Pledge to carry gun battle across nation (NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/379514p-322247c.html

Once content to rule the city, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday vowed for the first time to go national - with an all-out effort to crack down on illegal gun sales.

With the shooting deaths of two NYPD cops still weighing on the city - and with his confidence as a political player clearly rising - Bloomberg promised in his second term to fight the fight over illegal handguns in every forum that matters.

"We will take our message to Albany, to Washington and to every capital of every state that permits guns to flow freely across its borders," said Bloomberg.

"And to those who distort our laws to aid and abet hardened criminals, know this," he said, punching the air for emphasis. "We will not rest until we secure all of the tools we need to protect New Yorkers from the scourge of illegal guns."

[ixion]

1. that's ironic, because when a police force shoots someone

you don't hear people like Bloomberg saying much of anything.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. "Irony" is Bloomberg's" middle name. He is one interesting...

case study.

Just spent 73 million buying reelection in NYC. Now starting to think nationally.

Look out, USA.

[TomClash]

8. He's got problems nationally nt

[saigon68]

50. Some have called him a "Schumer like Girly Man"

[Mr.Green93]

3. When Impeachment and Gun Control become winning

National Issues the sound of rethuglian heads exploding will echo across the land.

[goforit]

4. It is like the city of Gothem.....we need BATMAN!!!

[-..__...]

5. Bloomburg has more balls than brains...

if he thinks he can take his agenda down South, the West, Mid West (or any state where the right to keep and bear arms is respected), and expect any kind of acceptence.

Here's an idea, Mike. When people in other states can register and vote in the NYC elections, then you can punch your fist in the air and complain all you want to.

Until then STFU, sit down and come up with alternatives to NYCs problem(s).

[RSchewe]

6. It's only a matter of time until the NRA pulls the plug on this Republican

He must be feeling his oats in his re-election. Someone will be giving him a call soon to tell him to shut his piehole.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Has There Been Any Reaction From the NRA?

<crickets>

Just as we thought.

The NRA is nothing more than a shill for the Republican party now.

[Kolesar]

21. I thought the NRA was a shill for the gun industry

So which is it?

[billbuckhead]

28. Both, a shill for the neocon RepubliKKKans& gun industry

It's not much of a stretch. About the same thing. Sleazeball crooks.

[bkcc]

26. Bloomberg's a RINO.

The guy was a registered Democrat until just before the mayoral election in 2001. He switched party affiliation just to get elected.

Some of his positions are liberal, some are very conservative. I'm sure he doesn't have many admirers in either party.

He's out for one person: himself.

[saigon68]

76. He is only out for himself

[newswolf56]

7. Bloomberg has already abolished New Yorkers' First Amendment rights...

(and the Second Amendment has been void in the City since 1968), so now obviously he's targeting the Bill of Rights for a trifecta:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4718793.stm

(Fourth Amendment as well as First)

and

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/27/1444202

plus

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=4498

and for background

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0251,lee,40627,1.html

Bottom line, Bloomberg is merely Bush in pseudoliberal disguise -- like ALL Republicans, a fascist at heart. Don't be duped: this is corporate America's answer to the possibility that real progressives might actually take back the Democratic Party.

[billbuckhead]

11. The first thing Republicans do when they go moderate is go after guncrime

Guiliani, Swartzeneggar, Forrester and even McCain go after guncrime to look moderate. That's a telling move that they know that unrestricted guns ain't really all that popular. Polls show supermajorities of Americans are for gun regulation. Even master Rove has his Chimpypuppett say he would pass the AWB.

[michreject]

25. "Polls show supermajorities of Americans are for gun regulation"

What polls?

[billbuckhead]

27. Here's a start

<http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/gunvote.htm>
<http://www.yauponcreek.org/GunControlPoll.html>
<http://www.mppgv.org/public%20opinion.htm>
<http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/nov99/reed17111199.htm>
<http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=2381>
<http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/policy/GUN3.HTM>
<http://www.joycefdn.org/articles/gunarticles/9901polls.html>
<http://www.cfpa.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/GunViolencePrevention.xml>
<http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/339/12/813>

[billbuckhead]

35. Here's 18 different Gallup polls over 14 years

Any response?
<http://michael-in-chicago.mydd.com/story/2005/11/14/141431/81>

[michreject]

39. I really liked this part

This second poll seems to show a gradual erosion, though a clear majority still support stricter laws. So let's take a closer look at what 2004 data shows, from the 2004 National Election Study (NES)

This was 2 years ago. I bet the tide has turned and is 51% in favor of less gun control.

[Realityhack]

42. I doubt that very much...

you might find less than 51% in favor of stricter gun controll... perhapse... but it is unlikely there would be a big enough shift in the 'no change' group to get you 51% in favor of actualy reducing gun controls.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim or show that a majority in favor of reducing gun controll existed at one point and therefore might again?

IIRC higher crime rates tend to increase the desire for more gun control... with the economy going down you will likely see crime increases so I find it unlikely you will see such an increase in the number of people wanting to lower the amount of gun control.

[billbuckhead]

44. What part of clear majority don't you understand?

That's why it's hard to debate these gun "enthusiasts", they don't understand what's good vs what's bad. Then if they don't see what they want they just make something up like, "I bet the tide has turned.....

[crankybubba]

64. you mean making something up

like you do when you claim you own polls are freeped when they don't come out like you want them to. BTW according to you is'nt NYC the safest large city in the country? If so, then why do then need MORE gun control??? puzzling bill....

[billbuckhead]

67. Back for more? Why intentionally spell incorrectly and use poor grammar?

You never answer that. Hiding something? Bragging about freeping DU polls again? Pull some up and show everybody. I won everyone of them in the first couple hours and you still couldn't freep very many of them, BTW, you're not Mary Rosh in drag are you?

[crankybubba]

72. don't answer the question bill.

you lose every poll here and have to make up excuses. stooping to calling me a freeper huh.. pretty sad. have no argument but personal attacks. I feel sorry for you. it's the result that counts it's not a race. if your poll got one vote in an hour and it's for your side you consider that you won it??? getting desperate now.

it's funny you calling me that when you support repubs like bloomberg, sarah brady etc..

[billbuckhead]

73. Why do you not tell us why you mispell on purpose?

Why don't you capitalize? What are you hiding?

Prove I lose evey poll. You can't cause you're wrong.

I'm such Republican that the DNC just sent me card. So I'm offically a card carrying Democrat :rofl:

[crankybubba]

74. In you fantasy land..

put up a poll and we will see....

how about this one bill...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=114284&mesg_id=114284

64% against you ouch that must have hurt..

or this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=105746&mesg_id=105746

[billbuckhead]

75. Why do you misspell and not capitalize?

Screw up your courage and answer the question or I'll put you on ignore and you can send a new cyberstalker

[crankybubba]

77. I could care less if you do that..

now go cry about it to someone who cares. P.S. you are not going to get the satisfaction of the answer you crave. Go ahead and cause us to lose elections. You ego is such that you KNOW what is best for everyone else. I'll keep promoting rights and defending those rights against those who would take them away for "our own good" Your rhetoric and anti gun dogma grows more outdated every year. Unlike yo I want dems to win elections and people to have freedoms. bye then bill don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. (;))

[billbuckhead]

79. You're such such a hoot for an gun "enthusiast" keyboard bully

Don't have the courage to tell the truth about yourself then you're just a typical gun lobby troll not worth talking to, see you and wouldn't want to be you :shrug:

[crankybubba]

80. read around you will find out enough about me..

not going to do your reasearch for you. personal attacks is all you have left sad really. tell us all about yourself first.(;))

[billbuckhead]

82. What's sad is a lazy rightwing cyberstalker

:nopity:

[crankybubba]

83. more name calling

nice. prove any of the b.s. you are spewing..did'nt think so

[billbuckhead]

84. "did'nt think so?"

You're a "credit" to the gun "enthusiast" crowd but you do need an new act.
:boring:

[crankybubba]

85. still not going to back it up huh.

typical. I thought you were done with me? guess you can't resist.

"Screw up your courage and answer the question or I'll put you on ignore and you can send a new cyberstalker"

not going to answer. because it is what you want. There is enough about me on here already..
tell us about yourself first. you are the one obsessing here. "don't go away mad, just go away"

[billbuckhead]

86. You're not going to answer cause it reveals you're fake

[crankybubba]

87. nope nice try though n/t

i'm just not going to give you the satisfaction. post you info first and then we will see.

prove your b.s. accusations......

[billbuckhead]

90. I take the satifaction that you must disguise yourself to even compete

I take the satifaction that you must lie about yourself to even begin to compete. You're not strong and free if you have to be in disguise and play ratfuck games. Go back to the drawing board and come up with a new character that respects your audience. Maybe when you retool, you might start to think about respecting humanity on the road to respecting yourself. Maybe when you respect yourself, you'll be proud of what you are and not have to be in costume or hiding behind a weapon. O8)

[crankybubba]

91. prove it or...

get lost. how dare you assume I am a repub or a freeper. just because I don't agree with you on this issue. Yours is not the only viewpoint. we will not march in lockstep with you because you say so.

[crankybubba]

92. want to know who I am

I am a lifelong democrat
I am a father
I am a husband
I am a person who is professionally trained to handle firearms
I am a L.E.O

what else do you want to know. now who are you????

prove your bullshit claims


btw..Your obsession is uncanny.

You need a new hobby. Perhaps a Crash Test Dummy?

[billbuckhead]

94. You might try a few things to establish a modicum of credibility

You should give a donation to DU and fill out the rest of your profile. Then there is the spellchecker. At least you won't be so obvious.

[crankybubba]

95. heres an idea for you

prove your b.s. claims... if you do ban me.......if not ban you... how bout it sparky...or are you chicken???

no proof huh?? can't attack the message attack the messenger. the way of the coward. very rovian of you bill.

[billbuckhead]

96. Thou doth protest far too much

Why not give a contribution to DU and fill out your profile?:nopity:

[crankybubba]

97. or you can prove it..

you are soooo.. full of b.s. put your money where your mouth is..the offer above still stands.


btw my profile is filled out(as much as yours is) happy now???

[billbuckhead]

98. Now get a gold star

and I'll talk to "you" again. Till then, adios. :hi:

[crankybubba]

99. crickets chirping.........

the usual for you. when called on your b.s. you ignore the questions and go off on a tangent. could it be you are a plant that is here to discredit and divde the dems??? hmmm.... interesting thought. black propaganda on your part huh. the nra has plenty of money to make donations and plant people here does'nt it? See this works both ways. can't prove ANY of your b.s. so just throw some more. Shame on you bill. I really feel sorry for you that you think you HAVE to be right all the time. Now go take your pills and calm down a little. Your tin foil hat is a little tight today.


BTW what happened to ignoring me if you don't get the answer you want??? Just more b.s. on your part huh. typical.

still have'nt proven a single thing. now go off and sulk. i'll still be laughing at you and you pathetic attempt to try and discredit me. you are a true joke and would make rush,o'rielly and bush really proud of you.

breaking the rules here in your desperate attempt to flame me is low even for you bill.(:()

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor."

[michreject]

38. Lot of stuff there

Let see

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/gunvote.htm

2 years old

http://www.yauponcreek.org/GunControlPoll.html

Had kind of a limited age range. They should have included the 60 and over group. I bet they would have had a different results.

http://www.mppgv.org/public%20opinion.htm

A 5 year old poll from a gun control group. You think they were a little biased?

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/nov99/reed17111199.htm

6 year old poll

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=2381

5 year old poll

http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/policy/GUN3.HTM

From 1999. A little old

http://www.joycefdn.org/articles/gunarticles/9901polls.html

Another one form 1999. Do you have any in this century?

http://www.cfpa.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/GunViolencePrevention.xml

This one is interesting. From your link:

Americans, including gun owners, strongly support gun restrictions.
A September 2004 Harris Poll reported that 60 percent of Americans favor “stricter gun control” while only 32 percent favor “less strict gun control.”

I got this from the Harris site:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471

The main findings of the survey are:

* A modest 52% majority favors stricter gun control, with 22% wanting less strict control and 20% wanting no change.

The % of people for gun control has been dropping every year. Who knows what it will be by the end of the year.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/339/12/813

Only 7 years old.

Nice try.

[Realityhack]

43. Funny how you left out

"A slightly larger 57% majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of handguns"

From the exact same page.

BTW your claim that this might be reversed to wanting less is prity much debunked by that 52% to 22% gap. The likelyhood of that completely reversing in less than 2 years is about nill.

[billbuckhead]

45. The gun "enthusiast" crowd has a loose hold on reality

They'll say anything to keep feeding blood to their tin god.

[benEzra]

55. This debate is rising to new intellectual heights, I see...

The gun "enthusiast" crowd has a loose hold on reality They'll say anything to keep feeding blood to their tin god.

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

[billbuckhead]

66. Do you agree 57% is a majority or do you live in an alternate reality?

Every poll I linked to showed majorities for stronger gun regulations and small numbers in favor of weaker laws but still the gun "enthusiasts" will spin spin spin like their gun lobby masters train them too. Go to any gun "enthusiast" site such as the "High Road" and you will see the true face of American fascism.

[michreject]

47. The subject was all guns

Not handguns. That's why the next section was not included. Since gun control is at a low ebb right now, I would tend to include the no change group with the less control group.

With the shall issue CCW laws sweeping the country, I would GUESS that more people want less restrictive laws regarding guns. The state politicos aren't passing these laws against their constituents wishes. It's what the people want.

[billbuckhead]

58. Has a CCW ever passed a referendum, anywhere?

Why are so many of these corrupt politicians affiliated withe NRA?

[michreject]

68. referendum not necessary

The CCW laws get passed by the state legislature.

[Realityhack]

88. sorry but...

including the 'I think they are fine' group with the 'I want less gun control' group, adding them up, extrapolating out your ass for a non-existant data point (ie assuming trend will continue etc.) and then comparing it to the 'I want more gun control' group is 100% intelectualy dishonest.

Frankly making shit up is not a valid debate tactic and you ought to know better.

If you look back at the data I think it is clear that at least some of the 'fine the way they are' croud comes from both camps.

In addition your assumptions reguarding CCW laws makes a number of false assumptions. Namely:

1. Polititions do what the average person wants them to. - You should know better.
2. There is a near 100% even distribution of these viewpoints accross the country. - again you should know better.

It also completely fails to factor in a wide selection of gun control laws that have also been enacted.

[NYC]

12. I missed the pseudo-liberal disguise.

I guess I'm too close.

[newswolf56]

13. No offense: that's how Bloomberg's portrayed by corporate media...

out here in America. (Far as I'm concerned, the City hasn't had a genuinely liberal mayor since Lindsay -- but then I haven't lived there since Koch, so what do I know.) :)

[Herstal]

9. I really hate that guy.

[BiggJawn]

14. "All the Tools we Need...."

Uh, anyone ELSE have a shiver run up their spine when they read that?
Someone needs to tell Mike that he runs out of authority not very far past the 5 Burroughs.

[Vickers]

15. Wow, talk about living in a vacuum!

You start talking gun control, you lose a national election.

[benEzra]

16. Reading the article, it looks like he's talking about ILLEGAL gun

trafficking, NOT enacting stricter "gun control" aimed at law-abiding gun owners. Which pretty much boils down to enforcing existing law.

It's anybody's guess why the government doesn't just trace guns used in crimes and PROSECUTE the straw purchasers, but maybe it's just more fun to go after the lawfully owned guns in our family's gun safe instead. That's certainly the approach of the anti-gun lobby...

[RamboLiberal]

19. As a gun owner I agree with Bloomberg on the illegal gun issue

There does need to be a serious crackdown on the straw purchasers. Personally I think if there was a crackdown on the people who go to other states to purchase firearms that will be sold illegally on the street it would help.

But I don't agree with cities like NYC, Chicago, DC, and now SF from banning legitimate lawabiding people from owning and carrying a handgun.

[benEzra]

20. I'm with you...

I've never figured out why no administration has EVER gone after the straw purchasers and smugglers since the Gun Control Act of 1968 made it possible to trace crime guns back to their source. Maybe because it actually takes funding and work to go after criminals, or maybe it's because the anti-gun lobby has historically not been all that interested in the guns in criminal hands, just those owned by people who've never even had a speeding ticket...

[dogfacedboy]

23. I'm with you on your first point.

The Federal government could easily put a big hurt on ILLEGAL firearms traffic if they would put some work into it. They won't because it would get put down quickly in Congress when it came time to pony up the resources(money and manpower). This is due to the NRA owning many, many Reps and Sens. Yes, they own them, like a pimp owns whores. I'm a LEGAL gun owner who is also very actively involved in properly administered gun control. I don't hold an NRA card, and never will. I have no problem with tighter control on how I can obtain my guns. I can't see how any law abiding American would.

Leave out the political rhetoric, and even the most casual observer can see that American society has changed dramatically since this nation was founded. Gun crimes flourish. It's reached a point of insanity. All manner of laws can be written from the view of "deterrence", i.e tough sentences for those committing crimes with firearms, but there will always be low-lifes who want to go out with a Saturday night special and knock over a liquor store. Sooner or later, we will be building prison after prison after prison to lock these people up. It never ends. I don't believe that these laws are working. Take the guns off the street, and this crime drops dramatically.

Regarding your second point, please tell me when ANY modern US administration,
or Congress, or the Supreme Court has ever tried to dis-arm law abiding gun owners?

[benEzra]

24. Some thoughts...

The Federal government could easily put a big hurt on ILLEGAL firearms traffic if they would put some work into it. They won't because it would get put down quickly in Congress when it came time to pony up the resources(money and manpower). This is due to the NRA owning many, many Reps and Sens. Yes, they own them, like a pimp owns whores. I'm a LEGAL gun owner who is also very actively involved in properly administered gun control. I don't hold an NRA card, and never will. I have no problem with tighter control on how I can obtain my guns. I can't see how any law abiding American would.

I don't think any gun owners, or the NRA, have any problem with enforcing current law. If anything, the NRA tends to go to the other extreme, since they were a major force behind many of the inflexible three-strikes laws and such on the books in some states. "Project Exile" was a pet project of the NRA, not the gun prohibitionist lobby, which is generally much more concerned with restricting what NON-criminals can own. I personally don't support inflexible three-strikes laws, since I don't see the benefit of giving someone life in prison for shoplifting or writing a bad check.

The problems I have with ever-tighter restrictions on what I as a law-abiding person can own are essentially threefold.

(1) The prohibitionists have made it abundantly clear that people like ME are their primary target. Their actions demonstrate that they are a whole lot less concerned with the .357 in your local criminal's waistband than they are with the handguns and modern-looking long guns in our family's gun safe.

(2) In almost every country that has enacted subjective licensing for gun owners, it has been used as a means over time to incrementally deny gun ownership to the less wealthy and the less politically connected, eventually ending up with a scenario in which well-heeled "sportsmen" or the ultra-rich are the only ones allowed to own firearms. The UK, Australia, many European nations (though not all), NYC in this country. If a licensing system were enacted tomorrow, what do you want to bet that within a few years, the training requirements would be increased, and the list of disqualifications would be expanded to include, say, any mental diagnosis in the DSM IV. Etc. etc. I'm not wealthy, I'm not politically connected, and I'm not a hunter, so there's not a lot of future for me as a gun owner under that scenario.

(3) If they're not going to even bother to enforce the laws we have against criminal gun misuse, I have no confidence that any laws enacted tomorrow will be enforced against criminals, either...just against people like me who already do our best to obey the law in every area, but would probably run afoul of the law if it became sufficiently incomprehensible to a non-lawyer.

Leave out the political rhetoric, and even the most casual observer can see that American society has changed dramatically since this nation was founded. Gun crimes flourish. It's reached a point of insanity. All manner of laws can be written from the view of "deterrence", i.e tough sentences for those committing crimes with firearms, but there will always be low-lifes who want to go out with a Saturday night special and knock over a liquor store. Sooner or later, we will be building prison after prison after prison to lock these people up. It never ends. I don't believe that these laws are working. Take the guns off the street, and this crime drops dramatically.

Violent crime in the United States is at a 40-year low, and probably is comparable to the crime rate in 1791, though we have no way of knowing for sure. What has changed is that the media brings a much greater sense of immediacy to the crime picture; Michael Moore actually touched on that in BFC, if I'm not mistaken.

Law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem, and cracking down on law-abiding gun owners isn't the solution, if the desired solution is stopping criminal gun misuse. Criminal trafficking generally thrives under prohibition...so much so that if guns ever were outlawed for the law-abiding, criminals could merely disguise their gun smuggling as routine cocaine shipments, and operate with impunity...

Regarding your second point, please tell me when ANY modern US administration,
or Congress, or the Supreme Court has ever tried to dis-arm law abiding gun owners?

Apparently you weren't listening in 1994, when Brady II was proposed in Congress. Or what Dianne Feinstein, Bill Bennett, and their ilk say about owners of full-sized handguns and modern-looking rifles. Or all the politicians that would like to ban everything but hunting guns, when 80% of us don't hunt.

Numerous candidates in 2000 and 2004, from both parties, at both Federal and State levels, said that if elected, they WOULD fight to ban half the guns my wife and I currently own. Look up the transcripts of S.1431 and H.R.2038 last session, which a lot of highly intelligent politicians who should have known better were sucked into cosponsoring.

My wife owns a 15-round 9mm pistol and a rifle with a bayonet. I own two self-loading rifles with protruding handgrips, and one has a folding stock. Tell me that there aren't serious efforts afoot to ban them. The fact that such proposed bans have not succeeded is not evidence that they haven't been attempted, and of course if one actually did succeed then it would likely thrust the nation into grave crisis.

[dogfacedboy]

30. I'm in agreement with S.1431 and H.R. 2038.

Why do yo feel that intelligent politicians were "sucked into co-sponsoring" this legislation? Another question I have is this: Do you live in a rural area, or a metropolitan area? Another question is : What is wrong with large amounts of training? No responsible gun owner would argue that training is important.

The real point is to make gun procurement difficult in order to slow or stop the flow of guns to gangs, etc. That is why I support legislation that makes it difficult, yet possible, for law abiding citizens to buy arms. The tone of your response smacks of that tired old idea that "troops are a' comin' to take away mah rifle". Quite frankly, I'm armed to the teeth, every weapon I own is 100% LEGAL, and with the training I have gone to great lengths to obtain, and I'm as good as a small army with just a couple of the handguns I possess. I happen to be of the mind that I don't believe civilians NEED certain weapons, for whatever reason, and I don't want the guy down the street to possess certain weapons, nor do I believe that I should.

A bayonet? For what?!?

[NorthernSpy]

33. as far as bayonets are concerned...

Well, some people like to collect them. Shrug. It's no stupider than collecting Hummel figurines, or any of those other little porcelain horrors.

And I suppose that a person might even enjoy stabbing inanimate objects such as hay bales or dummies. Not to my taste, necessarily, but not really any of my business either -- as long as the bayonet-owner refrains from attacking other people.

And seriously: how many crimes have involved the use of a bayonet? Not that many, I bet. The gun it's attached to is probably way more lethal on the whole. It's just that rifles are relatively commonplace and therefore also relatively uncontroversial -- whereas a bayonet is exotic, and therefore seems more out-of-place and "threatening".

Heck, we even let people have gasoline and matches without a waiting period or a background check. Few things are deadlier than gasoline and matches in the wrong hands. But these are such commonplace items that no one thinks anything of it.

[benEzra]

37. Answers, I hope, at some length...

I'm in agreement with S.1431 and H.R. 2038. Why do yo feel that intelligent politicians were "sucked into co-sponsoring" this legislation?

Because many of the politicians who backed it kept talking about "automatic weapons," "weapons of war," "AK-47's just like those used by our enemies in Afghanistan," and "if you want to own one of these guns, go join the military." Problem is, the military doesn't use small-caliber non-automatic self-loaders; they use automatic weapons, which are already tightly controlled under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Actual AK-47's like those used in Afghanistan are NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapons under current law and had nothing to do with S.1431/H.R.2038. And so on. The rhetoric indicated that many of the bills' cosponsors seemed to think they were voting to ban automatic/military weapons, which they weren't. (If they weren't under that impression, then the rhetoric would have been deliberately deceptive, and I don't think that was the case at all.)

FWIW, here's one of the rifles banned by name by S.1431 and H.R.2038:



That's my Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, an American-made small-caliber self-loader with a FIVE round magazine, chambered for the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers, with a straight wooden stock straight out of the late 1800's. Suitable for hunting small game up to coyotes, and marketed as an all-purpose farm/rural utility rifle. And banned in the USA, had those bills passed. Which pretty much proves the NRA's original contention that the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was intended to grab all small-caliber civilian self-loaders.

Worse, S.1431/H.R.2038 banned ergonomic handgrips on civilian self-loading rifles. No ergonomic handgrips, no Olympic-style biathlon stocks, not even any thumbhole stocks, would have been allowed, for pete's sake. Anything but 1800's/early 1900's stock styling would have been verboten. Absolutely ridiculous.

It would have also resulted in the eventual confiscation of most of the reliable magazines for our rifles, as well as my wife's 15-round magazine for her Glock, as the transfer of any such magazine with the firearm was prohibited. So when our children are of age, they could have been given the firearms, but no magazines.

Another question I have is this: Do you live in a rural area, or a metropolitan area?

Suburban, surrounded by rural within a few minutes' driving time in multiple directions. We moved here a couple years ago from a more metropolitan area. For me, that's mostly irrelevant, as my wife and I don't hunt and have little interest in doing so.

Another question is : What is wrong with large amounts of training? No responsible gun owner would argue that training is (not) important.

Nothing at all is wrong with training, and I'm a big fan of it. The problem only occurs when the state gets to set an open-ended training quota merely to possess a firearm, and can then ratchet the training requirements up, and the availability down, until it becomes difficult for a working-class person like me to qualify.

I'm only 35, but I've been shooting avidly for two decades, have gotten a bit of formal training as well (enough to be licensed to carry a firearm on my person here in NC), and as soon as I can afford it I would like to get a lot more. BUT, my 6 y.o. son is a cardiac kid with >$1 million in medical expenses so far, of which we've paid more than $50,000 out of pocket. I can't afford big-time training right now.

Perhaps in a different political climate, in which there wasn't a powerful, well-organized lobby trying to to put guns out of the reach of working-class citizens by every means possible, I'd be less skeptical of the idea. But I see how it's worked out in places like New Jersey, where the Powers that Be have managed to harass gun owners so much that only 13% of the populace now owns firearms, and it's very difficult to get into shooting to start with.

The real point is to make gun procurement difficult in order to slow or stop the flow of guns to gangs, etc. That is why I support legislation that makes it difficult, yet possible, for law abiding citizens to buy arms.

Why the focus on procurement by the law-abiding, instead of procurement by criminals? You'd have more of a point if current law allowed criminals to legally waltz into a gun store and buy a gun over the counter with no background check, and that were the primary source by which guns entered the criminal underground. But it's not, AFAIK.

Instead, why not actually prosecute all straw purchasers, since we already have the means to do so under current law? Prosecute felons who try to buy guns? Stop allowing gun-using criminals to plea-bargain the gun charges away as soon as they walk through a courthouse door? Make gun safes more accessible to working-class gun owners, such as via a tax credit or something?

Neither my wife nor I have ever had so much as a speeding ticket. We keep our firearms in a safe or in the pistol lockbox when they're not in use. Taking away our guns, or restricting our access to ergonomic stocks and 11-round magazines, or saying we're not allowed to load a firearm for defensive purposes, isn't going to affect your local criminal with a .357 in his waistband at all.

The tone of your response smacks of that tired old idea that "troops are a' comin' to take away mah rifle". Quite frankly, I'm armed to the teeth, every weapon I own is 100% LEGAL, and with the training I have gone to great lengths to obtain, and I'm as good as a small army with just a couple of the handguns I possess. I happen to be of the mind that I don't believe civilians NEED certain weapons, for whatever reason, and I don't want the guy down the street to possess certain weapons, nor do I believe that I should.

I have no problem with restricting automatic weapons, over-.50-caliber firearms, sound suppressed weapons, cut-down rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms, explosives, grenade launchers, etc. etc. I have a BIG problem with outlawing modern-looking ergonomic stocks on civilian rifles, or limiting civilian rifle and handgun capacity to only 10 rounds, and it's disingenuous to say that the prohibitionist lobby isn't doing their best to do just that, IMO.

A bayonet? For what?!?

Historical interest. My wife is a student of Russian history and culture, studies medieval Russian history for fun, and is interested in all things Russian and Ukrainian. Around 1995 or so, she found an absolutely beautiful example of a Russian SKS45 (Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova Obrazets 1945g) made at Tula in 1952, purchased it (for $99!), and restored it to like-new condition. It even has the Soviet star on the receiver cover, which was the emblem of the Tula armory. For some reason, small arms designers in the '40's were still enamored of bayonets, even though bayonet charges were long obsolete, and her SKS has the historically correct folding blade bayonet that all period SKS's were made with. The blade appears to be aluminum? or possibly mild steel and isn't sharp, but even if it were, that hardly makes the rifle more dangerous unless you view spears as more dangerous than rifles...

FWIW, we also have a couple of antique bolt-action Mosin-Nagants (a 1942 Finn M39 built on a 1905 czarist receiver that still bears the Russian Imperial crest, and a 1952 Polish M44), and a Romanian SAR-1 (civilian AK-47 lookalike) that serves as a fairly convincing stand-in for a real Title 2 restricted AK, at least cosmetically.

[Conservativesux]

71. I own a bayonet but I dont own a gun. Makes a great weapon to keep muggers

at bay.

[billbuckhead]

34. Grave crisis? We already lead all advanced nations in murder!

We lose 10 times the victims of 9-11 every year. I know the victims are usually poor or minorities and don't count for much with the hard core gun "enthusiast" crowd or republiKKKans but we're already in a grave crisis. I have to give Bloomberg a pat on the back for even caring about the real victims, unlike the evil neoCONS like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Roy Blunt, Duke Cunningham and the rest of the gun lobby whores in Washington who try to make white male reactionaries into "victims".

Think about the 2 missionaries, dead in Virginia by gun, the 3 little kids in Locust Grove, Georgia killed by a gun, the family killed in Falls Church Virginia shot to death and on and on, all this week. I guess it's only a grave crisis if your family are the ones being shot.

I bet all these perps were "law abiding" until they pulled the trigger. "Law abiding", what a joke.

[benEzra]

40. Look, I agree with Bloomberg, and you, about the need to enforce

the laws against the criminal trafficking of guns, and the MIS-use of guns. If you're interested in that, as opposed to merely bashing the law-abiding (yes, we do exist, we obey the law that bans murder just like we obey all the others), then there's common ground to be found between people like you and people like me. But it appears that what you really want to do is to take away the guns from people like my wife and I, who have never harmed anyone and never will, and who own, store, and use our guns responsibly.

Sorry, you can't have ours. To quote Plutarch, Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ'

(from Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, Sayings of Spartans, for my fellow history and literature geeks :) )

[billbuckhead]

46. "Never will?" Never say never, it's a curse

Hope your guns don't kill anyone, especially your own family, but odds are stronger that guns in the home will kill family than kill a bad guy. This recent rash of family killings has been very sad and might not have happened without easy access to guns.

With only 200 justifiable homicides with guns every year vs 30,000 gun deaths a year, the odds aren't very good. Here's a study of women gun victims.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Analysis of Florida's Female Homicide Victims Reveals Most Women Killed by Someone They Know in a Non-Criminal Attack

Victims Knew Their Attacker in 90 Percent of Cases

Attack Was Not Crime Related in 94 Percent of Cases

Two Thirds of Victims Killed with Guns

A new analysis of unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data of female homicide victims in Florida released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) reveals that women in Florida are most often killed by people they know, usually an intimate, in a non-felony situation. The VPC analysis reviewed all 250 <1> cases of female homicide in Florida for 1995 using unpublished data from the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. In cases where the relationship between victim and offender could be determined <2>, nine out of 10 female victims were killed by an attacker they knew. In only 10 percent of cases where the attacker was identified were the victims killed by strangers. Nearly all of the female homicides were not felony-related (94 percent). Female victims were most often killed by their husbands (33 percent). Husbands used guns to kill their wives in seven out of every 10 homicides (72 percent).

Sue Glick, VPC health policy analyst states, "Women are most often murdered by people they know armed with guns. Recognizing the documented role firearms play in escalating domestic violence to homicide, these numbers are just the latest proof that guns and domestic violence are a deadly mix for women." Research on domestic violence has consistently revealed that a gun in the home is a key contributor to the escalation of nonfatal spouse abuse to homicide. A 1992 study in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) revealed that domestic assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than domestic assaults involving knives, physical force, or any other means.

Key findings of the new VPC analysis are:


Almost all females were killed by someone they knew. In cases where the attacker was identified (138 of 250 cases), 90 percent involved victims who knew their attacker (124 of 138 cases). Victims were most often killed by their husbands (46 of 138 cases or 33 percent), who most often used guns (33 of 46 cases or 72 percent). In only 10 percent of cases where the attacker was identified (14 of 138 cases), were the victims killed by strangers.

Female homicides were rarely felony-related. In cases where circumstances of the homicide could be determined (217 of 250 cases), 94 percent (203 of 217 cases) were not felony-related (the killing did not occur in conjunction with the commission of another crime such as robbery or rape). Of the 203 homicide cases that were not felony-related, nearly a quarter (48 of 203 cases or 24 percent) involved lover's triangles that escalated to murder.

Most females were murdered with guns. Of the victims killed with weapons that could be identified (184 of 259 victims), two thirds (121 victims or 66 percent) were killed with guns. Female victims of firearms homicide were most often killed with handguns (83 of 121 females or 69 percent). Like overall homicide, in cases where the attacker could be identified (87 of 118 cases), most firearms-related homicide against females occurred among people who knew each other (80 of 87 cases or 92 percent). Female victims of firearm homicides were most often killed by their husbands (33 of 118 cases or 28 percent). Almost all firearm-related female homicide cases were not felony-related (113 of 118 cases or 96 percent).

Most female intimates were shot and killed in lover's triangles. In 1995 there were 74 females identified as related to their assailants as wives, ex-wives, common-law wives, and girlfriends murdered in Florida. Most of these women were shot and killed (53 of 74 victims or 72 percent). Of the women who were killed with guns (53 victims), 38 victims (72 percent) were killed with handguns. Slightly more than half of wives, ex-wives, common-law wives, and girlfriends who were shot and killed (53 victims) died in lover's triangles that escalated to murder (27 of 53 victims or 51 percent).
Additional information on women and firearms violence as well as other firearm issues can be obtained from the Violence Policy Center's OnLine Resource Center located at http://www.vpc.org.
<http://www.vpc.org/press/9704fla.htm>

[benEzra]

48. Ah, more anti-gun-lobby press releases...

I could crosspost NRA press releases too, but I wouldn't consider them to carry much weight in a debate because they aren't exactly a disinterested party, being a lobbying group and all. JUST LIKE THE VPC, in fact...whaddaya know, the most extreme anti-gun lobbying group in Washington issuing an anti-gun press release, gee, what a surprise.

Even if their figures are true--which I doubt--99% of defensive uses of firearms, probably way more than that, do NOT result in the death of the "bad guy." My own father's "save" in the early '70s was in that category. For instance, most women who are raped are raped by people they know. Which means if a woman did happen to have a gun and kill a rapist, the odds are that the VPC would count it as "killing a friend or family member." And of course if the rapist ceases his attack and runs away at the sight of the gun, or if the woman fires a warning shot and he runs away, or if she shoots and wounds him and he ceases his attack, it doesn't count.

Most intra-family gun deaths are suicides. We're not at risk of suicide.

Regardless of your feelings on the topic, our family has weighed the risk-benefit ratio, found the risk for our situation to be negligible and the benefit to be large (not just self-defense, but intangibles that might not exist for you, but do for us), and so we choose to own guns. You, on the other hand, have chosen not to. It's a free country.

On the other hand, my wife's father was an alcoholic, and so neither of us drinks. At all. You may have chosen differently, and I wouldn't try to take that choice away from you, regardless of whatever statistics the Prohibition types might muster (yes, they still exist, in approximately the same numbers as the hardcore gun prohibitionists, at around 20% of the population). Again, it's a free country. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you think guns in the home would present more of a risk to you or your family than benefit, don't own one. But don't try to take ours just because you disagree with our choice on the issue.

It's a free country. Let's keep it that way.

[primavera]

49. What rubbish

"It's a free country." Please. Many behaviors may be regulated even in a free country. I'm not allowed to drive when drunk, even though I could do so many times without mishap or incident. Yet my driving while drunk increases the likelihood of an accident occuring and harming not only myself, but whoever happens to be in the car with m at the time and whoever else is involved in other vehicles. It is consequently an unacceptable risk and we appropriately prohibit that behavior. Does that make us a police state? Hardly. If, as a great many people would contend, widespread ownership of guns does legitimately increase the likelihood of large numbers of people being harmed unnecessarily, it's a perfectly legitimate subject for regulation and doing so does not make us any less a free country.

[benEzra]

53. I'm not allowed to carry a gun while drunk, either...

or point it at anyone, or store it within a kid's reach, or threaten anyone with it.

The problem with your analogy is that we have laws to prohibit the misuse of alcohol, but we do not ban alcohol in order to stop drunk driving. We have minimum age requirements to buy alcohol, we have laws restricting where and when it can be used, we have education programs to try to get people to use DD's, but when it boils down to it, with alcohol we address behavior rather than banning the item itself. (That's been tried, and it failed miserably.)

Prohibitionists see every social problem as an opportunity to ban some object. Video games, alcohol, "subversive" books, porn, movies Jerry Falwell disapproves of, guns with black plastic stocks, whatever.

How much do you know about Federal and state gun laws? I'll be you have no idea how tightly regulated guns already are...much more tightly than alcohol...

[primavera]

56. Oops, you're right, flawed analogy

Sorry about that. As for how well I know laws regulating guns in this country, you're no doubt right there as well in that I don't know the specifics. What I am fairly certain of is that whatever regulations are imposed upon gun ownership in this country, they are less than they are in the UK, where guns are flat out prohibited, or in Germany, where one has to demonstrate a legitimate need for a gun, belong to a shooting club, pass annual safety examinations, and pay an astronomical sum for a license, or in France, or in the Netherlands, or in Sweden, or in Japan, or, well, hell, you get the idea, in pretty much every other advanced, civilized, industrialized country on the planet, virtually all of which are widely considered to be "free countries." The international company we keep with our gun laws is more comparable to places like Burma and Sierra Leone.

[billbuckhead]

59. Gun lobby is part of the neoCON movement to turn USA into third world

Gun lobby is part of the neoCON movement to turn USA into third world country. These people prosper with this violence and social decay. It's a profit center. They also like to cast the white male gun"enthusiasts" as civil rights victims.

[benEzra]

60. There's more of a gun culture in Germany than you probably realize

as well as Switzerland, which now has laws comparable to ours (they used to be much less stringent than ours, but have been tightened recently), Finland, and others. The famous gun maker Sako is located in Finland, Glock and Steyr are in Austria, FN is IIRC in Belgium, and Anschutz is German. There are a lot of Europeans on the gun boards I frequent, though not many at all from the UK, as you point out. In several European nations, including Finland (IIRC), sound-suppressed firearms aren't even restricted, whereas in the U.S. you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance to own one.

But regardless, the fact is that we do have a long-established tradition of lawful gun ownership in this country. I think that's a good thing, you think that's a bad thing, but it exists, and 65-80 million gun owners and 250-400 million guns aren't just going to go away. We gunnies are the majority in many swing states, including my own (NC). Gun owners are probably the majority in bill's state as well, which is very friendly to gun owners. The cry of "ban more guns" may resonate in places like D.C., Chicago, and NYC (where guns are already banned except for the wealthy elite), but it's not going to fly in the West and South.

Since attempting widespread UK style gun confiscation in this country would unquestionably start a civil war, and given that around 40% of Americans do lawfully and responsibly own guns, one can either accept that fact and focus on cracking down on criminal misuse of guns, or one can keep going after the law-abiding who present no reasonable threat to anyone and leave the criminals alone.

Take a look at this video and see whether this is the America you want to live in:

Door-to-Door Gun Searches in New Orleans (9.73MB .mpeg)

Police forcing their way into every house, handcuffing the occupants, and searching the home for guns. Coming to every street in America, if the prohibitionists ever do manage to get their way. And that pesky Fourth Amendment will undoubtedly have to go too. Probably won't get the criminal's guns, but might manage to round up 50% or so of the rest.

If you don't want to go there, then you really have to step back and find common ground with gun owners in addressing criminal gun misuse instead. Which I think all of us would agree is the real problem, IMHO.

Just some thoughts.

[primavera]

61. Agree to disagree

I hear what you're saying and I am only too painfully aware that the millions of gun lovers in this country are a reality with which I have to live. But I don't have to like it. I don't agree that banning guns would trigger a civil war - it didn't in the UK or any of the other countries where gun ownrship is banned or severely restricted, why should we assume that it would here? Banning guns wouldn't produce results immediately - no policy worth doing produces miraculous results overnight - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't eventually produce a safer America 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now. Criminal gun misuse is a problem, but I also do not agree that it is the only gun-related problem. Children who find daddy's pistol and blow off their own kneecap playing with it are a problem quite unrelated to criminal misuse. The nervous housewife home alone in the dark who acidentally mistakes a neighbor for a burglar and shoots some innocent is a problem (my mother, for instance, gets terribly jittery whenever my father's out of town, I thank god she doesn't have a gun: she would have accidentally blown away the dogs years ago). The person walking down the street who exercises his or her right to preemptive self-defense and shoots the homeless person who was coming up to ask for a light or some spare change is a problem unrelated to criminal misuse. My problem with guns is their irrevocability - all it takes is one misunderstanding and some innocent person can end up dead or seriously injured and there's not a damn thing you can do to fix such a mistake. From my point of view, if you're not in a position to take responsibility and make amends for any errors in judgement on your part which might result in a harm to someone else, you have no business engaging in the behavior which might result in that harm. Since no one can ever possibly make amends if the harm that they accidentally do is to kill someone, well, one had better not engage in that behavior.

[benEzra]

65. Well said...

I would like to reply to a number of your points, and while I'm sure we will continue to agree to disagree, at least we'll leave the conversation better understanding where the other is coming from.

I don't agree that banning guns would trigger a civil war - it didn't in the UK or any of the other countries where gun ownrship is banned or severely restricted, why should we assume that it would here?

Because we thought highly enough of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that we actually wrote it into our Constitution, whereas in the UK there was always a view of gun ownership as a privilege, granted by the government and capable of being taken away by the government.

You will notice that although we didn't declare independence from Great Britain until July 4, 1776, the shooting started on April 19, 1775...when British law enforcement decided to stage a raid on a couple of rural towns to confiscate some farmers' guns and arrest a couple of gun nuts who kept spouting drivel about "inalienable rights." The farmers saw things differently, and as they say, "the rest is history"...

I quoted a passage from Plutarch's Moralia above. That quotation, attributed to Leonidas, pretty much sums up the view that many American gun owners have about the RKBA's place in the pantheon of civil liberties:

Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ'

Roughly translated:

"To Xerxes' demand "Hand over your arms," he (Leonidas) retorted, "Come and take them."

The context was the battle of Thermopylae, but the sentiment is universal. It was the sentiment at Lexington and Concord, it was the sentiment at the Alamo, and it runs deep enough in the American consciousness that any attempt at widespread gun confiscation would really, really be a bad idea.

The well-known Twenty-Nine Palms survey of U.S. Marines' attitudes toward nontraditional missions included a question on gun confiscation. 75% of Marines said they would refuse a direct order to fire on American citizens who refused to hand over their nonhunting guns. Commenting on the gun confiscations in New Orleans, one police officer on the High Road mentioned that at least half the police officers he knows would immediately resign if ever ordered to round up firearms like that. Gun confiscation of the sort envisioned by the prohibitionists is the one way I can think of to bring an Iraq-style police-versus-police, military-versus-military, insurgency to the United States. It's not a picture I or any other rational person would want to contemplate. Let's not go there.

Children who find daddy's pistol and blow off their own kneecap playing with it are a problem quite unrelated to criminal misuse. The nervous housewife home alone in the dark who acidentally mistakes a neighbor for a burglar and shoots some innocent is a problem (my mother, for instance, gets terribly jittery whenever my father's out of town, I thank god she doesn't have a gun: she would have accidentally blown away the dogs years ago). The person walking down the street who exercises his or her right to preemptive self-defense and shoots the homeless person who was coming up to ask for a light or some spare change is a problem unrelated to criminal misuse.

Fatal gun accidents are already exceedingly rare, on the order of 600 or so annually for a nation of nearly 300 million people, and the trend continues to be downward despite the dramatic increase in the number of guns in civilian hands since the late 1980's (and that even includes accidents involving criminals). The last time I checked, the risk of child death on a per-owning-household basis was between 10 and 100 times higher for a home swimming pool than for a gun in the home. And, in most states, leaving a gun in the reach of a minor is already prosecutable as a crime. And so on. I'd like to see better gun safety education, and better examples in the media (the way to see whether a gun is loaded is NOT to point it somewhere and pull the trigger, as they do in the movies...), but that's probably a topic for a different thread.

For people like your mother, owning a gun probably wouldn't be a wise choice. But most of those people don't choose to own guns, for those reasons; most of us know ourselves pretty well. I think the statistics bear out the fact that those of us who do lawfully own guns are generally very, very responsible with them. (FWIW, if I had to investigate a "bump in the night," I'd rather have my wife backing me up than any police officer I know.) Criminals are a whole 'nother story, but that's why IMHO it is criminal gun misuse, rather than law-abiding gun ownership, is what needs to be the focus.

My problem with guns is their irrevocability - all it takes is one misunderstanding and some innocent person can end up dead or seriously injured and there's not a damn thing you can do to fix such a mistake.

I'm with you there. Owning a gun is indeed a serious life-and-death responsibility. So, for that matter, is driving a car on a 2-lane road, or rock climbing, or piloting a plane. The overwhelming majority of gun owners live up to that grave responsibility, and IMO those that don't can be addressed by reasonable laws, most of which are already on the books.

From my point of view, if you're not in a position to take responsibility and make amends for any errors in judgement on your part which might result in a harm to someone else, you have no business engaging in the behavior which might result in that harm. Since no one can ever possibly make amends if the harm that they accidentally do is to kill someone, well, one had better not engage in that behavior.

I agree with you. That's why I take competency and proficiency with my firearms, and knowledge of self-defense law, so seriously. The fact that accidental shootings are SO rare in this country is, I think, an indication of the degree to which gun owners take that responsibility.

One of us brought up alcohol earlier. If you compare the number of fatal gun accidents to the number of fatal alcohol-related accidents, you'll find that Americans seem to do a better job using guns responsibly than using alcohol responsibly. That's not to make light of any such tragedies, just to point out that education and addressing misuse, rather than prohibition, has been found to be the better approach with alcohol.

[billbuckhead]

63. You have to be 25 years old to own a a sporting gun in Germany!

"Once the shock created by the massacre by Robert Steinhäuser (photo) had worn off, German leaders moved to tighten the country's gun laws in June in an effort to prevent mass killings from occurring again. These changes took effect on Tuesday. German Interior Minister Otto Schily said they would provide "more legal protection, more controls and more supervision" of gun ownership in the country. But other officials are not so certain that the law will achieve Schily's goals.

The new law is designed to curb gun ownership of young people. It raises the minimum age for ownership of sporting guns from 18 to 21 and for hunting weapons from 16 to 18. Anyone younger than 25 must have a certificate of "mental capability to own weapons" unless he or she is a registered hunter or sports shooter."
----------------snip-----------------------
Despite the severity of the rampage in Erfurt, the number of gun crimes in Germany has fallen in recent years. In 2001, the number of cases in which a firearm was shot fell 21.9 percent from the previous year to a total of 5,416 incidents. The number of killings committed with firearms also fell 13.3 percent to 298.

<http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,825007,00.html>

[billbuckhead]

57. Incredibly, there are almost as many fatalities from guns as cars

"Gun deaths fall into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidental killings. In 2001, about 30,000 people died from gunfire in the United States. Set this against the 43,000 annual deaths from motor-vehicle accidents to recognize what startling carnage comes out of a barrel. The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day—and 'motor vehicles' include trucks. How many of us use guns?""
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

Other nations are considered freer than the USA and they don't have these weak ass failed gun policy and they don't have the murders, gun deaths and social problems the US has. America's gun policy promotes tyranny more than it does freedom. Notice that most of these Abramoff crooks are also NRA dudes?

[Realityhack]

89. Very interesting statistic. Thanks for posting it n/t

[billbuckhead]

62. Unfortunately society must pay for the disasters of gun owners

My is a state trooper and he must be called in to risk his life against gun wielding perps, sometimes with better guns than he has.

Modern medicine has cut back on gun fatalities through new and improved trauma centers, unfortunately now the government must pay for the huge medical costs of saving these victims and taking care of them. Brooking Insitutte estimates gun violence costs America over $100 billion a year and this mostly paid by taxpayers.

All this for someone's stinking hobby?

[Romulus]

51. oh, look!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300709.html

Musician, Family Found Slain in Va. Home

The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; 7:55 PM

RICHMOND, Va. -- A musician, his wife and two young daughters were found slain in their burning home, reportedly bound with tape and with their throats slashed.

Police said Tuesday it did not appear anything was stolen from the home where the bodies of Bryan and Kathryn Harvey and their daughters, Stella, 9, and Ruby, 4, were found Sunday afternoon.

*snip*

Police are investigating the case as a homicide and arson, city police spokeswoman Cynthia Price said. Police did not disclose the cause of death but the newspaper, citing police sources, said the family members were bound with tape and had their throats cut.

*snip*

Police were trying to determine exactly when the family was slain and what was used to start the fire. They had not identified any suspects or a possible motive, police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson said Tuesday.

It's a good thing that family wasn't shot, or else that would be a TRAGEDY! :eyes:

[slackmaster]

17. All he really needs to do is seal off NYC

Put a wall around the city, and let people in and out only through tightly controlled checkpoints.

[NorthernSpy]

18. Thank GOD Bloomby's a Republican!

Cause I can just imagine the response in my own state when Mister Mayor takes this show on the road.

:think:

Could help our Democratic governor get reelected, if we play our cards right.

:party:

[William Bloode]

22. I'm pretty much all about right to bear arms.

Yet i can agree with strict enforcement of illegal firearms. By that i mean stolen, etc. I don't hold with bans that call certain firearms illegal, thus lumping them in the group.

[sendero]

29. Nobody is "for" illega gun sales..

... I'm happy to see Bloomberg hopping on this train. It's about time some Republicans take some heat for simply wanting reasonable, prudent and constitutional regulation of gun sales.

Of course, in a country awash in guns, the idea this will actually help anything is ludicrous.

[NorthernSpy]

31. no, of course not...

But many of us who live in rural states with small populations and "lax" gun laws (that is, gun laws that we consider appropriate for us) do worry about having our rights and our ways sacrificed to make a bunch of city folks somewhere else feel "safer".

Whatever the real source of their social problems is, I'm pretty sure it isn't us.

[sendero]

32. Hey....

.... I'd be classified as a "gun nut" by many here, simply because I own several firearms. I'm 100% pro gun rights, but I don't consider things like 3 day waiting periods for handgun sales, instant background checks, guns show sales regulated the same as other retail sales, etc to be onerous.

They are a minor inconvenience, and they will prevent zero legitimate gun sales or ownership.

My beef is that Dems always speak for these things and the next thing you know, we're trying to "take our guns away". Let some Republicans step into that tar pit, we should be glad that they are :)

[Conservativesux]

70. Nobody is for illegal gun sales? Happens all the time, that why everyone

has a gun these days. :(

[KamaAina]

36. That's all for Bloomy and the repukes. Maybe he'll pull a Ross Perot.

Eccentric multi-brazillionaire takes on the political establishment mano a mano: been there, done that, bought the DVD.

Hey, it worked out for us last time, bleeding off a significant chunk of votes from Bushdaddy in '92!

[fushuugi]

41. two points:

the first. if bloomberg were truly concerned about ending illegal weapons dealing he should go after the worlds most prolific weapons dealer over the past 25 years: the federal government for brokering deals and 'distorting' international law.
the second. considering how many households possess weapons in the US, it seems clear to me that we all trust our government to uphold our constitutional rights and trust our fellow citizens to respect each others' rights to life and liberty.

[HuffleClaw]

52. '...carry gun battle across the nation'

a poorly worded headline if i ever read one. sounds like he's planning on fighting his way across the country.

[benEzra]

54. LOL...maybe we can get Jesse Ventura and Ahnold in on that... n/t

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onefortheroad]

78. Please stay in NY, Mr. Bloomberg

Because when you're anywhere else, you're a fish out of water.

[Ellen Forradalom]

81. They might want to rephrase that headline

BLAM! BLAM! Uh-oh, our elected officials are at it again!

[allisonthegreat]

93. too many guns period. n/t