digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Something that gun control advocates don't like to hear

nraila.org — The FBI ’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. RTC states had 22% less violent crime,30% less murder,46% less robbery,and 12% less aggravated assault. As usual, Washington D.C., w/ the strictest anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder (6x higher than rest of country).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wacki, on 10/17/2007, -41/+231The only purpose I'm trying to make by posting this article is to debunk the common notion that guns cause murder rates. A simple look at the Jamaica (guns = banned yet 2nd highest murder rate in the world) and Switzerland (guns = everywhere yet low crime) will show that gun ownership does not cause crime to skyrocket.
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -171/+69To quote Eddie Izzard:

      “And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that work.”

      Personally I think the world would be better off with fewer guns and more fist fighting. My guns are all natural bitches.
      • OwdenBowden, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I agree with the Fist Fights but the fact still remains that in the United States of America - You have the Right to Bare Arms, which supports another one of your Rights - The Right To Self Preservation.
        If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them! And right now we have a ***** load of outlaws out there....
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I am all for the martial arts, not just for the ability to defend oneself or others, but for the self discipline that mastering a martial art instills in self. However, as the old cliche goes "God made some men stronger than others, Colt made all men equal." As much as it may surprise some to find out, Combat Handgun and fast draw competitions are recognized world wide by most Marital Artists as a form of marital art. I know of one chap who is paralyzed after an automobile accident (drunk driver blew through a red light and broadsided his car killing his 6 month pregnant wife and two year old daughter) This guy has been winning fast draw and trick shot competitions while confined to a wheel chair. He might have a hard time in other forms of marital arts but I wouldn't want to get in a sword fight with this guy, when he is packing a Para Ordnance 1911 .45 ACP.
    • emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -114/+157
      Has anyone stopped to think about common statics and how people can manipulate them?

      What if the majority of gun owners lived in rural areas (the SOUTH) and therefore crime is statically less due to a simple small population?

      Everyone in Montana owns a gun right? So does that mean because Montana has less deathes per year than say, LA or New York, that more guns = less deaths/rapes/gangs/drugs/ skyscrapers?

      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1wool carpet + rubber soled shoes = statics
        polyester pants + Naugahyde office chair = statics = another wasted computer.

        Oh you meant common statistics, oops, sorry my bad. Excuse me I have to go clean my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull
    • matrox212, on 10/12/2007, -110/+47I'm with gronne. Gun freaks are just scared little babies. I live in New York and I don't own a gun or know anyone who owns a gun and we're not constantly victimized. Most of you gun nuts probably live in neighborhoods a lot safer than mine and you're acting like you live in a danger zone. Put down the gun Barney, that cow looks safe to me.
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -67/+31Get rid of rampant lower classes, poverty and yawning chasm between rich and poor and see what happens. You sacrifice some social dynamic as you limit the ambitious but you get so much back in a harmonious, livable society. But alas, this suggestion will be on deaf ears with some.
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -22/+247"Has anyone stopped to think about common statics and how people can manipulate them?"

      Sure have. Rubbing a latex balloon on someone's hair is one way.
    • hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -49/+28Not that I would argue with factual statistics, but one has to wonder how these are manipulated, since they are posted, after all, on the National Rifle Association's website.

      As emanggid said, anyone can take numbers out of context and make them favor a certain opinion. The fact that the story is on the NRA website is enough to raise a doubt...
    • gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -16/+81Most major gun incidents happen where people are not allowed to carry guns such as schools. The Penn and Teller ***** episode on Gun Control is a good episode to watch. Though I don't suggest kids taking guns to school.
    • nipuL, on 10/12/2007, -53/+35We have gun control in Australia, yet very few murders. Violent crimes usually consist of junkies holding up service stations with syringes (who can usually be warded off with a broom and an angry voice).

      That RTC laws reduce crime is an indiicator of how ***** your society is rather than evidence that owning weapons reduces crime.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -67/+158England, no guns, low crime. Japan, no guns, low crime. Iraq, lots of guns, lots of crime.

      You can compare any set of apples to any set of oranges and say you making a valid comparison where the only difference is some condition, like say RTC laws. But at the end of the day, you're just comparing numbers without taking into account context.
    • jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3@emanggid

      don't you mean a large simple population?


      heh
    • HaxityHaxHaxed, on 10/12/2007, -17/+124When will people learn that banning something is not an appropriate way to get rid of it? Education is the key.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I suggest we ban government educational institutions.
    • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -32/+15Because the statistics said so, it must be true.
    • worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -31/+81You say Washington has 6x murder rate? Try correcting for population density. Violent crimes are higher in cities, and Washington DC is one big city. Correlation != Causation is the first lesson in statistics.
    • controlguy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+87Ever think that perhaps gun control is is most strict in areas with most violence. Your statistics looks at _correlation_, not _causation_.

      It seems more likely that
      Violence ==> Stricter Gun Control Laws
      rather then
      Stricter Gun Control Laws ==> Violence
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -20/+62"Gun freaks are just scared little babies."

      I shoot skeet/trap a lot. If I wanted something for home defense I would have a pump shotgun or a handgun. I don't own either one of those. Am I a scared little baby?
    • Hale, on 10/12/2007, -12/+99@mcatrage

      People don't need cars that can do 200mph either, or cigarettes or fatty foods, and each of those things kill more people every year than guns.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I am reading this on my Blackberry, smoking a Winston, while eating a double 1/4 with cheese, mega-sized fries and a chocolate shake, while driving my `vette, on a freeway in Montana at 190 MPH. I thinks they should ban any dangerous activity like owning a gun. (burp)
    • chopinbloc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20That sounds good. How about "From each according to their ability to each according to their need," or does that hit a little too close to home? What fundamental change in humanity has erased greed, envy, hatred and malice? How is it that we can suddenly live in harmony when we have never been able to do that before? The only way that works is with the iron fist of totalitarianism.
    • perrywsparrow, on 10/12/2007, -28/+7There is no one way to look at statistics and say anything works. It's all manipulation.

      I don't need an AR-15, I don't want an AR-15. I don't think our military will every use their weapons against me. Yes we should have arms to defend ourselves, but this argument is aged. All the rifles in the world are not really going to stop an Apache/Ambrams/F-22. Using the "right to defend ourselves" stuff really doesn't work any longer.
    • hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14I don't understand why I would be dugg down... Do you get your advice on what is healthy to eat from fast food conglomerates? Do you listen to what industry says about what is good for the environment? Not without a grain of salt, at least. Why listen to the NRA about RTC statistics and not suspect any bias?

      Just because the FBI is listed as a source in the article doesnt mean that the NRA couldnt take those statistics and portray them in favorable context.
    • billyoneal, on 10/12/2007, -19/+87@David 76
      "England, no guns, low crime" is false. After the enactment of England's gun control, crime increased.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Here is another piece of info that is worth reading

      http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Press.pdf
    • Larofeticus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37I'd like to point out that the statics listed are per 100,000 population.

      So if there is statistical manipulation, it would have to be in some other form than states having fewer murders because of a lower absolute population.
    • Wizardo55, on 10/12/2007, -30/+9Holy *****, where did all the second amendment diggers come from? All the comments I agree with are dugg down. Gronne has -14?? what's going on here...
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40@perrysparrow

      "Using the "right to defend ourselves" stuff really doesn't work any longer."

      The woman in my office who was recently the victim of a home invasion would beg to differ.

      Both sides in this arguement make pretty sweeping generalizations. Why is a happy medium so hard to reach on this? People need to protect their health, home and family. People don't need a canon in their garage. Can't we just meet somewhere on this issue?
    • imjustabill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12It should be mentioned that there are only 2 states left that don't allow concealed weapons (my state of Nebraska finally got off that list this year) and only 4 that didn't have them last year, so it's not exactly fair to compare the crime rates of 4 states to the other 46 when numerous other factors obviously come into play.
    • etoiles, on 10/12/2007, -19/+48"Switzerland=guns everywhere"

      yeah, but
      1. Switzerland is a very rich country so criminality is low from the start.
      2. Most guns in Switzerland are military rifles... not the kind you carry around town.
      3. You do need a permit to carry around a concealed weapon.
      4. Most men (some women, too) completed mandatory military training... they have some basic knowledge of how to safely handle a gun... and not to handle it like a toy.
      5. Switzerland has one of the highest suicide rates of any country (common for 'rich' countries)... guess what the most frequent way to commit suicide is...
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Switzerland has very lacks drug laws... let me guess
        Drug over dose?
    • netsui, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35This really makes sense when seen from a self-preservation point of view.

      Simply put, if everyone has a gun, then everyone can defend themselves. No one in their right mind will shoot someone else with a gun since the fear of being shot themselves will likely be a prevalent fear. The risk of being harmed by someone shooting back would be considered too high to take the risk.

      That is just my interpretation of why the situation is the way it is.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -20/+11@billyoneal
      "'England, no guns, low crime' is false. After the enactment of England's gun control, crime increased."

      Okay, so less violent crime per capita in the UK than in the US, and they have strict gun control.
    • zouhair, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8But giving guns to a country half full of bastards is dangerous
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Does anyone honestly think criminals actively ponder whether or not their victim is carrying a weapon? Even if they do consider it, do they factor it into whether or not they'll commit the crime?

      I figure it's about a plausible as criminals calculating the likelihood of being caught and facing jail time as a factor of the risk/reward ratio of the crime they're about to commit.
    • Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30That's right. Because, y'know, apart from gun control Swiss and Jamaican society is completely equivalent, isn't it?
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1OK digging you up, not because I agree with you but the analysis if well kind of funny in a morbid sort of way.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11"England, no guns, low crime. Japan, no guns, low crime. Iraq, lots of guns, lots of crime. "

      Yes, it appears there is no correlation, one way or the other, between gun ownership and crime rate. This also refutes the need for strict gun control.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Taking 100,000 out of the south and comparing it to 100,000 from a very urban area like the Washington-Baltimore metro is not exactly a good way to compare stats. Now look at suicide: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/00001329.gif It is much less in the Northeast as well as other populated areas, excluding California.

      There is just no way to compare city by city or state by state with these laws. You have to have the law actually initiated in order to tell if it works or not.

      Also, comparing Washington DC's ban against fire arms before and after does not work either. Washington DC in 1976 is not the same as it is in 2007.
    • malfourmed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+55> Switzerland (guns = everywhere yet low crime)

      Anti-gun control advocates in the United States often point to Switzerland as an example of a country that has high gun ownership and low violent crime rates to support the argument that tighter gun laws are not required. However there are structural and cultural reasons why such a comparison is not valid:

      All Swiss males (who are of sound mind and body) are required to undergo a period of military training and period of service where they are instructed in the proper use of firearms. The same cannot be said of the USA.

      After this military service, reservists or home guards are issued with a weapon by the government, and a supply (about 50 rounds) of ammunition, to be used in the event of war so that soldiers can defend themselves on their way to base. This ammunition is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place. People who use the ammunition for other than its intended purpose are incarcerated. The same cannot be said of the USA.

      While the sale of ammunition at firing ranges is subsidised by the Swiss government, it is a government requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. The same cannot be said of the USA. Ammunition can also be purchased at a dealer, but is more tightly monitored.

      Switzerland does not has the same rate of drug-related crime or urban deprivation as the USA, factors which exacerbate the impact of easy gun availability in such a society.

      (Sadly however, the rate of gun suicide in Switzerland is quite high, with military weapons often used for this purpose.)

      In other words, the context of gun laws in Swiss society is very different to that of the United States. Firearms in Switzerland are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility (ironically, like the intent behind the US's second amendment - a well regulated militia) rather than to a sense of individual free-for-all and power.

      Therefore, the argument that "all the Swiss have guns and their violent crime rate is low, therefore the US doesn't have to have tight gun controls" is spurious.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27"I don't need an AR-15, I don't want an AR-15."

      Then don't buy one.


      "Using the "right to defend ourselves" stuff really doesn't work any longer."

      Who said that guns were only for defending against the US military? Who said that guns were only for defense?
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30"Also, comparing Washington DC's ban against fire arms before and after does not work either. Washington DC in 1976 is not the same as it is in 2007."

      This much is true. For example, in 1976 citizens of Washingtod DC could own a handgun for personal defense. This is not the case now.
    • benjaminrayburn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@emanggid

      Good point. Statistical analysis from the NRA that turn out pro gun; entertaining but not definitive. It would be interesting to see some data relating extremely high population density (urban) to gun deaths.

      I live in TX and I'm pro right to carry, but I agree with mcatrage there needs to be limits. I have no problem at all with background checks and reasonable limitations on ownership. What is reasonable, well that's a problem, but I think we can agree broadly and struggle a bit in the middle. If my neighbor says the second amendment guarantees his right to own and fire stinger anti-aircraft missiles, I'm calling the FBI. If he owns a hunting (sniper) rifle; not so much.

      @dagonweb - Yes, utopia would be nice. Please call me when you find it.
    • dambuster, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Statistically people with larger shoe sizes can read better than people with small feet - this is a true statistic I promise . . . Does this prove that men are better readers than women, or does this prove that grown-ups can read better than children? Hmm let me think on that one.

      And while we're thinking: I have never ever seen or read about a politician, or a political movement quote any statistical evidence in a way that is trustworthy. This is both a reflection on their character as on their competence, I suppose.

      The point I am trying to make is that the question under debate whether or not one wants to live in a society where everyone, every house, every angry traffic offender, every nut case, every school teacher has an instrument at his or her disposal that could do mortal damage (with a very low barrier to entrance). An instrument by the way that is designed to inflict such damage in an instinctive way, and even 5 year olds can make it work. I would tend to say that is a pretty dumb idea: unless of course one already lives in such a society. In which case it would be up to the inhabitants of such a country to determine how to proceed.
    • h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18"Gun's don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."

      - NRA Info-film shown on Family Guy
    • thecrystalship, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14You people are ***** idiots. He didn't say that RTC equates to less violence. He is showing that there is no relation between RTC and violence, because many people believe RTC equates to violence.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15@etoiles
      "3. You do need a permit to carry around a concealed weapon."
      are you saying criminals, murderers and rapists do?

      "4. Most men (some women, too) completed mandatory military training... they have some basic knowledge of how to safely handle a gun... and not to handle it like a toy."

      Unrelated to crime. Please check the CDC's accident reports. Swimming pools 100x more dangerous than guns.
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/swimming-pool-is-100-times-more-deadly-than-guns/
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/buckets-more-dangerous-to-children-than-guns/

      "5. Switzerland has one of the highest suicide rates of any country (common for 'rich' countries)... guess what the most frequent way to commit suicide is..."

      Please see Japan
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/suicide-rate-japan-has-no-guns-but-suicide-rate/

      Or check the CDC's website for the substitution effect.
    • DokumentAMarble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ emanggid
      "
      What if the majority of gun owners lived in rural areas (the SOUTH) and therefore crime is statically less due to a simple small population?"

      I live in Hoover, Alabama, and its no NY but there are over 2500 people that go to my high school, and there are 2 of these size high schools in hoover (soon 3) and Hoover is in Birmingham area, which has extremely high homicide rates. so just because we are in the south, and have guns, doesnt mean we are small and dont kill people.
    • CzechRebel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13 @ hbweb500

      I know what you mean about the NRA. Sometimes, it seems to be ready to compromise and let us forfeit our Second Amendment Rights at the drop of a hat.

      However, there are some groups that are really serious about protecting our rights, such as Gun Owners of America. You could always join one of them, if the NRA is pro-gun enough for you.

      Another problem is that Yankee General founded the NRA. A lot Southerners are therefore still suspicious of the NRA for that reason.

      If I were not already a life member of the NRA, I would think about joining one of those take-no-prisoners pro-Second Amendment organizations. But, the NRA does have the largest membership and therefore the most political clout.

      Thanks again for reminding us that the NRA is not always as pro-Second Amendment as it should be.
    • Justice101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@david76

      How do you know there is lots of crime in Iraq? I have yet to hear of any. I never hear about Jalil Talibani complaining about unemployment and murder. Have you?
    • ptknight, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9"Switzerland (guns = everywhere yet low crime)"

      err... you "forgot" to mention that in CH guns are kept [sic] "with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
      I don't think RTC states in the US do the same... Hey, but what do I know, I've never seen a gun in my life (except pistol grips in policemen's holsters)
    • ptknight, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"Switzerland (guns = everywhere yet low crime)"

      err... you "forgot" to mention that in CH guns are kept [sic] "with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
      I don't think RTC states in the US do the same... Hey, but what do I know, I've never seen a gun in my life (except pistol grips in policemen's holsters)
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6""England, no guns, low crime" is false. After the enactment of England's gun control, crime increased."

      I have become fatter since I stopped drinking so much water. You do need a course on causality.

    • jfreeman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Some people are debating correlation versus causation, but all you have to do is look at statistics showing increases in violence after guns were eliminated.

      http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
      (link above may not load, here is Google's cache: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:tkNSK2b4XxgJ:www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D15304+increase+violence+gun+ban+australia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 )
    • CzechRebel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@ DokumentAMarble

      You are right! I have lived in both the South and the land of the Yankees. It is clear that Southerners are far smarter and far more responsible. Naturally, Southerners do tend to be more responsible with their weapons than Yankees do.

      But not all Northerners are Yankees. The good people of the North should also have the right bear arms, too. Let the good folks in the North carry firearms and they should catch up with the South, if we give them enough time.
    • dwang1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5A "simple look" doesn't always constitute a meaningful point. Just because you can provide an instance where the trend is broken doesn't mean that it occurs frequently. I could just as easily say "oh lets take a 'simple look' at the statistics for South Korea. Here we have a ban against firearms and the firearm homicide is about 14 times lower than Switzerland. Don't go throwing around outlying statistics and expect to be proving a valid point.
      There is a lot more to do with the firearm homicides then just looking at the numbers..... there are numerous other factors that contribute to low murder rates in areas where guns a permitted. Education being being one of the most influential.
    • billmania, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Why should I buy statistics from the NRA, kind of like believing the crap on Fox News. Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@ptknight:

      "sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place"

      Do you really think that makes a difference? If someone is going to use a gun to commit a crime they will either:

      1) Steal a gun
      2) buy one on the black market
      3) use it before turning the gun on oneself

      So that can sealing law is irrelevant. Also, that law doesn't apply to non-service rifles or to people who kept their rifle after serving in the military. You are allowed to keep that Sig Sauer assault weapon after you serve. So your argument is irrelevant.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17For the statistics hounds, I agree completely. Correlation does not equal causation.

      What you want to do is look at time based data, "three dimensions" as it were, that track how crime rates change as laws change.

      Since laws do not change at the same time in all places, it's possible to isolate changes in crime rates that changes in those laws cause. And since crime rate data is maintained at the county level, rather than just state, cities get their fair share of the data input as well as rural areas.

      It's been done. Lott and Mustard, _More Guns, Less Crime_, University of Chicago Press.

      The reason you haven't heard about it: _The Bias Against Guns_, John R. Lott.

      Both available through BN.com, Amazon.com, Abebooks, etc.

      No one can intelligently argue this subject without having read at least the former, even if you choose to disagree with it.


    • annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8@ Hale

      "People don't need cars that can do 200mph either, or cigarettes or fatty foods, and each of those things kill more people every year than guns."

      Yeah but when I drive through a bad neighborhood at 2am I don't have to worry about cigarettes or cheeseburgers killing me.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@emanggid - The anti gun lobby and groups (along with most government agencies) have been manipulating stats since the beginning.


      For the Digg readers:

      The fact of the matter is that the crime rate will be significantly lower in areas that allows its citizens to carry (open or concealed). Criminals (and this has been proven with many interviews of convicted criminal) think twice about doing a crime in these areas because they do not know who is carrying and who isn't. Where as these same criminal will seek out areas that limit the carry of guns.

      I an a supported of our 2nd Amendment which protects our rights to arms. I have a strong respect for the power of guns as well as the responsibility that goes along with having, and using them. One of the best discussions about guns - the rights to own, use them and why we as citizens must uphold these rights with every breath in our being can be summed up by watching none other than Pen and Teller in their episode of ***** titled Gun Control ( http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/gun ) [ Season 3: Gun Control
      ].

      You do not have to like them. You do not have to use them. But you dame well better protect your rights to access to them before they (gov't) take another right away from the people. If you think that gun control is in effect to make your world a better place while protecting "the children" well you are being feed a big pile of horse *****.

      There is not one criminal that is going to go through the proper channels (background checks / waiting periods) in their quest to get a gun. They just get them illegally. Never then less we as law abiding citizens' must go through hoops to get permission to own a gun. Thus Gun Control by the government is solely designed to have control over you with no means of you defending yourself. And if you think that you don't need to defend yourself well think again. All you have to do is just look back at what took place in Louisiana and Alabama during the hurricane to see how well our government will take care of its citizens. Further, if you think the police department will be there in your time of need - Think again. I am not knocking the Police - I have family members that are in law enforcement and every one of them tell me to get a license to carry and a gun for my protection.

      As for the Second Amendment - The militia that they are talking about is the Citizens of the united states of America. This is in reference to the fact that every able person was a member of the militia as we did not have a militia of our own at the time to defend one's self from any form of invasion and violation of the rights given to ALL of its citizens'. Thus you, and I are the militia - not the actual military!

      Why is it that the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens'? Why is it that a criminal who, in the process of committing a crime and gets hurt, can have a sue and win? Why? Because we restrict the abilities of the law abiding. It is about time we all stood up for our rights and had the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal elements that seem to be over flowing in current society.

      I respect the opinions of all but anyone who tries to take away any of my rights given to me by the Founding Fathers is (1) up for a serious fight and (2) committing treason against the United States of America and its Citizens.

      F.Y.I - after 9/11 there was a significant surge in gun sales and ownership in this country (most of which Anti Gun and gun control advocates). See the FBI for the stats.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@netsui:
      "if everyone has a gun, then everyone can defend themselves. No one in their right mind will shoot someone else with a gun since the fear of being shot themselves will likely be a prevalent fear. The risk of being harmed by someone shooting back would be considered too high to take the risk."

      Guns are far more common in Iraq, the Sudan, and other places where law and order have collapsed and society is virtually overrun by continual violence and fear. Your deduction makes no empirical sense - of course, the the NRA's statistical analysis is bogus to begin with.
    • CeltiCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Larofeticus: "I'd like to point out that the statics listed are per 100,000 population."

      Yeah, but in places with low crime and high gun ownership (Wyoming, Texas), those 100,000 people are generally spread out over hundreds or thousands of square miles and are relativly well off, while those 100,000 in D.C. are spread out over square blocks and are steeped in poverty.
    • chrisdisregard, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Guns don't kill people, a society that breeds killers does. It shouldn't be a question of whether or not it's safe to have guns in society, but whether or not that society is mature enough to handle them safely. North America with it's rampant social problems obviously isn't.
    • SteveisSuperMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@David 76
      "England, no guns, low crime"

      I think you might find this article of interest.
      http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
    • hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@: CzechRebel
      "I know what you mean about the NRA. Sometimes, it seems to be ready to compromise and let us forfeit our Second Amendment Rights at the drop of a hat."

      Actually, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to bear guns. Only "arms." How this is interpreted is up to the courts. Of course it has always been interpreted as meaning "guns, but not all guns." Otherwise one could argue that it is his 2nd Amendment right to manufacture explosives.

      Nowhere did I say that the NRA was a bad organization which is maliciously lying to prove a point. Im just saying that the article may be biased.

      Or you could just ignore that, and believe what you want.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7" Criminals (and this has been proven with many interviews of convicted criminal) think twice about doing a crime in these areas because they do not know who is carrying and who isn't. Where as these same criminal will seek out areas that limit the carry of guns."

      I have actually heard a gun grabber argue that guns should be banned nationwide because cities that do not restrict gun ownership encourage criminals to seek out cities with stricter gun control, thus increasing the crime in those cities.
    • chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8>You say Washington has 6x murder rate? Try correcting for population density. Violent crimes are higher in cities, and Washington >DC is one big city. Correlation != Causation is the first lesson in statistics.

      And they are highest in cities with strict gun control laws.
    • fredsterss, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I think it highly interesting that nearly every anti-NRA comment has been dugg down. I never knew the educated people of digg were all such ignorant rednecks. You point to an article on Gun Crime on the NRA official website? What do you expect to read? That Gun Control actually decreases gun crime?! Come on... Its like pointing to one of Bush's speeches and then claiming that he is mighty popular. Anyone reacting to this with anything other than cynicism deserves little respect for a lack of intelligent thought.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"I think it highly interesting that nearly every anti-NRA comment has been dugg down. I never knew the educated people of digg were all such ignorant rednecks."

      It is a common misconception agaist nanny-state gun grabbers that all who support the freedom specified by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution are 'rednecks'. This is a result of gun grabbers being incapable of rational thought.
    • netsui, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@rationalist

      There is a difference between the USA, or Switzerland and Iraq. The most apparent difference is that one of those nations is in the midst of an internal civil war. I understand that people in Iraq and Sudan shoot and kill other people daily, but that is not only due to an abundance of guns. It's much more complicated both politically, economically and socially. The extenuating circumstances that are present in Iraq and Sudan are not present in a nation that is internally at peace.

      I understand where you are coming from with your argument. Though, It just seems irrational and unreasonable to compare apples to crabs.
    • fredsterss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@Dimensio: come on man, thats the standard reply for you yanks isn't it? The Second Amendment was created in 1789 during the Civil War: there was a totally different reason for this Amendment - so why do you cling to it so dearly? Support our rights as Americans!!! Get into the real world and learn some civilisation.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"The Second Amendment was created in 1789 during the Civil War"

      I find it difficult to seriously consider arguments based on a complete lack of understanding of US history. The United States was not engaged in any war in 1789. The War of Independence -- which was arguably a civil war with the British empire -- had ended in 1783, and the United States Civil War did not begin until 1861. No formal declarations of war were authorized by congress until 1812. Your claim that the Second Amendment was writted during a time of war is completely false.


      " there was a totally different reason for this Amendment"

      What reason was that? Please be specific.
    • schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Here in Philadelphia there is a huge rise in gun related crimes and murders. 2 people I know were mugged at gunpoint, someone was shot and killed a block from my house when living at 2 completely different parts of the city, one murder on my friends street, one outside my friends work, and during a police foot chase the perp tossed a revolver under a car in front of my girlfriend's house while she and a friend were sitting on the steps. There are lots of instances in the police blotters of 11 year olds mugging people at gunpoint. Once two guys even followed me personally all the way to my house, allegedly with the intent to mug me, but as soon as i got to my door and looked at them they turned around and walked away looking over their shoulders at me as they walked away. Don't know if they had a gun but i'd feel safer if i did. These people are looking for an unfair fight. If everyone had guns they'd think twice.
    • Sashly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8My husband and I run a firearms training company. First we teach safety, then proper use and mindset. We teach how to defend yourself. Of course guns get in the hands of bad guys, but do you want to be on the receiving end? I rather not take a bullet nor would I like to have to shoot, but I'm not going to die for someone's stupid behavior. You can read more about my husband's posts and forum. Guns don't kill, people kill. www.FIREARMZ.net
    • carl0ski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The strange thing i noticed was direct claims that RTC is responsible for reductions in crime rates.

      If RTC was always present and it prevents crime
      Why were crimes rates so high in 1991?

      If RTC was introduced in 1992 it can be attributed to crime reduction however if RTC was around prior to 1991 what is the real cause for reduction in murder?
      More lives saved by more skilled and experienced Paramedics?
      Improved Police services, education, major crackdowns on organised crime, improved community services maybe?

      ""and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states.""
      this rings alarms bells a direct statement that RTC can't possibly be the sole reason for reductions in crime
    • Bidger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@dave76

      >England, no guns, low crime.

      Never lived in the UK have you ?
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not afraid of / opposed to people having guns, nevertheless I am afraid of idiots and criminals with guns.
    • Palmetto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ perrywsparrow

      you state:

      "I don't need an AR-15, I don't want an AR-15. I don't think our military will every use their weapons against me. Yes we should have arms to defend ourselves, but this argument is aged. All the rifles in the world are not really going to stop an Apache/Ambrams/F-22. Using the "right to defend ourselves" stuff really doesn't work any longer."

      I beg to differ.. the Iraqi insurgency has the most advanced nation on earth pinned down.. and they are using antiquated weapons and small arms. Just because you don't think our military will ever use their weapons against you doesn't mean they won't.

      I think of my guns as insurance. I hope I don't ever get cancer, and don't believe I will.. but if I do, I have insurance to help. I don't think anyone will break in to my house to hurt my family or rape my wife, but if they do, I have insurance (40 caliber) to help.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@malfourmed and the 45 people that dugg him up.

      You shot down my comment about every able bodied man in Switzerland having a fully automatic assault rifle. Your claim is that sealed cans of ammo and frequent inspections prevent unauthorized use of the weapon. The problem with this argument is that it completely ignores the fact that these inspections only occur while you are on duty. After your term of service is up you are allowed to keep you Sig Sauer 500 assault rifle (which is converted to semi-auto). Ammo is plentiful and can be purchased at any sporting goods store. So your argument that crime is low because of strict ammo controls and inspections is based on assumptions that simply don't apply to veterans and non-serving citizens of Switzerland . 45 people dugg something up that simply isn't true.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For all of those people that think Switzerland has super strict regulations, you need to read this:

      http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae771eb4adb.htm

      Here are a few quotes:

      "The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed. "

      "Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require no purchase permit and are not registered by the government. Thus, the only long guns registered by the government are full automatics."

      "(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)"

      and much more......

    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@malfourmed:

      "(Sadly however, the rate of gun suicide in Switzerland is quite high, with military weapons often used for this purpose.)"

      I do believe you are wrong about this as well. Try reading this:
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/suicide-rate-japan-has-no-guns-but-suicide-rate/

      Guns are not a very popular way to commit suicide in Switzerland.
    • ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Canada has had a similar crime rate fall but no one but cops/security can carry firearms. I like it that way because firearms are still relatively rare (compared to the US) in our cities. However, if I lived in the US in a carry state, I'd want to carry a firearm because everyone else is. And I think you should have to go through a gun/hunter safety training course before you are allowed a firearm. We do up here for hunting and its a good idea because it really cuts down on hunting acidents.

      By the way, the guy who wrote Freakenomics claims that the crime rate drop is due to legalizing abortion in the 70's(?).
    • Chrontius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Canada has had a similar crime rate fall but no one but cops/security can carry firearms. I like it that way because firearms are still relatively rare (compared to the US) in our cities. However, if I lived in the US in a carry state, I'd want to carry a firearm because everyone else is. And I think you should have to go through a gun/hunter safety training course before you are allowed a firearm. We do up here for hunting and its a good idea because it really cuts down on hunting acidents. "

      You do have to go through proper training and pass competency standards (fairly low, but the safety part of the class has much higher standards) to carry a concealed handgun in Florida. BTW -- we have horrible crime rates at our airports. Nobody wants to rob the locals. I can't comment on low crime rates and low per-capita gun ownership in Canada, but I can comment on the sleazy politics that went on with the confiscation. "We promise we won't take them, we just want to know who's got what" was followed shortly by "Ladies and gentlemen, hand them all in."


      "By the way, the guy who wrote Freakenomics claims that the crime rate drop is due to legalizing abortion in the 70's(?)."

      Interesting theory, but I'm not sure how much of it is due to that, and I don't want to rely on it. Look at it this way -- when I take my little sister to the mall, even if she's old enough to vote, the only thing I can do for her is act as a meat shield, and hope that by dying first she has enough time to run away.

      Knowing her, she wouldn't think to run.

      I'd rather have a Kel-Tec.
  • genetolip, on 10/17/2007, -15/+99Exactly. Laws that limit gun ownership only affect those who follow laws.
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Take my gun away and you would lower the crime rate in town. oops.. um, never mind. what you said.
    • rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28To paraphrase Stephen Colbert - laws banning *anything* only affect those who follow laws. Thus, it's pointless to try to outlaw anything at all.
    • Poco, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3However, producing guns is not something that just anyone can do.

      So banning the production of guns (not the ownership) might help reduce their numbers (regardless of crime rate) even for people who don't follow the law, unless they can produce their own, or import them from somewhere, but then at least the cost would go up.
    • tim04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I believe the idea is fear. In a city with gun control, criminals have less to fear because the person that they are robbing, etc. most likely does not possess a weapon to defend themselves. Thus, it's less risky for the criminal to commit the crime. In a city without gun control, a criminal always has to factor in the chance that their victim has a gun, thus making the crime all that more riskier to commit. Therefore, I believe that this is the reason why cities with no gun control has less violent crimes. I agree that gun control only affects those who follow the law in the first place, so it would really have no affect on criminals possessing guns as they don't purchase them legally anyways.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5"Exactly. Laws that limit gun ownership only affect those who follow laws."

      Absurd rhetoric.

      So... all those people in prison for not following gun laws... They weren't affected in any way, eh?

      Get caught with an AK47. I bet you'll be 'affected'.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It is our constitutional right to bear arms. If you feel safe and don't want to carry a gun then don't but it is my responsibility to protect my family and property not yours (thank God).

      Some liberals are so hypocritical--- demand "rights" that aren't even in our constitution---"right" of same sex marriage, "right" of entitlements, ect. but then insist on trying to take away the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to protect ourselves.

      Who the hell are you to tell me how to protect my family?

    • revoltism, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0ehhm... if i could have a gun and maybe could shoot you, you would try to shoot me first. If i probably not have a gun you would probably not try to shoot me.

      The problem for U.S i mostly attitude but also the easy to acquiring a gun way. Don't look at differences between states because it's not to hard traveling to another state to acquiring one. Then it's better to look between countries.

      Crime rates are a social thing. If you're country is good with good social security then you would probably not have to much problem with crimes.
    • jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"To paraphrase Stephen Colbert - laws banning *anything* only affect those who follow laws. Thus, it's pointless to try to outlaw anything at all."

      Wow, red herring alert.

      So we shouldn't have traffic laws because I could use a traffic law to protect myself from another person who was using a traffic law to kill me?

      Yeah ok that makes sense.

      @revoltism

      "ehhm... if i could have a gun and maybe could shoot you, you would try to shoot me first. If i probably not have a gun you would probably not try to shoot me."

      I could make the same argument about knives. Let's ban those too, right? Nice try.
    • rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jon3k -

      It's satire. You have caught on to the point that Colbert was trying to make about the absurdity about that line of argument.
  • fisharmor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Addendum:
    LEGAL gun ownership does not cause crime to skyrocket.
    Antis would, as in the past, point out that in order for gun crime to exist, people have to possess guns. They usually don't follow through with showing the causality - that possessing a gun causes me to commit gun violence.
    The important point of these figures IMO comes from the fact that they support (but unfortunately do not prove) the idea that private, legalized gun ownership in RTC states actually prevents violent crime (with or without a gun), whereas gun control seems to encourage violent crime (with or without guns).
    • revoltism, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0sometimes i am convinced that Americans must have smaller brains than the average. Of course isn't that true but some things you say and do are just stupid.

      It's like you always attack the symptom when the smart thing would to attack the decease.

      Like crime... longer imprisonment, more gun's, more trigger-happy cops, Iraq, etc. etc. instead of helping people. Like better social security, schools, health care... typical things that help people not do crime.
  • nacrotek, on 10/17/2007, -25/+61"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"- Sigmund Freud.
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -27/+55Do you really want to use the words of a coke fiend who thought everybody wants to screw their mom as your spokesperson?
    • mdeltito, on 10/12/2007, -26/+12haha i love when people quote freud like he is God just because he is the "father of modern psycology"


      what a load of bs. now wheres my mum, i would like a screw.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6""A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"- Sigmund Freud."

      Prove it. Can you? No you can't. Freud had a great and perverted imagination - just like me :P - but that's all.

      I'll give you another for free: "Sigmund Freud is actually Sigmund FRAUD" - JorgeGT
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Nothing to fear about weapons, it can only turn your internal organs into mashed potatoes. Bunch of wusses!
    • IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Oh, no thanks, I just have a slight Oedipal complex."
    • jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Do you really want to use the words of a coke fiend who thought everybody wants to screw their mom as your spokesperson?"

      Einstein forget to put pants on in the morning sometimes, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree E = mc^2
  • DesertDonkey, on 10/17/2007, -18/+70I've read all the rhetoric of the NRA, GOA and the other pro-gun advocacy groups, and then gone to HCI, VPC and all the anti-gun websites to view the counterpoints, and I have to say that the pro-gunners are making far and away more sense. The anti-gunners are simply coming off as half-witted pansies, afraid of their own shadows, and filled to the brim with the "victim mentality" that dictates we should "just give up" when confronted by criminals intent on doing us harm. They can have all that, and may they choke on it. I will have no part in it, and will fight to the last to see that my home and family remain safe from the ravages of their leftist insanity.
    • prh99, on 10/17/2007, -25/+11Just because you read both sides doesn't mean you're objectively considering what you're reading.
    • gandhii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11NO.. it means he's subjectively come to a conclusion based on researching the subject better than most are apt to do. Not something that I would want to insult.
    • mb96net, on 10/17/2007, -12/+6I have read both sides of the argument as well and have come to a different conclusion. I'd have to agree that the major argument against guns (see below) is true and difficult to dispute.

      If no one had guns there would be less gun related violent crimes (somewhere around 100% less), guaranteed.
    • lacronicus, on 10/17/2007, -11/+9okay heres one. guns kill people,
      and you would say?
      no, people kill people.
      and i would say,
      and you want to let those people have guns?
    • MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No, but the logic of what he says reveals a good understanding, and comes across quite objectively.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/17/2007, -5/+9"If no one had guns there would be less gun related violent crimes (somewhere around 100% less), guaranteed."

      *****! They would just use other weapons like, Rocks, Knives, Bats, any form of projectile - Thus your argument that Violent crime would be down is False.

      I have a grand solution to the gun issue. All person that are citizens of the United States of America that want to ban and Control guns - thus infringing on the Constitution and the rights of the Citizens - should move to those countries that have these policies. Frankly, I don't want you here. I only want the people who understand why these rights were given to us by our Founding Fathers and will do all in their power to Uphold these rights.

      So all of you Anti Gun people - please leave. Have fun wearing your turbans, and being blown up on trains, and being controlled by government's and people who don't give a rats ass about your welfare and rights. Bye, Bye. Don't let the Statue of Liberty kick you in the ass when you leave.
    • CeltiCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Making sense until the "leftist insanity" *****.

      I'm from Texas and am a liberal Democrat. Where I grew up, in ranch country, the majority were moderate Democrats (and a few each liberal conservative Dems). Everyone, including me, owned guns and hunted.

      "The Democrats want to take your guns away" is just one more of the insidious lies of the reich, I mean right.
    • chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think he meant 'gun related' crime as a joke. He is 100% correct. Though the murder rate would remain much the same, 'gun' crime would become 'knife' crime.
    • doncol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I think he meant 'gun related' crime as a joke. He is 100% correct. Though the murder rate would remain much the same, 'gun' crime would become 'knife' crime."

      And then, continuing on in the typical liberal tradition of banning weapons, "pointy stick crime"
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ CeltiCowboy

      You need to wake up and take a good look at who is leading your party, and where it's heading.
  • mkoby, on 10/12/2007, -23/+23It has long been a proven fact that having the right to own and/or carry firearms keeps crime rates lower. While I support that notion I agree that it is not the only solution. I am pro-gun and pro death penalty. I think that in addition to RTC laws we should bring back public executions.

    In Texas for example, the penalty for stealing a horse in western times was a hanging. I say that since a car today is the equivalent of a horse, then offenders convicted of GTA should be hanged as well. You would only need to do it twice. The first time the criminals will think "oh they are just making a spectacle to show they will do it" but after the second one, most of the GTA offenders will probably go "oh s**t, they really mean this." I realize this is a little extreme, but part of the problem with crime is that there is very little punishment for law breakers. Almost all states have abolished the death penalty so basically criminals just rot in jail, eating up tax dollars. Making stricter punishments could also help the crime rates of this nation.
    • Wind8reaker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Uh, actually the reason horse theft was punishable by hanging, was because a man stuck in the middle of no where without his horse was for all intents and purposes dead (no way to reach food, water, etc. . . ). Trying to equate that with car theft today is really not a viable argument.

      BTW I too am pro gun (though I don't own one myself) and pro death penalty . . .
    • whosbein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@mkoby

      I totally agree with your point about stricter punishments. However, it is a common misconception that a death sentence is cheaper than life in prison. When a person is sentenced to death, they immediately enter an appeals process paid for with tax dollars. This is to ensure a fair trial, etc. for something as serious as a death sentence. That makes the price for death much higher.
      • DMCer, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1LIfe in prison cases almost always appeal as well, granted it doesn't happen 100% of the time. The death penalty isn't more expensive because of the appeals process.
    • jessecurry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I hardly think that the death penalty is the answer... what if someone is convicted of GTA when they didn't actually steal the car? In fact, it's so hard to prove that people have actually committed a crime that I don't think the death penalty should even be in use.
      I also think that anyone who is in jail for "victimless" crimes should be set free because they take up our tax dollars and don't give anything back to society.
      Jail is a stupid system, it doesn't prevent crime, it doesn't rehabilitate, it doesn't help the victims of crimes... it's worthless.
      If someone steals your car they should have to work for you to pay you back and benefit your life, rather than sit in a room and cost you money.
    • gandhii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't necessarily disagree... but I have to stipulate that drug use has only gone up since it was made illegal.
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The justice system makes a spectacle out of criminals. Public executions will just make that worse. Do you really want more people who commit crimes just to get on tv?
      Also, stricter punishments correlate with lower crime rates... in whose imagination? I'm sorry, but if I'm really going to do something terrible, I won't stop and think about possible punishments.
    • sizban, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ jessecurry

      Yeah, well ... with the bureaucracy involved in running a government, I don't see that happening, from a logistical standpoint.

      It would be nice if the system was better, but is that possible?
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I am anti gun, but i am very much for the death penalty. and i am only anti gun because my father is a firefighter. i have heard too many stories to believe that guns are worth the trouble they cause. maybe not anti gun in the sense that it should be banned entirely, but not everyone should be able to go to the local wal mart and get a gun. i honestly think boot camp should be mandatory for every us citizen. thatd make me happy. people would be trained with gun safety, would have a job if they so desired, which would eliminate the need for welfare, as there are so many jobs in the military, not just combat. and it would give people a sense of respect towards those around them.
    • revoltism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1soo.. you like a totalitarian state...

      First.. guns may have a temporary impact to lowering crime, but not in the long turn. If it's easy to get gun's it's probably smart to have one. The smartest thing tho is to ban them to hell and put the money in health care or something.

      harsher penalties the harsher crimes.. it's a fact.. if i steel a car and get hanged i would probably kill some people before i get caught. If people don't have a job and health care they would surely do at least some small theft just to support their family.
    • jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jessecurry

      Please try and remember that jails weren't invented to rehabilitate. I'll make this simple. Jail is like timeout for grown ups. If you can't function in society by our laws, we'll remove you from it. Then, as least during incarceration, you can't do whatever you did to get there. Now, when we let you out, maybe you'll think twice about doing it again. It's called "negative reinforcement".
  • SW5906, on 10/12/2007, -9/+54Both armed and disarmed countries have armed criminals. The difference is that in disarmed countries only criminals and government agencies will be armed. History has shown us that when this occurs, there is an elevated chance or incidence of genocide.
  • en2wraps, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8any links to arguments/statistics against gun control from non interest groups?
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34"any links to arguments/statistics against gun control from non interest groups?"

      Try the FBI website. If you go to the CDC you will find that more children under the age of 5 die by drowning in a bucket then being accidentally shot by a gun:
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/buckets-more-dangerous-to-children-than-guns/

      And here is an article by a gun control ADVOCATE that freely admits swimming pools are 100x more dangerous than guns:
      http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/swimming-pool-is-100-times-more-deadly-than-guns/

    • jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38The CDC good enough for you?

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

      From the study: "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

      In short, the most well funded and comprehensive study of gun control laws ever commissioned, done by Federal organization with an anti-gun agenda, funded by the financial resources of the US Federal Government, found - nothing. The phrase "insufficient evidence" is telling, as it says "Despite our agenda, even WE couldn't massage the studies enough to support our pre-existing conclusion that gun laws prevent violence."

      Secondly, this article compares the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence's "grade" of each state with that state's violent crime rate from the USDOJ.

      http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/brady_effectiveness.pdf

      Correlation: ZERO.

      There you go. Two gun control advocacy groups, two studies showing that gun control laws are across the board ineffective at preventing violence.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I would venture to guess that there are more household buckets than household guns. So, the bucket one doesn't show anything. And, I would imagine that if more people thought guns were harmless fun (like pools), then there would be more gun deaths than there are.

      The statistics are bad.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@wacki

      Actually, there was some mistake in labeling the swimming pool article author as a GC advocate:

      From http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_04_20_corner-archive.asp (look for "LEVITT, FOR THE RECORD"):
      'Shortly after this article was published, Steve Levitt wrote to Glenn: "I don't understand your National Review article in which I am described as 'rabidly anti-gun.' "No one who knows me would describe me that way. I love to shoot guns and would own them if my wife would let me. I recently published an op-ed piece in Chicago Sun-Times entitled 'Pools more dangerous than guns' (July 28, 2001) that could only be construed as pro-guns. I have never written anything even remotely anti-gun. I think your sources must have me confused with someone else."'

      I'm not particularly debating the main point that having a properly safeguarded swimming pool is more dangerous than having a properly safeguarded gun in your home. But I do see something a little fishy in his basis. He appears to be comparing

      550 residential drowning deaths (children under 10)/6 million residential swimming pools

      to

      175 gun deaths (children under 10)/200 million guns

      The problem I have is that "200 million guns" figure. Guns where? He doesn't say in residences only. As far as I can tell, he's including all the guns the police own, criminals own, etc. Personally, the members of my family that own guns tend to own at least a half dozen. However, I have yet to meet someone who owned two swimming pools. Wouldn't it be better to compare "residences containing a swimming pool" with "residences containing at least one gun"?

      According to http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/98ppla.txt there were only around 100 million households in the US in 1998 (where the numbers for guns in the op-ed piece came from). According to CURRENT polls (can't find ones for 1998), it looks like households with guns falls somewhere in the 40-50% range.

      Another issue I have is that households with a swimming pool are going to be much more likely to have children in them than households than have guns, from a percentage standpoint. A more relevant statistic would be the number of gun deaths divided by the number of households with both children and guns compared to the number of pool deaths divided by the number of households with both children and swimming pools.

      Of course, this is considering both items in a vacuum. You could also consider the possible health benefits of having a pool to the possible lifesaving benefit of having a gun.

      To summarize, I personally wouldn't have a pool, as I DO believe they are a hazard. I would also not have a gun in my house. But I have no objection to people who do and use the proper safeguards 100% of the time.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@firearm owners

      "any links to arguments/statistics against gun control from non interest groups?"

      When somebody asks this, please do not digg them down. Pro-gun people are not the ones that need to hide their sources. Information is on your side. I know that some of the fire-arm owners feel threatened when somebody insults the NRA but people have the right to be skeptical. Let them check the NRA's (or the FBI's) facts. Help them find the information they need. The second amendment will be much better off in the long run.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@wacki

      Yeah, people digg others down for very weird reasons, sometimes. I got dugg down to -1 for my previous analysis of the swimming pool thing. I'm still unsure why. I'm not really pro- or anti-gun (I'm mostly anti-gun control though I do have some problems with RTC). I was just posting because there were obvious problems with the numbers used in the analysis. Somehow at least three people interpreted that as being bury-worthy.
  • chopinbloc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33"How a politician stands on the second amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual; as a trustworthy, productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised and taken care of." – Suzanne Gratia-Hupp


    The anti's distrust of everyone else carrying stems from projecting their own distrust of themselves to be responsible with a firearm.
    Question to Liberals: What kind of major cognitive dysfunction is required, in order to believe that proven homicidal dictators and mass-murdering terrorists will become reasonable people if given half a chance, while simultaneously believing that in the presence of a gun your friends, relatives, and neighbors, whom you've known all your life, will become bloodthirsty killers if given half a chance?

    As for outlawing guns.... why don't we try that with drugs first? What's that? We have? Oh. How'd that work out?
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -25/+9So the Pope, Ghandi, Mother Tereasa who were pacifists were all unproductive and untrustworthy?
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29Don't forget the prohibition of alcohol. That was an overwhelming success.
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -20/+17So what legalize everything because the alcohol prohibition didn't work?
    • dambuster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Forget about alcohol, let's start and legalize dope in all shapes and forms, dispence with the DEA, and funnel the savings into projects to lessen the rich/poor chasm in Washington to get the number of murders down.
    • garyeterry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I do not trust myself to own a handgun, and not shoot some asshat who desperately needs it.

      I do not agree that people should not be allowed to carry, just because I can't control my anger though.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Ghandi actually said that the disarmament of India by Great Britain was one of his country's darkest moments.

    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@gronne
      Ghandi [sic] huh?
      "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." --Gandhi

      Looks like theblooms beat me to it...
    • Larofeticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Einstein was an ardent pacifist yet he signed several letters to FDR in support of the creation of the atom bomb.

      He did so because there was credible evidence that germany had the resources and scientists to build one, and if germany had the bomb first they would win the war.

      Einstein did not support using the atom bomb however, and spent the rest of his life fighting it's proliferation.

      Pacifism has much less to do with the possession of weapons as to do with the use of weapons. It is even possible that atom bombs have saved lives; imagine if the threat of mutually assured destruction had not prevented the cold war from turning hot.
    • grazie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2So why stop at guns? What about all weapons? Explosives, mines, nuclear weapons? Why is anything illegal? After all, don't we want our politicians to think of us as responsible citizens?

      I find it ironic that a lot of the same people who argue so strongly for the right to own a gun, are the same people who strongly argue that Iran and North Korea shouldn't be allowed to have the bomb.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"What kind of major cognitive dysfunction is required, in order to believe that proven homicidal dictators and mass-murdering terrorists will become reasonable people if given half a chance, while simultaneously believing that in the presence of a gun your friends, relatives, and neighbors, whom you've known all your life, will become bloodthirsty killers if given half a chance?"

      Nice strawman. I'll respond in kind:

      The same kind that's required to believe that it's wrong for a mother to abort her unborn child, but it's okay for the government to kill an adult?

    • plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Are you saying that we should make heroin usage and dealing legal?
      I agree the war on drugs has been a terrible failure, Ill stand in line and vote to make pot legal. But why does it have to be all or nothing with everything? cant we talk about how we control the use of drugs in society without becoming hysterical?
      Its similar with "gun control". Gun control does not mean the banning of all guns, there are a million ways they can be controlled, some of these may include banning certain types of weapons, but so many people seem to be against discussing it- they are just anti-gun-control.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Its similar with "gun control". Gun control does not mean the banning of all guns, there are a million ways they can be controlled, some of these may include banning certain types of weapons, but so many people seem to be against discussing it- they are just anti-gun-control."

      What types of weapons do you believe should be banned, and for what reason?

      Do you believe that the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 (expried without successful re-enactment in 2004) was "reasonable" and why was it reasonable or unreasonable? Be specific.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ garyeterry,

      You may never read this, but if you do I want you to know you have my complete respect.

      I cannot trust myself with chocolate. When there is chocolate in the house, I consume it, Too much. I know it, so I avoid buying it. Yet, I would not consider banning (or "common sense regulation") of chocolate for other people to be in any way a "sane" reaction on my part.

      It's like listening to a devout Christian talking about how, without God's prohibition on murder, rape, etc, people would be instantly out "doing unto others" with abandon. Well, I think that says far more about the devout Christian than it does about anyone else, since the only reason he's not "doing unto others" is that he's afraid of hell.

      Here's something that occurred to me not all that long ago: Logic, reason and historical anecdote, are all firmly on the side of allowing people to choose and then punishing those who harm others.

      So what is left? What remains for the prohibitionists, the fundamentalists, the statists and polypragmatoi who wish to run other peoples lives? What can they use to justify their desire for control?

      Emotion. Raw emotion. Fear, hatred.

      So what is the response to the very logical "stop the war on drugs"? An emotional appeal to fear, "then your 10 year old daughter will be doing drugs and get messed up by her pimp."

      So what is the response to the very logical "stop the war on gun ownership"? An emotional appeal to fear, "then your 10 year old daughter will be shot by her pimp."

      etc.

  • rastasahoho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6emanggid*

    These are percentages of populations. How do you figure that population affects the ratio of crimes committed? If 4 people live there and 1 person commits the crime, it's 25%. If you have 100,000 people and 25,000 commit the crime it's still 25%. How many people live in any given area does not affect the percentage. The type of people and their ability to defend themselves does.
  • chopinbloc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"So the Pope, Ghandi, Mother Tereasa who were pacifists were all unproductive and untrustworthy?"

    Actually, the quote has to do with how a politician sees their constituency, not a comment on how productive and trustworthy people actually are. Further, the view is affected by the POLITICIANS stance on gun control, not the voter. Maybe you should re-read the quote to get a better understanding of what was actually said. While you're at it, here's another quote to chew over made by another famous pacifist. Perhaps it will give you a better understanding of the difference between non-violent policies and suicide.

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
    -His Holiness, the XIV Dalai Lama
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Don't forget:

      "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
      -Mohandas Gandhi
  • chopinbloc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"So what legalize everything because the alcohol prohibition didn't work?"

    Sure, or maybe recognize that, in some cases laws are counterproductive. Most people don't have a problem with law abiding folks owning guns and most people don't want criminals to have guns. Passing a law to prohibit a criminal from doing something is ludicrous, though. The target of the law will, by nature disobey the law. How hard is that to understand?
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3Should we legalize child pornography?
    • dime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"Should we legalize child pornography?"

      Either you're the world's largest idiot, or a troll. For the sake of argument, I'll assume the former and explain the difference.

      Child pornography is illegal because it involves individuals who do not have the mental capacity to consent to the acts they engage in. Thus, any sexual act they partake in would involve force, and thereby deprive the child of their individual, inherant rights of liberty.

    • chopinbloc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Of course not. It would, however, be ludicrous to pass a law prohibiting convicted child molesters from molesting children because it is already illegal to molest children and the only thing that can reduce the incidence of the crime is increased enforcement of existing laws and increased penalties. I'm not sure why I'm even responding as I'm not convinced that people are actually capable of seeing the failure of logic here.
    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@dime
      At this point I think gronne is BOTH.
    • saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Laws exist more to legitimize punishment of people for crimes than to prevent them for being committed.
  • truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Ive learned in my Psych class is that guns are aggression cues that when present when someone is aggressive are more likely to use them. There is a whole bunch of evidence to support that but gun laws in Canada are the same as in the US and they have less violent crimes. So there seems to be no clear cut answer.
    • Mosatii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I can give you one; gang culture in America.
    • DougieD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Another; We have a hell of a lot more people than in Canada. And a hell of a lot more guns. Never forget context when citing statistics.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, I think the statistics comparing the US and Canada are per capita.

      Though I have to say it's still misleading. It's assuming people everywhere are the same. There is quite a difference between the cultures in Canada, the US and Mexico, even though they are geographically adjacent.
    • RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Gun laws in Canada are not the same. They have had very strict gun control in place since the 1995 when Marc Lepine nee' Gamil Gharbi, an Algerian Muslim btw, massacred 14 women at Ecole Polytechnic. He thought women should stay in their place as an underclass. At that time, they pass licensing for gun possession, gun purchase, and universal registration. Their gun registry has cost them 2 billion dollars (not the $2 million promised by its creators) and guess what? Hasn't halted crime and couldn't even stop another university massacre last year.

      Gun control is nothing but meaningless feel-good legislation that does NOTHING to halt crime. It only disarms law abiding citizens.

      You know what could have gone a long way to lowering crime? Using that $2 billion to hire police and build jails to house _violent_offenders_.
    • iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4First of all, the massacre happened in 1989 not 1995. And Marc Lepine was not an Algerian Muslim, he was born and raised in Montreal, which in my view makes him a fellow Canadian. Naming him a Muslim just shows your racist views. The more recent school shooting in Montreal did not involve a Muslim so why did you have to bring that up? You know what all school shooters have in common though? They're all social outcasts who feel they can't catch a break in life and so decide to take out their rage on others.
      Here's my position on guns: I'm for gun-control in Canada's major cities but not rural areas. Canada's gun crime is so low, that defending myself has never been a top priority.
      However, if I ever moved to the U.S. I would sure as hell get a gun, your crime rates actually scare me. Besides, after seeing all the gun-owning advocates here, I'm amazed there's any gun-control movement at all in the States.
  • zhuk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Drunk Drivers Don't Kill People! Cars Kill People!

    Ban Assault Cars! Think of the Children!
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6You fail. It should be:

      "Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers kill people."

      Ban drunk drivers! Think of the children!
    • billyoneal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Thank you for having some sense!
    • selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Or just govern them so they can only go a max of 5mph... that would still be faster than most people walk so they couldn't really complain:)
    • rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Comparing cars to guns is not a good comparison. Why? When they're being used as they are supposed to, cars provide enormous utility to society. Guns (in the hands of civilians) don't even compare.
    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@selrahc

      That's why they make them ride those little scooters when they've had one DUI too many :)
    • dambuster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7The sole purpose of a gun is to shoot something (or someone), the main purpose of a car is transportation. This is such a dumb metaphor. whoops, this comment was too obvious.
    • plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3plus, there are many many laws governing how cars are owned and used, licences, registrations, all the road rules. We have lots of "car control", its not a big free for all.
    • BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@zhuk,
      Seen on a bumper sticker:
      "Guns don't kill people. I do!"
  • zekt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think you'll find that it has more to do with the >amount< of guns and the overall crimerate, rather than purely correlating with RTC laws. But then again, what the hell do I know... I live on the other side of the planet.
  • sixister, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I know that most of this article is likely true, but I would still like some links to references.
  • deadmilkman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Unfortunately what the Pro-gun movement ignores is that if US wide guns were illegal, it would be "much" harder to ship and export guns within the US and criminal gun ownership would be much lower.

    Unfortuantely what the Anti-gun moment ignores is that dispite the above, the root cause of crime isn't the availability of guns. By ignoring the causes of crime and just going after a weapon of choice crime isn't magically going to go away.
  • uncon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I didn't know gun control was the reason for Washington DC's high murder rate!
  • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5Who ever wrote this is an idiot... Come on lets be honest this only proves their point. Higher crime rates require legislatures to have stricter gun controls.

    "The news media often characterize violent crime as a primarily gun-oriented problem, but the FBI’s report showed that only one in every four violent crimes in 2005 was committed with a gun."

    So wouldn't it be better and possibly less serious if one in twenty was committed with a gun?

    "Recently, anti-gun politicians and activists have intensified their rhetoric over the “lack” of bans on handguns, so-called “assault weapons”, and .50-caliber rifles; gun registration, gun owner licensing, and mandatory background checks on sales of guns between friends and family members; and limits on the frequency of gun purchases, all of which they say are necessary to reduce the nation’s murder rate. "

    If you need a .50-caliber rifle to shoot things you are the type of block headed red neck that joins the army and brings his own gun. Why do you need a .50-caliber rifle unless you have it with the idea of killing in mind. They weren't made to hunt deer or put down sheep, let me put it that way.


    The more gun laws there are... the easier it is to charge people.
    • jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17You call yourself a liberal. Pfeh. I'm a liberal, I own guns, and I don't throw around racist epithets ("redneck") at people in order to marginalize and insult them.

      You're not a liberal, and you have no place in a liberal society.
    • worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You can switch the cause and effect every which way, but the root truth remains. Correlation does not imply causation.

      Just because, say, the murder rate in this city has gone up 30% since my new neighbors moved in DOES NOT MEAN they should be put in jail for increasing the crime rate.
    • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2rednecks aren't a race and for the record I do have guns too. It is a mind set... having a gun just for the sake of having a gun... The thing is if my guns barrel required a smaller caliber according to law I would gladly accept it. I doesnt take 50 calibers to kill someone even. A 45 will blow a huge hole in someone.
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22There is a simple truth that you fail to accept; the Second Amendment was not created with hunting in mind, instead it was created to allow common citizens to have the power to resist against government tyranny.
    • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1OK well you are all welcome to attempt to resist the goverment... they have much bigger guns than we would ever have that is for sure.
    • JustWords, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@silentdud

      Actually it's you who brought the idiot in the discussion. You site "politicians" soap boxing about making legislation to ban .50 calibers... That is all grandios talk on the part of a no-brain politician to sound tough on crime in order to get a vote. And it sounds like you're falling for it.
      Yes it would be better if 1/20 was committed with a gun. It would be even better if it were 1/1000. But the fact is that criminals are in fact criminals, who hang out with other criminals, who know how to get a gun through... sit down for this one... illegal methods which circumvent desired gun control laws.

      I always get a laugh out of the uninformed or naive who throw out 'assault rifle' and large-caliber descriptive firearms as if those are the ones that are being used to commit gun involved crimes. Before you fall for the sky-is-falling media rhetoric, get some facts.

      Additionally, the media likes to use the super graphic images of fully automatic weapons to describe semi-automatic weapons as assault riffles. Big difference.
    • Ishiguro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@silentdud
      "If you need a .50-caliber rifle to shoot things you are the type of block headed red neck that joins the army and brings his own gun. Why do you need a .50-caliber rifle unless you have it with the idea of killing in mind. They weren't made to hunt deer or put down sheep, let me put it that way."

      Most of the .50 caliber rifles I'm aware of cost from 6-10k. That wouldn't exactly be a cost effective way to commit crimes.
    • AMCer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't be an idiot. .50 Cals are NOT used for crime. They are too big and too expensive. The people I know that own .50cals are not your average 9mm/AK-47 totin' idiots who are a danger to everyone. They have dropped some serious money on the gun and they are VERY careful with it.

      When was the last time you heard of an accidental .50cal shooting?

      So, if they aren't used for crime and they aren't being mis-handled why make them illegal for free [supposedly] citizens to own?


      To the 9mm/AK guys: Not all of you guys are bad but, sorry, they are generally the choice of guns for people doing dumb things.
  • Gutzyshark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15At the end of the day, the criminals always have access to guns both legal and illegal (mostly illegal). Being able to have the ability to carry a gun and protect yourself is a good thing. Making the criminals think twice before they break into your house is something worthwhile. Look at Washington DC where you aren't allowed to carry a gun, they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. There is also no sense in writing new laws if they cant enforce the current ones.
    • Jack000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1lets legalize guns in schools. After all, students who bring guns to school will get it one way or another. The other students need to protect themselves with their own guns. Making gang members think twice before pushing you around is worthwhile. There will be much less school shootings this way.
    • CzechRebel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ Jack000

      Good idea. I have friends that used to hunt on they way back and forth to school. They had a rack for their guns in the hallways. No one bothered those guns during the school day.

      They also used to teach marksmanship in high school. So only a half century ago, it was a real common thing to bring a gun to school.

      Maybe if we still had parents who took their children hunting and out the shooting range, we might even build closer family bonds.

      I like the idea. Either let them bring the guns again or close the public schools altogether.
  • SalsaShark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Correlation does not imply causation. Obviously urban areas have more violent crime than rural areas but the cause of that crime goes well beyond the fact that gun ownership is more restricted. I'd go out on a limb and say that poverty and peoples' lack of education in urban areas is more responsible for violent crime than the fact gun laws are stricter.
  • patonw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I really don't think this is a cause and effect type relationship or if it is, it's backwards of what the pro-gun lobby is spinning. I would guess that strict gun control laws are created because of rampant crime. Being deprived of a gun doesn't make you want to kill someone but the government might want to take away your guns if your likely to kill someone.
  • L337Llama, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Some countries with extremely strict gun control, like South Korea and Japan, have extremely low murder rates as well. The difference is, gun control wasn't introduced after rampant ownership of guns did. Gun control in the US now is extremely tricky because of the huge number of guns simply out and available outside of the law, and it's too late for gun control in some regards. The question is, how do we deal with it?
  • TheGoat7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Even if gun laws were made to prevent gun ownership, people will be able to obtain guns. The people who are not supposed to have guns (felons for example) can easily get them. Making more laws would mostly hurt the law abiding, gun-owning people.
    • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1yes but atleast it makes it more difficult... if outlawing child molestation reduces the ammount of pedophiles who act on their impulse I am all for it.
    • dambuster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Why does one think they are easy to get by?
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5silentdud

      You believe that it is acceptable to revoke the rights of others simply because it makes you "feel" better?

      That is truly frightening.
    • RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Silentdude:

      You did not make a parallel comparison. Let's try outlawing murder to make murder more difficult.

      But wait, murder is outlawed and the outlaws don't obey the law....??...wtf? Well, how are we going to get them to obey gun laws then?
  • wfrost, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. Enacting tough gun control now does nothing for potential criminals with guns now and merchants who sell to potential criminals. Though I may be an idealist, I know I'd feel much safer if no one had guns, period.
  • gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6What if the British decide to invade the US again.
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6We never invaded the USA - we owned it first, you stole it.
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7War of 1812. We kept it, too... after you invaded. :P
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"What if the British decide to invade the US again."

      That's what the army, navy, marines, air force, and national guard are for.
    • jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
      --Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy, 1941
    • scelestus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ jferrari

      You stole it first.
    • CaptNemo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What if the Mexicans decided to invade America?


      ...Oh wait...
  • joshtj, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5I'm sure the National Rifle Association is about as unbiased towards gun control as Exxon is towards global warming. How about getting facts from an neutral source next time.
    • jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Are you kidding? Even anti-gun groups admit that the laws don't work!

      The CDC good enough for you?

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

      From the study: "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

      In short, the most well funded and comprehensive study of gun control laws ever commissioned, done by Federal organization with an anti-gun agenda, funded by the financial resources of the US Federal Government, found - nothing. The phrase "insufficient evidence" is telling, as it says "Despite our agenda, even WE couldn't massage the studies enough to support our pre-existing conclusion that gun laws prevent violence."

      Secondly, this article compares the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence's "grade" of each state with that state's violent crime rate from the USDOJ.

      http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/brady_effectiveness.pdf

      Correlation: ZERO.

      There you go. Two gun control advocacy groups, two studies showing that gun control laws are across the board ineffective at preventing violence.
    • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yeah the laws do not work because there is no way of enforcing them. The same goes for child molestation and pedophilia though... we don't know about the crimes until after they occur.... what would you imply that the solution would be to these issues? if a law is present and someone is caught violating that law they can go to court. if a person is caught violating a crime with a gun that is one less charge that will aid prosecutors in putting them in jail. It doesn't take a 50 caliber gun to kill someone so why should you complain about them outlawing it?


      AT THE END OF THE DAY BIG GUNS = THE NEED TO GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT BIG GUNS
  • Erich, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Seriously, since when is gun control a big issue? Look at the agenda of the Democratic Party, do you see gun control on it? No. Gun control is being advocated only in the large cities that have high rates of crime. So, the NRA needn't get its panties in a bunch. The UN isn't trying to take your guns away. What you should be concerned about is affording health care if you ever have an accident with your gun.
    • jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You're wrong, or a liar.

      From the Democratic Party's webpage:

      "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

      Are you simply ignorant of the Democrat platform, or are you actively trying to mislead people? Either one is inexcusable. The Democrats want more gun control, period.
    • ICZEOZN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So, it is perfectly acceptable to revoke the rights of those who live in large cities? I hope you know that there are many NRA members and gun owners that live in cities. You must believe that all gun owners are an exact image of the mountain men in Deliverance? You couldn't be more wrong.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8""We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by [...] reauthorizing the assault weapons ban""

      Mutually exclusive goals, the first and the last there.
    • Erich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jlbraun:

      Wait, you're against efforts to take guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists? Alrighty.

      btw: I'm a gun owner in a major city. I own a gun to protect my family and I'm in favor of gun control to protect my family. But, of the candidates I voted for in November (all of them Democrats) none even mentioned gun control.
  • Mosatii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I like to look at it this way; gun control laws are a band-aid on a much larger problem.

    A complete ban on firearms would lower violent crime and murder, most likely. However, the act