Another look at the number of gun owners, over 54 million potential voters.

[jody]

WISQARS says in its 2005 Injury Mortality Reports that the number of men over 18 is 108,338,837 and the number of women over 18 is 114,633,984.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in its 2001 National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS) reports in “Table 5. Levels and Distribution of Gun Ownership” that 39.2% of men and 10.2% of women own guns.

NOTE: “The NGPSs were designed by NORC in collaboration with the Center for Gun Policy and Research of Johns Hopkins University with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago”.

The WISQARS and NGPS data together suggests about 54 million men and women over the age of 18 own guns.

In the 2004 election, there were about 201 million eligible voters in the U.S and 122,267,553 of them voted.

Why does the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates continue to alienate 54 million potential voters by taking an ambiguous stand on RKBA?

The call to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban included in the 2008 party platform RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE is one instance of driving gun-owners from the ranks of Dem voters.

[JDPriestly]

1. I live five miles from downtown L.A.

There is a gang injunction against the kids in my neighborhood. Our car windows were smashed in twice. We suspect gang activity although we have no teenagers and nothing to do with gang members as far as we know.

I do not agree with blanket gang injunctions. But I still don't want the kids in my neighborhood to have access to assault weapons.

Do you want the kids in my neighborhood to have assault weapons?

That's what the assault weapon ban is about.

[jody]

5. ROFLMAO ! Are you familiar with 18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5861?

18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5861

Gun-grabbers in congress and voters concerned about violent crime should aggressively push for enforcement of 18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5861 and stop trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms to exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to self-defense.

Will you join me in lobbying congress to pass laws that force convicted felons to serve their sentences for using a gun sequentially rather than concurrently?

Under the present judicial practice of allowing criminals to serve sentences concurrently, the punishment for using a firearm is zero.

[JDPriestly]

13. I invite you to live 5 miles from downtown L.A. for a while.

Walk in someone else's shoes.

I have relatives who hunt and who enjoy owning guns. I happen to love venison, and I'm all for that. But I don't want the kids in my inner-city neighborhood having guns. There is no place to hunt here (although we do have our share of squirrels, skunks and rats).

I do not know the technical details of guns, but if a gun shoots rounds faster than is needed to hunt (on weekend camping trips), it does not belong in the city.

[jody]

14. So you want to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning semi-automatic firearms just because

criminals will not obey the law?

Have you ever paused to consider the illogic of your statement?

[JDPriestly]

20. Have you ever lived in a city?

People live close to each other. There is no place to go out and shoot a gun in the city. Our lot is about 50-60' in the front an 150' to the back. You have to drive to the mountains or way out to the desert to find a place to shoot a gun.

If you like guns, live in the country. Don't live in the city. The only reason to have a gun in the city is self-defense in your own home.

The good thing about prohibiting guns in the city is that the police can easily differentiated the law-abiding citizens who are not carrying guns (unless they have a permit) from those who are not law-abiding and carrying guns without a permit. They don't have to wait until criminals commit crimes to arrest them. They can arrest a criminal who is planning to use a powerful gun to commit a crime before anyone gets hurt.

I do not think guns that can be used for hunting should be prohibited in rural areas. The area in which my mother lives is overrun by deer, and I understand the purposes of hunting including but not limited to sport. I want the right, however, to limit the ownership and use of guns in the city in which I live.

[jody]

22. I live in a city and I keep firearms for self-defense as well as other things. n/t

[JDPriestly]

23. And I don't. I am too old to learn to shoot a gun, and probably

also too near-sighted. So, I guess if you want to kill me you will have an advantage. I just hope you don't live next door.

[jody]

25. Pro-choice on firearms gives you that right but you don't have the right to prevent law-abiding

citizens from keeping firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

Why do you say "if you want to kill me"?

IMO only someone who intends to commit a crime would make such a statement OR someone who views everyone else as criminals.

[tburnsten]

30. Never too old to learn

And unless you are totally blind, your eyesight is still good enough to learn solid basic defensive shooting. You won't need to be a counter sniper to protect yourself without being a hazard to society.

[JDPriestly]

42. I don't want to kill anyone, and I don't want anyone to kill me.

That's why I don't want to have a gun or have my neighbors have a gun. Other people's guns are not a problem as long as they don't infringe the safety and well-being of others. That is why they are fine in the country. But the amount of gun-related crime in cities is pretty high. That is why guns other than, as you say for self-protection in your home or with a permit in appropriate places, is not a matter of choice.

Choice has to do with things that affect the person him- or herself. Having a gun in your home for self protection is such a choice. But who in the world would use a high-power gun to protect him- or herself at home. It would pose more of a danger to the person holding it. I personally know of several cases of people getting into serious trouble because they had access to a gun and reached for it in a moment of thoughtlessness or panic.

[Tejas]

70. okay

"I don't want to kill anyone, and I don't want anyone to kill me."


I'm sure you have the first part covered, but keep in mind that you're on your own also when it comes to the second part.

No amount of laws will guarantee your safety.

[tburnsten]

72. Are you worried your neighbors would kill you

if they had a gun? Seems pretty anxious to me.

"But who in the world would use a high-power gun to protect him- or herself at home. It would pose more of a danger to the person holding it. "

Who wouldn't use a gun to protect themselves in the home? What better place is there? If someone breaks into your house when you are home, and is not deterred by either your presence or your firearm than they are sort of making the decision for you aren't they? They certainly wouldn't be upset by a warning that the police have been called. A person breaking into an occupied home is very different from a person breaking into an empty home, because if you are home and they go in anyway, they are not afraid of confronting the homeowner, they do not care at all for your safety, and they will most likely be perfectly willing to injure you if that was what it took to rob more freely.

And how does having a gun pose more of a danger to the person holding it? Is that person going to be running around staring down the barrel? If not I don't understand your point.

[HALO141]

90. If I understand you correctly,

you want to force the rest of the country to pay the price for your fear and feelings of inadequacy.

Interesting.

[spin]

91. If you are not willing to kill someone...

then do NOT buy a firearm for self defense. I can understand and agree with you on why you don't want a gun.

That's one of the first rules for owning a self defense weapon, you have to be willing to use it if truly necessary. If you can't use the weapon, chances are the criminal predator will sense this and take it from you. You will then be in one very difficult position and chances are it will not end well.

However be aware not all people share your views. I own weapons for self defense and yes, I will use them to stop an attack if I fear the attacker is threatening my life or the lives of those in my family. I'm not trying to kill the attacker, but I will shoot for center body mass. I will continue shooting until the attacker stops or I run out of ammunition.

I'm not playing Dirty Harry. I realize that the aftermath of the shooting will have all sorts of bad effects o my life, both legal and psychological. That's why I would never use a weapon unless there was no other choice.

But no honest or reasonable individual has anything to fear from me. I will not shoot you in a moment of anger. I will not break into your house. I will avoid any serious argument with you and will walk away even if it makes me look like a coward. I don't lay awake at night fantasying about killing someone. Most responsible gun owners hold similar views to mine. So my guns or the firearms owned by other responsible people are nothing for you to worry about. I secure them in a gun safe that only a professional could gain access to.

You do need to worry about criminals with guns. Push for laws that punish criminals not honest people. Put any person who is carrying a gun in public without a license in jail for a long long time. Try to get your local authorities to crack down on street gangs.

The politicians always target the honest gun owners as that is a cheap and easy way to get voters to support them. They pass "feel good" laws like the Assault Weapons Ban which does little or not good and in fact increases gun sales. They can claim they are taking guns off the street, but in reality they are taking guns from honest responsible individuals while doing little or nothing to stop criminals from owning and misusing firearms.

Most honest citizens want to live in a safe environment. Those who are willing and able to use a weapon for self defense often chose to buy one because they realize that the police can't save them when someone attacks. Many responsible people would forgo buying a weapon, but instead use the funds for other necessities, if they felt safe in their homes on on the street. If we take the profit out of crime and really punish criminals with guns, we can reduce the number of firearms in this country dramatically. Only people who used weapons for hunting, target shooting or collecting would spend their money on firearms.

[spin]

26. Poor argument, yes there are places to shoot firearms in L.A.

They are called indoor shooting ranges.

For example:

The Los Angeles Indoor Pistol Shooting Range
http://www.thelosangelesgunclub.com/

50 foot indoor range
Firearms rentals
Ammunition sales
15 individual booths
Free use of eye/hearing protectors
Paper target sales
Spectator viewing areas
Free safety instructions
Bilingual Speakers: English/Japanese/Spanish
Plenty of free parking
We accept Visa / Mastercard / JBC


or maybe:

The LAX Firing Range Target Shooting Range offers 14 positions, 3 dedicated for hi powered rifles and Shotguns, large selection of Rental Guns, Pro-Shop, Firearms Training for advanced and beginners, Specialized classes a Glock Tournament, Gunsmithing and a Ultrasonic gun cleaning service. In Addition, the Range provides a siting viewing area of all the shooters, A rest area with big screen T.V. and a multipurpose classroom.
http://www.laxrange.com/

[slackmaster]

27. You can shoot up to .50 BMG at the Angeles Shooting Ranges just outside of L.A.

http://www.angelesranges.com/

[JDPriestly]

47. No problem. That should be legal in any event.

I just don't want one of my neighbors to get drunk on a Saturday night and get out his rifle, assault rifle or otherwise.

[JDPriestly]

46. Shooting at an indoor range is not a problem.

As long as you have a gun permit, there is no problem.

[spin]

59. Why should you need a permit to shoot at a range...

I live in Florida. No permit is required to own a firearm. No registration either.

A permit is required to carry a weapon concealed in public.

[JDPriestly]

65. I presume that the shooting range vets you before they allow you

to use the facility. Don't you need a permit to transport the gun in your car from your home to the shooting range?

[tburnsten]

73. Why the hell would you need a permit for that?

LA county must be like a whole other planet, why on earth would anyone need permission to bring their lawfully owned private property to a legal place to shoot?

[benEzra]

76. The number of states that require a license to lawfully transport, you can count on the fingers

of one hand.

Massachusetts and possibly New Jersey are the only two I am aware of. Illinois requires a Firearms Owner ID card. There may be a couple more.

In most states, if you have a clean record, legally possess the firearm, and transport it in accordance with state law, you don't need any special license.

You DO have to have a license in order to carry a concealed firearm on your person for self-defense in 46 of the 50 states; 2 states (Vermont and Alaska) allow concealed carry without a license, and 2 states (Illinois and Wisconsin) don't issue concealed carry licenses.

[carguy67]

80. Nope

Not in Florida, that is why it's the Gunshine state! Only need a permit to CCW. You can go to whatever range you want, pay them and shoot. It's a wonderful thing!

[slackmaster]

28. People who live in cities have all kinds of "good" reasons for owning firearms

I live in suburban San Diego and have a collection of them. I use some of them for target shooting, including teaching firearm safety to newbies who have never had the opportunity before.

I want the right, however, to limit the ownership and use of guns in the city in which I live.

Sorry, you don't have any such right and you aren't going to get it. You do have a right not to allow firearms in your home.

[tburnsten]

31. Hopefully your neighborhood home invaders respect

your decision not to allow firearms in the home. And the police who respond to your 911 cal forty five minutes later are probably as likely to respect your wishes.

[tburnsten]

29. most people don't shoot in their back yard

unless they are fortunate enough to live out in a rural enough area. For instance, I drive to a local gravel pit that has been turned into an impromptu range. I am almost always alone and I am shooting into a twenty or thirty foot wall of dirt, so I know exactly where each and every one of my bullets contacts the earth. Just having guns does not mean that you will just start shooting down the street. The only people who do that are people who are prohibited from owning firearms in the first place.

They can't differentiate what they can't see. And self defense outside of the home seems like a plenty good reason to carry to me, and Jean Assam and the congregation of the New Life Church in Colorado tend to agree with me. As does an off duty police officer in Salt Lake City and the rest of the people at the mall he was in when he held off that nutball who decided to bring his rifle in and shoot the place up. He luckily managed to hold him at bay with his pistol just barely long enough for police response to show up, despite his own lack of forethought in not bringing a spare magazine with him. He did run out of ammo, and would have certainly benefited from having more of it with him.

I just think that there should always be a process for people with no violent or serious criminal history to get the training they need to responsibly and safely carry a means of protection with them that is more effective than a harsh word. If there is a method, and a reasonable one that does not discriminate against people who aren't rich and powerful (Ahem NYC/LA County!) then it's all gravy.

[JDPriestly]

48. I knew a guy who got into a peck of trouble for shooting a gun in his yard.

He was a very nice guy too -- and not what you would think of as a criminal.

I actually know what I am talking about.

I know of another case in which a fellow had an argument with his wife who called the police. The police came, and upon seeing them, this poor guy ran for his gun (out of fear, I believe). He never pointed it at the police, but he served time for it. Guns of any kind can get you into big trouble.

Cars are dangerous enough. That is why we have laws against driving under the influence. As the Cheney incident illustrated, guns should not be mixed with drinking alcohol any more than drinking should be mixed with cars. (By the way, I don't know whether the guy who was fighting with his wife had been drinking.)

[carguy67]

56. The two examples you gave

Do not prove anything against guns, just stupid people.

[JDPriestly]

64. Ask any criminal defense lawyer. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

You don't know how stupid you are until you get into trouble for doing something stupid.

If people weren't stupid, we wouldn't have half the automobile accidents that we have.

Face it, every one of us does something stupid at one point or another in our lives. If you haven't done anything really stupid yet, you just haven't lived long enough.

[carguy67]

74. K

Sure have done stupid things. Thing is I know better than to be stupid with Guns. Anything stupid I have done has not put anyone in danger. You can be smart about being stupid unless you are stupid.

Still haven't shown anything proving guns to be a problem.

[tburnsten]

78. Blatantly and irresponsibly breaking

safety codes, for instance, no firing guns inside city limits, is not the same as just making an ordinary mistake. There is no excuse for someone who owns a gun to put their nieghbors at risk, though if he lived out of town and had enough land to safely shoot on and a good backstop to catch the bullets and his neighbors were just being pissy because of the noise, then I feel sorry for him. Sometimes people irrationally believe they are in great danger, when that is not the case.


Like the fellow who tried his hardest to get a range shut down, he lived on the opposite side of a mountain, miles away, and claimed that bullets were hitting his house from the range, and most of his "evidence" of this were some brass casings he found on his property. As you may know, brass casings from shooting do not fly miles from the gun, they are deposited anywhere from a couple of feet to ten or twenty at the most away from the gun.

[tburnsten]

77. Of course shooting in city limits will get you in trouble

And running for a gun when the police show up for a domestic dispute, the man is lucky they didn't just shoot him.

Your examples are not examples of guns getting people into trouble, they are perfect examples of absolute knuckleheads doing knucklehead things.

[MicaelS]

33. You do not get that right

SCOTUS made that clear. Anymore than people in the country have the right to ban abortion because they do not like it.

[Rick O Shay]

95. I live in a city

and shoot quite frequently. I shoot at a firing range.

[bossy22]

16. i lived in the upper 90's

in Manhattan during the 1990's, my father was stabbed and at times i could hear gun shots comming from the building across from mine (a city housing project)

"I do not know the technical details of guns, but if a gun shoots rounds faster than is needed to hunt (on weekend camping trips), it does not belong in the city."
most medium/big game hunting rounds are much more powerful than "assault weapon" rounds.
also, whats needed for hunting is not the litmus test for gun legality- it is its "commonality" and it being able to be used for self defense- according the highest legal authority in the land- the Supreme Court of the United States

[MicaelS]

18. "5 miles from downtown?"

That's the real point isn't it? It's all about what people in the large Metropolitan areas of the US want and the hell with everyone else in the US. The real fact is that those in power cannot and will not properly and adequately do their job to reduce crime in the large cities, so it's much easier to blame guns than blame the people committing those crimes.

[JDPriestly]

21. I have no problem with guns in the country.

I want the ability to control guns in my city. I believe that is what the Supreme Court ruled -- regulation is fine, but people have the right to own guns. If we in Los Angeles don't want residents having certain guns, that is our right. They are inappropriate in cities.

If you want your neighbors to have those weapons. That's your business.

The weapon of choice of drug dealers and gang members is the gun. And they use them to kill people they perceive to be their enemies.

If you want your gun, live in the country.

[bossy22]

24. nope

the supreme court ruled that some regulation was fine- but some forms of regulation were "off the table"- such as a ban on commonly used types of firearms- and it just so happens so called "assault weapons" are commonly used firearms- FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES

[MicaelS]

32. No....

SCOTUS made it clear that your type of ban is unconstitutional. You can no longer decide that because some Americans don't want guns in their city they can ban other Americans from having them. Licensing, yes, passing a test, yes, in fact, they meant no de facto bans, no de jure bans. And to thrown your own "logic" right back in your face... YOU don't like American citizens owning guns, then leave the US, permanently. You don't like that do you?

And just WHAT, if anything, are you doing about the drug dealers and gang members that you are so concerned about, other than trying to ban guns?

[spin]

34. So you seriously believe that if you pass restrictions...

drug dealers and gang members will no longer have weapons.

I have two questions:

1) Do the gangs in L.A. currently have weapons, including "assault weapons"?

2) How are you going to "control" those weapons?

I believe you can "control" the types of weapons honest citizens own, but if you can find a way to "control" guns in the hands of criminals please tell us how so we can implement your plan nationwide.

[JDPriestly]

44. As I explained, the ban gives the police the power to arrest

people who have weapons they don't need for any legitimate use from using them for criminal purposes.

It's like prohibiting the use of alcohol by minors. You can't prevent minors from using alcohol. But, you if they use it and cause a problem because they are using it, the police can stop them and do something.

Similarly, spousal abuse is illegal. You can't stop spousal abuse, but you can make some people think twice about hitting their wife/husband, and you can punish them if they abuse seriously or often enough to warrant punishment.

The purpose of such laws is to empower the majority of people to empower the police to keep the environment safe for all.

[Blaubart]

50. Isn't that illegal already?

To use weapons for criminal purposes, whether you legally own the weapon or not? Why do we need to prevent law abiding citizens from legally owning firearms so that we can arrest and prosecute people for committing crimes with a firearm?

[bossy22]

51. the weapons

do have legitimate uses- such as self defense, hunting, and target shooting.

and you as the proponent need to prove to us that they need to be banned- not the other way around

[spin]

57. Please explain "weapons they don't need"...

I own handguns for both target shooting and self defense. I own both revolvers and semi-auto handguns. I currently own fifteen handguns from .22 long rifle through .44 mag. Do I "need" fifteen handguns?

Currently I don't hunt. Some people might argue that therefore I have no need for the .44 mag. It' not a top choice for self defense in a home nor is it an easily concealable weapon. Note: I do have a concealed carry permit.

I target shoot and some of my weapons are target quality weapons capable of competitive shooting (S&W model 41, Colt Gold Cup). However I do not participate in competitive shooting events. Do I "need" these weapons? Should I be allowed to own them?

Since I have a concealed carry permit, I could make an argument that the three snub nosed revolvers I own are necessary. But is three an excessive number? How many hands do I have and how many weapons can I hold at one time? Should people without a license to carry be allowed to own easily concealable weapons?

Do I "need" the semi-auto handguns. After all I could protect my home, carry concealed, and do some informal target shooting with revolvers alone.

And what if I decide, God forbid, to purchase a semi-auto rifle that looks like a military weapon and therefore could be called an "assault weapon". Should I have to show a "need" for such a weapon? I have been seriously considering buying an "assault rifle". Might be a good idea to buy one now before the assault weapons ban gets passed again. A lot of other shooters think the same way that I do. Buying one might just be a good financial investment as I could always sell it to some eager buyer before the ban goes into effect.

Shooting has been one of my hobbies for forty years. I've enjoyed the sport and have formed friendships with other shooters. I've acquired my small selection of handguns through those years. I'm not a collector so most of these weapons have fired thousands of rounds in enjoyable practice.

Does it make a difference if I live in a big city? If I chose to live in a major metropolitan area, should my rights be restricted?

[JDPriestly]

66. If you have a permit, the only issue is whether it covers assault weapons.

Guns with permits are not a problem. It's not people who apply for permits who worry me. It's people who break into other people's houses, steal guns and then do drive-by shootings that worry me.

[Dimensio0]

75. I do not understand how firearms restrictions will be of use.

Would it not be more productive to criminalize breaking and entering, theft and drive-by shootings?

[JDPriestly]

87. Firearms restrictions are easier to enforce.

You cannot tell whether someone is planning to break and enter. The crime has to have been committed and the criminal has to have left evidence that incriminates him or her to identify the criminal. Illegal possession of firearms is easier to enforce. If the police find you with a gun without a permit, you can be arrested. And it makes sense because what innocent person will be carrying a gun without a permit. I know of one case. A young man's uncle gave him a gun. He put it under the seat of his car and didn't think about it. The police stopped him for no particular reason and arrested him for illegal possession. Because of certain circumstances in his case, the repercussions were very, very serious for him. In fact, he was a very good kid.

In his case, the arrest and consequences were not very fair, but in most cases in which the police stop people and find a gun under the seat of the car in big cities, the driver poses a threat to persons or property in one way or another.

The police don't even drive through our area very often. They just fly around in helicopters overhead. There is no way our city could afford the police force that could patrol well enough to catch people breaking and entering.

Some years ago, someone broke into our house and stole a few things. The police didn't really even investigate. In my mother's small town, the police investigate everything -- even stolen pizzas are announced in the newspapers. That's the difference between living in the city and living in the country. It's very, very different.

[tburnsten]

89. Then the young man in question

would be illegally carrying, unless he had a carry permit. In your county, the LA sherriff's department WILL NOT allow anyone under a certain level of income/influence to get a carry permit. I don't know exactly where the cutoff point is but like NYC with its expensive discretionary may issue system, very, very few people are "allowed" to carry, and they are not just the people with clean records.


The fact that there is no real police presence whatsoever in your area should if anything be a sound reason why owning a gun is a fantastic idea. What is going to happen when you need police response quick, like less than thirty seconds quick, and they are nowhere to be found?

[tburnsten]

82. What is refreshing about your posts

is that you do recognize that people who go through the process of acquiring a carry permit are not a problem, indeed they are the goody-two-shoes of the shooting community as someone put it. Despite anti-carry people's assertions that "anyone can get a permit and all they have to do is apply for one!" they are making seem as if applying isn't a time consuming and privacy-sacrificing process that puts you directly under the microscope of your local law enforcement, who do a substantial background check before approving or denying individuals.


And yes, gang-bangers are the single biggest threat to many communities.

[JDPriestly]

88. The stories I have told about people who got into trouble with guns

were not gang-bangers, but I have also known some of those.

The worst case I know of was a kid about 13 (I don't remember exactly how old he was) who said that the prosecutor had accused him of shooting his mother, but he had not really done it because his mother was still alive. It was so sad. Of course, that could have happened in the country. People have mental illness everywhere. I think the child was just completely confused. Guns have a lot of power. Sometimes they gain power over people. Of course, the same can be true of other weapons.

[spin]

58. So maybe gun control should be focused on...

the people who use firearms irresponsibly and in a criminal manner.

Why worry about the weapons or the type of weapon honest citizens own. Instead of draconian gun laws, it might make more sense to pass draconian laws that would punish criminals caught with firearms or punish individuals who carry weapons without a permit.

Also criminal and drug gangs should be treated as terrorist organizations. That's just what they are.

[benEzra]

62. "Assault weapons" are the most popular centerfire target rifles in the USA.

That is a legitimate use.

They are also the most popular defensive carbines in U.S. homes nationwide.

That is also a legitimate use.

What they are NOT, is commonly misused. Rifles are the LEAST misused category of firearms in the USA.

[tburnsten]

79. But our gun sentences are almost always

served concurrently, which means they are useless. What is the point of sentencing someone to an extra five or ten years for illegally possessing a gun if they get to serve the sentence alongside the ten or fifteen year sentence for whatever else they were doing? It's like a nonexistant sentence, so it provides absolutely no deterrence.

[carguy67]

39. So

Banning guns works you think? Gun crime is not up since the AWB, the scary "Assult Weapons" have not attacked yet... Chicago has some very strick gun laws yet violence related death toll is twice that of Iraq. The problem is not guns it is the people. Take the guns away and they use a new tool. Oh, wait you can't take the guns away from the bad guys because they don't shop in a gun store, they buy them out of the back of a van in a dark ally. The Government can not stop BILLIONS of dollars worth of drugs from coming into the US how can the stop guns from coming here? BANS DO NOT WORK! You have to go after the criminals and the sources of crime.

[JDPriestly]

43. Take away guns and you don't have drive-by shootings.

[Blaubart]

52. ...and how do you do that?

How do you "take away guns"? By making them illegal? That has worked wonders for drugs. Since drugs were outlawed, they have vanished from the streets! Bravo! Do you realize that guns are easier to make than drugs? Harder to detect in vehicles than drugs?

Yet somehow, taking away my rights to legally own guns is going to make me and my family safer?

But if you do manage to take away their guns, gangs will find other ways to kill their rivals but law abiding citizens might not be as resourceful in defending themselves.

[carguy67]

54. Did

You even read my post? Or are you to scared of the truth?

How do they take the guns away from the BAD PEOPLE? How do they stop them from getting guns? Making it illegal doesn't work. Murder is Illegal, still happens. Drug are illegal, people still do em. Rape is Illegal, people still rape.

You say that you do not like guns in cities and that non city people should stay out of it. What about the honest city gun owners? They should lose the right to defend their families because you do not like things that go bang? Sounds selfish.

The Constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms unless you are in San Fran or NYC. It is an unconditional right. If you can not respect that, and take guns away what good is it? If it is so worthless and outdated maybe we should not be able to have free speech. OHHH Good Idea! We country folk will keep our ability to free speech and you can give yours up. How's that sound?

[TPaine7]

63. Take away cars and you don't have drive-by shootings.

Obviously neither cars nor guns are the problem. Driving is not not the problem, neither is shooting. People who drive and shoot for the wrong reasons are the problem. The wrong people driving and the wrong people shooting is the problem.

It is true that if no one drove and no one shot, the problem would go away, but travel would be much more difficult, as would self-defense.

[JDPriestly]

67. Have you ever talked with someone who was arrested for a gun violation?

How do you know that they are the problem, not the guns?

I think the guns are part of the problem. You can drive a car without shooting a gun from it, but you can't shoot a gun from a car unless you have a gun.

[Howzit]

68. "but you can't shoot a gun from a car unless you have a gun"

Neither can you shoot a gun from a car if you don't have a car.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

[carguy67]

81. haha

But you can make your car a bomb if you don't have a gun and kill more people... Ask Ayers, he knows about things that go boom instead of bang. If someone wants to kill they will find a way to do it.

Oh and again gun control does not work it's been proven.

[tburnsten]

85. And you can shoot a gun without shooting at people

in fact, eighty million gun owners every year do absolutely nothing violent or illegal with their guns. The problem isn't the guns.

[tburnsten]

84. Good luck disarming gangs

and keeping them from importing more. Tons and tons of cocaine and heroin make it into the country every year, slipping a few dozen guns in on each shipment wouldn't be difficult at all. It might even totally eclipse drugs as the prime illicit import! And then everyday people would be completely unarmed, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and framer's intent that we be capable of fighting when we need to.

[radioburning]

35. "Assault Weapons" account for less than 3% of gun crime. Barking up the wrong tree.

And the public buys into the AWB because they don't know anything about guns.

[tburnsten]

41. Can I elaborate?

Rifles make up about 2.91% of all crimes involving a firearm. "assault weapons" are by definition either rifles or rarely shotguns. So if all rifles together make up less than three percent of the total gun crime, and "assault weapons" (I keep using quotes because it is a ridiculous term based solely, 100% on the physical appearance of the firearm in question and the definers' gut reaction to its appearance. Nothing more.) are almost always rifles, then "assault weapons" can not possibly be involved in more than 2.91% of gun crime, and are definitely involved in less than 2.91% of gun ccrime since "ordinary" rifles are just as if not more capable than "assault weapons" of being used in crimes.



Mine is a sport utility rifle, since it is sleek and useful for so many different tasks, including but not limited to competition, recreational target shooting, practicing for my weekend job on my own time (who knows if I will end up in a combat zone or not, National Guard can't conduct enough training with soldiers until they are in a pre-deployment status), home defense where a shotgun would not be appropriate (.223 Remington mine is chambered in is known for being a poor barrier penetrator, and also a shallow penetrator in people, meaning my neighbors, family, anyone going for a midnight walk outside are at an even more reduced chance of being accidentally hit by a pass-through or totally missed shot. If you ever had to protect your home and because of poor planning and improper arms you hurt someone you didn't mean to, wouldn't you be devastated? I know I would.), pest control, varmint hunting, predator hunting (excels at that), with an upper receiver chambered in something heavier like the superb 6.8mm Remington SPC or 6.5mm Grendel and Fish and Game appropriate five or ten round magazines it would be a fantastic gun for deer and similiar sized game. So you see, the AR-15 is truly a sport utility rifle, and I believe is going to become one of the quintessentially "American" firearms that will be found in homes nationwide, used for all purposes, the rifle version of the 1911 and Smith and Wesson revolver, as common as the Glock, as ubiquitous as the Remington 870, Winchester 1300, Mossberg 500, and H&R shotguns.

[benEzra]

37. "Assault weapons" don't fire any faster than non-"assault weapons."

The distinction is based on styling, not function.

Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, not an "assault weapon" in California:




Same rifle two minutes later, with a black plastic stock and protruding handgrip; banned as an "assault weapon" in California.




BTW, less than 3% of murders in the United States involve ANY type of rifle, "assault weapon" or not. Rifles are not a crime problem in the USA and never have been.

[JDPriestly]

45. If the difference is so insignificant, why are you so keen on keeping them legal?

Why do you insist on allowing assault weapons in cities if they aren't different from other weapons?

[bossy22]

49. if the difference is so insignificant

why do you want to ban them?

an assault weapon is anything any politician wants it to be- its like the terrorist watch list for guns- any gun can be placed on that list for any reason he/she wants

[slackmaster]

53. You have it backwards, JD

Restricting peoples' choices without good reason goes against a fundamental principle of our system of government.

[benEzra]

61. Because while that difference is minor for a criminal, it is a big deal

for law-abiding shooters who like black plastic stocks and (more importantly) ergonomic handgrips.

The prohibitionists are working it from the other direction; they want to ban the second configuration above, then "discover" that the first configuration is just as lethal as the second configuration, and ban it too.

FWIW, "assault weapons in cities" is largely MSM myth, just like most Terrah! scares. Less than 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, "assault weapon" or not. "Assault weapons" are, however, the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in this country (more people own them than hunt), which is of course why the prohibitionists wish to ban them.

[tburnsten]

86. If the difference is so insignificant

than why are you so keen on keeping them out of non-criminal, non-domestic offender, non-violent, non-drug dependent, non-adjudicated mentally incompetent individual's homes should they choose to take on the expense and responsibility of buying, maintaining, and becoming proficient with a sport utility rifle anyway?



Unless the real objective is to go from the one to the more "PC" rifles afterwards...

[Tejas]

69. nope, no self-serving going on here folks

You want the entire lawful gun-owning public of L.A. to do WHAT?

for YOU?


I live in the inner city and know better than to expect the world to cater to my every whim. On the other hand, you might do well to move to Canada or England or Chicago. Their gun laws might be exactly what you're looking for.

[Boomer 50]

126. I lived next door to MS13 for 6 years......

They terrorized the entire neighborhood except me. Why? I outgunned them and I let them know without any doubt that I would not tolorate any of the BS that they were handing out. My house was never robbed. My cars were never vandalized, and my family was never harrassed. These people lived right next door to me and they feared me instead of us fearing them. The AW ban did nothing to stop them from having their guns. Our sheriff department confiscated many guns that had been smuggled in the country. Some being select fire (machine guns). The AW ban did harm me. I could not afford to purchase spare magazines for my rifle to help defend my family. I resent that some jackasses in Congress felt that they had the right to dictate to me how I could defend my home. They put my family at risk without any justification... only that the guns were "scary looking".

I appreciate your honesty on your lack of knowledge of the technical side of firearms. Forgive my next statement but it has to be said. Only qualified people should legislate on the firearms issue. Anyone who does not possess a working knowledge and proper terminology of operating systems and firearms in general has no legitimacy or right to pass ANY law relating to firearms. It's like Congress dictating to doctors how to perform open heart surgery... I can see it now... "The patient must pass a background check and wait three days for open heart surgery. The doctor must fill out a form #### and retain it for his records. The doctor may not proceed with the operation unless he or she cuts at point ******* and..."

Here's a little tidbit you may like. Do you realize that out of every Government agency, there is only one that has no civilian/industry oversight? That agency is the BATFE. That group has come out with some real drug induced decisions in the past. The Firearms Technology Branch is one of the least qualified departments in the entire Government.

Basically, what I am trying to point out is that our gun laws are based mainly on myth and BS over fact and actual technical knowledge. This leads to very serious consequenses that has put our nations security at risk.

[bossy22]

7. what is an assault weapon?

see that is the thing- there is no true definition of an assault weapon- almost every statute includes different guns

and no thats not what the assault weapons ban is about....its about getting votes from suburban/urban voters by using the fear of these "mythical" "military-style" rifles and shotguns that are some how different from normal sporting and defense firearms

...it seems like you fell into the trap also

if you are truly curious you should do some research- before the assault weapons ban assault weapons were used in 2% of homicides

[Dimensio0]

10. Please define "assault weapon" in context.

Please also demonstrate that the legal availability of "assault weapons" cause a stastistically significant amount of crime, and that banning legal ownership of "assault weapons" will result in a significant positive alteration of the crime rate.

[SteveM]

40. Don't want to pile on, but there are some problems with your arguments...

Concerning "assault weapons," this is an expression popularized by the anti-gun lobby. What they are actually describing are semi-automatic carbines of medium power (for years, hunters have been using semi-auto rifles of HIGH power on deer, elk, hogs, etc.)

I don't want the kids in your neighborhood to have access to ANY guns if they are criminals; besides, they may be prevented legally by age and their criminal history. In any case, gun prohibition is as likely to fail as drug prohibition.

The assault weapon ban is about outlawing "scary" guns. Peruse the discussion of BenEzra in this forum to get an idea about the "logic" behind the so-called assault weapons ban, which in reality banned nothing but the add-ons and cosmetic features of semi-auto carbines which continued to be sold -- legally -- throughout the 10-year life of the last ban.

I live in a moderately large city where there is a steady drone of murders (using a variety of weapons). I retain a handgun for self-defense in my home. (At one time, my plan was to escape out of the other end of my house in the event home invasion should threaten, but I am over 60 and now must take extra measures.) You may wish to reconsider your self-defense plan. Thanks for this discussion.

[pocoloco]

2. A poll of the reasons that the many first generation repugs

have forsaken the Democratic party might prove enlightening.

[tburnsten]

3. I bet guns would be A number one on that list.

[madrchsod]

4. bullshit.....

intelligent responsible gun owners are not clamoring for assault weapons. at one time that was me but since moving back to town i no longer have the time or place to target shoot. the issue is bullshit whipped up by people who are out to make a buck, namely the nra which i was a member of for 6 years

[jody]

6. Please read HR 1022 because it seeks to ban semi-automatic firearms like the Remington model 1100

used by law-abiding citizens, see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

[bossy22]

9. it also violates the 2nd amendment

it deems guns only legal if they have a sporting purpose when the amendment is primarily about defensive purposes

[jody]

12. Agree. RKBA is not just a simple yes-no debate but goes to the very heart of natural rights that

exist with or without government.

Given SCOTUS' statement that government is not obligated to protect a person unless she/he is in custody, then self-defense is a personal responsibility.

[bossy22]

8. actually they are

i work in a gun shop part time and i can tell you that the fastest/best selling long guns are the AR-15 series. In one day i sold 14 of them.

but you are right on some part- it is bullshit- but its whipped up by people like Mccarthy and Schumer- trying to scare people into believing the ban is needed

not to mention that the ban violates the 2nd amendment- most of the "banned" guns are in common use today

based on production figures ive seen and my own estimates- there are probably 1 million-->2 million AR's in private hands......thats alot for type of gun.


There commoness can also be seen in how quicikly they are recognized, how prevalent they are in long distance shooting competitions

a federal ban would never be able to prove that the AR-15 is not a common weapon used by civilians

[tburnsten]

15. There are way more than two million ARs

Look at how many companies are making their own now, and all the different accessories and customizations that can be done to them. They are probably closing in rapidly on the Glock and 1911 in terms of market saturation, the potential is there, the demand is there as you noted, and the supply is getting in line.

[bossy22]

17. possibly

either way, it shows how the gun is not some "Exotic firearm" but a very common one- passing the SCOTUS litmus test for protection under the second amendment

[Dimensio0]

11. Please define "assault weapon".

[slackmaster]

19. Poisoning the well

...intelligent responsible gun owners are not clamoring for assault weapons.

No true Scotsman takes sugar in his porridge.

[radioburning]

36. You are definitely speaking for yourself on this one. N/T

[benEzra]

38. The most popular centerfire target rifles in the USA are "assault weapons"

according to those who wish to ban them. So are the most popular defensive carbines.

More of us lawfully own "assault weapons" in this country than hunt. We'd like to keep our guns, thanks.

[carguy67]

55. Oh no!

[benEzra]

60. LOL... (n/t)

[Tejas]

71. so.......... 4 out of 5 gunowners are stupid?

Because that's the ratio of "gun owners clamoring for assault weapons" vs "hunters".

[carguy67]

83. No not stupid

We are Criminals, hell some of us don't even know it yet.

[JDPriestly]

92. Shooting victims in Los Angeles year to date 1095.

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/cityprof.pdf

Of course the population of L.A. is around 3,834,340. (2007)

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US0644000&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Los+Angeles&_cityTown=Los+Angeles&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null%C2%AE=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

[TPaine7]

93. Hat tip

I may strongly disagree with your position (to put it mildly), but I must say I respect your willingness to stand and debate without reverting to some of the more offensive and juvenile tactics seen here far too often.

Kudos to you, madam.

That said, I doubt that most of those crimes could have been prevented by any constitutional constraints on lawful gun owners, or even on concealed carry by legal carriers of weapons.

Statistically speaking, about half of them were suicides. Most of the rest were criminal on criminal. The remainder were innocents, police shootings, and very few accidents. The raw number doesn't tell us much about what effectiveness we should expect from gun laws.

[JDPriestly]

96. It's the drive-by shootings that are preventable.

Also preventable are the hot-head shootings. So many, many people have anger management problems, especially here in L.A. Accidental shootings are also preventable. Is suspect that accidental shootings make up a smaller proportion of urban shootings than of rural ones -- because, as has been suggested here, guns are used less often for sport in cities and therefore less often in general.

Many city dwellers own guns for years without touching them. That is because they own them for "self-defense," but never need to reach for them. I would bet that a lot of the guns owned by city folk are tucked away for years without anyone looking at them.

[iverglas]

97. for comparative purposes

Your figure for LA works out to a rate of about 28/100,000. Actually, no, that's just for 8 months, so the annualized figure would be 42/100,000.

But that figure is for "shooting victims", under the heading "crime statistics" (unlike some, I actually read the document you linked to), so I'm not at all sure why we'd apply the statistical average for suicides to them, as has been suggested.

There is no indication of how many of them were actual deaths, and no reason to think that any of them were suicides, or accidents.


A more useful figure might be homicides. Year to date 247; annualized, 370. A rate of about 9.7/100,000.

That's using your population figure -- but actually the report cited gives a figure of 4,220,260. So the rate would be slightly lower -- about 8.8/100,000.

That's more than 1.5 times the US aggregate rate, which is around 5/100,000 these days, I believe.

If we apply a useful average -- the proportion of homicides in the US committed with firearms, which is roughly 2/3 -- we get something on the order of 6/100,000 for LA.


The population of the Greater Toronto Area is about 5.2 million. Toronto proper is about half that. For comparative purposes, I don't know what the LA population figures cover.

But let's take Toronto proper, which will obviously have a homicide rate higher than the GTA (which takes in small municipalities on the outskirts).

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/2007homicides/

In 2005, the so-called 'Year of the Gun,' Toronto recorded 80 homicides - making it one of the worst years ever for violent crime in the city. But in 2007 Toronto exceeded that record: there were 84 killings.

42 of the murders were shootings, 22 were stabbings, and 14 were caused by trauma (blunt force). The cause of six murders was either unknown or unreleased as of January 2, 2008.

42 firearms homicides in a population of about 2.5 million is a rate of about 1.7/100,000.

Statcan shows Toronto as having a total homicide rate of 2.0/100,000 in 2007:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080717/d080717b.htm
which I think is probably for the GTA (i.e. lower than for Toronto proper). The two other largest cities, Vancouver and Montreal, had total homicide rates of 2.4 and 1.6, respectively.


The huge difference between cities in Canada and in the US in this regard is the relative ease of access to handguns. Yes, the level of gang activity is a difference. And the level of gang activity is plainly affected by the ease of access to firearms.


Since all firearms begin life in the possession of a lawful gun owner, be it a manufacturer, dealer or first purchaser, one obviously has to consider the possibility that it is the behaviour of lawful gun owners that is a major contributor to the problem in the US. (Cross-border trafficking of firearms into the US is a negligible contributor; crime guns are overwhelmingly sourced domestically.)

And accepting that that is the case, a rational person who sincerely seeks to reduce firearms violence would have little choice but to consider imposing constraints on the behaviour of lawful gun owners.


I would bet that a lot of the guns owned by city folk are tucked away for years without anyone looking at them.

And the fact is that some of them are "tucked away" in such a way that they are stolen and then used to facilitate crimes / injure / kill.

[TPaine7]

98. A solid and well deserved criticism, by iverglas:

But that figure is for "shooting victims", under the heading "crime statistics" (unlike some, I actually read the document you linked to), so I'm not at all sure why we'd apply the statistical average for suicides to them, as has been suggested.

I must be more careful in the future.

And accepting that that is the case, a rational person who sincerely seeks to reduce firearms violence would have little choice but to consider imposing constraints on the behaviour of lawful gun owners.

...

And the fact is that some of them are "tucked away" in such a way that they are stolen and then used to facilitate crimes / injure / kill.

I do not oppose laws carefully tailored to keep weapons from falling into the hands of felons, children, and people whose mental issues keep them from being able to responsibly handle them. I never have.

What I oppose are laws, like those in D.C. (before and after Heller), that are intended to prevent or burden self-defense by common people and discourage or prevent their keeping and bearing arms. Genuine, narrowly tailored safety laws are OK; infringement of people's rights under the pretext of safety is not.

PS: If the District of Columbia respected the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms", a poor person who could barely afford a gun to defend her or his family would never have to leave it at home unprotected by an expensive safe. A weapon concealed on the person is a lot harder to steal.

[iverglas]

99. I prefer not to bother, but

PS: If the District of Columbia respected the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms", a poor person who could barely afford a gun to defend her or his family would never have to leave it at home unprotected by an expensive safe. A weapon concealed on the person is a lot harder to steal.

How can one refrain from saying, in reference to the part I have underlined ... good fooking gawd.

Have gun, will go to the grocery store, the park, church, the vehicle licensing office, parent-teacher night, the movies, Macdonalds, the emergency room, the bank, ... the toilet, the shower ...

Ah, freedom. Enslaved to a gun.

[TPaine7]

102. I know people who carry guns to such places.

One carries a gun to church--he counts and deposits offerings. I don't consider him "enslaved to a gun."

Most people don't carry guns everywhere, but it should be a legal alternative for a person who can't afford a safe and desires the ability to protect self and loved ones. It might not be convenient, but it would beat dying or losing a family member.

People who carry at the movies, fast food restaurants, banks, etc. are not two headed martians. If most anti-gun folks met many of them, they would think them quite ordinary.

[tburnsten]

104. Especially since they'd never know

unless they were told, or the person was in an open carry state and felt like wearing the far more comfortable out of waistband belt holsters, or if they happened to be in an establishment that was robbed while they were inside. I bet the customers behind Nabil Fawzi didn't think he was anything special until he took control of a dangerous situation and, to his credit, successfully prevented anyone from being injured by drawing his pistol.

"Police said the customer then pulled out a gun, pointed it at the suspect and told him, "You are not robbing this bank.""


From what I remember he was a decorated veteran in his birth country, so the whole "PTSD! Vets'll snap and kill everyone!" line of thought obviously didn't apply to him. A wonderful community minded man who saved his bank from a robbery, and potential bombing (turns out the guy did not have a bomb).

[iverglas]

106. the day when you reply to what someone actually said

will probably be the day I carry a firearm to church.



Now I'll read what you had to say in reply ...

[TPaine7]

108. I am actually incapable of replying to "someone someone actually said"

but I think my post adequately addressed iverglass' points.

Whatever, I don't care enough to debate the point.

[spin]

107. I once asked a person who always carried a firearm...

why he did so.

He replied "Because when I wake up in the morning, my calender doesn't have an entry that says that I need to carry a gun today."

He owned his own business and carried his 40 cal semi-auto in a belt holster while in his office. He said the employees never complained.

If you met him, you would consider him completely normal and intelligent. And you would never know he was packing heat.

[JDPriestly]

103. You are correct about guns that are tucked away being stolen.

That is a big part of the problem.

Look, gun ownership may not be a problem in Toronto but neither are predator insurance companies and many of the other problems that we have in our irresponsible, angry society.

I'm not aware that Toronto has the gang problem that we have in L.A.

Question: Do you think that the mentally ill should be able to buy and possess guns? If not, why not? Why should the mentally ill not have the same right to defend themselves against criminals with guns? Are their lives worth less?

[iverglas]

105. hey, don't be asking me

Question: Do you think that the mentally ill should be able to buy and possess guns? If not, why not? Why should the mentally ill not have the same right to defend themselves against criminals with guns? Are their lives worth less?

I've asked that question so many times I've lost count, and never got an answer.

Except from those who happen to think that just because

- something is currently law
- they approve of something

it is constitutionally permissible.


Apart from that, I'm not sure where we're going here.

Toronto has a very definite and serious gang problem -- although, as I did say, not to the extent that LA has.

Gun ownership *is* a problem in Toronto, the main one being that the relatively fewer people who are permitted to possess firearms -- licensed members of shooting clubs and licensed collectors -- are far too often negligent about storage of their firearms, and they end up in the hands of gangs. (There are also instances of the licensed owners using them to kill: Kimveer Gill in the attempted massacre at Dawson College in Montreal 2 years ago; and a bystander shooting by a licensed sports shooter illegally carrying his firearm in public, in downtown Toronto this year.) In the last couple of years there have been hauls of several dozen restricted firearms (handguns and semi-automatic weapons) at a time, and some of them have indeed been used to commit crimes including homicide.

But largely because access to handguns is hugely more restricted in Canada, handguns are involved in much less crime here. The proportion of robberies in which a firearm is used is virtually negligible, while in the US it is high; one result is that death during a robbery occurs at much higher rates in the US.

My other point was that access to firearms by gangs is in itself an issue. Neither side in a war (the "war on drugs") can prosecute the war if it doesn't have the weapons to do it. The war on drugs isn't just the cause of firearms violence -- it is to some non-negligible extent caused by easy access to firearms. There just is no other remotely equally effective weapon for gangs to use to acquire and control territory, intimidate the public and dispose of rivals, for instance, than firearms, and particularly handguns.


I think you may have been reading me backwards. I'm the "gun-grabber" goat hereabouts.

[JDPriestly]

115. Thanks.

[TPaine7]

109. People disqualified for mental reasons do not have less rights,

just less capability.

A violent felon loses his or her right to arms as a punishment for crime and a preventative measure. The same is not the case for children and those disqualified for mental reasons.

A legally blind person (nothing personal and no offense intended) is not capable of driving. But she has exactly the same right to travel as everyone else.

A person who is mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun has the same rights as other citizens, they just don't have the same capabilities.

[iverglas]

110. such utter bullshit

It can be quite refreshing to read the pure, unadulterated nonsense sometimes.

Strikes me that a person who is "mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun" (translation: bibbity bobbity boo) has exactly the same relevant capability -- stuffing a gun down his/her pants, and pulling it out and squeezing the trigger at will -- as anybody else.


Stuff, nonsense and bullshit. In the service of ... self.

[TPaine7]

112. Some are mentally incapable of responsibly posting.

Most people can understand that "responsibly handling a gun" is not the same as "stuffing a gun down his/her pants, and pulling it out and squeezing the trigger at will." This is an anti-gun fantasy view of reality.

When those mentally incapable of responsibly handling a keyboard post in response to something that wasn't said--in this case "bibbity bobbity boo"--the consequences are different than when someone mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun shoots in response to a threat that isn't actually there.

Looking at this charitably, the level of juvenile hostility indicates that iverglas is a victim of the "gun control reality distortion field." I don't actually care, but it seems impossible that she is as stupid as her response otherwise indicates.

[JDPriestly]

114. But if having a gun is a legitimate way to defend oneself, then

why should people who are particularly vulnerable not have that means to defend themselves? Also, many people who are mentally ill have not been diagnosed and cannot be forced to obtain medical care until and unless it can be shown that they pose a risk to themselves or others.

[iverglas]

116. exactly!!

why should people who are particularly vulnerable not have that means to defend themselves?

A point I have also made more than once!

They all love to drag out the 98-pound woman trying to defend herself against the big bad rapist as the poster child for who needs to be able to tote a gun because she is specially vulnerable. What of the homeless schizophrenic, who is hundreds of times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the average 98-pound woman??


Also, many people who are mentally ill have not been diagnosed and cannot be forced to obtain medical care until and unless it can be shown that they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Duh, eh?

[tburnsten]

118. Which is the personal privacy protection we have

Unless they are a known threat, how could anyone restrict a persons' rights? If they have not actually done anything wrong, and has not been proven to be a known threat (violent criminals, domestic abusers, and some serious mental health issues) to themselves or others than why should their rights be restricted?

[JDPriestly]

120. Because violent crimes can be committed by first-timers.

[tburnsten]

121. One of the hazards of a free society

Citizens' right to own weaponry in common use of their times outweighs a small amount of unfortunate violence that may be committed by some. If we were to actually attempt to do something about gang and drug violence then our violent crime rate would hit the floor.

[JDPriestly]

124. Weaponry in common use -- how about tear gas

how about stun guns -- the list goes on and on. Citizens do not have access to the weapons commonly used by our authorities. Police use guns -- but as a last resort.

[tburnsten]

127. Those are pain compliance devices

not weapons. A weapon allows you to prevent someone from doing you harm despite their best efforts, a stungun (I don't feel like getting stabbed while trying to deliver a tiny little shock to someone, don't know about you) requires you to be in contact distance with the attacker, not where I want to be, and tear gas? Are you kidding me? Have you ever been tear gassed? It is no worse than a runny nose, coughing, crying, actually I don't think any coughing was involved, anyway it is only effective against people who don't have any determination or serious ill intent.


And police use their guns usually in the exact same situations that citizens are legally and ethically justified in using theirs. The only true difference is that the police officers job entails actively going after people who are likely to instigate a situation where shooting is required. Citizens do not do that, so they run into those situations less often. The only time police really use their weapons for anything other than self defense and defense of people around them is when they are doing some sort of security detail for a specific person, or hostage rescue, those kinds of incredibly rare events. The majority of police shootings are just ordinary days for them right up until someone decides they don't want to go to jail and they are going to do anything they can to stay out of it.

[spin]

111. The seriously mentally ill should not be able to buy weapons...

the problem is how to modify the existing system to detect those with such disabilities. Of course we have to determine what exactly is a serious mental disorder.

Sometimes I believe that the anti-gun group believes anyone who wants a firearm is suffering from a serious mental disorder.

[JDPriestly]

113. Seriously, based on your experience, what percentage of gun owners

do you think are 1) really mentally ill; 2) quick tempered; 3) well balanced sports men or women? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to make a point.

[spin]

117. For a look at mental illness stats....

check this link:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html

For a look at dangerously mental ill individuals:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/356465_dangerousmain26.html

This is just quick research because I'm watching football.

Seriously I believe that the percentage of gun owners with severe mental problems is very low. Many more deaths would occur if a significant percentage suffered from this disorder. Most of these problem individuals have probably attracted the attention of authorities and have a criminal record which prohibits them from buying firearms. But when one of these individuals loses it, a tragic event often occurs. We need a system to detect the seriously mental ill that have managed to slip through the cracks and prohibit them from legally purchasing firearms. All too often when an event like a school shooting occurs, we find the individual had left plenty of clues before the incident indicating that he had severe problems.

In my personal experience, I've known only two gun owners who I felt might be too unstable to be allowed to own a firearm. Their records were spotless and they both had a government security clearance. In my opinion both had anger management problems, but controlled their temper well enough that they never ran afoul of the authorities. I suspect that since I'm not real fond of aggressive individuals, my opinion might well be colored by that prejudice and is wrong. A true mental health professional would probably laughed at my concern.

[JDPriestly]

122. I happen to meet a lot of people with anger management problems

in my work. That is why I may have a skewed view of mankind. But, in my experience, especially when it comes to domestic violence, otherwise "nice" people can lose it and if a weapon is at hand, their fate is sealed. It's very tragic. If the weapon is a belt or a plate or just the hands, the damage may (hope, hope, hope) not be so horrible. But if the weapon is a gun . . . .

[Flyboy_451]

131. I also work in a profession in which my dealings with people....

can influence my view of humanity as a whole. I served fiver years in the military (91-96) and have been a police officer for the past twelve years. I live in a state in which average citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon, we also have the right to own machine guns and sound suppressors. Three of my twelve years on the department were spent on our S.W.A.T. team. In the course of twelve years of street duty, the instances of law abiding citizens with guns being a problem is INCREDIBLY low. The same goes for so called "assault weapons".

If your view of mankind is so skewed by your personal encounters, that you consider mankind to be hot headed, criminally minded, generally violent, or too dumb to exist in a civilized manner in the presence of mechanical devices such as guns, I would question your insight into human behavior as well as your ability to make decisions based on rational thought. I would much prefer to think that some of your opinions are based on inaccurate information such as that spewed forth by talking heads in our mainstream media. This at least gives you the benefit of the doubt with concern to your capabilities for reason.

If your views are formed by such misinformation, perhaps a look at real data will provide some insight. I highly recommend that you take a look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. There is a wealth of information available. Based on such information, comparisons can be made in the relationship of law abiding gun owners and crime statistics. While there is an incredible amount of data that shows law abiding gun owners are not the problem, there certainly is a need to reduce violent crime in our country. Unfortunately, history has proven out that legislation favoring gun control has been woefully ineffective. The problem is much more complex than limiting access to guns even begins to address.

JW

[tburnsten]

119. What does "sportsmen/women" have to do with it?

Not everyone can afford to go on expensive hunting trips, or do not feel that cold damp woods at four thirty in the morning waiting to blast your eardrums and then gut an animal that (hopefully) weighs about as much as you so you can drag it out of the woods is an appealing way to spend your weekends. I'm sure I will get into hunting eventually, because I love venison, but the point is that not everyone who shoots has to be a hunter.

And why are those the only three options? Have you ever been to a range to try and get to know people? You would probably be surprised at the variety of people, and the lack of "really mentally ill" people there. Try it out sometime, it should be a learning experience.

[TPaine7]

100. I think that if you research "hot headed shootings"

You will find that they are a lot less common among people without records than you think. The vast majority of adult murderers have adult records. I suggest you read up on it in both pro and anti-gun sources. You could start with my paper (www.obamaonsecond.com and another link at the bottom of this post) and search on "Ordinary People."

You also appear to mock self-defense, putting it in quotes. You might be interested to know that in cities ordinary citizens kill up to 3 times as many attackers as police officers do (my paper, search on "Civilian Shooters.")

I would hope that defensive gun uses are rare! If they become common we are really in trouble.

[tburnsten]

101. Citizen shooters (police are civilians too)

Also shoot the wrong person almost never. Being on scene and an intimate part of the situation leading to the shooting from the very beginning makes it a simple matter for a carry licensed, practiced individual to properly apply lethal force when and only when it is justified and required by the situation. Police officers do not have the luxury of knowing what is going on, they are just responding to a scenario at a location. Many people against concealed carry don't seem to think about the fact that individual citizens who are in a shooting situation are in a far better position to respond with gunfire than a police officer who has not witnessed and been the victim of the crime from the beginning.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Scout]

123. gun owner here, solid Dem voter too

there are many things way more important to me than any "gun-grabbing" by Dem candidates.

get a grip people

[jody]

125. Scout, IMO most pro-RKBA posters in DU's Guns forum want we Dems to win elections and the perception

among some independent voters that the Democratic Party is nothing but gun-grabbers loses elections for us.

IMO that cost Gore and Kerry the presidency.

[Scout]

129. maybe you should work hard to educate those "low-information"

voters, if you are a dedicated Dem.

Obviously the Dem party is NOT "nothing but gun-grabbers" so you should probably get busy, eh?

[jody]

130. I've been busy for years working with the Dem party and candidates. Have you? n/t

[Scout]

132. yes, i have, but they aren't who i was talking about....

i was talking about the "low information" independent and other voters that you should work on...

we Dems don't need the education, we are not low information voters, get it??

[tburnsten]

133. If our party is so well informed

howcome it took ten years to get Congress back? Don't be arrogant, it isn't a handsome trait.

[jody]

134. "we are not low information voters, get it??" Sorry but some are. n/t

[SteveM]

128. Take what Jody says to heart...

It's the perception by voters of the Party. When you put in the platform a call for yet another failed assault weapons ban, trigger locks, gun-show "loopholes," the perception is in crystal-clear focus, and the Democrats lose votes.

Have you noticed that Obama must say something about gun ownership in nearly every campaign stop in the swing states?