I really think that you could sell that last comment :)

Posted by: Tara at October 30, 2003 01:13 PM

I'm not really sure the NRA has any effect. When you consider all the guns other counties have, it seems to be social. I read up on it after watching Bowling for Columbine because I thought there was a contridiction..... first they say "wow, we have no more guns than anyone else and even movies, TV and economic woes can be ruled out. It must be a cultural thing. Now let's go harrass the NRA, it's thier fault."
So the NRA is the root of our mysterious problem that no one can pinpoint? Not likely.
I could care less about the existance of the NRA, but if I had bet I'd say they make no difference.

Posted by: Raisin Lord at November 5, 2003 03:08 PM

YES great article !

btw.

NRA and Raisin Lord SUCKS !

Posted by: NRA SUCKS ! at November 11, 2003 11:04 PM

you are a bunch of fucking pussys get a fucking life you jackasses

Posted by: bob at November 27, 2003 02:40 AM

NRA should stand for "National Republican Army"....all the Repubs want the right to bear arms, yet they have never had a releative die from getting shot. Now who are the pussies????

Posted by: adrianna at December 3, 2003 10:45 AM

I guess no repubs never lost a family member in any of the wars we have fought in, you are about as smart as my piece of shit I left in the toilet! so its guns that kill people huh, its people that kill people dumbass so if they ban guns who is going to protect you if we are invaded? the police or the army? neither we wont have any way of protecting ourself you should be taking out on the street and shot

Posted by: fuckyou at December 5, 2003 07:56 AM

I leave Mr FuckYou's post up by way of illustration of the sort of person that citizens of the USA should be very scared of possessing a gun. If America was relying on people like this to stop some unspecified foreign force from invading it would have been overrun long ago.

He seems to have missed the point of the military entirely. Their role is precisely to protect the citizens of the USA. They are a professional and skilled organisation and are doing an excellent job at stopping invasions. After all there haven't been any lately have there?

And, of course, members of his family won't be shot in the street if they have already accidently killed themselves because of poor firearm control within the home.

Posted by: GreenMan at December 5, 2003 08:33 AM

Agreed, Mr. FU is a moron, yet it would be improper to lump everyone who opposed your viewpoint into the same category as him.

Here are some interesting figures for the year 2002 in the United States:

US Highway Deaths: 42,815
US Flu Deaths: 36,000
US Gun Deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental): 28,163.

So now when are we going to outlaw driving cars, as they seem to cause 150% more deaths than guns do each year in America?!

You can make individual numbers paint pretty much whatever picture you want until you start putting them in context with other relevant death statistics! If you went by number of deaths by category, with your logic, Osama Bin Laden should be providing us all with driver's licences!

Posted by: DevilsAdvocate at December 6, 2003 03:28 AM

Thanks for your post DevilsAdvocate, it is nice to see some reasoned debate from the pro-gun lobby rather than abuse. It was not my intention to lump the whole pro-gun lobby in with Mr FU, appologies if I gave that impression.

To address your points, I would happily argue for measures that reduced the deaths from motor vehicle accidents, reducing speed limits, reducing allowable blood alcohol levels and increasing the age at which people can get a licence are probably a good first start.

I think you will find that the flu deaths are predominately amongst the elderly poor, although I haven't researched it. A massive injection of funds into provision of free health care to the elderly poor sounds a really great idea to me.

I agree that the bin Laden statement was flippant but I was in a mischievious mood at the time.

Posted by: GreenMan at December 8, 2003 07:53 AM

DONT YOU GET IT YET.

Posted by: KENNETH at December 10, 2003 04:54 PM

Of course I get it, American lives are not as valuable to Americans as Australian lives are to Australians.

Posted by: TheGreenMan at December 22, 2003 02:10 PM

as a person from canada i agree with green man about the NRA issue.I think that there all gun wielding rednecks that are just obsesed with guns because they have tiny penises and need the guns to feel manly. i think we shold give anyone joining the nra those miracle pills we keep getting e mails about mabe that will solve the situation.

Posted by: Randy at January 1, 2004 03:59 PM

It seems like a lot of people dont realize the uses for guns. Sure people are shot by other people but how often do you hear about that happening on a farm. The military has guns to protect our borders from intruders. Many ranchers have guns to protect their stock from predators. You say that it is rednecks on a rampage that have guns and are killing people but that isnt true. I come from Idaho which is probably the most conservative state and is very republican. But are you going to be more afraid of being shot in L.A. or Boise? People around here are raised with guns, the majority of people that have them, know how to handle them and respect them. Guns are a part of peoples lives here starting when they are young. I am unfamiliar with what fathers and sons do in other parts of the country to bond . Around here they go hunting, fishing, camping...ect At every time of year there is a season open for hunting and that provides time for fathers and sons to be together. For most hunters they only shoot what they will eat and if they do otherwise, it comes down to a problem of morals and not guns. Me trying to understand where you are coming from is similar im sure to you trying to understand this. Until you live where that is common, it seems crazy. Putting a ban on guns ceases a tremendous part of our lives here. I do believe in regulations for gun owners but know that the majority of the people using these guns to kill people are already breaking the law to have them. You have to carry a hunting license to carry any center-fire gun and a concealed weapons permit to carry a handgun on you. Children that get guns from home falls back to the parents. It is there responsibility to keep that firearm safe and to teach their children about them. We have campaigns about the awareness of smoking and sex but why cant we offer free gun education. Please voice your opinions back to me. I am doing a research paper on the topic now and can use the input. I would like to cover every side of the debate and would ike to know what you think. Thank you

Posted by: Andrew at January 3, 2004 09:41 AM

There is no doubt that there are uses for guns which are legitimate and where they should be acceptable, the farming comunity being the obvious one and there is a argument for hunters as well. There is, however, no need for these individuals to possess military style weapons. For a farmers needs a single shot rifle is quite sufficient.

One of the biggest areas of concern with the guns in the home is suicide. Guns are a major contributing factor to suicide because they are a fast and easy way to suicide on a whim. Most other methods of suicide take time to prepare or time to execute, this gives the person time to reconsider their decision to take their life. This is particularly applicable to teenage boys, one of the highest suicide risk groups in our societies ( Aust and America).

I am not proposing that all guns are banned. I am proposing that military weapons are restricted to the military and laws regulating the storage of guns are enacted to prevent their easy access by inappropriate people. Guns are powerful weapons and laws should be enacted that reflect their power.

Posted by: GreenMan at January 4, 2004 07:02 AM

I might be wrong, but arent all fully automatic weapons already illegal? It was my understanding that unless you are a dealer, you couldnt have them although i could be wrong... If suicides are your reasoning for all of this, why does it matter if they are using a military weapon or a single-shot? they only get the chance to fire once. What laws do you think they should make for gun control and what should be done to enforce them?

Posted by: Andrew at January 5, 2004 09:20 AM

There are a number of complex interrelated issues. My understanding of the assault weapon situation is that in 1994 the US government banned the manufacture of these weapons, they did not however ban owning one or transfering one to another person. Consequently arms manufactures stockpiled them prior to the law being enacted. They can still be possessed by civilians. This law will expire on September 13, 2004 allowing them to be manufactured again unless something is done.

Semi-automatic weapons allow far more killing to take place when someone goes on a killing spree, as we saw tragically here in Australia in 1996 when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people. If he had had less powerful weapons less people would have died. The same is true of the murder/suicides in Colombine amongst others.

With regard to suicide, I was refering to laws being enacted that ensure the safe/secure storage of firearms so that they cannot be obtained easily on a whim. If the weapons are in a secure locked cabinet then it is more difficult for them to be used inappropriately.

I am proposing that, rather than being a persons responsibility to keep their guns safe and out of the hands of children, it should be a legal requirement.

Posted by: GreenMan at January 5, 2004 09:44 AM

That is a good idea but how would it be enforced?

And if someone has the idea of mass murdering what keeps them from using a bomb if they have no access to a gun.

With suicides, the ban of guns would decrease that method but others: hanging, overdose, leaping, auto exhaust, would increase. Most people that want to kill themselves are going to find a method to do so whether or not it is a gun. Other methods increase the time of finding them after they have done this to themselves but why not put the efforts of banning guns into reducing suicide? It seems to me that this would be more effective.

This also brings back the education of young people to reduce accidents.

The majority of people obeying the laws will be the people that already have been. What keeps drug traffickers and murders from possessing illegal weapons. If they are not concerned with illegal drugs and murdering, why would they be concerned with a gun control law? For someone that wants something, there is always a way to get it.

Posted by: Andrew at January 5, 2004 10:39 AM

Australian firearm deaths down 50% in ten years
http://weblogs.asp.net/cameronreilly/archive/2004/01/05/47630.aspx

Posted by: Cameron Reilly at January 5, 2004 11:11 PM

unfortunately i see plenty of poorly informed people posting things in here. first off there is this talk about banning military weapons- well the truth is the only military weapons for sale in the US at least are illegal black market items. there are of course civilianized versions of those that do not fire in a burst or automatic mode. yet these firearms are functionally NO different than other arms which did not have a military design. in fact the so-called assault weapons are used in only a very tiny fraction of violent crimes. Unfortunately it is these that are televised constantly to scare people into thinking there is "an epidemic of assault weapons" as one fellow put it.
in my own experience people who are the most fervent gun-control advocates are people who have never fired a gun, don't know anything in a technical or mechanical sense about guns, and in general seem to be so scared of guns that they don't even want to get within 100 feet of one. the sad part is that it is precisely these people that set policy to force others to comform to their own flawed way of thinking. military style weapons are targeted simply because they "look mean or evil" or have been in one too many terminator movies or whatever.
in truth banning guns only harms the law abiding anyway because no gun law will instantly and completely get rid of guns, those who really want them will get them regardless of the law.
the problems that most people raise as support for gun control are really cultural/social problems that people are to lazy or naive to address and so they opt for a very visible scape goat. For example it has been show that extremely violent tv programs and movies do cause people to tend to be more violent, yet we get guys like michael douglas (who is hardly impartial) publicly trying to deny this fact. why does no one support putting a ban on all violent tv? well because now we are talking about the 1st amendment and freedom of speech...which seems to be more important than the 2nd amendment simply because it is fashionable to do so. It is very dangerous to selectively pick and choos which freedoms are "relevant" to the modern day and which aren't. the vast majority of gun owners aren't a bunch of southren baptist klansmen or psychotic would be murderers but your next door neighbors. sure people die in gun crime and accidents but then again people also die of dog attacks and car accidents and one would be called a fool if he suggested banning dogs or cars. freedoms have their price. what is needed in regards to guns is more education and perhaps competency testing in regards to safe storage and operations but bans are really just one segment of the population trying to force their way of thinking on others. Let's have more honesty and logic and less emotionalizing of issues.

Posted by: nick at January 6, 2004 12:37 PM

Why do you think we call cops when were in troble...maybe it's cause they have a gun and can protect us from a predetor. It doesn't mean your a red neck. If your a robber and you know that the owner has many guns and will shot if you try to rob them, Well i don't think he's going to choose that house. Crime rate will go down if every body had proper training with guns. Some how we've got to make it kind of like a drivers license thou. Not sure how but world be safer if we all had guns and proper usage of them.

Posted by: Tonio at January 7, 2004 09:33 AM

We call a cop because they are a sworn officer of the state with powers vested in them under the law. They are trained to deal in a fair and just way with all parties in a dispute. (Whether they do or not is another matter).

Let me restate the principal purpose of the original post was to highlight how unsafe the situation currently is not to advocate for a blanket ban on weapons.

Here are the problems as I see them:

Suicide
Accidental death, particularly of minors
Murder/suicide incidents involving multiple victims a la Columbine high school.

It might be nice to put aside our partisan positions and look at how we can address these major issues for society, both through changes to gun laws and through structural changes to society.

Posted by: GreenMan at January 8, 2004 10:11 AM

Whilst I believe the gun issue is a huge problem, it is not the cause of America's woes.

The CORE issue is the status of the American life and where it is headed. US society in general appears to be in a steady decline. Morals are degrading, belief systems disappearing, respect for human life is at an all time low. Education and poverty levels are appalling. People are angry and selfish, they expect everything yet respect no one. American society is not evolving, it is dissolving!!

Trying to fix the gun situation is putting a bandaid over a cancer that is spreading and thriving.

What's the cause, could it be the decades of glorification of violence in the media through films, TV and computer games? Perhaps. But it’s not as simple as that. America is in trouble and I fear it will take generations to repair the damage they are doing to themselves, assuming of course they can realise they are in trouble.

Posted by: Louisa at January 8, 2004 09:33 PM

I knew gun death were pretty bad but not that bad. Green man how'd you get all that crazy info. It's kinda hard to believe. I only looked at it cuz we had to research gun deaths in school, now i'm kinda glad. I might be crazy, but if you tried to put those facts out to the public more actuallyl a lot more maybe more people would do something about it

the 12 kids per day thing kinda freaks me out, what if i'm next?!! hopefully this gun thing is taken care of ASAP

Posted by: 12 year old psycho at January 13, 2004 02:53 PM

One major difference between the USA and the EU and Australia is that the United States is not a Socialist state. Now, I'm not begrudging one system over the other -- they're both good philosphies. I'm only saying this by way of background.

In a Socialist state, the government maintains more control over non-governmental actors than the USA does. The upshot is that there are more services (i.e., national healthcare, better unemployment benefits). The down side is that it's more expensive to provide these services and taxes are therefore higher.

The USA philosophy is based more on self-reliance, due to the Puritan and pioneer values that were brought here when the USA was first colonized. Consequently, the USA doesn't turn as much control of non-governmental affairs over to the police and the government in general as is such in the EU and Australia.

The USA never shifted to a Socialist state because we are too predisposed against it (i.e., our Constitution, the size of our military necessary to maintain peace in troubled parts of the world, the amount of foreign aid we give to other nations (African nations in particular), etc.)

Since we don't spend as much on internal controls, we require the individual to take more responsibility, and this includes the common defense. For example, during World War II, the reason that Japan never attempted an invasion of the USA was because Hirohito acknowledged that "there [would be] a rifle behind every blade of grass". All Americans are responsible for the common defense of the nation, not just governmental entities.

Posted by: An American at January 24, 2004 03:44 PM

"Of course I get it, American lives are not as valuable to Americans as Australian lives are to Australians." -the green man

What the fuck? that was the most fucked up thing I have ever heard.

First of all, You act like its a good thing that the australian government doesent trust their own people with firearms. They think Cops should be the only ones with firearms.

You know the brittish thought like that when they governed This country (The US) 230 years agao. And its because of shit like that, that we kicked there asses out of this country, and told them to never come back! and the United States of America was born.

You know 'green man' im assuming your a Far Left Liberal member of the Green party, given the name. (Dont get me started on the fuckin green party) Therefor im shure that you are in favor of bull shit Anti-gun bills like the brady bill, A bill that has not decreesed gun related crimes even one percent since it has been in effect, a bill that does nothing but hurt law abiding gun owners in the US. YEAH THATS A REAL EFFECTIVE BILL! SHURE IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, HUH? What a fuckin joke!

And for all of you idiots that think the brady bill does nothing but enforce backround checks, go to www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158 and read up on your shit.

Also, how bout adrianna "republicans have never lost a family member from a someone being shot by a gun" OH YEAH, guess what bitch, Being an Infantry Rifleman in the US Army, I know all about looseing people that were shot. But that doesent mean that I think that Law abiding citizens, should loose there right to keep and bear arms, In any form.

You know what, If you people really believe in Dis-arming the US citizens and takeing away there rights. Why dont you move to Austraila or England where the government thinks like that.

Posted by: Frank at February 1, 2004 07:33 AM

HEY NICK GET YOUR BIG BULDGING HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS ITS FULL OF SHIT!Ever been to Great britan?They have police officers without guns and people still call them,its not the weapon they use its the power the law gives them that makes them usefull not how armed they are. and about the comment about everyone needing a gun,ARE YOU FREEKING STUPID WHY DONT YOU ALL JUST CUT YOUR BALLS OFF NOW SO YOU DONT REPRODUCE AND MABE THERE WONT BE THIS PROBLOM TOO. WOW that last comment made no sence but yet more than you do. QUICK! shoot yourself before anyone elce can you stupid bastard..............

Posted by: Randy at February 5, 2004 09:38 AM

nick sorry i got confused though the names were on top i meant to say HEY TONIO

Posted by: randy at February 5, 2004 11:16 AM

I am as PRO GUN as they come and I don't fault you stats at all.

I think for honesty though you should:

1) Point out that more kids die every year from a) automobile accidents b) falls c) poisoning by solids and liquids d) drowning e) fires, burns, and f) by suffocation on ingested objects. Sad as they are, accidents happen.

2) Mention the number of Defensive gun uses per year (the number of rapes, murders, robberies, and burlergies gun possesion prevents).

3) State the number of gang related murders in the Homicide column. Gangsters will kill with or without a gun.

4) You should also state that when folks don't have a Gun to kill themselves they find another way so that column is irrelevant.

5) Most importantly, your source for the data.

I constantly see the anti-gun crowed resort to modifying statistics and out right lying. To persuade folks to your side you should at least tell the truth and let them decide on their own accord.

Shocking Toad

Posted by: Shocking Toad at February 9, 2004 09:33 AM

First of all, Frank, Your post offends me and dissapoints me, I am a British citizen living in america and your lack of respect of the country that moulded and helped to turn America into the great country it is appauls me. Can you not have a civilized disscussion without being extremly arrogant and ethnisist towards myself and others?
"And its because of shit like that, that we kicked there asses out of this country, and told them to never come back!"- First of all, you didnt become American citizens until after the revolutionary war, so if we are speaking literally, it would be the British who kicked the British out of the country! Also that statement about us never coming back is comepletly false, as there are many British citizens living in America. Also, did you know that the British and the Americans are Ally's? Obviously not. You can curse all you want but if you want to insult my country then get the facts first. Its ignorant people like you that give Americans a terrible stereotype, and its people like me that are going home and telling their friends in other countries that americans really arnt arrogant and ignorant. People like you are ruining this country. Not only that but the british didnt think that cops should only carry guns when we governed your country many years ago, the British helped shape the constitution that you have today, and the british were actually very pro-gun. Oh, if i could add that the reason you "kicked us out of the country" was not because we didnt support gun rights, but because of many other laws and taxes that were unfair. So please brush up on your knoledge before you slander my contry and your own.
I am a big fan of gun control, and i am writing my term paper on it now. Shoking toad- the reason you cannot use the argument that many other things kill people each year is simply because all of those other things listed are not created for the sole purpose of destroying things. Every time a gun is used it is destroying something. Also, the reason more teens die in car wrecks each year is because many more people own and use cars than they do guns. And, did you know that simply having a gun in the house hold increases homicide risks by 2x and suicide risks by 5x. If you need a source for this fact here is where i got it: http://www.musckids.com/health_library/safety/frarmsta.htm Thanks very much- James

Posted by: James Abrahart at February 18, 2004 11:37 AM

Thank you for the source James; however, that site only talks about accidents, not Suicide or Homicide rates. So I'd still like to know where you get the 2x and 5x figures.

I'll chop the error up to your mistake rather than your intent to mis-lead others.

As for the statistics on that site I find it sad that some gun owners don't raise their kids to properly respect guns; however, it's inappropriate to take away from the Majority because of the mistakes of the Minority.

Also, I stand by the fact that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. That we prevent over 2 million rapes, robberies, murders, etc. every year far outweighs the tragedy of accidental injuries and death.

As for suicide, if people really want to die, let 'em. I don't care at all what people do to themselves. I always throw away that stat as irrelevant. You can't save people that don't wat to be saved.

Also, true, guns were invented to destroy; however, that's not their sole purpose any longer. Weather it's for sport (target shooting) or protection (home/business defense) there are many valid uses that don't "destroy."

I always find it interesting that the Left has no problems murdering a 7 month old fetus but they won't let a 35 year old choose to own a gun. I thought the Left was "Pro Choice." Or is it actually that they are "Pro Abortion." Let us "Choose" to own guns and we'll let you "Choose" to murder the un-born. Sound fair?

Shocking Toad

Posted by: Shocking Toad at February 26, 2004 07:16 AM

I think that Shocking Toad is the only well spoken, educated and respectful person posting comments on this website. He has his opinions (whoich I totally agree with) yet he doesn't need to swear and sound like an idiot voicing them. And I would just like to say that it is very ignorant to say that people in the NRA are "rednecks". My entire family are members of the NRA and we are certainly not rednecks!! So, please don't say things that you know nothing about.

Posted by: adrienne at March 11, 2004 09:51 AM

sorry lady but im not goin on the NRA/KKK's side on this one. screw you and your family i dont give a rats ass. so bloody what you agree with his opinions. i agree he is well spoken and reviews his sources but there all mass media produced "pro gun" sources.

Jesus hates you

why dont you just kill another babby ass hole.

Posted by: randy at March 24, 2004 11:36 AM

I appreciate the kind words from Adrienne and even Randy, I am sure that was hard for him.

I have really only one thing to say to Randy and others not interested in the way things really are: facts are facts, truth is truth, 1+1 is 2; rain is wet; fish live in the Ocean; Guns save more lives than they take. I cannot help those not willing to know truth, I am only here to give the facts.

To verify see any of 11 studies by different authors including Gary Kleck and John Lott Jr. I won't point to "Pro Gun" sources, I'll let the folks interested in truth do a "Google Search" and find for themselves.

Shocking Toad

Posted by: Shocking Toad at March 24, 2004 06:20 PM

I can't say that I appreciate foreigners commenting on freedoms that they have never had. Australia, Canada, England, and the rest of the planet, USA excluded, serve their governments, and are subject to be ruled. Without private firearm ownership being a right, not a civil liberty,(big difference in a right and a liberty), there is not much that these citizens can do to change their fates. Enjoy your servitude. Please, oh please! stop using the blood of dead children to fortify your position. If anyone gave a damn about "the children", abortion , I mean murdering of the unborn, never would have been legalized. Fifty years ago, in this country,(USA), such violence, school shootings, etc. never happened. This was a time when firearms could very easily be had. The "laws" then pale in comparison to the treasonous crap that are called laws now. Maybe this is because the men were men and took care of their duties to raise their children properly. Maybe women were real women and took their parenting duties seriously also. Maybe the women then did not put thier children behind their "careers", having babysitters, daycare, public schools etc to raise their children for them. Maybe the children then were not the poor excuses for human beings that are being brought up now- fat, lazy, appethetic, and selfish. As for the NRA, I personally have no use for them. I wish them no ill will, however, I do not now, or will I ever, need a lobby group to fight for my rights. I have kept my firearms and will pass them on to my heirs. I was born a free man and I will die that way. Thank you for this forum. Continue on with your slave talk

Posted by: lee john enfield at March 29, 2004 01:40 PM

James Abrahart you are mistaken. England hasn't done a damned thing to make America great. Remember, we Americans fought, won, and kicked your limey asses out of our country you pompass moron. Not just once, but twice. (the war of 1812) Learn your history correctly while taking a nice ride on the qe2 back to fucking england.

Posted by: lee john enfield at March 29, 2004 02:20 PM

here's an idea, since more than 42,000 people per year die in auto accidents, let's get rid of all vehicles. i mean they kill more people than guns do according to AAA. and for those of you that think the 2nd ammendment is outdated and no longer serves a purpose, lets throw out the first one too. i'm pretty sure it's at least a few minuets older than the 2nd one.

Posted by: kb at April 13, 2004 01:21 PM

You are all very bad spellers.

Posted by: Bored at April 20, 2004 07:41 PM

Lee,

I really like your point that gun ownership is a liberty, not a right. I did some research on the Supreme Court decisions related to the 2nd Amendment and the summary of the Supreme Court is that gun rights precede the Constitution so the Constitution cannot limit that right. Be that as it may Legislators still limit our liberty, see the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban as a major case in point.

Anyway, in another comment you stated that you don't need any lobby to protect your rights. I wish that were true. Take a look at http://www.nranews.com/nra.html, click on Archives, and watch the video on Gun Owners Oversees. It's very scary and quite possible to happen here, especially if John Kerry is elected.

I've been a big gun fan for 15 years and recently began purchasing guns. I recently bought an IMI SP-21 .45 and love it. I bought a 9 mm Beretta 92 FS Brigadier Inox and Walther P-22 .22 LR last year. While getting more involved I've really seen what the NRA does for gun owners, especially the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action http://nra-ila.org). In doing the research I've coughed up a whopping $60 for a 2 year membership which includes the wonderful Americas 1st Freedom Magazine (or any of three others).

I am not affiliated with the NRA other than being a new member. I really suggest you watch that video and consider what the NRA does to protect our Liberty. Remember, if we don't protect our rights they'll be taken away. Just look what's happened in California and Washington D.C.

Best of Luck to you!

Shocking Toad

"You can lead a fool to knowledge but you can't make him think!"

"If good remains silent only evil will be heard!"

Posted by: Shocking Toad at April 23, 2004 08:37 AM

You are all terrible spelers!

Posted by: speling_mod at May 3, 2004 08:56 PM

USA Jim HATE

Gun Psyhco's

Posted by: Jim at May 12, 2004 04:43 PM

Choco loves moco
but not guns
Aussies good
USA bad

Posted by: Choco Moco at May 12, 2004 04:45 PM

Ya
me Say U no Good At spellen
Ya

Bye

Posted by: Ferdernand at May 12, 2004 04:49 PM

Bam Bam Bam
Guns go loud
gun shoot teacher and students
but no good
guns fun but bad

Posted by: Bam Bam at May 12, 2004 04:51 PM

Ive read this whole thread and my views still stand. People kill people, guns are just the most efficiant way to do it. I was born in Louisiana, raised every day of my life around guns of all kinds. Not once have i hurt myself or anyone i kno hurt themself or others with a weapon. The respect of weapons and the use of weapons where drilled into our heads from by our fathers so we never once sliped up. Now that i live in California i am not allowed to keep a weapon with me like ive always done so now i must walk in fear to my vehicle every night after work wondering if tonight is the night i get attacked by someone that brought a gun across the border. The idea that taking guns away from everyone will solve the murder problem is just ignorant...I have just as good aim with a bow and arrow as i do with my rifels. If you take my bow i still have my knife which i can kill with just as efficantly. Either way if im attacked i have a way to defend myself, and as you can tell any defense weapon can be used as an attack weapon. Education and one on one with with your children is the only way to ensure the future of our sosciety.

Posted by: Philip at May 21, 2004 05:55 AM

A report by the Institute of Medicine stated that so-called "medical mistakes" in this country annually claim the lives of between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans.

Accidental deaths due to guns are around 900 per year. Total gun deaths around 29,000.

I give this only in order to provide perspective. Around 1 in 10,000 people die from guns in a year. Sadly, about 55% are self-inflicted. And at least another 25% is gang related. So, we should be focusing on helping people thinking correctly and not allowing depression to set in and to keep young men out of gangs. If this was done, it looks like about 1 in 50,000 people may murded by someone using a gun. While any time this occurs it is terrible, it is still so unlikely .00002 or .002%; the far greater danger is taking away a principle right of U.S. citizens, one held dear and held responsibly by the vast majority of gun owners.

Posted by: Scott at June 26, 2004 12:20 AM

I feel that the big difference between deaths caused by automotive accidents, medical malpractice, natural disasters and homicides with guns would be the intention. How many deaths caused by drivers where considered homicides (intentional)? It's not a question of whom or what killed more people, it's why?
I don't think that the banning guns would stop murder amongst co-citizens, it's a much more complex social problem and FEAR seems like the main cause...why? Well if you're not afraid, why do you need a gun? Why is it that the CITIZENS of the nation with the most powerful military have to carry guns? Maybe this nation has focused more on creating enemies than friends and the consequence is FEAR…who’s to blame?

Posted by: citizenX at June 26, 2004 01:52 PM

Interestingly history shows that even after W W 1 the English and Americans did not consider each other allies. They remained such constant political competitors that an international arms limitation treaty was required to protect the world economy. (This treaty limited the number of battleships that could be built by each nation.) During the "Civil War", known here as the War of Northern Aggression, the English were great sponsors of the South and therefore showed their continued enmity of the U.S.
It was not until after W W 2 and the onset of the "Cold War" that the U.S. And G.B. became habitual allies. My own family, a Scottish Clan really, remain outlawed by the crown to this day. When the survivors of Culloden and the subsequent ethnic clensing that ocurred in the Highlands afterward made their way to this country it was with sure and certain knowlege that the English who stole our lands and murdered our people could not be trusted and must eventually be dealt with. I personally consider their "freindship" to be born out of military and economic necessity rather than any true regard. Therefore I feel them to be only slightly more trustworthy than the French. The political perspective of an English SUBJECT may not reflect full understanding of the CITIZENSHIP of the American people. And truly some lack of understanding or deliberate ignorence of this difference by some of our so called leaders may be effecting the "Gun" issue. I write this because the issue is really the right of self defense. In America we have the right and means to defend our selves and our country as we see fit, even against those who may misuse or abuse the political power we invest in them. A principle first recognized by John Locke. All governments rule at the consent of the governed. We maintain not only our right to withdraw our consent but the power to enforce it through the Second Amendment. Those of you interested in these costitutional concepts might want to read the "Federalist Papers" and other statemants of support and critizism of the constitution which brought about the "Bill of Rights" by the men who crafted our form government.

Posted by: hammersring at June 30, 2004 09:55 PM

guns are a ball to collect and shoot, i'm serious. i've had a great time shooting w/ my brothers and father since i was a boy, outstanding memories..... and there are literally not hundreds of thousands of us, but millions. there always will be. these exact same things have been debated since i started reading gun related magazines/journals, etc. in the late 60's. you'll never take the guns away from the responsible upstanding american. as you know, the enormous majority of gun related crimes are commited by people who possess the firearm illegally not by the law abiding gun owner. as they say, if you make gun ownership/possession illegal, only criminals will have guns. and your going to dry that black market supply up in how many hundreds of years? it'll never happen. i don't have the answer, (i have many an idea though) but just as it makes no sense to take away every single persons car and their booze, it makes no sense to take away every persons firearms. it's so obviously not the solution.
...and more gun laws? the people that get/have
guns who commit crimes w/ them?..... they don't care about the law!! give me a break!, hahahaha. all you do is make the fine, responsible, lawful american jump through one more hoop to buy that pistol that he'll shoot at cans in a farmers field.

Posted by: Trent Huff at August 14, 2004 04:29 AM

I've just skimmed though the posts on this site. I stopped and read most of Jaybird's. I really hope I misunderstood something somewhere along the way but it seemed like he was suggesting that teachers be allowed to carry guns INTO SCHOOLS! Again, I hope I misunderstood. In the event that I did not: Jaybird, you are either taking too many meds, or not enough. Have you thought about the ratio of children to teachers in a school? How many kids do you think it would take to overpower a teacher? These people (who are next to saints in my book. I have limitless respect for teachers everywhere) are not SWAT trained, and have enough to worry about without having to wonder if six of the seniors, for a prank, are going to try to jump them and take their gun! For what you seem to suggest to be at all effective, the guns would have to be on the teachers' persons, and LOADED! Else, they would be of little use in stopping a Columbine-type situation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually anti-gun. I appreciate the value of guns in the heritage of america, and (as someone above suggested) a bonding activity between fathers and sons. Not to mention that it can be as relaxing as golf for some people, even a wonderful lesson in nature, for those caring enough to learn how to hunt responsibly, and not just to have another head to mount on their wall. (I believe that if one kills something, they should make maximum use of that which they kill. It's just common sense. ex. I eat meat, and I wear leather. That type of thing.) All that said, I do not see the need for carrying concealed weapons. For automatic, and semi-automatic weapons. (I have never seen a deer shoot back.) I alos don't see the need for hollow-nosed or "cop killer" bullets. (I've never seen a deer wear a bullet-proof vest either.) I think for the rest, we must put our trust in the institutions we have put into place, and the men and women who serve in them (police/firefighters/national guard/etc.) "A well-armed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the government shall not infringe". Those people are our 'well-armed militia'. The greater the number of guns in circulation, the more difficult, and perilous their job is. The more powerful those guns are, the closer that job gets to being impossible.

I'm not against people having guns.

These people, however, should have to go through the same amount, and type of testing (if not more) that one has to go through to get a driver's liscence. Remebering the comparison between gun and car deaths somewhere up there, one should note that it's easier to get a gun in this country than it is to get a driver's liscence. Guns also do not have another purpose than to shoot, and kill. A car is not meant to kill, a gun is. We need to take greater care with them.

I agree with jaybird that there needs to be a greater emphasis on personal and societal accountability. We need to be more responsible for our actions, and take greater care in order to preserve our freedoms. "I want my gun, and I want it NOW!" is not responsible! A waiting period, background check, and (in my opinion) operation/maintenance/safety procedures classes should be mandatory. The more people who learn to appreciate this freedom afforded to us by the constitution, the fewer abuses of this freedom we will have to endure.

Posted by: pragma at September 17, 2004 09:51 AM

I have been a gun owner for sometime now. I (and my wife) hold a Concealed
Handgun License. I have a few things to add to this post. First, I'd like to say
that even if you hate the idea of guns, you should take the course I had to take
to have this license. Then you will see resposible gun owners trying to abide by
the law while they exercise a right. You learn so much about the legal and
emotional liability that comes from owning (and carrying) a firearm. You learn
that you NEVER want to take that gun out for ANY reason. You learn that if you
do have to pull the trigger in defense of your (or a third persons) life or
limb, that it will not be easy to deal with on any level. There will be a legal
battle, then a civil lawsuit from the bad guy's family, and finally, you have to
live with the fact that you took another human's life. I don't know from
experience, but these are the things that are taught in the CHL class. They
emphisize more on resposibilty and liability than th
e fact that you will be carrying a gun.
Next, I have an advantage... I am 27 years old, 6 foot tall and weigh 220lbs.
You may eventually convince me that I do not need a gun to protect myself, but
tell that to my 5'2" 120lb wife. She is armed, and very much capable of
defending herself... Why? because she has a cell phone, to call the police...
No, because she carries a Glock 9mm that can fight the battle that a person of
my size couldn't stand up to. How can anyone tell my wife that she has no right
to protect herself. Because the truth is, if you take her gun from her, she
would only be capable of defending herself against someone her own size. How
many 5'2" 120lb men are violent criminals? Not many, and if they are that small,
they won't come to attack you with their bare hands... they'll have a knife, or
a gun that they bought on a street corner, and didn't bother to take a course on
legally carrying that gun.
Lastly, I have been around guns all of my life. I own 7 guns in all... Other
than the media, I have never, repeat NEVER, seen a "cop killer" bullet. In
response to the hollow point (hollow nosed) bullet... They are designed to go a
limited distance and then stop by expanding. If you must shoot someone in self
defense, isn't it more desirable to ONLY hit the target you're aiming for, then
to have a bullet that travels through the person and hits something behind him,
like maybe the wall of your son or daughters room. I think you guys should
actually research the argument you are attempting to make, instead of just
voicing an unfounded opinion and making broad sweeping generalizations. I
personally thought we (as a civilized society) were trying to get away from
descriminating against people for any reason. You should look at me as a person,
not a gun owner... I try to look at you as a person, and not a victim of your
own doing.

Just my $.02 worth...

Posted by: Slider at October 4, 2004 08:02 AM

Population: 285,317,572

Homicide: 11,671
Suicide: 16,869

CDC Report, 2001 used for data

Chances of dying in a gun related homicide in the US are 0.004%, and higher if you are of 18-20 and involved in criminal activity.

Per the suicides, one assumes that those suicidal will find some way of ending their life if there are no guns.

In a country where estimates range of 200--300 million firearms, these figures are hardly alarming compared to population and numbers of firearms. Random gun crime is even rarer than the 0.004%.

Posted by: skipwahoo at December 21, 2004 11:44 PM

I do not own a gun but I am not willing to give up my right to own one if some day I choose to own one.

Posted by: julio at March 2, 2005 01:22 PM

8 Chidren a day = 2880 per year.

CDC reports only 409 deaths of children by guns in latest data.

What a BIG LIAR YOU ARE MR. GREEN MAN.

Posted by: STERNO at March 16, 2005 02:14 PM

The post is now nearly two years old however the CDC data it is based upon is in the table you can click on at the top. A quick check of 2002 data, which was not available when the post was made, shows 1,443 child deaths. An admirable reduction although it may be an anomoly.

Let us suppose however that your figure of 409 is correct, that is still more than one child per day. I am pleased you feel that is acceptable.

Posted by: Greenman at March 18, 2005 04:16 PM

I must say I find the lack of logic that you Yanks use when justifying your gun laws is hilarious. I am British and am proud of the fact that in the same year you recorded almost THIRTY THOUSAND gun related DEATHS we recorded less than 150.

Whether you personally are a responsible gun owner or not will NEVER prevent the killing of others by criminals. The only proven way to prevent this terrible loss of life is to get rid of the weapon that makes is oh so easy.

Come on, being American doesn't mean you have to stop using your brain. Isn't the cause and affect obvious to even the more stupid of you?

Posted by: Sparx at March 22, 2005 10:05 PM

Countries with antigun type societies have reasons behind there madness. But one should take a look at that madness. Let me break it down for you abit.
Australia: was a formal prison colony for England. So Australians are descended from loosers,and scum. So that maybe why they cannot be gun responsible.
England: There Military oppresses the people in true British fashion. As always the goverment has the swords,bows,guns,navy. And the people have a strong desire to work for the benifit of a queen who could care less about them. Thats there problem.
China: China needs all the people it can get. Some day there going to go left and take the middle east. Waves and waves of people. So they can't have guns cause they need all there cannon fodder.
Germany: The world doesn't want them having guns. Everytime they do they rise up and shit all over everyone else instead of them selves like they normaly do. (Germany is known for shizta)
Russia: There drunk all the time. If there was a gun related argument. It would turn into the first Nation wide shoot out.
My last point is. Without guns the goverment would just apress the American people and then who would we be? South America 2 thats who.

Posted by: Vermont American at April 27, 2005 12:18 PM

lmao at australia, vermont,

i think that all anti gun ppl r idiots, well the ones that say they should all be banned. and i read that first post about reblublicnas not being shot? wtf was that crap? also, who THE FUk says that teachers shud bring guns into school to protect the children, wud u really want mr smith carrying a 9 mili into ur english class? i mean common, or ms. wade putting hte revolver next to her apple? i mean come the fuk on!!

Posted by: junglemonkey at June 4, 2005 12:02 AM

There are millions of Americans who own guns. The only reacurring abuse of these guns comes from areas where drugs, alcohol, bad parenting, and undisciplined children are also a problem. Guns are meerly a tool used by those wanting to do bad, they are not the bad in and of themself.

Posted by: brett at June 12, 2005 07:42 AM

I agree with your statements. I also would like to say that i came to this site because i have to write a paper stating my feelings on the guns laws in america. During class one day i was saying that i felt all guns should be banned except for the military and police and even then they should have to keep the guns locked up at their bases or work buildings when they are not on duty or not practicing. I thought that i was interesting that this site had similar views and i am glad that their are people that share the same fews. I will definately use facts from this site and let other people in my class know about it.

Posted by: caroline at October 24, 2005 09:01 AM

I agree with your statements. I also would like to say that i came to this site because i have to write a paper stating my feelings on the guns laws in america. During class one day i was saying that i felt all guns should be banned except for the military and police and even then they should have to keep the guns locked up at their bases or work buildings when they are not on duty or not practicing. I thought that i was interesting that this site had similar views and i am glad that their are people that share the same fews. I will definately use facts from this site and let other people in my class know about it.

Posted by: caroline at October 24, 2005 09:01 AM

Anyone who dies accidentally by a gun is an idiot and gets what he or she deserves. Anyone who kills themselves good riddance. How many does that leave? I can't be arsed reading the survey.

Posted by: Toilet Duck at December 24, 2005 12:05 AM

I think bazookas should be legalized. And grenades too. Then I'll be ready for the next prick who wants to cut me off on my way to work.

Posted by: sasquatch at January 9, 2006 04:20 PM

Hi, just like Caroline, i, too am doing a paper on gun laws in America because i reckon it's horrendous the way some Yanks can even condone using guns without a permit. I've read some of the comments here, and yes, fine, SOME people do have permits and MAY be a LITTLE responsible, but i checked up a CNN site and no state in America requires any license or registration of ANY sort to hold a shotgun or rifle. I think it's apalling. What's really funny is that while your American Bill of Rights states in the second Amendment that you guys can carry arms to defend yourselves, it also says that as Americans, you are free, and have a freedom of speech. How can you be free when you have to worry everyday whether you get shot in the head?

In regards to 'VermontAmerican' and 'junglemonkey', you guys are racists pigs. For your information, Australia is a multicultural society which means that not all of us are Anglo-Saxon. Even if we are Anglos, that doesn't make us criminals. Look at America's crime rate compared to Australia and maybe you'll be shocked to find that descendants of criminals aren't necessarily criminals themselves. We don't have guns not because we're not 'gun responsible' but because we care about our safety we don't waste it like losers like you. And another thing, we Aussies aren't scum. No race in this entire planet is scum and if you think that a race is scum then you're the one who is scum and filth, not anyone else. Junglemonkey, if anyone's an idiot, it's you. I don't understand how you can sit there and condone guns. One day, when you're affected by a gun shot, whether it be friends or families or yourself, you'll find that you are going to regret what you have posted on this website. FInally, i don't know how old you both are, but let me just say this: GROW UP! and think of the bigger picture, not just your violent innerself.

Mr. Green Man, your statistics are very shocking and when i present them to my class, i'm sure they'll be very shocked themselves too. But i do need help in finding some really recent statistics, maybe from 2005 or 2004 or around then, i would very much appreciate it. Please email me back as soon as possible. Thank you.

Posted by: A proud Aussie at March 25, 2006 09:03 PM

I have a few comments to add to this discussion on gun control in the U.S. I am not going to cut anyone down or make any sort of degrading remarks. I am just going to state my opinion on the subject and leave it up to everyone else to decide what they think should be done about guns. I am a former Marine and I served my country. I believe that under the constitution and the first amendment that we, as americans have the right to free speech and we also, under the second amendment have the right to bear arms. I do take offense to the people out there that think everyone in america is a redneck gun toting mental case. We, as americans, should feel lucky to have these freedoms that most other countries do not. We should embrase these freedoms everyday so that they are not taken away like they have been in other countries. I have guns in my house and I educate my children and my wife that the weapons in the house are not toys and teach them safety with the weapons. I have been around weapons for many years and have never had an accident because of the safety consious mind set that I posses . With great power comes great responsibility. When you carry a gun in your home, at your job or out in public, if you live in a state that permits that, you must always remember that if you use that weapon for any reason, you had better be sure that you are right and just. Protection of myself, my family or an innocent is the reason that I have my guns. Well, I like target practicing also. Does this make me a bad person? I don't believe that. Does this make me less of a man or a man with a small penis? I don't think so. This makes me proud to be an american citizen, a citizen of the best country on the planet. I believe that people who stereotype others have closed minds and should look for a solution to their problems from within, before lashing out at others. Thank you

Posted by: CCVET78 at April 25, 2006 11:59 PM

Dear Vermont American
"Australia: was a formal prison colony for England. So Australians are descended from loosers,and scum. So that maybe why they cannot be gun responsible." This statement shows an amazing level of ignorance regarding current Australian culture and British history at the time of prisoner transportation to Australia. Were you aware for instance that Britain also transported "loosers, and scum" to America, and that per capita gun deaths in Australia are tiny by comparison to America? We had a massacre here a few years ago, so we did some things about it to try and prevent another one. The bottom line is, large numbers of guns in a population leads to large numbers of gun deaths.

"England: There Military oppresses the people in true British fashion. As always the goverment has the swords,bows,guns,navy. And the people have a strong desire to work for the benifit of a queen who could care less about them. Thats there problem." This statement is simply incredible. Do you really believe the British armed forces oppress the people? Give us some facts. This point is not worth discussing.
Unfortunately, your statements go a long way to support a belief widely held outside America,(rightly or wrongly) that Americans just don't know much about other places. You probably won't read this but I felt such rudeness and ignorance shouldn't go unanswered.
James

Posted by: james at April 27, 2006 11:15 PM

Thanks for this page. Very informative. Keep it up. As an Australian, I realise we have a long way to go on many of our own issues, but I can thoroughly recommend the tougher gun laws of our country. The statistics are very suggestive and worth careful study. Make sure you compare rates rather than relying on "Australia has a much smaller population". Even taking this into account, our rate of violent death from guns is much much lower.

Posted by: Byron Smith at May 24, 2006 07:05 PM

This "Green Man" is so full of shit. All gun deaths (accident, suicide, murder, etc.) total less than 30,000 people per year, while medical mistakes kill 100,000 people per year. Only ignorant people who have never owned a gun still believe all that gun-control bullshit.

Posted by: southerntemper at July 21, 2006 12:30 PM

Having looked through this debate, I find it quite interesting that people call the 2nd ammendment to defend their guns without actually looking at what it says. It says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Give that to any English language student and they will tell you that what that means is that because well-regulated militias [in this case, meaning National Guard and army, not groups of paranoid conspiracy-nuts] are needed to keep the country safe, anyone who is in these militias is allowed to own a gun. That's it.
Nothing about any idiot with $100 being allowed a gun, certainly nothing about recreational gun use. Only people in a well-regulated militia can say that they are constitutionally permitted to own a gun.

That's not an argument, it's just what's in the Bill of Rights. Take from it what you will.

Posted by: Caroline the Librarian at July 22, 2006 01:23 AM

By definition, a criminal is not going to care about any laws restricting gun ownership. So why do you think that stricter laws will change anything.

Gun deaths go down with less guns, ok. But what about actual violent crimes????

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Looks like the criminals, likely with what few guns are available, are free to do as they will. If I had a gun(as a criminal) and knew you were probably a law abiding subject of your country, I would feel pretty comfortable coming in with my friends to invade your home, rape your wife and daughters, and then rob you. See, that was fun, and no one was murdered! What a great accomplishment the anti-gun laws have provided for all of society.

Now if you come into my house, where I keep my Glock near me pretty much constantly, you had better bring your best. I can pretty much asure you there will be a gun related death involved in this situation. And thats bad how?....
Now GB is having knife control, because too many people are involved in knife related deaths. Spoons to follow soon I suppose and then nail files after that. Is this not silly to anyone else????

In earlier posts others have described cars as not used for the purpose of death. How do you know what is in those peoples minds when they drive drunk, angry, or just plain stupid. The outcome is the same, a dead person. More crimes are committed using a car than a gun. How many more, crap, I don't have a number. But how many crimes are commited next door from the bad guy(girl) vs. across town. It's only common sense. They need a get away don't they. You are counting cars in with guns in "drive" by shooting deaths too right. Can't use the guns there without the car.

All the "important" people who have brainwashed the commoners into thinking they do not deserve to be able to protect themselves have not put themselves in such a dangerous position. Oprah, Tony Blair, John Howard, and anyone else in the spotlight of NO GUNS= GOOD have armed body guards. Why would John Howard need to be protected at home if no crime can happen since the no gun laws are in effect. You know why, because only people with a victim mentality would go along with it happily. Clearly John Howard is not one of those people. Sounds to me like he is a perfect match for the liberals of the US is all. "I am important, I am protected! But you little people, I will take care of you when we can get there, whenever it is convienant."

All the gun slaughters in Australia could have been limited, as well as Columbine, if more "good" people had guns with them. Yes, why should a teacher leave their ability to protect themselves in the parking lot. If someone is trained to use a gun, let them carry it. It should not be accessible to students, as in hidden on their person, but I would like for my children's teacher to have some way to protect my kids. I would actually think having all teachers go through some sort of SWAT like training would actually be good even if they did not want to carry at work. As a former teacher, I know I would have taken that continuing ed class. The education systems are full of too many lazy, unionized, liberals to get this to happen anytime soon though. Just to clarify- not all teachers are that way, but too many are.

People are saved every day by having guns on them, or by another with one. For the people who are writing papers, I assume you are done with that class by now, some 2 years ago, but check this site out for some stats

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

Good info there it looks like. This article debunks many of the claims others have stated here also.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

Has anyone that posted against guns ever had one pointed at them for the purpose of doing you harm? Don't make crap up, cause you would likely change your tune if you were a victim of such a crime. I have not pulled my gun on anyone, and hope to never need to. However, if it ever comes down to it, my cell phone will only help someone call the morgue for me if I am unable to protect myself. Not what I would prefer, maybe you have different likes/dislikes than me. Just don't try and force it on me.

Oh, and the person who talked about how we should lower the speed limits to save lives, that is another bunch of bunk. All the current stats, find them yourself, show that there are less deaths per mile now with higher limits than when it was all 55.

All right here is a link to some stats

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050622_highway_safety.html

Again, limits don't always make things better.

Posted by: Glock30 at August 27, 2006 07:16 PM

Hey, check this out. The only crime that I noticed to US to lead was corruption. Canada and Australia appear to have higher rates for almost everything else I found.

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/ana lysis/icvs/statistics.php
(copy and paste the 2 parts above to get address. It would not let me post it, it said it had questionable content.)

Doesn't seem to back up all the bad things people say about the US.

Posted by: Glock30 at August 28, 2006 02:43 PM

Firstly, brilliant discussion - with a few unsavoury (unsavory for the US contingent) exceptions.

I am a British CITIZEN - there have been no British subjects since the 1981 British Nationality Act - but I have spent much enjoyable time in the US. I have no interest in owning or firing guns and, if the truth be told, I'm proud that the UK (Scotland first) implemented and can sustain a gun ban. (Aside: Guns for sport are still allowed within registered and licensed clubs throughout the UK.) HOWEVER, I accept the point that as part of the culture and history of the US, a gun ban would be impractical and unworkable (although I maintain that the 2nd Amendment does not protect this right). I don't believe that the urbanisation of western civilization should destroy the leisure activities of rural dwellers but the ease with which guns are available and the numbers of firearms floating around major cities must surely be cause for concern. Education is important but a the gun problems associated with urban life is amongst the uneducated moiety of society. Take their guns away. Take a stand: Say that nobody in a city needs a gun because no one else in the city has a gun. This change of philosophy is needed from the top down. It seems that the solution of everyone owning a gun is all too similar to nuclear stockpiling, but against ones neighbour and fellow citizen.

City folk shouldn't tell good people like CCVET78 not to live his free life (which he enjoys with great responsibility).

Country folk have to realise the fear and pain that guns can inflict on cities where the existance of such weapons has no justification. Controls are needed to save lives.

All this is simply personal thoughts and open to criticism as all are (or should be) under the First. Long may it continue.

C

Posted by: Chris the Scot at September 7, 2006 08:59 AM

Chris the Scot, and others

You are clearly missing the FACT that criminals do not give a crap what the law about gun ownership is. Anyone who thinks they do is an ABSOLUTE MORON. There is no other way about it. Why do you think someone who is robbing you, raping your daughter or other crime gives a crap what will happen if they get caught with an illegal object. The point is everyone should have the ability to defend themselves if they choose to.
This is another one of the times that the leftists would have us believe the politically correct and tolerant way is to get rid of the guns. The guns are not the problem. Again, the guns are not the problem. No gun has ever, on its own, ever hurt anyone. If one ever did, it was because someone did something with it that was dumb. Someone, as in a person, has to do something, everytime to inflict any trauma.
Having someone from another country interpret our constitution is humurous and frieghtening at the same time. If anyone does some research on the writings of the people who wrote the paper, they would find that a continuous theme, along with this country being based on Christian beliefs, is that gun ownership by the people is the way to protect the govt we have. Look at Japan in the early parts of WWII. They wanted no part in invading the US, "there would be an American behind every bush shooting" at them. You know what, they were correct.
Why is there more crime in Washington DC than in Nashville. The gun laws are stricter by far in DC. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.doc

Look at the crimes per capita at this link for countries-
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Here is murders per capita, no US in top 5 again

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

I don't see the US on the top 5. How many people own guns legally in these top 5 nations? Not many, compared to the US.

"All this simple personal thinking" is HOGWASH.

Look at the facts. In this post and the others before I have given impartial or even partial against my beliefs that supported me data. But we have to revert to the "this is my feeling" crap. You can have your feelings all you want, don't try and restrict my freedom with it though. The life you save may be your own if someone has a gun pointed at you and I come up from the side and take care of the situation before you are dead.

Vermont has one of the least restrictive gun laws in the world. Carry just about anywhere, by almost anyone *no fellons*, and I don't hear about big shootouts and mass murders happening there much. How is that. Maybe the people who carry there take it serious and the criminals there know it too. If you were a ciminal, you would be retarded to mess with anyone in VT. If the victim does not carry, the guy next to them probably does. You will likely be shot yourself. Now, are you going to argue that that possible death is a negative statistic to have on the books. I think not.

Lets keep things to stats, actually read them, if you aren't scared that you will change your mind that is.

I would suggest that it is not the gun that is the problem, but the criminals who are getting more rights than their victims that is the problem.

Posted by: glock30 at September 11, 2006 12:02 AM

I like the thread, I like the discussion, and I would like to correct a previous poster who did not pay too much attention to the history of the War of 1812.

When the enemy comes sailing up the river, disembarks in your capitol, burns down the house of your president, and puts all the available treasure into a sack, you have lost the war. The British did that, and while we wrote songs about the Star Spangled Banner, they sacked and burned out capitol city.

Posted by: Milt Findley at September 20, 2006 10:00 AM

There seem to be two central arguments of the pro-gun people in this thread. One is that because no gun law will stop criminals from keeping and using firearms, it is immoral to take away people's right to defend themselves. The second, which was the purpose of the 2nd amendment, is that we must preserve the ability of the citizenry to defend themselves against foreign and domestic tyranny.

To the first point I say, where do you draw the line? I am no fan of Michael Moore, but he made a very amusing point in Bowling for Columbine when he asked Charlton Heston if it would be ok for private citizens to own weapons grade plutonium. Obviously Moore was using hyperbole to make a point, but believe it or not, Heston struggled to answer. It's easy Charles, the answer is NO! It doesn't matter if al-Qaeda gets hold of a nuclear bomb, it doesn't make it sensible for civilians to be able to respond in kind. In the post 9/11 era, should we all have access to surface to air missiles to take down hijacked planes? Of course not. The more lethal the weapons you allow citizens to have, the higher the stakes are for the criminals and vice versa. It's a self-fulfilling and circular argument. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I would contend that the current easy access to firearms in the US draws that line way too far away from common sense.

No matter how you play with the statistics, gun related crime, injuries and deaths in the UK, where private gun ownership is all but illegal is, proportionately, a tiny fraction of that in the US. You simply don't get psychos walking into schools and killing people, and that is not for a lack of psychos.

To the second point I have to ask: Do you seriously believe that the private citizenry of the US could defend themselves against a tyrannical government backed up by the US military? Given the might of the US military, do you think it is a realistic possibility that any foreign power would attempt an invasion of the US?

I would suggest that the answer to both those questions is no and that therefore the 2nd amendment, as intended, is moribund.

Posted by: Jerry at October 5, 2006 01:45 AM

So all of you who are so blind to the truth can hopefully open your eyes, read this

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24208&catcode=13

Posted by: Glock30 at October 11, 2006 01:52 PM

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

40 reasons to ban guns.....

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -
give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban
and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to
that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because
they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun
is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use
of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with
cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Posted by: glock30 at October 16, 2006 04:11 AM

ur all wrong

Posted by: david at October 27, 2006 04:10 PM

ur all wrong

Posted by: david at October 27, 2006 04:10 PM

Well,

The reason the second Amendment was added into the Constitution was so if the government of our country tried to supress its people, the people would be able to bear arms to over throw the government. A legitamate reason. Seeing as how the Constitution was made when? Thats right, The War of Independence.

Adrianna stated that republicans have never had relatives that have died due to firearms. I'm sorry, did i hear that right? Republicans? The only ones with balls big enough to fight wars? The war in Iraq is a prime example. While the liberals sit at home watching CNN writing their congressman about how many US soldiers are dying in Iraq, the conservatives (Republicans) are actually dying in Iraq and yes by handguns. As well as IEDS, RPGS, SMF, VBIEDS, and many others. I am a republican and i am in the military. Since the beginning of my service i have met probably 10 or so liberals. Since the beginning of my service i have met probably 400-500 people, personnaly. We are PRO Bush, PRO GUN, and PRO war on terrorism. So if the Liberals at home could stop complaining about what their not doing, it would be appreciated. FYI you are disgracing every servicemember the military as ever had. Cindy Sheehans son is rolling over in his grave. Clarence Darrow said that "I am not free, until everyman is free." Do you honestly think that an Iraqi man or woman doesnt deserve the freedoms that my wife and I do? Better yet, that you do? I don't hate every liberal, but hearing things like that come out of peoples mouths, well it leaves a bad impression.

I would agree that there needs to be stricter gun laws in America though. Why does it seem that every gang banging thug wields a handgun? Currently i am in Hampton Virginia, and quite recently i had a gun pulled out on me at a McDonalds, yea a frickin McDonalds. The hood rat that pulled a gun on me, deserves to die. It would be doing the world a favor if someone took the inner city decay off the streets. Staying in school was too tough, so drugs and violence are the key (apparently). In truth, it would seem as the Hip-Hop (Rap) community is brainwashing young inner city youth with images of wealth and fame, with the simple price of selling drugs and carrying firearms. I would like to know why Fifty Cent has a firearm? or Eminem? how did they aquire gun licenses? Both convicted of crimes.

How about these simple rules?

1. If you go to prison. You are no longer allowed to buy or possess weapons. PERIOD

2. If you are an illegal immigrant, you are not allowed to buy or possess weapons.

3. A better background check on all Firearm buyers.

Now, a large deal of homicides involving handguns in the USA are from stolen or illegally imported weapons. So, if you were to un-arm me, that leaves me with Super Soaker, and that leaves the criminal with AH HA! A firearm! Why do you ask? His is stolen or illegaly imported! not much you can do against that. The USA can't just say POOF there goes all the guns. How did the bad guys get them in the first place? Most likely not through a typical gun dealership with a frim background check. Where i can buy my wife and I protection, seeing as how i am a law abiding citizen. To protect ourselves from the criminals with guns. Im sure the statistics dont read - How many gun deaths WOULD have happened if law abiding citizens hadn't had protection.

All in all
You can not take the Guns away from the Law abiding citizens until you can 100% quarentee that there are NO firearms left in the hands of criminals. I got my gun legally, and use it legally. If the government Bans Guns, i will turn mine in, but, will the people with criminal intent turn theirs in? I think not and im sure anyone would agree on that. So there I am in in my house with my children wife and I dead, why? My Sig wasnt by my bed post when killers came in, because i had given it back to the government that i trusted to protect me. Wonder why the killers didnt give theirs back.

FYI more people have died from drowning in their bathtubs since the start of the Iraq war, then US soldiers have died in the Iraq War. So if i were you, stay out of the tub.

Posted by: Daniel at October 30, 2006 12:09 AM

Daniel, thank you for your service.
You have some very good ideas, except one. More gun laws are not needed. The ones we have just need to be enforced. If the pansy liberals would understand what the death penalty was actually for, some of the killers on the street might think twice about pulling a trigger on a "true" innocent.
As for the laws you suggested, I know of no legal way for a felon to own a gun, an illegal alien to carry one, much less concealed, or how much more invasion of privacy is needed on background checks than already exists.
Hate to hear that you had a gun pulled on you out eating. One thing about the rap people, they do carry their own and don't tell others they should not very often. Not like Rosie and her body guard. She would never own or carry an evil gun, but her body guard takes one to drop her kid off at school. Only the rich should have guns to protect them, they are the only ones worth saving, fat big mouthed lazy angry do-nothing washed up comics.....thats who really matters in the USA. Not a hard working heterosexual man who wants to protect what little he has (mainly his loving family) from the scum of the earth that Rosie thinks should visit everyones home but her's apparently.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Here let me help those too blinded by mommy and daddy liberal to read it for yourself.

A well regulated militia (1st part of the amendment), being necessary to the security of a free state(a description of why the militia is needed- and NO it is not refering to the NATIONAL GUARD (how could a state be national?), the right of the people to keep and bear arms (second in the list of issues being stated as a right), shall not be infringed (DON'T TELL ME YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS- What part of "shall not" don't you understand?????). All of you from other countries that want to say how horrible the US is, guess what....we don't give a CRAP what you think. This is our country. Take away whatever you want if you don't care to let otherwise defenseless people defend themselves, the criminals still have guns, I assure you. You are an absolute MORON if you think otherwise. I hate to call names, but MORON is all you are if you think organized crime or even common street thugs can't get a hold of a gun in your anti-infested world. Good luck to yah!

Posted by: Glock30 at November 8, 2006 06:13 PM

Oh, hey david, I read your post after I posted this last one I did. Now that I read your convincing arguement, "ur all wrong" I see the error in my thought process. Your communication skills are incredible. I bet you are on a motivational speaker tour right now aren't you. You are almost as smart as Al Gore, maybe even smarter than the inventor of the internet.

Posted by: Glock30 at November 8, 2006 06:19 PM

I thought guns were illegal in GB, guess they didn't convince the crimianls that they should not break the law! What a bunch of morons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VA2AX3KXQID41QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/06/nshot06.xml

No slowdown in violence there either apparently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GJS0WTJGY2PJLQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/06/nshot106.xml

Posted by: Glock 30 at December 6, 2006 06:51 PM

This entire debate about banning guns and so forth: In my opinion, it's never going to stop. Every year, there are so many countries out there building building bigger and better guns, WMD and so on. They claim it's for national security.

Ever since the dawn of time, from time of the cave people, man kind has just been greedy and territorial. It's never going to stop. Does any one care that every gun produced contributes to the crisis of global warming? Most of us probably just watch the news, watch all the horrible natural disasters that are ocurring in the world, say: "That's tragic!" and then go back to killing the environment.

This may sound like it has very little to do with guns, but the fact is mankind has already produced this 'appliance' that's sole purpose is to take the lives of others, if not humans, of animals.

HUman kind will never be able to eradicate guns from the US or any where else. This sad truth is because there will always be people who argue for the sake of arguing; for the sake of proving to every one else that they are right, when the real problem at hand isn't to do with the actual guns.

It's to do with human kind. It's to do with the actual people. It's to do with our perpetual search to determine what's wrong or right. All of us have different upbringings, different values. We take pride in having our freedom to think, to speak, but how do we know that these values are right?

Like some people have said, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the cirminals. The fact is, guns were created to cause harm. It is the intent of the guns, the reason why there are guns that is so immoral and what is generally considered to 'wrong'.

I would love to see weapons, guns, everything destroyed. I would love to see humans treating other humans as humans, but unfortunately, i don't think that's possible.

We're never going to stop being greedy, selfish. It's the way we've all been brought up. The world simply doesn't have the resources to satisfy everyone and this builds resentment, whether we would like to admit it.

If we could all try care a little bit about every one else. If we could try to think beyond our own lives and the handful of poeple our lives affect. If we could all try not to be greedy or selfish or nasty to any one, i'm sure the world can be a better place.

It may sound naiive and a lot of 'work' but global warming is a sign from mother nature that humans need to start "thinking global, acting local". It's a sign that we all need to reduce the unsustainable lifestyles that we lead. It's a sign that we need to start caring and being considerate of others. IT's a sign that shows us how greedy mankind has been.

To eradicate guns, we need to start thinking about our values. Why do we value the so called "high" life, with fast cars and big mansions? Why are we always striving to earn MONEY to let us live un restricted lives?

If the majority of people begin to change their values, if we begin to be motivated for selfless reasons, if we begin to not see money as the ticket out of everything, then we can start to tackle issues like gun violence, terrorism etc.

That's my opinion, it's my new year's resolution as well. I hope that others will agree with my opinion about what is right and try to change their values too.

Posted by: Hooey Gooey at January 25, 2007 04:35 PM

Glock 30,

I find you offensive and childish. Please try to care about other people and not just ur ego and pride.

Hooey gooey,

what u've said really makes sense. i agree, its because of the materialistic way of the world that has pressured those in the entertainment and products business to keep advertising ways in which people can have 'better' things and lives.

oh and btw, i live in Australia and we're in a terrible drought. i think one of my new years resolutions will be to cut down on my shower time and usage of water in general. =]

Posted by: TDK at January 25, 2007 04:48 PM

A common theme amongst the critics is that if you ban guns only the criminals will have them. A fundamental flaw in this argument is that criminals are somehow separate population from the rest of the community. The reality, of course, is that some people who weren't criminals become criminals and some criminals become normal law abiding citizens.

Never-the-less The Green Man thinks that reducing the number of guns in the community can't be a bad thing. In support of this argument research shows that the tough gun laws that were introduced in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre has worked. The number of mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur was 13, after the gun buy back zero. The number of gun related murders and suicides has halved, accordingly the general murder rate and suicide rate have declined.

The reality is that if there are less guns there is less death. America may value its right to bear arms but it pays a high price in citizen death.

Posted by: Greenman at February 16, 2007 03:47 PM

You Americans really hate each other don't you?

Why don't you all get guns and shoot each other?

Posted by: Bush at March 5, 2007 05:34 AM

As an American I must say that living in England was such a great experience & understand why they take pride in defending their country.
I live in a crime ridden drug infested city called Baltimore where shootings are a daily basis. Average murders per year 275, majority from firearms.
Before you pro gun nuts go beserk on your firearms, remember one thing.. Why do you think Americans are so bent up on owning guns? They say for protection, but I say out of fear which is what the US government is trying to instill into every American in order so that they can control each of us. Our government feeds on fear trying to turn America into a totaltarian state.
Everything from gun crimes, failed war on drugs, US government wants us to destroy each other as an easier way to implement their total control. Think about it, makes sense.
Before you Americans start bashing Europe with their gun control laws, our state of affairs in America is nothing at all to be proud of. America is such a divided country people, morale in this country is very low, with income inequality the largest among industrialized countries (Europe, Japan, Asia)
America may be the most powerful country in the world, not a place I am proud to call home.
British Bob

Posted by: British Bob at April 4, 2007 01:48 AM

As an expat Australian living in NY for the last year, I will put my two cents in too.

The whole debate about gun control can be boiled down to this: restricting the access and availability of guns will reduce a large number of avoidable deaths every year, including a) accidental firearm deaths, b) suicides that are made 'easier' by having a gun, and c) altercations (i.e. fights) that could be settled by a few punches and perhaps a few stiches, but instead end in a murder. This is not to mention the negative impact on crime more generally generated by an abundance of firearms, and dont get me started on psycho/cultural impact 'gun culture' is having on poor inner city kids and the rest of the country.

American citizens and politicians trade all of this off for the vague and totally ridiculous notion that mass ownership of guns will somehow 'protect' against the 'government'. Does anyone really think that a few thousand nutters with AK-47s could viably take on the might of the US army's tanks, missiles and heavy artillery? Who is this 'government' that people need to be protected from - and if this is a valid fear then much better to reform your system of government to regain control over the way power is exercised.

How may more massacres and deaths before people wake up?

Thanks.

PS: some people spell really really badly.

Posted by: New York Minute at April 21, 2007 05:53 AM

For those Americans that have firmly entrenched in their minds that their current attitudes to guns is appropropriate or good here is a graph of male youth deaths by guns by country.

click here

Posted by: Greenman at April 27, 2007 03:30 PM

In 2004, there were nearly 61 million children age 14 and younger in the
United States. This age group made up 21 percent of the total U.S. resident
population in 2004.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every
age from 3 to 14 years old (based on 2002 figures, which are the latest mortality
data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).
In 2004, there were a total of 42,636 traffic fatalities in the United States.
The 14 and under age group accounted for 5 percent (2,157) of those
traffic fatalities. This age group accounted for 4 percent (1,638) of all vehicle
occupant fatalities, 9 percent (246,000) of all the people injured in motor
vehicle crashes, and 8 percent (214,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured
in crashes.
Every day in the United States, an average of 6 children age 14 and younger
were killed and 673 were injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2004.
In the 14 and under age group, males accounted for 56 percent of the fatalities
and 47 percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2004.

Statistics from NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

These automobiles are licensed and registered , as are the drivers . They are manufactured under strick goverment controls and regulations , also sold with govermental input , yet there were 42,636 deaths that occured with the assistance of these machines . Where is the outrage over these deaths .

With that said , firearms are far more regulated than any car .

Now for a question ;
If I register my guns and obtain a license for them , shouldn’t I be allowed to carry them any place that a car is allowed ?

Posted by: Terry at April 27, 2007 03:57 PM

It appears that many Americans think so, which is one more reason why you would not want to live there.

On one of your earlier points, my understanding is that you have to at least show some competence with a car before you can get a drivers licence, I don't think there is any such requirement with a gun in the US.

Posted by: Greenman at April 27, 2007 04:03 PM

Guns are designed to kill, cars are not. There is in fact less training for a gun in America, something designed to kill, than a car which takes 5 years to gain a full license for.
Gun deaths in America are caused by accidents and suicides not gang shooting.
Only New York and Los Angeles have an innegligible amount of gang voilence and that represents about 5 percents of America.
Most gun deaths are caused by accidents in southern states approximately 19 percent according laughably to the Bureau of disease control and prevention (America not trying to hide the stats)
Is the lifestyle of a few states worth 19 percent of 100,000 deaths a year.

Posted by: Reason at May 2, 2007 04:18 PM

For something that is not designed to kill, cars sure do a good job of it!

Look at the stats. Australians rape, assault and rob each other at rates way higher than the USA.

Posted by: Jay at June 15, 2007 12:20 AM

people kill people...hmmmm, okay, well, i don't think i would kill many people if i stood in the middle of a bunch of people and shouted BANG.
STUPID DUMBASS CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLE JERKOFF DISCUSSTING REPUBLICANS.

Posted by: camille at June 16, 2007 10:46 AM

The phrase, Guns don't kill people, people kill people, is very true and you my friend are obviously missing the point. If someone had a gun and wanted to harm someone with it then almost automatically we can assume that this person does not care for laws and therefore would not necessarily go about getting this gun legally. So, if you were to make a law that would restrict citizens from possessing firearms that law would not effect this individual, it would only effect that law-abiding citizens that have concealed carry permits and would have tried to protect their lives if given the chance. Now that you took that right away the citizen that would try only to protect his or her life is screwed and the asshole that got his gun illegally is just put in a better position.
Now, lets say that now you democrats thought of yet another law, but, this law actually works! Isn't that a surprise. So you've disarmed the individual that wants to do harm, every things fine now right? wrong. ever heard of a zip gun? I have. A zip gun by definition is a crude, improvised firearm, usually a handgun. Zip guns are easy to make out of a lot of things flashlights, metal pens, and other things that are easy to posses. So now that, in this example, no one except the police and military possesses firearms it would still not be helping the law-abiding citizens that would have tried to protect their lives had you given them the chance. This brings me back to the statement, Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is expressing that guns are not bad. The "people" as you might call them (I'd call them scum or maybe filth, or a vile being at most) are bad. And if you are to take away the 2nd amendment, or restrict it more than it has been, Then who ever would try to get a gun to hurt someone would just get (or make) something else to do the job, for instance a zip gun, or something else.

Now, Greenman I am replying now to the last post you made about not having to show competence to get a concealed carry permit.
You must be:
-at least 21 years of age
-have NO criminal record
-have a certificate of competency or prior equivalent documentation
Also, an FBI background check is carried out along with fingerprints being inked and rolled or electronically scanned.

Posted by: Dan at July 26, 2007 12:50 AM

camille, you are so articulate, and I don't know how I could muster a comeback for such profound smackdowns! You are truly a brilliant individual.

I love people who think "everyone should be more open and accepting of others, tollerance is a must!" That is, until someone wants to do something you don't agree with. Its hillarious!

Everyone has to be tollerant of me, but poo poo on you if you don't see things my way. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh and camille, yes you could kill people by doing that "bang" thing. If you did it loud enough and in the right place you could start a stampeed of people and they could run each other over. Same if you went their and yelled "FIRE".

On the other hand, the gun laying next to me right now as I type this in bed, will NEVER, I mean NEVER kill me while it sits there. It is an inanimate object, and I could yell at it all day and feel completely safe.

Anyone who thinks LA and NYC are the only places gangs are busy, is, well....wrong!

Greenman, your car and gun comparision is absolutely flawed. To purchase a car takes only money. Same with a gun. To operate a car on the road, legally, you need a license. Do you really think everyone on the road went to that trouble, are you really that naive?

What is a gun designed to do? Fire a projectile from the barrel. Where that projectile is aimed is up to the person wielding it.
It can be used for fun-target shooting
It can be used to defend yourself
It can be used to hunt for food
and yes, bad people can use it to hurt others.

What is a car designed for? Using your logic here.....
A deadly weapon for killing others on the road
A method of escape after/during another violent crime
A projectile to kill pedestrians on the sidewalk of a neighborhood festival
A key ingredient in DUI

Bad people use "things" in bad ways. It does not make the "things" bad.

Too bad some people can't separate things logically, but instead transfer their fears, weaknesses and obsessions onto all others.

Posted by: Glock30 at August 7, 2007 02:32 PM

I am amused that one of the anti arguments is suicide when Japan's suicide rate is enormous and their gun ownership rate is minuscule...

Posted by: Jeff at August 26, 2007 05:15 AM

I love guns, I am of the pure race, Alaska will take over all of you ninnies. A suckling salmon will be the symbol of life. I am dominance.
Pure

Posted by: Jordan Jenckes at September 4, 2007 08:00 AM

What utter garbage. You have no clue. Gun deaths among children are closer to 300 than 3000 and that is among 80 million gun owners and 250 million guns.

Not even the slightest idea what it means to be a free man. Liberty was won with blood and will be again and again. In every corner of the world where bad men and women who enslave or ethnically cleanse another, men and women with guns will come to the innocents rescue, again.

In the future it may be laser beams or photon cannons but it will be a weapon to be sure.

Go ahead and ban kitchen knives and swords. roflmao here. Ban rocks, sticks, umbrellas etc. Maybe we should cut off everyones hands. No way to hold a weapon there.

You witless wonders will keep banning shite like that and miss the real dangers out there. The worst being bacterial warfare. Good luck dodging that bullet.

More than 50,000 people are killed on the road each year and 16000 or so of those by drunk drivers every year. around 400 are children 14 or younger.

Some 90,000 are killed by doctor's mistakes, 1.5 million are killed or harmed by pharmaceutical errors and another 100,000 are killed by taking the correct prescription.

"Prescription Drugs. . . account for more deaths each year than all murders, auto accidents and airplane crashes combined. It is estimated that 100,000 people die every year from the adverse effects of prescription drugs and one million are injured so severely they require hospitalization."
Thomas Moore, The Miami Herald6

Focus man! Your blinded by the hyperbolically charged rhetoric surrounding the gun non-issue. Just get tough on the criminals and leave the innocent non-criminal alone. Guns don't kill, people do. Like doctors.

Next. . . .

Posted by: merlin at January 20, 2008 07:57 PM

You just keep that head placed firmly in the sand Merlin

Posted by: greenman at January 21, 2008 10:47 PM

Who has their head in the sand? I would say you have your head up your ass. The facts remain, there is not blood flowing in the streets of states with conceal carry. Legal gun ownership is not a problem. Criminals are the problem. What part of that is not clear. Just look it up in any dictionary. Criminals commit crimes. Conceal carry owners are less likely than a police officer to be a criminal. THAT IS FACT.

If you want the big picture go here
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Check out the comparision between
drowning + Motor Vehicles vs firearm deaths in 1-4 year olds / 982 to 59
Ages 5-9 Guns to Motor Vehicles / 44 to 560
Ages 10-14 Guns to Motor Vehicles / 188 to 763
Ages 15-24 Guns to Motor Vehicles / 6664 to 10657
25-35 guns to MV / 6179 to 7072
36-44 guns to MV+Poisonings / 4800 to 12000+
45-54 guns to MV+Poisonings / 3500 to 13000
55-64 guns to MV / 2500 to 4300
65-85 guns to MV 92/7000

Seems to me swimming pools, cars, and medicine do a whole lot more to kill everyone than guns ever could. When you just throw big numbers out without putting them in perspective, you don't really get an honest answer. But where is your outcry against the auto manufacturers, swimming pool installers, pharmacutical co's???? Their product kill more than smith and wesson ever will. Just because you are SCARED of guns, you are self righteous enough to think that everyone should be scared. You don't really want to real picture if all you do is thrown one stat out there.

Posted by: Glock30 at January 30, 2008 03:51 PM

[quote]"The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns[/quote]

----murder is illegal.

----suicide comes, many times, from an inability to cope with stress. we are raising our kids today in a society that tells them "everybody can win" and we make sure they do. if they fail, we lower the bar, so they pass. we shield them from failure at the very time thay are developing mechanisms to cope with the failure that will inevitably come. when it does, they don't have the tools to cope with it, and take extreme measures.

---accidents involving guns. if one is properly trained in how to safely use and handle a gun, (instead of being told "guns are bad") one is less likely to have a firearm accident. if children are taught correctly, they are less likely to see guns as a "magical grown-up thing" and more like a tool, like a hammer.

[quote]- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century[/quote]

----were these gunshot wounds at home self-inflicted? break-ins?

[quote]- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.[/quote]

[quote]- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)[/quote]

----much (not all) of the murder in these cities are gang-related. the primary source of gang funding is the drug trade. there is only profit in drugs, because they are illegal. {warning, what follows is just an opinion} If they would legalize the sale of drugs, they would be cheaper. many of the addicts would OD, and die (unemployment solution). more supply and less demand = no money in it. no money, no gangs.

----crime rates, in general, would be much less if they made prison a place where nobody wanted to go. (no tv, no radio, only prison loaf to eat, no air conditioning, HARD labor 7 hours a day 6 days a week, and shorter sentences for the first offence.) pretty soon, the word would get out that you didn't want to go to prison, they make you work.

[quote]If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."[/quote]

Posted by: copycat42 at February 23, 2008 05:20 PM

I find it humorous that when real life numbers are presented, the "I'm scared of guns" don't have anything but their own fears to fall back on as a reason for banning guns.

By the way the 8 "children" a day includes violent repeat criminals involved in gang activities, doing "adult" crimes and getting killed doing them. Obviously the "children" description is used to invoke visions of toddlers getting mowed down by full auto AK-47's and other "Assault" weapons (by the way, they are basically non-existant in the real world of crime despite what some news anchors would have you believe.

Posted by: Glock30 at March 4, 2008 12:46 PM

I find it humorous that when real life numbers are presented, the "I'm scared of guns" don't have anything but their own fears to fall back on as a reason for banning guns.

By the way the 8 "children" a day includes violent repeat criminals involved in gang activities, doing "adult" crimes and getting killed doing them. Obviously the "children" description is used to invoke visions of toddlers getting mowed down by full auto AK-47's and other "Assault" weapons (by the way, they are basically non-existant in the real world of crime despite what some news anchors would have you believe.

Posted by: Glock30 at March 4, 2008 12:50 PM

Being a gunowner and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, I enjoy reading arguments from both sides, but I sure wish that those without talent for spelling and grammar would run a check on their comments before posting.
It really reduces the impact of any argument when it is written by people who don't care what others think of them.

Posted by: freetek at March 20, 2008 05:49 AM

Another Aussie perspective. What greenman is doing is doing is very useful. I live in a community much like the US, yes I've spent time in US and Canada.
What do I know about violence? 1 Disarmed a deranged chemist trying to chop up a taxi driver. No guns involved. 2 Broken up a pack rape and helped girl to escape. 3 Caught a robber after a chase,no gun involved. 4 Got up while living in Africa and found a coup was taking place. Survived to tell tale 5 Broke up drunken brawl at a ball game with help of my brother ,no gun involved. Can you see that there is a pattern here, and I am only 5 foot 9. If we all had been packing firearms how many deaths would there have been. Guns are too lethal to be every bodies play thing. Have a regulated militia, have gun clubs for hunters and target shooters. Cut pack on cops carrying sidearms. Teach talking first not shooting first and the Us would be a freer much safer place.
What is the Motto? In God or guns you trust.
Edwin R

Posted by: Edwin Rule at March 25, 2008 05:39 PM

You are very fortunate that you did not run into someone else with a gun. Do you really think that criminals in Austr. don't have guns? Come on...Don't tell me about free. Free is free to protect yourself in the way you see best. The police have no, repeat NO responsibility to protect an individuals safety. Drunken brawls, maybe you need to be more careful where you hang out. Rape? Good the bad guys got away to rape again. No one is telling anyone else they HAVE to carry a gun. But as you have shown from your experiences, bad things happen without guns. Guns are not the problem. You actually prove that guns are in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM the problem. It is the wackos out there, with hands, blades, cars, whatever. Quit blaming the tool some use to protect themselves. Clearly you should not have a gun if you consider them "play things". I also find it humorous that you are basically praising these scum bags you find for being kind enough to commit their crimes without guns...Maybe they wouldn't have been so likely to do the crime if they thought the person they were attacking could shoot them?? Yeh, that could make a difference.

Posted by: Glock30 at March 26, 2008 02:23 AM

It appears from a number of the comments that there are a lot of folks out there with a very limited vocabulary. I do have to wonder why we Americans don't have much to say about the thousands of men, women and children killed by guns and violence each year, but we get all worked up about the seemingly small number in comparison of our military men and women who have died in the past 5 years. Its just my opinion but its obviously just a knee jerk political reaction.

Posted by: RR at March 26, 2008 05:50 AM

The military deaths, while tragic, are pretty much the same as if they were at home training on a daily basis. I have lived near 2 large training Army bases and practically every week during "peace" time soldiers were killed in helicopter crashes/ friendly fire accidents, etc. Did you take a few minutes and look at what the stats really say about the thousands killed by guns each year???? Cars kill way more people. Where is the outrage at all these people eating, phoning, sleeping, drinking, and generally not paying attention hurling 4000lb missiles down the road?? Why so worried about a silly little gun, compared to an SUV. If you compare the danger of and SUV vs a 357mag revolver, there is no comparision. The SUV is many times more dangerous. Its much easier to kill a mass of people with the SUV. Why not outlaw the SUV?

Posted by: Glock30 at March 26, 2008 07:56 AM

Glock30 You live in a country that calls itself a democracy, but is derided by most other countries for relying on violence to resolve conflict. 4000 of your own dead and 90,000 of Iraqis! What a tragedy,the good book says ,"come now and let us reason together", something US presidents only seem to do when they are nearing the end of their term of office. Your response that I was lucky, consider British police who usually do not carry guns.I feel a lot safer in the UK than in the US. I have spent a lot of time in courts and prisons, my understanding is that guns breed guns. Looking at my email again I did not blame the tool as you suggested, I sought to point out the futility of living in fear, while putting your trust in the NRA and firearms. I mentioned the gun clubs etc as a withdrawal mechanism for those who must have their shot. G30, No other civilised place on earth has the gun culture you have. And as you know, no nations outside of war zones looses the innocent children and young people the US looses week after week. Maybe I should send you some Pete Seeger or Joan Baez songs on the futility of weapons. However I do admire you for sticking in with your point of view, but think again, your point of view is, In Guns you Trust and that is surely
unamerican. Edwin Rule

Posted by: Edwin Rule at March 26, 2008 05:41 PM

Considering the 2nd in a list of ammendments to our constitution is dealing with bearing arms not being infringed, I hate to tell you, it was the 2nd most American thing to the fellas who started this country, which is pretty much the only reason the 20th Century ended withouth Germany ruling the earth. You clearly have not read the post quoting deaths stats. To think that guns are at the root of all of Americas troubles is rediculous! Please READ the stats I posted. I did not make this up. Less than one a day under age 14 in the whole country, you don't think knives, shaking baby sitters, and neglectful parents don't kill more? Lets make people get a license to have kids, after they prove they can pass a parenting test. That would save more kids than getting rid of all the guns.

Iraq has NOTHING to do with this. Peace'nicks just don't get you don't negotiate with mad men. Why didn't your country negotiate with Hitler? Oh, I thought they did, glad we could bring our guns over to save you.

You want the real problem? Look at when guns became a "problem". It is spooky to me that it happened right about when they took God out of school and the attack on anything God began. The humanists have brought the disregard for human life to a new high, or in my opinion, Low.

I carry my gun pretty much everywhere I go. I hope to never need it. I avoid any verbal conflicts that anyone would want to start with me. I don't flip people off while driving, or any other time. I keep watch on my surroundings. I have to go to California in a couple weeks and I am not allowed to exercise my rights there. I don't live in fear, staying inside the hotel room and never going out. I just step up my awareness even more. Somehow, I have not gotten in a brawl since 1st grade. When people tell stories about drunken brawls, I have no doubt they have NO business touching a gun. I am over 6 foot, but that means nothing if there are 2 or more committed criminals meaning me or my wife harm. The gun simply makes things a little more even.

I don't trust Joan Baez, the NRA, or my firearms. I trust in Jesus, but God gave me enough sense to know that there is nothing wrong with doing my best to protect my family. If you don't agree, I suppose you send your kids to crack houses for Halloween. Same idea, just your take on safety vs yours.

Posted by: Glock30 at March 27, 2008 07:10 AM

Oh, and the part about being derided by so many other countries. Funny how this doesn't stop any of them from taking aid from us. The UN is pretty much the "Anti-US League", but we still foot most of their costs. I don't see the Koreans telling us "we wish you had never shown up". I don't recall many western Europeans saying "Yank go home, we got this Nazi thing under control". The generation that took care of that little "don't fight, talk" pile of crap England got itself into didn't go so well did it? All the Peacenicks want to cry foul when action is taken. Strange how they don't understand that the only reason they can complain is because their was a war!

Posted by: Glock30 at March 27, 2008 07:15 AM

One more thing. Before "warmonger" name calling comes out, WRONG! You don't talk your way out of a fight with a bully for forever. You run or you fight eventually. You choose.

Posted by: Glock30 at March 27, 2008 07:18 AM

Glock30 Here is a response to your last 3 postings
Jesus in whom we trust, said, Turn the other cheek, He ordered Peter to put down his sword, He said blessed are the peacemakers, He said do good to all people.

Your second amendment relates to your militia needing to bear arms, not to every man, woman and child being armed with killing sticks. What happened to the original fellows who started your country? They were systematically exterminated by whites arriving from Europe. Oops!
Sadly much the same abuse was heaped on Australia's aborigines by whites with guns and alcohol. Guns sure decide winners when the contest is uneven.
Iraq does have a lot to do with the debate as the US and its Allies have overseen so much killing. see the figures I previously quoted. G30, sadly you have a comic book understanding of the USA at war.History shows the US entered WWI late, WWII history shows the US again turned up late only after your cowboys in Honolulu, came back from Sunday golf after ignoring warnings that the Japanese were heading for the harbour. Yes the US went into Vietnam but only after the French had been beaten, at the time the US Foreign Affairs confused independence wars with communist expansionism. So the US and its allies got a hiding in Vietnam. Now thirty years later it is a major tourist venue for Americans,Aussies and no doubt other former combatant nations.Let's not go back to talking about Iraq, but the west cannot win, Pres G W Bush didn't have a plan to keep the peace, and thousands of your poorest men and women have since died because of his administration's incompetence.

Guns became a problem! A problem to whom? Native American Indians slaughtered by rapacious settlers, Australian aboriginals slaughtered by rapacious settlers, West Africans captured for the plantations of the Southern states, and W Indies. God out of schools! In one sense you're still the most god fearing nation on earth. Yet the US has the best and the worst health system among rich nations, the US has the best and worst school system. The US has the meanest welfare system of any rich nation. How can a nation of god fearers have such low minimum wages? And such obscene high wages? How can the US lock up two million men and women in prison? Only godless Russia at its worst has had so many people behind bars. Yet the US believes it is the land of the free. Oh dear.

Really the debate isn't about God, but I also pray for my family everyday.As for Halloween it is hardly known in OZ apart from US fast food chains plugging it in recent years.Crack houses, they don't exist in OZ and we have 200,000 American living in OZ. So we haven't copied the US in everything. Safety brother is, "endeavoring to live peaceably with all people", another good verse from scripture

G30 You talk about the US as if you fund the world. Did you know the US insists the World Bank must have an American as President. I wonder why? Korea and Japan would both like your troops out of their countries. I can't speak for Germany,(tho I have visited there) but US bases are still there over 60 years after the war ended.I wonder why? As for western aid the US like so many other rich nations, takes raw materials from poor nations and then insists the poor countries receive the aid the rich countries want to unload. What would be better for poor countries is for their debt to be forgiven. And yes I know what I am talking about, I spent nine years working in black Africa. The international campaign ,make poverty history is backed by many Christians, and the US and Australia should get more involved.This is not an anti-American rant, in many ways Aus.has been just as bad

Finally, you talk about bullies, my understanding is that so often guns are used by people affected by alcohol and drugs. Both groups don't deserve to be shot, rather they deserve a chance to get off what they are on.
ER

Posted by: Edwin Rule at March 28, 2008 11:04 PM

Not an anti American tyraid, hardly. As for your PISS POOR interpretation of MY constitutional ammendments. You are FLAT OUT, COMPLETELY MISINFORMED. Please see the most recent ruling on the 2nd ammend from the Supreme Court. Get your Crap straight before you look like a moron again. From your post, you have to be a wacko, on the verge of being communist lefty.

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THE GOVT SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ANYONE. Show me where it does. I just did $6500 worth of health care for someone for free today. Don't tell me about taking care of people. Meth addicts trying to kill someone for more dope, you don't discuss things, and you don't fight them off, you simply have no chance against someone who feels little and has such a great desire for their next hit. A gun would come in handy at times.

Coming to a party late, how bout the people in charge didn't want to run in and have a bunch of our people killed? Why can't Europeans take care of their own crap?

How is that penal colony, I mean country down under?

Countries want us out...fine, but who ya gunna call, ghost busters? , no, the US. The day that Japan and Korea "really" want us out, they will be able to say it loud enough we will leave. They can squawk and moan, but if they really meant it, what's the point.
Question, what fellows that started our country??? The pilgrims??? Native people did not "start" this country.

You compare Gulags to our prison system? Laughable, and again showing how misinformed you are.

I would never say that the US is perfect, there are parts of it I don't think are correct. But I will never be a citizen of another country for a reason. In my opinion, it is the best there is. You don't have to like it, hate all you want, but there will always be jealousy behind the hate, and that just proves my point. Sorry.

If you or anyone else want to ignore the hard numbers I have posted, FACTS, thats fine. To turn this into a refferendum on GW Bush, rediculous.

Fact is guns are not the problem. The imballance of power is. Common people with guns, honest law abiding citizens, there is little trouble for them carrying a gun. Criminals and the power hungry don't like it much, but thats the point. If all the people in Africa had guns to defend themselves, would things be the way they are now? You are naive and ignorant to think guns will disappear. Lets say they do. Guess what they will take knives away next, oh there are places that have done that alreay aren't there...are forks next??? Disarming the masses, Hitler did it with great success. First all the law abiding citizens were told they "just" needed to register the weapons to stay legal. Well then a list of the Jews. It made it very easy to come in and know who all the Jews were and all the people with guns were and took both away.

Funny how Geldof thinks GW Bush has done so much for Africa, but you, who surely are more informed, thinks the US still holds nothing but contempt for African nations.

You want to bring up things that happened 150 years or more ago. But then you go and say how bad it is for the people who are in Africa???? I doubt George Washington Carver would have had the influence on the world he did had his family not been treated in such an evil manner. From wickedness, comes good.

Peter was told to put down the sword, because it was Christ's "time", and Peter had more important things ahead of him. What about "the poor will always be with you" Yet you think we should all share equally??? I don't know about where you are from, but in the US, the people who start with nothing can become wildly successful and rich. I don't care what color, race, religion, sex, whatever. Anyone who says that this kind of person or that can't make it in the US is an IDIOT! They are not paying attention. I can find any kind of person you want and show you they can be successful here. Work ethic and drive, money/success follows. Not so in most of the rest of the world, yet another reason to hate the US.

You brag about how many Americans live in OZ. Check this out, 5% of this little country don't live there, funny.

http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/issues_papers/Emigration/Australians%20Living%20Overseas%20_December%202004_.pdf

Posted by: Glock30 at March 29, 2008 08:22 PM

Your website really sucks.
it will not accept any posts that question the validaty of your made up claims.

Posted by: Rider at April 23, 2008 01:24 AM

You make some pretty strong claims.
Can you provide documentation that they are true?

What age group is included in your 'children'? I have seen ganbangers
up to 20 yrs. included as 'children' for these 'statistics'.

If you compare the number of guns in America you find the percentage
is very very small. More 'children' drown in swimming pools than are
killed by guns.
Now, is there a group to ban backyard swimming pools handy?

Posted by: Rider at April 23, 2008 01:26 AM

I will also point out that the 'ordinary Americans' are NOT paying
this price.

MOST of the violence is perpetrated BY criminals (primarily drug
related) AGAINST criminals. Using your annalogy, perhaps the U.S.
should just provide financial backing and guns to the Criminals.

Criminals obtaining guns and other weapons to use for crime has never
been a problem (Britain is a good example, but Australia is even
better now that they have outlawed laserpointers). Criminals Favor
taking guns away from law abiding citizens, it makes THEIR job easier
and safer.

Regards

Posted by: Rider at April 23, 2008 01:27 AM

Rider,
Just not too sure if you were asking a question of the statements I made. Just in case you were...I have quoted the stats in the post a few before this, and I quoted the web site, but here it is again.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Pretty clear that the pool thing is WAY more dangerous! A safe full of full auto uzis vs a fence-free pool, not even close which is more dangerous!

BTW, love to hear that Aussies are safer now that they don't let people walk around with those EVIL KILLER laser pointers, LOL

Posted by: Glock30 at April 24, 2008 09:08 AM

http://www.wlky.com/news/16496348/detail.html

The above is a link to a home invasion that turned out like all of them should. 2 dead perps, unfortunately the innocent victim was injured, but lived. Likelyhood of the gun possesed by the intruders, pretty low.

All I can say is I am glad this person lived where his constitutional rights were not oppressed. He would likely be the dead one otherwise.

So Edwin, should this person have reasoned with these "teenage" thugs? Teenagers, like they were sweet innocent 13 year olds. What a crock. These were MEN, commiting an ADULT CRIME. They got what was coming to them.

Posted by: Glock30 at June 6, 2008 04:45 AM

What would save more lives, a ban on civilian gun ownership or a ban on civilian car ownership?

Almost no one would consider banning cars, despite the fact that more than 40,000 people a year die in road accidents in the US.

Of course so called "liberals" would never suggest banning cars, because they know it's nonsense.

Why then do they insist on banning guns, which cause less harm?

Posted by: John Doe at June 9, 2008 01:05 PM

This appears to be a very interesting and lively debate. This is what our founding fathers advocated. To understand this issue fully we must look at it in a far broader way than most do. I am a student of American history (reenactor) and a 30 year retiree of the US military. I am a staunch advocate of the 2nd Amendment and was a military firearms instructor for 7 years. Even though there are many things I could bring up concerning this issue I don't even know what comment or reference would convince others of my view. I don't even know if that is what is needed. Education is what is needed here. Yes, education on firearms, (I wouldn't mind if everyone considering buying a gun was required to attend an extensive course on gun law and gun safety; it is required for concealed carry and has proven VERY successful) but more importantly, education on the US Constitution and morality. We are a melting pot and accept various cultures but the value of human life has taken a back seat to selfish desires and ambitions. From what I have seen a lot of this is due to the rampant drug culture, a culture we cannot continue to accept. Our founding fathers had no concept of such a culture. They all agreed that there would always be the good law abiding citizen and the lazy thug. Society has always had both but I do believe recent times have shown a surge in the latter. As a society we cannot allow the law abiding citizen to be made defenseless by beauracrats and lawyers. A poor law abiding person can't always choose where they live but they should have the right to defend themselves as much as a financially well off law abiding citizen. THAT is what our founding fathers knew. Justice is something else our founding fathers knew about. Yes, you were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and if you were proven guilty the penalty was not delayed for years with appeals. Granted, innocent people were found guilty but with the scientific methods of crime detection we have today these incidents shoud be almost zero. Hence, violent criminals should be given SWIFT justice and let the penalty fit the crime. Unfortunately, education on morality is one of the biggest problems. It should be 'put others needs before your own' but has become 'what I want when I want it'. This is the part of the problem most difficult to fix. With the onset of the drug culture the core of society, the family, has been broken down. Government wants more power and control, any government. Our founding fathers established our Constitution with its various amendments to keep our freedoms and prevent our government from becoming a monarchy or dictatorship. As long as the people have the freedoms of the US Constitution this will remain a free country. Take one away and they will all eventually fall. There is no easy answer but we must remember people are basically the same today as in 1776 and that document should mean the same things to us as it did to those who wrote it.

Posted by: Les at June 27, 2008 10:35 AM

New York has (and has had for 30 years) the lowest murder rate of all the USA's major cities. So when you put New York in your top three (as in the beginning of your article) you lose credibility.

Posted by: Conservative Yankee at June 28, 2008 12:21 AM

I was under the impression that the second amendment was created so that the americans were safe from attack when the British were still there? are the pollies afraid that they might lose some votes if they overturn the ban?

Posted by: Confused 15 year old Aussie at October 9, 2008 02:07 PM

"- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century"

hahahahahahha you are an imbecile mate. LOL!

Posted by: rolfmoron at October 29, 2008 01:16 PM

"If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."

Or he could put inground pools in everyone's back yard...............

Or made gas cheaper so more people would drive more miles in their cars...............

Or bought everyone a couple extra drinks before they drove home.................

I still can't believe that people are afraid of guns, but hop in their 4 wheeled death trap practically every day. The statistics say you are more likely to die in the car, end of story. Greenman facts on auto deaths would a more reasonable page to create. Oh, wait, that doesn't go along with an intollerant, arrogant, pompus liberal world view though does it, sorry. Just forget the FACTS, lets scare people with emotional heart strings.

Posted by: glock30 at February 9, 2009 05:08 PM

Code word is currently xyzzy

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Code word:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: