Pajamas Media

70 Comments

1. RettenTilSelvforsvar:

Well, if you elect Obama your gun laws will probably be like laws in most of Europe, which means no weapons at all and no chance of protecting oneself when attacked by so called “youths”.
Here in Denmark pepper spray is forbidden and you will get 14 days in prison just for carrying a balisong, but these laws do not prevent the “youths” from killing each other and innocent people with both full- and semiautomatic weapons.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:19 am 2. Barack Obama » Obama Doesn’t Want You to Defend Yourself:

[...] Pajamas Media wrote an interesting post today on Obama Doesnâ

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:45 am 3. RE:

The idea that an aspiring criminal should be forced to pause and ask himself “is it worth taking the chance of getting my brains blown out over this?” is a very fine idea. Police have this funny habit of always showing up after the damage has already been done. Sorry, but that’s not good enough.

This is not a standalone issue. Self reliance is an anathema to the left. Firearm ownership is merely one front in the larger overall war against individual liberty. The attempt to strip honest individuals of their right to defend yourself fits very well with the leftist agenda of inverting the US Constitution such that the state reigns supreme.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:13 am 4. Obama: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons.”:

[...] Pajamas Media notes an interesting statistic from Newsweek: But what of Senator Obama’s specific assertion that more innocent people could get shot during altercations? If the senator wants to decrease the number of innocent people shot, he should start by taking firearms away from the state. [...]

Apr 5, 2008 - 6:01 am 5. Barack Obama News » Blog Archive » Obama Doesn’t Want You to Defend Yourself:

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

Apr 5, 2008 - 6:39 am 6. Frans:

It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…and i think there is a correlation between the number of guns per square mile and the number of casualties by these guns in any country.
One of the main reasons of existance of a state is to protect its citizens,most certainly against violent death.
So, allthough i think the discussion of the individual rights is a valid one, the common security is of higher value, allowing the state and government to take the most restrictive measures against the possession of guns, and even to claim the monopoly of physical violence in a society.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:05 am 7. Saltherring:

In totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Etc.) the first step towards absolute government control is disarming the general population. The American left, hellbent on absolute control of every aspect of our lives, understands this and will continue to work day and night to disarm law-abiding citizens. I own a farm in a rural area that is less than one hour’s drive from a major metropolitan area. Violent criminals know better than to attempt home invasions, burglaries and break-ins in rural disctricts, knowing the chances of being carried out in a body bag are much greater than in a city, where homeowners are forced (or choose) to cower in a corner and wait for police.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:07 am 8. Steve F:

Frans:

John Lott’s research, in “More Guns, Less Crime” disabuses your guesswork. And, consider this: the estimates of the number of guns in private hands ranges between 200 million and 300 million. If guns ’cause’ crime, then there should be that many crimes every year,or every decade, ’caused’ by guns in private possession.
As there are no figures even approaching one percent of that figure, then the ’cause’ is human, not the mechanical gun device which cannot load itself, pick itself up, transport itself into the vicinity of a target, and aim itself and then cock its own hammer, then pull its own trigger.
PEOPLE DO THAT…. flawed, enraged, stupid and idiot people. The 99.9999% who have guns and never do that should be no more denied their guns than the majority of black who do not commit crimes should be scrutinized because of the minority who do commit crimes.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:25 am 9. RE:

Frans,

I believe that you are mistaken to think the state will keep you safe. Any ’safety’ that you feel comes from living in a homogeneous society where everybody shares and respects the same value system. Using your correlation, Switzerland should be extremely violent. It is not.

As European governments continue to import discord, culture clash, and transient populations, you will see more violence in your future. Look at what has happened in the UK. Look at the crime rate in Oslo. Where guns are not used, knives take up the slack. Criminals will always try to achieve the upper had over the law biding citizen. The black market is ready, willing, and able to help them.

The ugly reality is that ‘common security’ is little more than wishful thinking. What you advocate is unilateral surrender to the hope and chance that you will not cross paths with trouble.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:55 am 10. Cicero:

Obama doesn’t want the U.S. to defend itself, either. So at least he’s consistent.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:58 am 11. Obama vs. Concealed Carry Laws « The View from Alexandria:

[...] commenter Mike’s response: “Never trust a politician that doesn’t trust you.” Bob Owens has much [...]

Apr 5, 2008 - 9:05 am 12. Spinoneone:

Frans,
All you need to do is look at the crime statistics from Washington, DC. No citizen may own a hand gun in Washington; the criminals have thousands of them and kill each other and innocent bystanders every day. In Washington it is illegal to have a rifle or shotgun in your home unless it is broken down and cannot be fired until reassembled. That, of course, takes more time than the average home owner would have in the event of a burglary or other crime being committed against someone in the household.

The murder rate in Fairfax, Virginia, next door to Washington and a state that allows citizens to carry handguns, has a murder rate less than one-half of Washington’s.

Apr 5, 2008 - 9:57 am 13. Frans:

Saltherring, i sympathise with you, and it’s easy to say for me not to have a gun in Belgium, such a densely populated country that the police is never more than 10 minutes away…
People rarely have a gun here and it is almost impossible to get a licence to carry one.
Shoot-outs between criminals and victims are consequently also very rare, thus saving lives on both sides. I do not think that we have more criminals because we have less guns though.Criminality is a social disorder and will arise in all societies , even in the most tranquil ones but more in the disrupted ones.

Indeed, here too, the biggest “killers” are the police. I cannot say they are ill-trained, unbalanced, trigger-happy or whatever, just that they have guns. An argument more not to deliver these guns to everybody : everybody is not trained, may be trigger happy or unbalanced.
So the argument “guns don’t kill people, people do” doesn’t seem right to me.

But the real big issue : possession of guns and democracy is a serious one. Indeed totalitarian regimes exist, and people have the right to fight them. And they will. It is just not likely that people suddenly get organised and know where to shoot if they want to topple their government.It is more likely that there will be an outburst of total anarchy of numbers of groups and outfits fighting for non-described or opposite causes (ie warlords etc..). To succesfully overthrow a totalitarian regime you need masses of people, united for the same cause (to reinstall a democratic society) and supported by a great majority of the population. Any other uprising would be smutthered in blood. With such a mass-support, guns are no issue : they will come from the government troops themselves, or any other way : revolutions fail not by the lack of guns, but by the lack of popular support.

As to the import of discord, culture clash, and transient populations: it is very true that different peoples in the world do not have the same values and moral restraints even in matters of life and death. But i do not share your pessimistic vision that we will be overwhelmed by them : that their moral standards will overcome ours. In the contrary, i honestly believe that they will share ours , adapting to our society. If i cannot believe this , i must admit that our democratic societies will be lost : we cannot stop the world at our borders.

Apr 5, 2008 - 10:02 am 14. ddc:

I really don’t worry about what Obama says because he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in h3ll of winning in november.

This latest revelation will only prove to make the % by which he losses to McCain that much larger.

My only wish though is that the Repubs had a better candidate.

Apr 5, 2008 - 11:04 am 15. gordo:

I recommend a Glock 26 for a concealed weapon. 9mm, ten round magazine and small enough to conceal. A nice backup is a Beretta Tomcat .32, although a 32 caliber doesn’t have great knock-down power, but won’t go through the walls of your neighbor if you live in a townhouse or apartment.

I’m a Virginian

Apr 5, 2008 - 11:05 am 16. Angry African:

Guns and the US. What is with that? But the other night I heard the most stupid proposal ever. Gun control laws doesn’t stop people from breaking the law, so they should just get rid of the law. Wonder what would happen if we removed all the laws that people break? http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/12/gun-control-for-idiots/

Apr 5, 2008 - 11:50 am 17. Terry:

His “opinion” shouldn’t matter.. there’s the little detail of the 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, the laws of 46 states that allow concealed carry to valid permit holders, and 2 states that have no restrictions except age (VT and AK). Even ultra-liberal Minnesota allows concealed carry (and I carry every day).

All of this is part of US history and culture– we’re not Europe and fought 2 major wars in the 20th century that demonstrates we don’t want to be Europe.

Now, in the Illinois legislature and in wine bars on the left and right coasts– they want us to become Europe. They and Obama should realize there is an NRA rep in every single voting district in the United States, a lesson that has cost the Democrats dearly every time they have to relearn it.

Terry

Apr 5, 2008 - 11:50 am 18. Western Illini:

If you want to know how things will be under Obama, just take a look at Illinois. Lots of big promises, no money to actually pay for any of it. (Last year, Illinois was over six months overdue in its share of health care payments. Nursing homes were forced to close because they couldn’t afford to care for people for free. Even so, Illinois announced it was expanding health care for children and veterans.) A largely rural population that is forced to live by the whims of big-city Chicago. Laws that are “good for you” that also take away personal freedoms. Attacks on gun ownership are repeated — it’s only a matter of time before semi-automatics are banned.

Apr 5, 2008 - 12:14 pm 19. redherkey:

Obama’s probably very troubled by the presence of Karate, Judo and other martial arts schools. These operations train citizens in self-defense, leading them to believe that they and not authorized law-enforcement can take defense matters into their own hands. Most programs have advanced levels that train the citizen with deadly force (e.g. “black belt”, which celebrates death in the symbolism of its color). The programs circumvent legal authority and enable the citizen to determine whether one’s rape or robbery is unjust, without the facts about the root cause of action. Instead of allowing the perpetrator to commit the crime and contemplate his/her actions, or permitting law enforcement to investigate, arrest and present the accused before a system that can fully measure the impact of the accused’s childhood, socio-economic background, race and other sources of oppression, the citizen becomes policeman, judge and jury in a single individual.

I don’t have the actual statistics, but like Obama, I have to believe the frequency of harm to citizens is significant when they fight back. At a minimum, the citizen is placed at risk. More alarming is the threat to the mugger, rapist or other emotionally confused individual. Instead of permitting their offense without resistance, which many Obama supporters would feel is a righteous response to societal oppression and economic disparity, too many assaulting individuals become victims of the citizen’s harmful vigilante response. Lethal force often becomes the unbalanced, inequitable response to a minor rape or robbery. Money can be replaced and sexual integrity restored after a violation, but the lives of confused perpetrators cannot be once lost by an unbalanced defense.

This election year provides us all with an opportunity to disarm the citizenry, providing every criminal with a greater chance for economic redistribution or if caught by a designated law-enforcement representative, retraining, re-education, therapy and regrowth through a law enforcement assistance shelter. Martial arts, handguns and other weapons of intolerance can be ended if we just give Obama the chance to change our society.

Apr 5, 2008 - 1:30 pm 20. M. Simon:

Revolver.

Apr 5, 2008 - 1:53 pm 21. Amos:

Sorry Angry African, but you need to walk a little further with your logic.

The problem is that if criminals do have guns, and law-abiding people don’t (which would be by definition if you outlawed them) then you have a situation where you’ve made the the kinds of people who respect the law subservient and prey to the kinds of people who don’t.

They called the Colt .38 “The Equalizer” for a reason.

If you are indeed African, then you disappoint me. I’d think you’d appreciate the folly in allowing only the government and criminal-types to have monopolies on the ability to deal death.

Try this thought exercise: if you believe that guns are the instrument of choice for random acts of destruction, murder and mayhem, then tally up all of the murders committed by people using guns in the last century.

Then compare that number to the number of people killed by their own government or with their government’s tacit support over the same time frame. (Hint: Rwanda might be a compelling place to start.)

Now tell me again why you think the government should be the only one vested with the power to kill.

Apr 5, 2008 - 1:56 pm 22. sobi fall:

redherkey:

You have absolutely hit the nail on the head. But you have failed to drive it all the way in.

Deadly force is never, ever justifiable in self-defense. Especially if you have something someone else wants. If that’s the case, you are really obligated to give it to them, no matter what it is. It is completely wrong to oppose people who desire what you possess, or who want to enjoy themselves in any way whatsoever at your expense.

Deadly force is only acceptable when it is used by someone who wants something to take it from someone who has it.

Oh, yeah. It’s also acceptable if someone is forced to use it to right a perceived wrong.

And if someone from an aggrieved set of people just likes using deadly force. That would be okay too.

But it’s not okay for you to use it.

Absolute pacifism, to the point of utter passivity, is the mark of a truly enlightened people and an advanced culture. Laying down your claim to ownership of anything, including your own well-being, is the first giant step towards reconciliation, towards justice, towards making right all the wrongs that anyone might perceive.

So, while I agree that martial arts, handguns, sticks, sharp objects, bows & arrows, bludgeons, and all other weapons should be done away with, I think that should only apply to those of us who have moved furthest up the evolutionary ladder.

And that includes Presidents. As the leaders on the path towards the brave, new disarmed world of perfect justice, I can’t see how they should continue to be “protected” by the Secret Service. Those guys, with their guns and fighting skills and communications devices, will do nothing but continue to perpetrate the injustice that we all long so desperately to see ended.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:22 pm 23. Ymal Brucker:

It’s not just “big city” politics than bother gun ownership. Illinois has one big city. Here in Texas, we have FOUR cities with populations over one million yet we have concealed carry (thanks to governor George Bush). I can carry in a restaurant, a church, a hospital, or almost anywhere else.

CHL holders are very law-abiding and responsible people. I, myself, have never killed anybody that didn’t need killin’ (a uniquely Texas defense).

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:22 pm 24. RobD:

gordo,
I go with the G-29 which is just a little bit larger then the 26 but shoots the much superior 10mm cartridge.

As for you foreigners I appreciate your concern but I would much rather have the ability to match any aggressor with my skill with a firearm then to cower in fear and hope for help from the police. As others have noted the police almost always arrive after the fact to clean up the mess and as our courts have found have no responsibility to protect anyone except themselves.

It is much harder to regain a right that has been taken away then to protect a right that is currently held. You foreigners(most of you anyway) have already given up your right to self-defense so it is too late for you but it is not too late for us so butt out and quit trying to inflect your miserable totalitarian way of life upon us.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:39 pm 25. tom swift:

Unfortunately, one can’t really make this claim -

“Civilians in ’shall issue’ states take intensive formal classes in advance of obtaining a carry permit, and in those classes the majority of the time is spent covering the legal liability, escalation, and justification for the use of deadly force.”

The courses aren’t standardized. They can be good courses, or they can be complete wastes of time. In fact it’s not at all clear that the courses were intended by the legislatures to train anybody about anything. They are routinely put in as a form of backdoor “veto” over licensing. The logic is simple – require attendance at an official course, but then fail to offer the course; voila, nobody can ever qualify for licensing. That’s pretty rare in practice, but it does happen.

Another trick is that the course can be made very expensive, but when the state is criticized for making it impossible for the poorer citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, it can claim that the license itself isn’t all that expensive. In political circles “poor” is too often a code word for “black.” Any civil right which isn’t for ALL of my fellow Americans isn’t much of a civil right at all.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:40 pm 26. Diggs:

Holding a discussion with a European about handguns is like holding a discussion about sex with a nun.
They may have an opinion, but it is grounded in faith, not facts.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:52 pm 27. Robert:

Frans said:

i honestly believe that they will share ours , adapting to our society. If i cannot believe this , i must admit that our democratic societies will be lost : we cannot stop the world at our borders.

A government that cannot stop foreign invaders is an illegitimate government. I find it ironic that you think human smuggling cannot be stopped but gun smuggling can be stopped.

Frans said:

It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…and i think there is a correlation between the number of guns per square mile and the number of casualties by these guns in any country.

If so, explain this, Idaho has classically liberal gun laws and is awash with guns, Louisiana has classically liberal gun laws and is awash with guns, yet Louisiana’s gun crime rate is astronomically higher than Idaho’s. The correlation is the differences in criminal culture in those two states.

Criminal culture not numbers of guns explains differences in gun crime rates.
Also gun bans themselves don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Lets assume somehow that gun smuggling is stopped. Criminals will still get guns. Below are some links that effectively falsify the notion of gun bans.

Home Gunsmith

Chechnyan Homemade Firearms

There is more in the next post.

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:53 pm 28. Trent Meerkat:

BUILD MORE JAILS!
JAIL THE PERPS!

And the crime problem will be properly addressed. Criminalizing lawful behavior (like defending oneself and one’s home, family, etc.) is the wrong thing to do…

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:57 pm 29. Robert:

More links that falsify the claim that gun bans correlate to differences in gun crime rates.

Tribal Homemade Automatics

Lastly here is a link for gun banners to ponder for the future.

Fablabs and Personal Fabricators

People who advocate gun bans might as well demand that buggy whips be available for manned spacecraft. It is an obsolete notion.

Care to debunk my links?

Apr 5, 2008 - 2:58 pm 30. Robert:

Sobi Fall said:

Absolute pacifism, to the point of utter passivity, is the mark of a truly enlightened people and an advanced culture. Laying down your claim to ownership of anything, including your own well-being, is the first giant step towards reconciliation, towards justice, towards making right all the wrongs that anyone might perceive.

And 3.5 billion years of evolution says you’re completely wrong. Pacifism is a gutter superstition. What next, are you going to advocate Astrology?

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:05 pm 31. Robert:

Sobi Fall:

So, while I agree that martial arts, handguns, sticks, sharp objects, bows & arrows, bludgeons, and all other weapons should be done away with, I think that should only apply to those of us who have moved furthest up the evolutionary ladder.

There is no such thing as “up” or “down” in evolution. There is no direction in evolution. Evolution is NOT A LADDER.

Here is a quote:

Natural selection is a process by which heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction become more common in a population, while harmful traits become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3]

Hear that, “best-suited for their environment”. No up or down direction.

If pacifism was realistic, most of the Animal Kingdom wouldn’t exist. Humans are ANIMALS.

P.S. nice to see that you blame the victim or would be victim.

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:12 pm 32. Robert:

Wait a minute, Sobi Fall, are you a “Poe”?

Poe’s Law definition:

Similar to Murphy’s Law, Poe’s Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

The following is an actual Internet post to Biblically defend a flat Earth:

“All I was saying was that either the earth is flat, and the bible is correct, or the earth is round, and the bible is incorect, i’m going to study the issue more and deside for myself which route I want to take. Either Atheist evolutionist, who agrees with all of mainstream sciences, or flat earth litteral bible believer.
I’m leaning toward being an atheist, because if I can’t believe the bible to be completly litteraly true, then I can’t believe Jesus when he speaks about heaven, etc..
That would make the moon landing a fake, and pretty much all of modern science false…”

Response:

“That’s it, I’m claiming Poe’s Law on this guy.”

I wonder if Sobi Fall and redherkey are actually parodies of gun banner fundamentalists?

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:16 pm 33. Robert:

Hey my posts were erased!!

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:17 pm 34. Parked here because I don’t want to lose it « Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group:

[...] well.  The Leftist view on gun control is captured wonderfully by commenter redherkey on Obama Doesn’t Want You to Defend Yourself at Pajamas Media Obama’s probably very troubled by the presence of Karate, Judo and other martial [...]

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:20 pm 35. Cannoneer No. 4:

redherkey, that’s priceless.

Way too many Americans could read that and not get the joke.

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:28 pm 36. Robert:

Hey my posts were erased!!

Oops, I guess not.

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:31 pm 37. Bill Bradley:

OK.

I’m a Navy vet and longtime gun owner. Come the apocalypse, I’m all set. You know, except for the lack of power, water, and all that stuff, as Schwarzenegger would say.

The chance of the average citizen getting a carry permit is nil.

The only folks who get them are people in actual demonstrable danger, which is not anybody posting here, and wannabee friends of local sheriffs. Who not infrequently tend to get indicted as they sell them off.

That’s the fact.

Now I’m just as likely to vote for McCain — as I did in 2000 as a member of Veterans for McCain — and I am for Barack. But, hey …

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:31 pm 38. Robert:

Bill Bradley said:

The chance of the average citizen getting a carry permit is nil.

The only folks who get them are people in actual demonstrable danger, which is not anybody posting here, and wannabee friends of local sheriffs. Who not infrequently tend to get indicted as they sell them off.

That’s the fact.

That’s certainly true in “may issue” states like California where the rich and politically connected only get them (Dianne Feinstein anyone?). But “shall issue” states who comprise the majority of states issue these permits to anyone who passes the test and do not have a felony criminal record (or domestic violence convictions, a history of mental health problems).

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:47 pm 39. steveH:

“It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…and i think there is a correlation between the number of guns per square mile and the number of casualties by these guns in any country.”

Frans, your analysis needs to take into consideration a bit more information:

– Be sure that you separate suicide from criminal homicide. (Studies around the world have shown that suicide rates are independent of any instrumentality; it’s not the tool that causes it.)

– Guns have very little to do with total violent crime rates; countries with similar (or even higher) rates of legal gun ownership may well have lower rates of gun-related offenses. Switzerland and Finland, for example.

– Countries with low, or no, levels of legal gun ownership may have higher, or even much higher rates of violent crime including homicide. They just tend to use other weapons; Mexico and Rwanda are examples.

– Availability is far less likely to be a factor than is culture. States with higher rates of legal gun ownership tend to have less criminal misuse than many other states with lower rates of legal ownership or stricter gun control laws. England’s gun-related violent crime rates were low before they adopted strict gun control, for example, even when guns were cheap and widely available to the public.

– Examine the records of states that have adopted “shall issue” concealed carry laws; they show no history of increased violent crime resulting from adopting the new laws, and in some cases show drops in violent crime rates compared to similar states at the same time that have not adopted such laws. In short, the very worst you can say from the data available is that passing such laws had no effect at all on violent crime including homicide. And that is the *worst*.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:01 pm 40. devsin:

Frans:

“It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…”

Most US gun related deaths are the result of drugs being illegal. Interesting that the government (voters) in trying to control the private consumption of illegal substances end up killing thousands each year and costing billions in drug-related funding efforts.

Current illegal drugs should be as legal as guns. Law enforcement should focus on personal and private property protection. Public assistance should required a drug test and any positive immediately cease benefits. Most of those paying the taxes for that assistance are required to take drug tests by their employers. Is it really fair to steal the labor of the job holder to keep an addict fed and housed?

It is about control, though, isn’t it?

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:27 pm 41. redherkey:

Hans pointed out:
“It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…and i think there is a correlation between the number of guns per square mile and the number of casualties by these guns in any country.”

Having spent a summer in Germany as a high school freshman, I was surprised at the availability of alcohol for kids. My hosts explained in their society, they make it nothing extraordinary and readily available. That way, kids are able to understand it in the proper context and learn to handle it responsibly, rather than not knowing how to handle it.

It’s remarkable that the same intelligent Europeans who recognized that distorted supply/demand environments cause undesirable outcomes would ignore the same dynamic with self-defense weapons. Make something illegal and you’ll often have very skewed outcomes, usually with those you want the least to have access instead having an excessive supply, while those who should be trusted with the resource being unable to attain it without great difficulty.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:41 pm 42. Thomas:

Frans:

“It’s a clear fact i’m told that in the US., (too)many people die by gunfire…and i think there is a correlation between the number of guns per square mile and the number of casualties by these guns in any country.”

For me to consider that argument, first the government would need to secure it’s borders.. otherwise, smugglers will provide guns to criminals while everyone else will be disarmed.

Alas, they don’t even make an effort to try here so there is no point in considering your argument at this time.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:46 pm 43. Thomas:

Frans:

“It is just not likely that people suddenly get organised and know where to shoot if they want to topple their government.”

That’s not really the whole idea (spontaneously overthrowing). You can put a totalitarian government in check simply by making it costly for them to come get you in the middle of night. If they end up loosing a person or two for everyone they try to haul off… well.. it puts a damper on their plans. This then buys time to plan the next step…

In the end, a well armed population can stop someone from even bothering to try something… why bother? Deck is stacked against them. Odds are they’ll end up dead.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:55 pm 44. Tod Barns:

Typical Social Marxist who should be deported! Oh and TNB!

Apr 5, 2008 - 5:26 pm 45. Jim Rockford:

Mr. Bradley –

Don’t forget CA concealed carry people like Sean Penn (who’s guns were stolen out of his car) and … Robert Blake!

[For those who don't know, Liberal fave Penn was convicted of tying up and beating then wife Madonna, and leaving her tied up in a chair for four hours. Charming. And with that record he still got his permit. Oh yes, Penn is big on gun confiscation. For everyone but him.]

Which brings us to Barack Obama and what he *really* wants: to punish the little people and make sure only “big men” like himself have guns (his bodyguards in the Secret Service). Henry IV found Paris worth a mass. Obama — he’d rather punish the “white guy” who depends on his concealed carry piece to equalize the odds.

Which let’s face it is the argument Frans and Angry African post. What they really want is the “big man” society where only the powerful and influential get protection (private bodyguards and police in wealthy areas) while everyone else lies in fear of thugs. Belgium is a hell-hole of crime for those without wealth and power. A man killed on the bus for telling a young punk to leave a woman alone, as Steyn recounts in “America Alone.” The whole point of the crime wave (and Liberal defense of it) in the 1970’s was to “punish” ordinary white people. Just as Africa is a pit-hole of violence because only the big men have weapons and power.

That Obama won’t “say a mass” with the example of Al Gore (lost TN over gun control) tells you how much he HATES ordinary people (mostly white) and is wedded to “big man” politics.

Apr 5, 2008 - 5:33 pm 46. Dark Helmet:

obama is a communist.

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:11 pm 47. GT:

I tried to carry a cop with me but he was just too heavy so I decided to carry a handgun. The Second Ammendment will be upheld and clearly defined by a majority of conservative Supreme Court Justices as the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms in the summer of 2008. For all of those who are opposed to the Constitution of the United States of America you can go live with Frans in Europe. “Give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry

Apr 5, 2008 - 9:21 pm 48. James:

Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and one of the highest murder rates. Gun laws do nothing except punish the innocent, and cost MANY more innocent lives than they save. The United States has never been and will never be a nation of unarmed citizens.

Apr 6, 2008 - 1:41 am 49. Frans:

I’m glad i wrote my opinion in this forum. Alltough i find little support for this opinion, it does not matter at all : i discovered lots of real and justifiable arguments about the possession of guns. And even more important : that the discussion is in general, very friendly. Nobody wants me to review my opinion, looking into the barrell of his loaded gun.
So the argument that people who are in favor of carrying guns, would typically be agressive or unwilling to discuss is most certainly not true.
I’m not a communist as some would categorise me, I love to be in the US., it is really a ” great nation”, and believe me, living in Belgium, where 2 worldwars where fought to the end, we will remember for generations the american soldiers marching in and giving their lives to liberate us. The first days of november thousands of people still go to the immense graveyards of the American soldiers, we have here.

And no, i do not want the “big white guy” to have the monopoly on guns. A problem is the desperate poor guy, having nothing to loose, but a little to gain by the possession of a gun. So probably the discussion of the guns is not the real one. The real one could be : can we let people become so desperate that they will use guns ?
You do not have to be a communist to claim a bit of wealth and security for the poorest. Remember the old but truthfull saying : the money goes back to the rich ?
So what’s the rich man’s worry to share a bit more of wealth, in the end the rich, and us, everybody would profit from it. And everybody could keep his gun ( for the exceptional case one gets attacked for no reason on a bus, like the person in Belgium, referred to.).

Apr 6, 2008 - 11:28 am 50. Robert:

Frans said:

A problem is the desperate poor guy, having nothing to loose, but a little to gain by the possession of a gun.

He would most likely gain if he only targeted an unarmed victim.

Frans said:

You do not have to be a communist to claim a bit of wealth and security for the poorest. Remember the old but truthfull saying : the money goes back to the rich ?
So what’s the rich man’s worry to share a bit more of wealth, in the end the rich, and us, everybody would profit from it. And everybody could keep his gun ( for the exceptional case one gets attacked for no reason on a bus, like the person in Belgium, referred to.).

Better equality of opportunity might help. Although poverty may be a factor, it isn’t the main factor. Remember, the Appalachian whites are one of the poorest groups in the U.S., yet their gun crime rate doesn’t even come close to New Orleans or Washington, D.C.
Cultural norms are a much bigger factor.

Apr 6, 2008 - 12:48 pm 51. Chris R.:

As the late Mr. Heston said – they can take my guns “from my cold, dead hands”

Criminals and gangs have guns, usually more firepower than police and our lovely government has failed to protect us from them. So, they would like to make it worse by taking away our right to defend ourselves?

That’s not gonna happen, period.

Apr 6, 2008 - 2:27 pm 52. orlandocajun:

I wonder how Obama would feel about guns for personal protection if his Secret Service detail was yanked? Liberals are hypocrites and insane.

Give me liberty or kiss my arse

Apr 6, 2008 - 2:49 pm 53. Barack Hussein Obama:

America has a black crime problem not a gun problem.

Apr 6, 2008 - 5:38 pm 54. James S:

Citizens have guns.
Subjects are not allowed to have guns.
The presence of millions of handguns has a sobering effect on the powers that be.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol all did what after taking power? Outlawed private ownership of guns……

To believe that such a thing cannot occur in the USA, or in any county, is foolish, as there will always be people who aspire to power and as much power as they can be elected to, grab and steal.

Go read Animal Farm. The pigs are out of the pen again.

Apr 6, 2008 - 6:16 pm 55. redherkey:

Robert writes: “Cultural norms are a much bigger factor.”

This is really what is most unfortunate about the whole matter. Racism, for all practical matters, is dead except with worthless losers who will never amount to anything significant. It’s disgusting and irrational to project capability onto someone because of the amount of pigmentation in their skin, their preference for mates of the same or different sex, their possession of mammary glands, etc. When it comes to human hardware, using it to differentiate many behaviors, ethics and other aspects is simply foolish.

Software, on the other hand, is where it’s all at. Cultures, social ethics, norms conveyed by parents (or the lack of) and other programmed items are much more relevant in projecting the outcome of an individual. When we have poisonous messages from people like the Rev. Wright, validated by the participatory support of leaders like Obama, countless children are cursed to a parasitic life depending on handouts from an authority to compensate for imaginary conspiracies (AIDS, drugs, employability, economic self-determination, etc.). Obama and Wright have effected more damage through their self-limiting, damaging propaganda than hundreds of slave owners could in their era. Convincing someone to enslave themselves through the belief of false messages is much more effective than any whip and chain ever was. It’s the ultimate ownership of a man, having him chain himself simply through the power of speech.

For people like Frans who appreciate the exposure of truth & falsehood through open discussions like this, and clearly have the goal of discovering the real truth in a situation, I’d encourage you to keep looking at the motivation behind the actions of parties. What good does it do for a “conservative” to encourage gun ownership by minorities who could shoot an oppressive white cop in self defense? Doesn’t that seem contrary to the message of white institutional oppression? Have you ever noticed that “conservatives” are not the ones trying to dictate every aspect of everyones lives?

At the same time, why would people like Obama encourage blacks to believe their government is out to get them? Why would he take away the option of self-defense from a young black mother about to be raped and murdered, claiming that a 911 call is her only option (we all know they won’t get there in time)? What is it that is so important to Obama and other personal self-defense opponents that makes them sacrifice people to their cause? If their need for power is so threatened by people’s desire for self-defense, can we trust them with such power?

Keep questioning Frans, but pay more attention to the motivation of the participants in any dialog. The gain or loss they would be expected to realize from the attainment of what they advocate tells you more about their real interest than anything uttered in a fancy speech.

Apr 6, 2008 - 7:41 pm 56. WillMacc:

There is evidence that “mandatory” gun ownership makes crime rates go down.
There is (or was) a town in Georgia, Merietta I think it was, where it was mandatory to have a firearm in the household (rifle, shotgun, pistol, musket, etc.) and the crime rate for that particular county went Way down.
But, hey,, what do I know.. I’m just one of those crazy people that believes in the 2nd Amendment, drives a pickup truck and a member of the NRA..

Apr 6, 2008 - 9:09 pm 57. Robert:

redherkey, I couldn’t have said it better myself. BTW, your earlier post was a pretty good parody, it sure fooled me for a while. That was a good “Poe’s Law” post.

Apr 6, 2008 - 9:40 pm 58. kevin:

You have to love how the dems keep firearms as simply a must-do issue regardless of facts or personal experience(and often highly paid full armed security personnel that follow them everywhere). ‘I’m a Democrat, so guns are bad’. You have to love the elitist wealthy Democratic party’s staple issues, guns, race, entitlements, none of which they have ever done anything about. But if they ‘fixed’ it, they wouldn’t be able to argue about it every single year I guess… Democrats need racism and poverty and illegal immigration and do everything they can to keep it going. What would they do without anything to ‘promise’ to fix?

Apr 7, 2008 - 9:53 am 59. Slicer:

All Liberals need to put in thier front yard a sign that reads “This home is a gun FREE zone”.
All Conservatives have one that reads “This home is protected by Glock”.
Which home is safer???????

Apr 8, 2008 - 8:22 am 60. Saltherring:

I put NRA stickers on my windows. Even the stupidist criminals know that chances are, this guy is ‘locked and loaded’. Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry said it best, “Do you feel lucky, Punk…..WELL, DO YA?

Apr 8, 2008 - 12:47 pm 61. French Cat:

*Frans said:

“Saltherring, i sympathise with you, and it’s easy to say for me not to have a gun in Belgium, such a densely populated country that the police is never more than 10 minutes away…
People rarely have a gun here and it is almost impossible to get a licence to carry one.
Shoot-outs between criminals and victims are consequently also very rare, thus saving lives on both sides. I do not think that we have more criminals because we have less guns though.Criminality is a social disorder and will arise in all societies , even in the most tranquil ones but more in the disrupted ones.”

-About the curious fact that unlike in the US, in France and Belgium the criminals only rarely use firearms when they attack law-abiding citizens,it’s simply because they prefer to use firearms “only for business”. They typically use shotguns and Kalashnikovs assault rifles (AK) so as to attack big, valuable targets for which they need enough firepower to do so. For instance, a couple of years ago, a little supermarket deep in the country (near Belgium, actually) had been assaulted by four men armed with pump-action shotguns and bulletproof vests (aka body armor). From what I’ve learned, having been “close” from that kind of people at a certain period of my life, they also use firearms when they attack each others (gang wars), but never when they target the law abiding citizen. When they do so, they prefer to use knives, scissors, brass knuckles, box cutters… anything that « does the job » but isn’t bigger enough to draw attention. Knowing how it is easy in France in Belgium to find who’s the shooter when a gun has been used during a criminal act (thanks to scientific methods used by police forces, for instance), they just prefer to keep using cheap weapons they can throw away after use for “that part of the work”. Price of a boxcutter: 2 Euros (same in USD), available in every supermarket; price of a shotgun in what is called with fancy “black market”, if memory serves: 800 Euros… throwing away 2 Euros is easier than 800

About gun control, on the contrary of what people think, it’s a waste of money that can’t solve the “problem” -”problem” invented by people who visibly have an interest in disarming loyal, law-abiding citizens. Keep in mind that you can, provided you have the little amount of knowledge and « know-how » necessary, to make ammunition thanks to a little box of that http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allumette and some pieces of wood… and that’s for people who are alone, those who don’t know anyone with the machinery and tools that could help them to make a real firearm. You can for instance look at the situation in London, England: the number of homemade weapons discovered by the local police forces, weapons made in garages or clandestine workshop, has risen by 300 % since they banned firearms in UK. Cellphones, flashlights… English criminals convert everything they find in cheap homemade firearms that can look like a pen but fire real ammunition.
All you need is a buddy of yours who works as a mechanic, some tools, some steel, and here it goes; several hours of work later you’ll end up by having your own homemade weapon, firing in semi-auto or full-auto (burst), according to your will.

*Diggs said: “Holding a discussion with a European about handguns is like holding a discussion about sex with a nun.
They may have an opinion, but it is grounded in faith, not facts.”

-Please avoid to live by clichés… the stereotype you’re talking about is the norm in Europe, but that norm is not followed by every European…

Apr 8, 2008 - 2:22 pm 62. frans:

I cannot understand this weapons “culture” thing in the US, referred to a couple of times.

Is it this feeling of unlimited power and victory, pointing a preferably huge gun, at an enemy already on the floor ? not to mention the appropriate one-liner you’re free to think of, meanwhile. (Saltherring) Every 18 year old boy is a dirty Harry.

Is it power for the powerless ? Because this message is also conveyed in many comments : the mistrust against a government that seems overwhelmingly powerfull and uninfluencable by “normal” people.

Is the USA too big and too divers for many people so they do not feel represented in or by their government ? (but you will have the last word, after all, because you have a gun and shoot the whole world down.)

Is the possession of a gun romance ? The juvenile “Dirty Harry” feeling, or the feeling of power over a seemingly careless and stupid government ?

Because, in reality : you will never be Dirty Harry. It is far more likely, you will be laying bleeding on the ground if you confront criminals with a gun. And if not and you prevail : forget about your cool one-liner : it will be a very shocking experience hard to live with for the rest of your live.

And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.

So is the “culture”-thing something from way back and far West, in times it mattered to have a gun : total freedom for all, no law, no order and lots of enemies around. A thing that persists now : a romantic feeling (good old days)for times long ago ?

I’m just trying to understand. Not to offend anybody or certainly not our friend Saltherring, the only man i trust with a gun, because he lives so far away in a rural area, there is hardly anyone to be hurt.

Apr 8, 2008 - 5:24 pm 63. French Cat:

Frans, about “gun culture”, there’s one thing important to know: that’s a wrong term.

wrong, because it implies a “cultural” side of the owning on guns, which leads precisely people to understand its meaning by defining “gun culture” as, from your words: “Is the possession of a gun romance ? The juvenile “Dirty Harry” feeling (…)”. Reason why I prefer to say “familiarity with guns” instead of “gun culture”, it’s longer to say but it’s much more “accurate” if I can say so :]

anyway, “familiarity with guns” means simply that, in a given era in a given country, its citizens are “close” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, it’s my opinion as a Libertarian) limited to the two main domains it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

this is a good link to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, it’s my opinion as a Libertarian) limited to the two main domains it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

this is a good link to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

” from guns; understand they’ve already seen some before, probably have shot with some, in short they know that it’s not a toy and that there’s a big responsibility in owning a gun. thanks to the relatives and familial environment owning guns, people living in a country where there is a “familiarity with guns” don’t perceive the firearm as a tool of power: as it is something unusual, seen and known, the firearm is not seen as something “cool” and “attractive because it’s forbidden” as it is the case in countries that have lost this familiarity with guns.

in short, that’s the difference between an English teenager born and living in London and an American teenager born and living in a state where there is that familiarity with guns: the first, if he seens a gun, will be attracted by it as it is something unusual in his life and as the gun is portrayed in movies, series etc. as “cool”; the second, having been educated on the fact that a gun is not a toy and being used to see guns, will not be attracted by it. The result ? you can bet that the chances that the first teenager uses the gun he found like a toy and eventually shoots accidentally someone will be higher than if it was the second teenager that has found the gun.

education, as always… that being said, the familiarity with guns is not the panacea, it must be viewed as a solution of replacement for a real, standardized education about guns given during childhood by firearms instructors at school: the goal is not to teach SWAT techniques to the children, but to ensure that a qualified specialist will teach them the basic safety rules, and demythologizes the image of the firearm given in movies or in series (for instance, the fact that you can get shot in the arm and have absolutely no sequel after that. on the contrary, you can lose the complete mobility of your arm, depending on the unpredictable behavior of a bullet against a bone).

so as to sum up, we teach children the basic knowledge to have in order to avoid getting pregnant at 15, and that’s indeed extremely important, but we should teach children how to avoid shooting their buddies by accident after having discovered a gun and “played” with it.

you also said:

“And again in reality : whether you have a gun or not , the government will always be a massive institution, awe-inspiring and frustrating sometimes.”

the government is a massive institution only because we allow it to do so

the government can (and should, in my opinion) be limited to the two main domains (my opinion always) it can cover without screwing everything up anytime: Justice and Armed Forces, notice the “anytime” and what I imply using this word.

as an end to this post, please know that the so-called “wild west” (or “far west” in Europe) was far to be that wild… the way “wild west” is depicted in movies is romantic, hence historically wrong.

here are some good links on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A698538

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=572

Apr 9, 2008 - 5:41 pm 64. austin:

Every able-bodied human being should be armed if they so choose.

The most heavily armed nations other than the USA are Finland and Switzerland, whose crime rates are similar to Belgium’s.

Here is a good link on civilian gun fighting.

http:\\warriortalk.com

Apr 10, 2008 - 10:02 am 65. austin:

Fran wrote:

“Because, in reality : you will never be Dirty Harry. It is far more likely, you will be laying bleeding on the ground if you confront criminals with a gun. And if not and you prevail : forget about your cool one-liner : it will be a very shocking experience hard to live with for the rest of your live.”

Bold talk from a man who does not own any guns!!!

That’s not what the stats show. Most of the time the civilian prevails over the criminal and most of the time the civilian is glad they prevailed. Which is the way it should be.

Fran, anytime you want to show up with two other men of your choosing for a little force on force test using plastic BB pistols to test this out, be my guest. Three on one with you making the first move. I bet I can hit all three of you before you hit me.

Apr 10, 2008 - 10:09 am 66. john:

People will never give up their guns.

Apr 12, 2008 - 6:42 am 67. frans:

In a survey about “violent death” in the US, the “Center od Disease Control” CDC , studying different reasons why people die violently, found out following :

Of the almost 50.000 people dying violently (not necessarily by guns) in the USA (173 per day), around 50 % is caused by suicide.
On the 16000 cases studied in 16 states, 50 % were suicides, followed by 29,6% murders or legal intervention by police or citizens, 13.3 % by reasons unknown, and accidental killing by fire-arms : 0.7 %.

An Afro-american has a 50 % higher chance to die violently than his white brother, 60 % higher than the Asian Americans but the latin Americans or best off : they suffer 15 % less chance of violent death than the white man.

Most casualties occur between the age of 20 and 24. Men are 3 times more at risk than women.

So the New England Journal of Medecine (NEJM) dares to say : ” Deaths and wounded by handguns are a severe problem for the popular health and requires an answer from the government , the security services and the medical institutions.”

Guns kill a total of 30143 people in the US (2005). Of them : 17000 suicides, 12352 murders and 789 accidents.
Also 70.000 wounded occur by guns.
So in the US , every 17 minutes someone will be killed by a gun, and every 5 minutes a death or wounded will occur.

But all this says nothing as long as we think that only the bad guys die. It’s a very big country too, of course, and i do not think that suicide rates are lower in Europe.

But look at this : Living in a house where guns are present, increases the chances of murder with 40 to 170 % (depending on the region and environment you live in.). And the risk of suicide by gun increases with 90 to 460 % !

They also claim that the decrease in criminal statistics relative to the higher presence of guns is a myth.
Guns are now so wide-spread that they may endanger a “civil society”, they say.(in other words : in the end, courts would no longer be necessary as everyone is judge for himself.).

Wouldn’t it be safer for you to throw away your gun into the deepest river in your neighbourhood ? So you will not be challenged by your own gun, when you, God forbid, temporarely get deeply depressed by tragic events unforseen, or , when you think you have a chance against criminals, grab your gun and be killed in what these criminals will call for themselves “(il)legal self-defence” ?

But never mins stats : the discussion is, of course, endless.

I still think: when a gun is readily available in all circonstances, sooner or later it will kill (unnecessarily). It’s a rattlesnake in the house. Deterrent for others , yes, but you can never trust it.

I must say i never fired a gun, hesitate even to touch it, and no, i did not have education to handle it. The hunting gun of my grandfather was destroyed before my eyes by my father when he inherited it. I may reassemble it, one time, but I hope never to hear the sound of bullet shattering bone.

So there is a big difference in point of view of course: i’m discussing here things i do not know. Most people talking in this forum know what they talk about and feel comfortable with their gun(s). I don’t mind. I’m not a preacher: you can be right i can be wrong. I know you’re all carefull and very reasonable . But i think we can agree on this : not any gun can be allowed in any hand at all times. So, what are the rules (preferably equal for all) ?

Apr 13, 2008 - 10:02 am 68. French Cat:

of course we agree on the fact that not any gun can be allowed in any hand at all times, the problem does not come from guns, but from the huge responsibility it implies, responsibility that needs to be taught seriously and plainly understood for the gun owner.

my rules on the subject are simple, and can be summed up in two points:

1) gun safety taught at school by certified instructors, and each year for each classes

2)the one wishing to carry a gun has to go through a specialized and, before all, standardized class about guns, their use (I’m talking about technique -if the gun you have in hand is grabbed by the criminal facing you, it means you have been poorly trained), the legal side with minor variations depending on the local laws, and what carrying a gun implies, a strong emphasis on the fact that it’s neither a toy nor “something that makes you cool” but a tool build to kill and on the fact that your behavior must be exemplary if you wish to carry or to own guns.

when you look at those points, you notice that it’s quite already the case, that the rule concerning the specialized class is already applied even if unfortunately they are not standardized, only the rule number 1 is still lacking: teaching gun safety at school. so as to ensure that the children won’t see the gun as “a tool of power” or “something cool (or “that makes you cool”)” but as a potentially deadly tool designed to kill.

concerning the study by the Center of Disease Control, my reproach will be that it doesn’t give the most important data: the context.
what I want to know when I read such figures is for instance if these death are gang-related, for instance; knowing how the phenomenon of gang is wide spread in the USA I’d like to know the background of the victims, because there’s a huge difference between the innocent bystander killed by a criminal and gang members killing each other as these last ones have chosen this way of life and the danger it implies and as a matter of fact are not “victims”, while the innocent law-abiding bystander has not and is, him, clearly a victim if he is killed by a criminal, accidentally or not.

[about my previous post, it seems that whatever the reason a problem occurred... I don't have the time to post it once again unfortunately, so, too bad]

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:28 pm 69. Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » The Double Standard:

[...] Frankly, I like the ad because it tars Obama with his own voting record. Don’t like tough sentencing laws? Fine, you can get hit with ads about people hurt or killed by murderers let loose because of it. Don’t want to keep babies who survive abortion alive? Fine, then you have to answer for voting against this legislation. Don’t like guns? Fine, then you have to answer for your votes against gun rights for law-abiding citizens. [...]

Apr 26, 2008 - 6:23 am 70. Next Generation - An Independent American Viewpoint - nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/:

[...] Allow Criminal Charges Against Homeowners Who Defend Their Person and Home With a Gun. And, from a Pajamas Media report on April 5,2008, “Though it should hardly come as a surprise considering his past record and [...]

Oct 23, 2008 - 7:33 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: