the media than they actually are.

"gang related" crimes in the United States is a very small number. But of course, as a society we tend to believe that a "gang" related murder is far worse than a "non-gang" related murder. Why? A murder is a murder. A shooting is a shooting.

I find "gang" behavior to be an interesting topic. I think that people who automatically assume that all "gangs" are bad, have personal issues that need to be resolved. Because to me, I think that people who make "assumptions" about other people without ever meeting them, are the bigger problem in this world.

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, did explore the issue of "gangs" throughout her eight year tenure in the White House. She did not place the blame of shootings, drugs, and crimes in schools on "gangs", like the NRA and the media tend to do today.

My message to the media is:

You need to BACK OFF! Stop placing blame on "gangs" and teenagers for the problems in our public schools and playgrounds. Stop blaming t.v. for bad behavior. If you take all the time you spend blaming others and put it into research, than you would be HELPING the problem and not ENLARGING the problem, inorder to boost your stupid ratings.

Stop thinking about what the "people" want to see, corperate advertising, and the ratings war and think about OTHERS and the harm you are causing.

And to the president of the NRA:

You are just jealous! Thats the only reason I can come up with. Why else would you encourage the purchase of guns and weapons. You are just jealous because there are REAL PEOPLE in the U.S. who live normal, happy lives on who do not need to purchase a scrap of metal and a pile of gunpowder to bring some sort and "control" to their humble lives.

So, just take your anti-american, anti-teenage, anti-religious organization and stick it at the end of the rainbow where it will never be SEEN, HEARD FROM, or ACKNOWLEDGED again.

Thank You.

P.S. Everytime I watch the news and I see where a child, adult, elderly person or animal has died from the result of a gun shot, I can't help to think about what harm and heartache the NRA has brought to this nation. Do America and the world a big big big favor, and disband your fascist little organization.

[jmwildenthal]

Pamela:

Do you really believe that all violence is wrong? My belief is that violence in defense of the innocent is almost always good. I've stated this several times and you keep returning to "violence is bad" without answering whether you think all violence is bad or not.

Children do understand hypocrisy. They understand the hypocrisy of claiming that "all violence is bad" while supporting violence to protect the innocent.

[jmwildenthal]

Aileen:

One of my favorite films. You must have a pretty low opinion of police....

Let me ask you the same question I asked Pamela: Do you feel that violence to protect the innocent is wrong?

Registration has led to confiscation in the U.S. in California, Chicago, and NYC. It is not something imagined.

What regulation do you feel will actually reduce firearm misuse? I've provided my one restriction - buyers must show valid voter registration cards. Since you can't (legally) get one as a felon, that provides a background check against felony convictions on all buyers.

[jmwildenthal]

I promised more on the shooter in Florida as I found it.

He stole both the gun and ammo from his grandfather. He showed off the gun to some classmates a few days earlier. He was on the honor roll for attendance. He supposedly claimed (when leaving) that he would come back to shoot the counselor who sent him home (not the teacher he shot) and that he would be "all over the news."

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/01/fla.teacher.shooting/index.html

[Pam Ewing]

Pamela: I have thought about it, and honestly can't say where my fear of being raped comes from. Not from experience, thank God. I've been attacked, and I have less fear of being attacked again than being raped.

Aileen: I've seen "Witness". It's a great movie. However, I don't think that once you carry a gun you become a violent person or a gunhead. I'm not. I carried a gun for work before I ever had a personal gun, and I don't think I have guns in my heart now. I could live without them, I'd just feel less safe.

I don't have a problem with requiring background checks, licensing, and education for legal gun owbership. Actually, don't most states who license people to carry guns require them to take a course?

Accidents happen, unfortunately. many more people are killed in car accidents and by drunk drivers than by gun accidents.

For those of you that believe in big government conspiracies or think that some day you will need to rise up against the government, you are over-reaching. The government is not as organized as you think.

For those that think Ruby Ridge/Waco, etc. were some government planned conspiracies, and that Elian Gonzalez should have been led from his Miami home by gun-free agents with kid gloves on, get real. Procedures are followed in any arrest situation which are designed to send government agents home to their families at night. These include arming themselves, hopefully with bigger guns than the arrestees have. Agents make mistakes, like any other human beings, and situations get tense. Agents are forced to make spur-of-the-moment decisions. It's not a perfect world, and if you were in the place of an agent, you would understand.

For people from other countries: not everyone in the U.S. owns guns. I know many people, and other than myself and people I work with, not one of them owns a gun. I think compared to the population of the U.S., very few people own guns.

Actually, I'm not totally clear on the NRA's positions and what they're fighting for. Maybe I don't worry about it, because I know that even in the unlikely event that somehow private citizens are not allowed to own guns in the U.S., I'll still have one.

Why don't we all agree to disagree on this one?

"Ray, get me the shotgun out of the hall closet"

[Jock]

I think our "visitor" is none other than Katherine Wentworth of days gone by, lol.

Read the article at http://www.tsrapac.org/Howard.htm

`In recognition of her own passionate defense of freedom as exhibited by her active protection of the Second Amendment, despite knowing that her position is not popular among many in the entertainment industry, and her support of NRA’s safety and education programs, it is only fitting that Susan Howard has been awarded the 2001 Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award`

Hope it is of interest.

[Sarah]

Northern Ireland had it's fair share of guns about, still does in some areas, but we can't just walk into a store and buy one. I think it is ok to have a gun for your own PROTECTION, as long as it's licensed and you have been trained to use it. I don't agree with this walking in to a store and just being given one. I abhor violence and I am totally against guns for hunting, which I also think is totally dispicable.

Patrick Duffy's parents were murdered by two maniacs with guns. I'm totally behind him. How would you feel? Wouldn't you be doing anything in your power to campaign against it too?

JR: "Sue Ellen, whatever problems we've had in our lives, I just want you to know that I have loved you"

Sue Ellen "I know that, and I have loved you"

JR: "More than I deserved"