ASSUMPTIONS ARE THE MOTHER OF MANY SCREW-UPS
Salazar and the National Park Gun Rule
Will our new Interior Secretary support more guns in national parks?
By Bill Schneider, 1-02-09
Updated January 5, 8:45 pm Montana Time. See footnote at the end of the article.
A hot outdoor story keeping the blogs and community tables humming right now is the Bush administration’s last minute rule change allowing loaded and concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Outgoing Interior Secretary and former Governor of Idaho Dirk Kempthorne signed the rule, but the incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a U.S. Senator from Colorado, will be on the hot seat next year dealing with efforts to overturn the rule.
Several park-oriented nonprofit groups plan to push President-elect Barrack Obama to reverse the rule, and earlier this week, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an anti-gun organization, sued the Department of the Interior (which includes the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to overturn the rule. Brady Campaign attorneys also asked for an injunction to keep the rule from going into effect on January 9. That’s 11 days before Obama’s Inauguration when roughly five million people will gather in Washington D.C. to celebrate the seating of the new president. This concerns opponents like the Brady Campaign because the rule covers both urban and rural national parks and allows concealed guns on the National Mall and other urban parks.
If you’ve been following this issue, you’ve probably read articles saying that Salazar was one of the 51 U.S. Senators who signed a letter to Kempthorne supporting the rule. I’m not sure where this started, but there have been repeated inaccurate reports, or should I say, assumptions that Salazar signed the letter. Since Salazar has a fairly solid, pro-gun image, it seems reasonable to assume he’d be among the Senators supporting the rule. In fact, every U.S. Senator from Rocky Mountain states (CO, ID, MT, UT and WY) signed the letter--except one, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar.
(Click here and here to see which Senators supported the rule.)
In an attempt to find out why Salazar didn’t sign it, I called Matt Lee-Ashley, Salazar’s communication director. He did not know why the Senator did not sign the letter, but based on testimony in congressional hearings and other background work, Lee-Ashley assured me that the Senator “is generally supportive of allowing state laws to dictate use of guns in national parks.” That is, in essence, what the new rule does i.e. takes the concealed carry law of the state and applying it national parks in the same way in applies to state parks that state.
Stay tuned to see whether Salazar supports the rule as Secretary of the Interior.
Footnote: Even though incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar didn’t sign the letter supporting the gun rule, he did sign the amicus brief in DC v Heller, which was also signed by Vice President Dick Cheney, 54 other U.S. Senators and 250 U.S. Representatives. The brief supported Dick Anthony Heller’s case against the restrictive gun regulations in D.C. and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually agreed.
Click here to read the amicus brief and view the list of signatories:
I am trying to get an interview with Senator Salazar, so I have not been able to confirm why he apparently was one of the four senators who signed the brief but not the letter.--Bill Schneider
[End of article]Allowing "Registered" and "Conceal-Carry" handguns into the parks, whether urban or wilderness, does not effect any criminal/violent types en masse as articles of this type suggest. In order to bring a gun into a park legally under the new ruling, an individual would already have been investigated by their respective state police department and be approved for a conceal carry permit. I have no idea how this can do any more than increase the number of responsible gun carriers over the illegal types.
To publically state any other trend is to show one's inability to step outside of leftist, appeaser talking points.
As the National Parks Conservation Association pointed out a month ago, every living former director of the National Park Service, several ranger organizations, retired superintendents, and numerous FWS and NPS employees have expressed serious concerns about the new gun rule.
Many of these people are the ones who were actually in the field with visitors. Sometimes these are visitors who are drunk in campgrounds, who are poaching the occasional wildlife or who get into domestic arguments with their family members.
Now many of these visitors will be armed.
That might be all right to a web surfer who is safe in their living room or a bureaucrat who is safe on Capitol Hill, but the fact is while national parks are amongst the safest areas for visitors, U.S. Park Rangers are the most assaulted Federal Officers in the country.
So every gun lover might want to think about that before they blindly embrace this rule.
"Gun Lover"
Nice term Lisa. About 40 years ago I was called a nigger lover because I had friends who were black. That's the only reason.
To see the term gun lover reminded me of those days and the hate directed towards me and my friends for no sensible reason.
What exactly is a gun lover? And why do you hate people you know nothing about simply because we own firearms?
The Brady Campaign has not necessarily distorted any facts as I read the story. However the writer, Bill Schneider may have omitted some specifics with regard to Individual State Control over Federal Control and thereby causing a misunderstanding of the bill
Regardless, I can't see why anyone other than law enforcement would NEED to have a semi-automatic weapon in a National Park.
National Parks were dedicated for the Public-at-Large to enjoy and if anyone NEEDS a semi-automatic weapon in order to enjoy themselves, they should visit a facility equipped to handle their requirements.
What's next? Should states that have NUDE Beaches allow public nudity at National Parks?
Should National Parks now be managed and staffed by "State Employees"? Then what would be the difference between State Parks and National Parks?
Or should we contract out services to Private Enforcement agencies like Blackwater?
I disagree with this bill because I don't feel any great benefit will come. Rather it serves to show favoritism to a select group and ignores the "Public-At-Large"
Bill - you state, "the rule covers both urban and rural national parks and allows concealed guns on the National Mail and other urban parks."
I assume you meant National Mall. I also assume you are mistaken or deliberately misleading, because I believe that unless D.C. allows its citizens to carry concealed in the Mall, out-of-district visitors would be similarly constrained. (Of course, THE LAW is a moot point for criminals. And I also readily declare that my understanding of the new rule might be mistaken.)
Joe - nobody who visits national parks NEEDS to have a toothbrush, either. Or a spare tire. Or a change of underpants. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to justify why they choose to have a gun, or choose not to. (But this topic has been beaten to death, and to continue to discuss it 'til Kingdom Come will not result in any type of consensus.)
You busted me, Bikeboy. Had a little keyboard malfunction there, but I fixed it. Allowing concealed guns in the mail could be controversial, I guess......Bill
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-02-09To Lisa, the Wrong Thinker.
Today, there is no public record or news story that supports Park Rangers being the most attacked.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
Furthermore, I am a field producer for an outdoors video production company. I grew up in the most liberal, socialist state in the union, Oregon, and am not hidden away safely behind the web, nor as a bureaucrat in DC. I deal with park rangers many times a year as I interview them and work with them concerning safety and eco issues of which they wish our audience to be aware.
In regards to taking one’s opinions from a retired ranger, that’s like having the wolves guard the hen house isn’t it? Of course they would publish self serving opinions that retain their power base. They’re bureaucrats; civil servants. Their authority ends where my rights begin, not visa versa.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
I know from first hand that the incorrectly personified "red neck" characterization of the drunk and disorderly or the brash angry brawler is a product of the ignorant and the Hollywood producer who know nothing of the responsible gun owner.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
It seems that the so-called tolerance for which The Left is always crying is only for The Left's issues, and not for Christians, gun owners, Baptists, conservatives or any other element on which your freedoms were founded.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
Regardless, I will continue to protect my family's safety and yours by carrying my gun regardless of so-called laws passed to the contrary because not only is it my right under law, but it is my duty as a man with a family to make sure that my family is safe from those who carry guns in order to do harm to the weak for gain.
I also know from first hand experience that thousands more personal attacks would be occurring every year than do now, if it were not for the responsible citizens like me who carry. Criminals prey upon the weak. Do the math; how could the local peace officer possibly get to your side in that parking lot in time to keep you from getting hurt by the gun carrying thug? You should seriously consider how you will protect yourself and your family from the criminal element who doesn’t give a flip about gun laws.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
Anti gun laws do nothing but serve the criminal by making it more difficult for responsible individuals to carry guns.
I have never shot another human or even pointed a gun in one's direction. And other than animals which I chose to kill and eat instead of allowing the grocery butcher to kill for me, I have never shot at another animal. What you have just read at my hand is the standard, garden variety gun owner; not the drunken, redneck, brawler.
I’ve even eaten a few chickens and rabbits that I killed myself without using a gun. Am I less civilized because the animal I ate wasn’t killed by someone else? Who kills your food for you?
I don't get my opinions of folks from the TV as others.
Criminals prey upon the weak.
I am tired of this type of dangerous foolish talk that makes gun owners out to be the criminal. I am on the offensive against such idiots and from now on will make it my mission to clear the air wherever needed.
Down with foolishness and up with safety.
And by the way, were you aware that criminals prey upon the weak?
As is typical of the press, you've bought the Brady Bunch's lies, hook, line and sinker. The fact is that Washington DC does not permit concealed carry of handguns, therefore, no National Park in DC, including the National Mall, will be subject to this rule change. But it does make for great, shocking press, to say that millions of inauguration attendees will be packing heat. Truth? Ha, who cares, it sells.
Another big fat lie is the claim that this was a "last minute" rule change. See this web site: http://www.bighammer.net/timeline.html which clearly documents that this was an effort that took in excess of FOUR YEARS to accomplish, despite opposition at nearly every turn. Salazar or no, the majority of the Senate saw the value in supporting this change, despite the Democratic majority. That should speak volumes, if you care to listen.
The truth doesn't match the agenda, so just make up a story that does.
"This concerns opponents like the Brady Campaign because the rule covers both urban and rural national parks and allows concealed guns on the National Mall and other urban parks. "
Hey Schneider,Why is you can't varify some of teh information you propagate? Concealed Carry of handguns WILL NOT be allowed on the National Mall. The District of Columbia is NOT a State. DC DOES NOT issue concealed carry permits. The law abiding citizens in DC have a hard enough time owning and keeping firearms at home.
Copying and pasting what the Brady Bunch puts out is nothing more than repeating lies. That's all they have because they don't have one single fact to back up their arguments.
Lisa wrote:
"Sometimes these are visitors who are drunk in campgrounds, who are poaching the occasional wildlife or who get into domestic arguments with their family members."
Lisa, People,that have concealed carry permits or handgun carry permits rarely behave this way. We can get in a whole lot more trouble that others would if we did these things while armed. Not to mention that we would loose our permits. Permits are not handed out for free. My Tn HCP cost me over $200 (mandatory gun safety course and application for the permit combined) and I sure as hell ain't going to do anything to jeopardize it.
I haven't met an anti-gunner yet that has the same self-discipline as a law abiding gun owner/carrier.
Stu, that is one of the worst posts I've ever read. I'll make sure I Tell my friends not to partake in your website.
Comment By Bill Schneider, 1-03-09Jerry and TFred,
I'll double check on this next week, but it is my understanding that DC law does allow concealed carry permits and the new rule specifically includes DC even though it is not a state, so people with a valid concealed carry permit would be able to go on the National Mall, because the new rule definitely applies to urban national parks.
Not that I think that is a big deal, because I don't. Personally, I wouldn't care if every adult walking on the National Mall or Yellowstone was carrying. And keep in mind that I am the guy who has repeatedly supported the national park gun rule. You seem to think I oppose it. Read this:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/let_national_park_gun_rule_stand/C41/L41/
And "last minute"? True, it has been floated for years and subject to public comment for months, but it was signed in November and doesn't even go into effect until January. That's "last minute enough" for me.
Bill
Bill,
I just read your article in support of the new ruling. I'm glad to see that you understand the reality of the gun issues. I can't say that I share your confidence in the new incoming administration.
DC may allow concealed carry in the Nat Parks within their jurisdiction, but only for DC residence that they have issued permits to. I would not be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere in DC with my Tennessee handgun carry permit (allows me to carry concealed or openly[where legal]) because DC does not recognize permits from outside it's jurisdiction. So concealed handguns on the Mall are going to be few and far between, and most likely those carriers are going to be retired law enforcement and the political elite. The rest of the law abiding people will be there at there own risk.
"I'll double check on this next week, but it is my understanding that DC law does allow concealed carry permits and the new rule specifically includes DC even though it is not a state"
Maybe you need to double-check stuff BEFORE you write articles.
DC does NOT allow concealed carry.
For those who (like Bill) have obviously been out of the loop for the past two years, the Heller case was about DC's BAN on gun OWNERSHIP -- except for people grandfathered over 30 years ago, and those people had to keep their guns disassembled and locked up inside their own homes. It was a crime for them even to move a gun from spot A to spot B inside their own homes. The Supreme Court said that DC had to allow PURCHASE and OWNERSHIP of a WORKING firearm by their citizens. It said absolutely nothing about concealed carry; therefore DC did not have to implement concealed carry. And you can rest assured that they are not volunteering to do so.
By the way, the errors in this article make the headline even more ironic: "ASSUMPTIONS ARE THE MOTHER OF MANY SCREW-UPS."
Comment By Bill Schneider, 1-03-09Henry,
As I've already said, I have no problem with people having concealed guns in any park, urban or rural, but for the record, you can get a concealed carry permit in D.C. It seems like a week code, and I'm sure the local police do what they can to limit the number of permits, but still you can legally get a permit.
Check out DC Cdde Section 22-4506. Here's the key section.
Concealed Weapons Licensing Requirements
The District of Columbia is a "may issue" jurisdiction, meaning that the Chief of Police has discretion in determining whether or not to issue a concealed weapons license to an applicant. Pursuant to District of Columbia Code Annotated § 22-4506, the Chief of Police may issue a license to carry a handgun within the District "if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a [handgun] and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed." In addition, section 22-4506 requires the applicant to have:
A bona fide residence or place of business within the District; or
A bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to carry a handgun concealed upon his or her person issued by the lawful authorities of any state or subdivision of the United States.
I believe if you have a CC permit from Tennessee, you can also legally carry in DC.
If you have a problem with claims that concealed carrying is not allowed on the National Mall, talk to the Brady Campaign. They are making these claims, not me. I'm only reporting what they said, but it appears that they are correct.
This is not even the subject of the article, which was about our new Interior Secretary's views on the national park gun rule.
Bill
Bill, thanks for the whole series of articles. I know you catch some flak from both sides, but that's the risk of posting a public opinion.
If I may address some misconceptions:
Why does anyone need to carry a gun in a National Park?
If I needed to carry a gun somewhere, I wouldn't go there. Or if I had no choice but to go where I "needed" a gun, the gun of choice wouldn't be a concealed handgun, it would be a rifle at port arms. Regardless, even when we choose to go to various "safe" places, we seldom have the option of picking routes that always are as idyllic and serene as our destination.
I'll feel unsafe and uncomfortable with these people carrying inside the park.
These very same people are legally carrying outside the park. Do you feel uncomfortable at the grocery store, where "these people" also shop?
National Parks are safe, and our rangers do a great job.
Not all parks are located in remote rural areas, nor are their boundaries distinct. Hot Springs, Arkansas, is notorious for crime (mostly personal crime involving robbery and assault) for a city of its size. Hot Springs National Park lies within the city and is completely intermingled with the downtown shopping and tourist district. There are no distinct boundaries; only careful consultation with a map will tell you whether you're in the NP, or the city. Same city, same streets, same sidewalks, same people, but until this new rule takes effect, concealed carry is legal on one side of the street, but not the other; legal on this city block, but not the next.
Hot Springs is a great example of why the old rule was pointless and ineffective and needed to change. Big Bend NP in Texas is another. (BTW, to correct one of your earlier columns, Texas does not prohibit guns in state parks, so this rule change will be in effect there, as well.) People who are legally and safely carrying guns in their everyday lives do not change into poachers and violent thugs just because they enter NPS boundaries. Likewise, poachers and violent thugs don't change just because they cross an invisible line on the ground, either.
Bill, I believe it was western congressmen who proposed and passed teh law, NOT the "Bush Administration" as you put it.
Comment By Jack Ashe, 1-03-09Mario, the rule is not a law related to legislative activity requiring congressional action. It is an administrative rule and the Bush Administration is solely (with the help of the NRA) responsible for this rulemaking.
The final rule does seem to suggest that states will have final control over the issue which offers some remedy or control beyond a wild west situation. In the arguments for the rule the issue of a tent representing a persons dwelling is made and many states allow concealed weapons in personal dwelling. This may be an issue of concern. An individual without a concealed carry permit, may have the right (per state law) to have weapon concealed/loaded in their tent. I see nothing but problems with THAT situation.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 George Bush
Jack Ashe
What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom...
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.
Statements of The Enemies of Liberty:
"Government begins at the end of the gun barrel." - Chairman Mao
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." --V.I. Lenin.
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." --Joseph Stalin.
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." - Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno
So, O Wise Ones, tell me which part of, "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?
The bradybunch is nothing more than a thinly disguised bunch of idiots who think they can create a gun-free utopia. How would this be possible when guns can be made in a garage? Look at Afghanistan, where a booming gun trade of home-made automatic (machine gun) weapons is ongoing. By the way, "assault weapons" are fully automatic....meaning they will fire all the rounds in the magazine with one press of the trigger. Obama wants to outlaw semi-autos, which require one press of the trigger per round fired. Are they trying to disarm Americans to ultimately enslave us? I think they are. Remember, the government is supposed to be afraid of "The People", not the other way around. That's tyranny. As for me, give me Liberty or give me death! I mean this with all my heart.
Comment By Jack Ashe, 1-04-09"The future ain't what it used to be."
Yogi Berra
If the 2nd amendment stated
” Animal ownership, being was essential to the genetic diversity of farm populations, the right of the people to participate in animal husbandry, shall not be infringed"
we would have individuals advocating for their right to own endangered species and rabid skunks.
"Don't believe everything you think". Bumper Sticker
When the First Amendment was written, they didn't envision the dangers that fax machines, telephones, computer keyboards, internet, blogs, television, radio and mass media presented. All these things should be restricted or at least you should have to get a permit from the government before you say dangerous things. Eight hours of approved training should be required before you can say something over a telephone, etc. A background check and a FBI fingerprint check should be run before you can buy a computer or a telephone.
Can you imagine the outrage if something like this was presented? The newspapers would be screaming about First Amendment violations, etc. But this is what I had to undergo just to get a permit to carry a gun for self protection and to protect my children. What kind of BS is that? In Vermont and Alaska, anyone over the age of seventeen can carry a concealed gun, no permit required, no questions asked. Vermont is a low-crime state. Why is that, O Annointed Ones? Please bestow upon me your guidance and wisdom. I await you..........
Swampdweller,
It's the water, man, it's the water. LOL
Seriously, though, I posed a similar question to Mr, Doug Pennington (honcho at Brady HQ) in the comments of another of Bills articles. I asked him to explain how it is that regulatory gun laws are failing to do what they were intended. Along with your example of Alaska and Vermont, I compared them to the crime rates of Chicago and DC, where they have the most restrictive gun control laws, but the highest crime rates in the country.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/let_national_park_gun_rule_stand/C41/L41/
So far, no one has stepped up to give an explanation. My guess is that they'll blame it on George W. Bush, or racism, or bigotry, or global warming, or something in the water supply. They certainly won't be honest about it.
Jack Ashe,
If the constitution guaranteed us the right to own endangered species and someone tried to take that right away, Don't you think we should fight to keep it?
You've described the problem very well. Radicals are trying to take away our constitutional rights and we're fighting to keep them.
Jerry,
thanks for that. My idea of "common sense gun laws" boils down to this: Only one or two gun laws are necessary. Make it a crime to use a gun while commiting a crime punishable by no less than twenty years in prison, period! Then the perpetrator can work on the sentence for whatever the crime he commited was for. Consecutive sentences. No plea deals. Do the time. Simple, clean and concise. Our idiot lawmakers think if they make a law, criminals will obey it. What kind of logic is that? Liberals would rather FEEL safe than actually BE safe. Hence "gun free" zones, which in reality are "victim disarmament zones". As for me.....I'll be safer with my "insurance policy", A snub-nose .357 magnum with six hydrashocks than without it. I would have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and needing it, because when you need a gun, you really, really need a gun! Be safe out there.
Swampgas,
Rights are limited and relative. Unfortunately you have lumped together many different kinds of human liberties and without much insight or imagination; it is hard for some people to discriminate between freedom of expression and freedom of explosion.
Freedoms of expression represent primarily freedoms to think, discuss, display ideas. The gun privelige is merely an opportunity to take an action that could endanger yourself, others, or property-- that privelige needs to highly regulated at best. I don't object to your expression of ideas in civilized society. However, you should express your gun rights more than 5 miles from any other person, in my opinion. And don't come running to me if you shoot yourself in the foot.
Why are you not concerned about the 4th amendment when you go to get on an airplane? Because that right is subordinated to the common good. There is little social benefit to the number of guns in circulation now and much potential for harm. There is very little that I can do by reading a newspaper that will harm someone else; there are plenty of ways to harm others with today's gun technology. If you want to be in strict compliance the 2nd amendment, you should only be bearing guns available or conceived at that time-- muzzleloaders and cannons.
Jack Ashe,
What the heck is "Freedom of explosion"? Something you made up?
What gun priviledge? 2A garauntees that our Right to Keep And Bear Arms and that that Right Shall not be Infringed.
Needs to be highly regulated? Yeah, right. We've all seen how well that has worked out. I've asked on two different threads on this site for one of you anti-gunners to explain why your highly regulatory gun laws in places like Chicago and DC have caused violent crime to exculate while lack of regulation has reduced violent crime. So far, you people don't want to touch that query.
You're intitled to your opinion just as I am mine. But fortunately for both of us opinions aren't law.
You're worried that I might shoot myself in the foot? Aren't you just projecting your fears of what you might do if you held a gun?
I have a right to provide for my own protection where ever I go, with few exceptions, since law enforcement is under no obligation to provide protection for me 24/7. I also have a right to carry an appropriate firearm to reasonably match what the bad guys carry, according the the US Supreme Court (Heller v. DC decision). The bad guys don't carry muzzle loaders.
You don't like the security proceedures at the airports? Don't fly. If we didn't have a radical group wanting to kill as many Americans as they can, maybe we wouldn't have to scrutinize airline passengers so thoroughly. Did you forget about 911? Do you think that they wouldn't try that again, if we let our guard down? Maybe not, because it would be a whole lot harder to take over a plane now than it was before 911. There are too many of us that would fight back if some one tried to highjack another plane.
A gun can do no harm to anyone. It is an inanimate object. People do harm. People do not need a gun to do harm to others. If we were to ban all objects that can be used to do harm to others, we would be banning about 3/4 of the merchandise that Walmart sells in it's stores. From carpenters hammers to pantyhose. Even a can of soup can be used as a lethal weapon.
Guns are merely tools. They can be used for good or bad. Banning guns would only disarm law abiding people. The bad guys will still have guns. Do you want to live under those circumstances. I don't.
Guns and ammunition are a public health threat and the arms race that has developed with respect to police and gangs demonstrates that there are too many guns in circulation. Restrict adequately guns and ammo functionality or possession in densely populated areas and there will eventually be less crime and injury related to gun discharge, simple. If you have a place with lots of traffic accidents and deaths, the solution is not fewer laws, fewer cops, and bigger faster cars without airbags and seatbelts. Simple.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him think"
You can lead a liberal to truth, but you can't make them think.
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09To Jack Ashe (cute handle)
Once again several leaps have been made in this statement about more laws and limited guns leading to less crime.
#1. Laws limiting guns do not affect criminals. So, all these laws will do is limit one of the best deterrents to personal crimes; the safely and lawfully carrying citizen. These unconstitutional laws create more victims.
#2. However the mislead feel about guns, no one has the authority under our US Constitution to make any laws that limit the citizen's right to protect themselves with firearms. One of the most important tenets of our free society is that the government can never subjugate a society that is armed.
If you want to live under a different set of rules, go to a different country. But, don’t help the socialists and appeasers turn a free America into something else.
The conservatives in this country are not attempting to perpetrate a movement that started with Mr. Reagan. We are trying to keep America free which is the way it started before the Marxists infiltrated our Press and our entertainment industry and started re writing our school text books.
The US Constitution IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT. Any so called living document could never be relied upon to be a binding contract. How would you like to have your marriage license be a living document? Your spouse could change a few lines here and there and end up with a new, more comprehensive marriage contract that allows them to sleep with anyone they choose.
No thanks.
Our strong military, our armed citizenry and our US Constitution are the three elements that handed you this free country that you live in. Take away any one of the three and in less than two generations you will lose most of your freedoms.
We already have heavily controlled and government subsidized transportation, Jack Ashe. If trains and busses were not government subsidized and controlled, there would be no rails or buses, just cars. Cars pay their way and have nice asphalted roadways because Americans are allowed to buy cars in such large numbers which create tax revenue via sales tax and fuel taxes which fund the infrastructure of roads. That’s the simplicity of cause and effect.
Once again, you can point an American Journalist to truth but, you can’t make him think. All of your dialogue is straight out of the Marxist playbook. Go live in a Marxist nation if you wish. But, don’t turn my free American Republic into your utopian totalitarian democracy. I hear Switzerland calling or the Netherlands. You like Ikea furniture, right?
All rights are conditional and restricted. Some hopefully more than others. My rabid skunk example above was apparently not persuasive.
Consider this possible 2nd amendment privilege:
"Yogurt and sauerkraut, being necessary to the health of the populace, the right of the people to keep and perpetuate microbial cultures shall not be infringed. "
If this were the case, we would have nut cases advocating for their constitutional right to have ebola, small pox, and flesh-eating bacteria in their possession, carry openly or concealed in public, and release as they wanted (for their on personal use).
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
As soon as you present a good example, I'll be annoyed.
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09In keeping with standard rules of engagement, which of these things are currently being used by criminals to prepetrate crimes on the innocent and unarmed public which were formerly used to hand you your free America?
- Yogurt
- sauerkraut
- microbial cultures
- ebola
- small pox
- flesh-eating bacteria
Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler? Beuhler?
Comment By Gun Owner, 1-05-09To Jack Ashe: Your an idiot. If you don't like it here and wish to give up your freedon and liberty, then by all means please go somewhere else. Leave and find your social utopia somewhere else. We'll be better off without you and others who think like you. Your a fool and more than likely a card carrying member of the brady bunch & the Democratic/"Socialist" party
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted".
Dear Gun Mad Nut Case:
Could anything be said to change your mind?
If not, there is really no reason to have a discussion.
Try to argue the other side of the issue for once to get some perspective on the concerns of others. I don't doubt that a vicious dog in the backyard discourages prowlers. However, a psychotic dog in public can result in unintended injury. This is a public health issue, not an issue of testosterone-fueled anti-terrorist paranoia.
Sorry guy's got to call it like I see it. & a fool's a fool. I'm tired of these sudo-intellectualls who spout the party line, yet have no idea what they’re talking about. They merely rattle off this dribble and think it make's them sound intelligent.
Comment By Jerry, 1-05-09Al,
It's hard to argue your side because there no way to give a supporting argument without lying our butts off, like you all are doing. If I'm going to debate an issue, I'm going to nee real facts to badk it up. Your side doesn't have any. All you have are feelings and lies.
I still haven't been able to get any of you to explain why violent crime rates are lower in areas/states that have less gun restrictions. I'm not making this stuff. It's a legitimate question and you all dont' want to answer it because if you did you'd have to admit that you desired regualtions are utter failures.
I know why less gun restrictions reduce crime. It's simple. Then more law abiding citizen you have with guns in their homes and carrying in public, the less likely criminals are going to attempt to commit crime. Why? Becuase they don't want to get there butts blown off! A survey was taken at one of the prisons by a university study group, in which the felons were asked if they would target a person to victemize if they thought they might be armed. 64% said they would not and that they would move on to easier pickings.
Now don't that just blow all your false assertions and twisted imaginary statistcs all to crap? Not even Doug Pennington, one of the Brady Bunch honchos, wanted to explain why gun regulation fails. Oh, you are aware that people with felony convictions are prohibited BY FED AND STATE LAW from purchasing or possessing firearms? There's another one that works really well. NOT!
So what it boils down to is that if you ban all firearms, law abiding citizens will be defenseless while the criminals will still be armed. Boy, what a field day they would have. And ya know what? All you anti-gunners will be accompleses to every crime they commit, because you would have made it possible for them to have free reign to victemize any one they want. In fact, I garauntee that most of you would become their victems as well. Talk about having something coming back to bite you on the butt.
Democracy = Mob Rule
When idiots become the voting majority of a democracy, they will inevitably vote infavor of the entire societies demise. Then wonder how the hell that happened.
What about this public health issue do you not understand:
Firearms are second only to motor vehicles as instruments of death in the US. In 2003, approximately 100,000 people were treated in US hospital emergency rooms for firearm injuries and 30,000 people died from firearm injuries. Gun-related death in the US is eight times higher than in other developed countries around the world, and children under 15 in this country die of gunshot wounds at a rate 12 times greater than that of children from 25 other industrialized countries. Firearms are associated with 70% of homicides and over 50% of suicides. Each year, approximately 1400 deaths are caused by unintentional firearm-related injuries. The cost of this bloodshed has been estimated at over $20 billion.
"Half the lies they tell about me aren't true. "
Yogi Berra
So if firearms are second only to automobiles then why aren't you calling for a ban on automobiles then?????? hhmmmmm! I'll tell you why, because your logic and your reason doesn't hold water, and it's got more holes in it than the titanic! Public health issue my a--! You antis are so full of sh-t, you wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and slapped you on the a--! Admit it your against firearms because your afraid of them. Why don't you get yourself a little education before you start talking about banning something that you know little to nothing about. Banning isn't the answer! EDUCATION is the answer, along with agressive enforcement and prosecution of existing laws followed by proper sentences for those convicted of violent crimes. Stop blaming the object! Blame the individual who uses it inappropriately.
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09To Al Tergo.
When you spouted all of those statistics that had nothing to do with the issue at hand, what did you expect to prove? No one accused guns of never causing deaths, yet you stated a death statistic as if it proved something. Of course guns kill and maim and hurt. Many times a year they do so. But, never on their own. It is always in a person's hand when the incident occurs.
Anti gun laws have never reduced violent crime, yet gun-a-phobes like you still want to take them away from responsible citizens. Can you explain this Al?
Hey, criminals are the ones doing the crimes. Let’s outlaw criminals. There. We just fixed it right? It is now illegal to be a criminal. If you are one we will jail you where you can't hurt anyone. There, case closed. And I did it using your reasoning, Al.
Oh, wait a minute. We already have laws like that. Hmm. I wonder why crime is still on the rise.
I spend hours and hours every week repeating myself like this in blogs all over the world because of thoughtless people like Al who don't understand that their arguments have consequences that hurt themselves.
I am not just fighting for my, "... right to bear arms.", I am also fighting for your life as well, Al. It is not a selfish thing we are doing. We are trying to save your life too, Al. You are lumped into this category by your own inaction and misguided steps to fail to protect yourself. You are a victim waiting to become a statistic in a country that has an admitted problem with crime. You yourself have admitted there is crime in this country. What makes you immune from attack?
Even owning a gun and having it ready does not make me immune. But if the occasion to need it ever comes to my household at night, I have more choices than you to help keep my family alive.
Forget all of the what-if's that you people use against the statistical injury when someone shoots the spouse thinking they are an attacker (almost never happens). When the home invasion occurs, I will be calling the cops to tell them there is an injured or dead person on my front lawn who attacked my family with a gun. What will you be telling the 911 operator on the other end?
Maybe you don't want that right, but I do. I choose to protect my family. You don't have to own a gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun. But your side wants to take my U.S. Constitutional rights away from me and force me to live like you. Now, how tolerant is that?
To Stew at Adverture-Crew,
So, just how many gun related deaths and injuries would be too much and justify additional regulation or confiscation? Presumably there is some number of deaths that is excessive. Gun injuries and death are less in Isreal than in the US (and they are at war!)
Al
OK, I’ll bite.
We’ll weigh accidental gun deaths against government take over or terrorist take over or home invasion take over by criminals.
The number of accidental deaths that it would take in order for me to willingly give up my right to protect my family is… there is no number. Go ahead in your deluded universe that makes up un-constitutional laws based on feelings and what ifs. I’ll take no part in it.
The facts are what we need to attest to. Israel has their own issues to contend with and have nothing to do with this issue, so that was a total red herring.
Every time guns are controlled more, crime goes up. D.C. tried the gun ban and reversed it. This is an uncontestable fact, not a useless statistic.
Can you answer why it is that crime goes up when guns are less available to lawful citizens?
More on Israel.
The uselessness of your empty Israel stat is glaring when comparing that country's required youth involvement in the military against our draft-free policy.
Is there any wonder that there are less gun accidents as well as less crime in a country that still arms and properly trains its youth? Not just a few; ALL OF THEM.
I guess since you used them as an example you are willing to send all of our youth to arms training and require them to serve for three years.
Actually I think that's a great idea, Al. Glad you thought of it. I feel we've made some real progress here today. Don't you? We have finally arrived at something upon which we both agree.
Why do I suddenly feel like Rush?
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09Since this long and lopsided socialist appeaser-bashing thread on constitutional gun freedom is hosted on a forum operated by L.A. Times Writer Jonathan Weber, I wonder that it (this thread) has not been pulled by now. The hundreds who are reading this must be coming to the conclusion that The Right is in the vast majority on this topic of basic freedoms. Certainly this can't bode well for the Barrackies out there.
As for me and my house, we're locked and loaded. We carry protection wherever we wish without government intrusion because we choose to be safe instead of sorry.
I suspect Ater ego, Jack Ashe, and David Smith are all one and the same.
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09The truth is that anyone trying to limit guns to lawful citizens based on gun violence has already lost the argument before starting.
Y'all need some new material.
Realize that whatever you place on the other end of the scale being filled by The US Constitutional right to protect one's family has to fill some pretty large booties. What do you have? Anything? Anything? Beuhler? Beuhler?
>>Can you answer why it is that crime goes up when guns are less available to lawful citizens?<<
What are you exactly saying? Clarify. It would seem that most crime is committed by criminals. It would seem that the more guns that criminals have, the more likely there will be gun use during criminal activity. Do you have some other reasoning process here?
You said "It would seem that the more guns that criminals have, the more likely there will be gun use during criminal activity."
What result does more gun laws have on criminals? They don't buy their guns legally. Some are starting to make them in their garages. Zip guns (made on the street) have been around for decades.
Therefore, your assumption is wrong again oh socialist appeaser.
My point is simple, I'll type slowly for you. Less guns available to the general public who operate legally, means a greater contrast ratio between armed thugs and unarmed citizens. Is there a part of this you do not understand?
It's been stated more than once in this thread alone. But this type of reasoning is available to any thinking person.
Oh.
Try to answer the original question which essentially is:
How would gun use by criminals occur if they did not have guns?
Don't get too complicated, it is a simple question.
It's a non question. Gunless criminals are not a part of this discussion. Pointless questions aren't either.
There you go again trying to make points with pointless questions. What if I came at you without a weapon and I didn't have any arms or legs? What would you do then? Answer the question.
Al, have you stopped beating your wife? No discussion, just yes or no.
Don't get too upset, Al. You haven't answered any of my questions either.
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-05-09I don't have to play by your rules. I have law and right on my side. You're the one who has to think quickly and twist things to create an environment of creative reasoning.
All I have to do is sit back and be honest.
A guy comes through my door with a gun at the same time that a guy comes through your door with a gun. You have a phone. I have a phone and a loaded gun. I have more choices than you. The outcome is not guarenteed for me and my gun, but I still have more choices than you.
The difference between this argument and your gunless idiot is that my argument actually happens every day. Yours is still in the hypothetical realm.
Gunless criminals don't shoot people, Al. We don't have anything to worry about concerning them and what they would do with a gun. Some day when we are arguing about knife control laws you can chime in with that one about a criminal with no gun.
>>Gunless criminals don't shoot people,<<
Ok, so now we are having a conversation.
I agree, if criminals don't have guns, the criminal will be gunless.
How could society reduce or eliminate gun possession by criminals?
Here is a footnote I just placed on this article.
Even though incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar didn’t sign the letter supporting the gun rule, he did sign the amicus brief in DC v Heller, which was also signed by President George W. Bush, 54 other U.S. Senators and 250 U.S. Representatives. The brief supported Dick Anthony Heller’s case against the restrictive gun regulations in D.C. and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually agreed.
Click here to read the amicus brief and view the list of signatories:
I am trying to get an interview with Senator Salazar, so I have not been able to confirm why he apparently was one of the four senators who signed the brief but not the letter.--Bill Schneider
Yet again Al your an idiot. You claim that gun less criminals shoot no one and suprise you are correct, however the problem with your warped reasoning is that your not disarming criminals, your disarming LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with your "Gun Control Laws" you idiot not criminals. Thereby making it safer and easier for them to attack the now defenceless citizen. How hard is it for you and other dumb a--es like you to understand that fact. Criminals don't abide by any law that's why there called criminals you fool. The soluition to the violence problem is to prosecute the criminals and punish them, not punish the law abiding citizen. Geeezz! or do I need to use a bigger font for you? Dumb A--!
Comment By Al Tergo, 1-05-09>>The soluition to the violence problem is to prosecute the criminals and punish them, not punish the law abiding citizen. <<
Sounds good;
How do we get the guns from the deadbeats before they commit a crime? Seems like a little late to wait until they have committed a crime to remove the guns from them. If guns were in the right hands from the start, we would not be having this discussion. 300 million guns would not be a problem if the right people had them and the wrong people did not. If you cannot suggest any method to improve the public health problem, I can only assume that the gun privilege advocates feel it is perfectly satisfactory for criminals or deadbeats to have weapons. Given the extent of the problem with gun injuries and deaths, any reasonable person would certainly want to keep weapons from these people. What methods could be used to reduce the distribution of guns to the "wrong people"?
Pros and Cons, you may be interested in reviewing the final rule at:
<<<http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29249.pdf >>
Al, Al, Al.
Now you want to discuss stopping a crime before it happens?
Here's the difference, Al. You live in a republic. The people in a republic have, "... certain unalianable rights." You can't infringe upon these rights no matter how bad a situation is. To infringe upon them changes the republic into a totalitarian regime. So, are you willing to live under socialism in order to save some lives from accidental shootings? I'm not. That is the cold harsh facts of life under freedom. I've heard less intelligent people than you admit that they would rather live under socialism. Are you one of those?
There are countries like that already. Go there to live and leave America alone.
"How could society reduce or eliminate gun possession by criminals?"
Put them in jail for a long, long, long time. Also, bring back the death penjalty. People who are dead can't hurt anyone a second time.
A free country is expensive. It costs lives. One way or another.
Comment By Al Tergo, 1-05-09Makes for a nice system-- we let deadbeats and criminals have guns which then frightens law-abiding citizens to want guns for self-defense. The gun manufacturers must love this arrangement.
What does it say in the constitution about gun privileges for criminals?
If our society had few, or even average, injuries and deaths from guns, we would probably not be having this discussion.
We come back to the original question-- what can be done to resolve the public health issue produced by 200 million guns in this country (many apparently in the wrong hands or accessible to the wrong people).
Firemen want to reduce fires, cops want to reduce drunk driving and crime, doctors want to reduce illnesses, dentists want to reduce cavities, even tobacco companies want to reduce smoking addiction, why don't responsible gun advocates see the public health issues and want to reduce gun related deaths and injuries?
Jack Ashe worte:
Guns and ammunition are a public health threat....
That's odd. I have four guns in my house and they haven't made me or anyone else ill....yet. And since Sept. I've been carrying a hnadgun around in public, even in Walmart, and I don't know of anyone that has fallen ill from it.
Ashe wrote:
the arms race that has developed with respect to police and gangs demonstrates that there are too many guns in circulation.
Your reaching here, Jack. Yeah, there is sort of an "arms rae" between law enforcement and the gangs/criminals. But there wouldn't be one if the regulatory prohibition of possession of firearms by felons and minors really worked. You people can't seem to get it through your thick heads that the gangs and other criminals don't obey gun laws. They're going to get guns no matter what gun laws or bans are passed. And they're going to use them against police and law abiding citizens.
And let's not forget, Jack. that guns aren't the only tools criminals use to commit violent crime. A criminal can kill you or me just as dead with a hammer, knife, baseball bat, bootlace, or a rock. Now granted, a gun is more efficient, but dead is still dead.
Let me ask you Jack. Let's say there is a serial rapist/killer on the loose in your county/city. If you wife/daughter/girlfriend finds herself face to face with this monster, which would you rather she have in her hand, a cellphone or a handgun?
Al Tergo wrote:<b>
We come back to the original question-- what can be done to resolve the public health issue produced by 200 million guns in this country (many apparently in the wrong hands or accessible to the wrong people).
I'm suspicious of the 200 million figure you present, but I'll have to research it before I dispute it.
What can be done? Simple. Put more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and allow them to carry them everywhere they go. Armed law abiding citizens will tehn be able to thin the criminals out as they stop them in their tracks during the execution of a crime. It worked really well back in the days of the "old West", it can work again. In fact it has been working in states that have "Shall issue" handgun carry pemitting or allow open carry of handguns without a permit by non-felons and "Castle Doctrine". In every state that has adopted these measures crime has been reduced. In states that have not, their crime rates are still high and in areas like Chicago and DC, that have the most restrictive laws (that only law abiding citizens obey) crime is running rampant and on the rise.
Violant crime can never be done away with entirely. It's an unfortunate side affect of humanity. All we can do is make the criminals pay dearly for their transgretions. If that means shooting/killing them on the spot when they commit their crimes with guns, owned and carried by law abiding citizens, then so be it. An honest review of the facts and statistics confirms that this <b>IS the only practical solution. Those same facts and statistics clearly show that disarming law abiding citizens solves nothing. It will only allow the criminals to take over and enslave and terrorize society.
ooops! I didn't format that correctly. Sorry
Comment By Bill Schneider, 1-06-09Correction. President George W. Bush did not sign that amicus brief for Heller v D.C. but Vice President Dick Cheney, acting as President of the U.S. Senate, did sign it.....Bill
Comment By Stu at Adventure-Crew, 1-06-09“Makes for a nice system-- we let deadbeats and criminals have guns which then frightens law-abiding citizens to want guns for self-defense.” That’s a foolish statement. You’re starting to waste my time here. That’s a chicken or the egg question.
Crime begets ways to prevent it.
Furthermore, just making a statement doesn’t make it so. Therefore, here’s the answer to your health issue. The number of guns in the US is not a health issue. There, we took care of that.
Why is it that the gun-a-phobes never answer the authentic questions?
If guns cause crime, then what is causing crime rates to drop in states that make it easier for law abiding citizens to keep and bear guns?
Just in case these names are authentic and show up with their socialist appeaser America hating ideology in this and other blogs,
the following names are of those who ran the gamut of The Left's weak arguments used to steal our rights away from us.
Lisa
Joe
Mike
Jack Ashe
>>If guns cause crime, then what is causing crime rates to drop in states that make it easier for law abiding citizens to keep and bear guns?<<
I don't think I said guns cause crime. As has been mentioned, guns are tools. I am not trying to discuss whether crime rates drop by having good, conscientious people armed. That may be true.There is some rationale to that, but that is not the major problem or issue or question here. If we cannot figure out why, with the existing mass of guns in the country, there are so many accidents, crimes, and injuries from guns, it does not seem reasonable to expand the availability of guns widely.
I don't disagree with guns in the right hands.
How would more widely available guns reduce the likelihood of children being injured by guns? That logic I don't understand.
My questions concern the structure of our society, laws, gun access, gun types, ammunition availability, or whatever seems to be the reason for loaded guns in the hands of careless, criminally inclined, mentally unstable,immature, impulse impaired, or anger unmanaged individuals. There must be some way for "good gun guys" to have weapons without the extraordinary numbers of gun related deaths and injuries that seem to occur in this country. Better education has been suggested and that certainly seems reasonable. Any other imaginative suggestions?? Why not limit some gun types? why not require locking mechanisms? why not reduce the magazine capacity?
(Be cool... just exploring options)
>>I'm suspicious of the 200 million figure you present, but I'll have to research it before I dispute it.<<
The NRA website says 250 million.
OK, if there must be some way to reduce the number of accidental injuries and deaths from improper gun handling while satying within the framework of the constituion, then after all of the educating is done and there are still injuries...
This is a useless argument. It always ends up the same.
Just find a country that has achieved what you're asking and emmulate them. Israel.
Let's require all youths of a certain age to be trained in the safe operation of fire arms.
The bureaucrats who make laws that in some way limit firearms frighten those of us who are aware that governments do and have disarmed their citizenry in steps. I agree that fully automated weapons (hold down the trigger and the entire mag is fired) is not necessary for personal protection. But, the steps it takes to remove these from the general public is scary and unconstitutional.
The trade off. I would rather rely on each family making sure that Jr doesn't have access to the family gun until properly trained than remove the gun from the home. I know this will end up with a few irresponsible folks having their child play with a gun and possibly kill someone including themselves, but the alternative is even worse, an unarmed citizenry.
It's the age old "Give them a foot and they take a yard" argument. I am not willing to give the bureaucrats enough authority to take away our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Even if it means some people get hurt.
Many conservatives are afraid to actually voice this in public because the press is in the tank for the socialists and have a field day with statements like, "Congressman Smith today admitted that he doesn't care if children die from gun accidents." Therefore, Congressman Smith just avoids the argument.
How about this? Let's require all youths of a certain age to be trained in the safe operation of fire arms.
This would do two things. #1 It would raise awareness and reduce accidents. #2 It would create a safer environment that violent gun toters would not florish in since a better armed citizenry reduces gun violence.
Roger that education thing. Good idea.
About Isreal, so far as I am able to tell from the internet, the ministry of defense issues licenses to everyone allowed (there are a number of restrictions) to own a gun and it appears that there is a limit of one handgun. What do you think of those rules?
To clarify:
1.It appears that you cannot purchase or own a gun without a license issued by the state in Isreal (although you may be able to inherit a gun without a license)
2. Most licensed gun owners cannot have more than one handgun
I couldn't find the exact Israeli laws so there may be others or different.
Those sound reasonable to me.
The whole point is you won't disarm a single solitary criminal by disarming the law-abiding citizens with your gun control laws. Period. They are criminals THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THE LAWS!! Only the Law abiding do!! THIS IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS! If you want to stop the youth & gun violence problem... Educate them! (Parent them) and for those whom education isn't enough ...PUNISH THEM! You will never stop violence by passing another law, or banning another object or tool; it's already been proven that this approach DOES NOT WORK!!!! Look at England, haven't dealt with the social issues only the tool issue "Guns" and the problems continue, it just now moved on to another tool "Knifes" and what's their solution to the violence???? "Knife Control" Ban all sharp pointy things! What’s next a ban on blunt instruments? Where does this insanity finally stop, before you finally begin to deal with the real problems?
Comment By Al Tergo, 1-06-09>>You will never stop violence by passing another law, or banning another object or tool; it's already been proven that this approach DOES NOT WORK!!!! <<<
I agree that a traffic law will not keep the guy in the other lane from crossing over. However, that does not mean that we should not have traffic laws.
What confuses me about the NRA is that they oppose almost every gun related law, then complain that criminal don't follow the laws (who would expect a criminal to follow the law?), then oppose attempts to enforce the law or to fund the enforcement process. If gun laws were enforced more agressively, I think much could be accomplished to reduce unnecessary gun violence.
Perhaps enforcement of gun laws requires more agressive search and seizure regulations. Those seem to be acceptable in airports!
To ask Americans to trust the bureaucrats to pass laws that limit but never confiscate firearms is a real stretch. Especially when we have the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis who have vowed to remove all firearms from the general public by a certain date. People who discuss gun control for the reason of general public welfare while excluding the reality of the government attempting confiscation are unrealistic.
I am for education, but we already have it. There are hunters’ safety courses available everywhere. All though I am for mandatory gun awareness and gun safety courses in our public schools, I can see where people could refuse for religious reasons.
“…more aggressive search and seizure regulations. Those seem to be acceptable in airports!”
In order to search and seize more aggressively, government agencies might be crossing over the line of privacy guaranteed by our republic. It is already unconstitutional to require gun registration, yet myself and millions of others have complied, which I no longer sanction. If one can acquire guns under the table I am all for it. Especially in light of the Barrakies and Clintonistas coming to power.
I know of one retail store for certain who is already changing their firearms merchandising profile to meet the coming changes. The dept manager of the Gander Mountain firearms dept told me that the extended clips for all handguns and auto rifles are being liquidated because the Democrats one the election. This was told to me first hand in December when I went in to get some extra clips.
And, we can dispense with the traffic argument; it doesn’t apply here because the government hasn’t tried to confiscate or otherwise regulate the ownership or operation of an automobile any further than they already have requiring vehicle and personal license in order to move freely about the country which is also unconstitutional.
All rights in the constitution are limited in some way. We are just trying, as a country, to figure out in what ways and how much they should be limited.
Let try to keep the discussion on practical public health measures:
Back to the Israeli sitch:
It seems that there is admiration for the way they manage guns.
How about the following options:
1.It appears that you cannot purchase or own a gun without a license issued by the state in Israel
2. Most licensed gun owners cannot have more than one handgun
CPSC Warns about Pool Hazards, Reports 250 Deaths of Young Children Annually:
Federal Agency Launches Drowning Prevention Initiative, Holding Public Hearings
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today is launching a drowning prevention campaign as part of an intensified initiative to prevent the tragic drowning of 250 children under the age of 5 annually in swimming pools. Among unintentional injuries, drowning has been the second leading cause of death to children under age 5, after motor vehicle incidents. In 2002, an estimated 1,600 children were treated in hospital emergency rooms for submersion injuries. Many of these deaths and injuries occur in residential pools.
"That so many young children drown each year is devastating," said CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton. "Each of these deaths is not only the pointless end of a promising life, but an overwhelming grief for the family that goes on for years and years. As a father, I cannot imagine having to endure the pain of such a loss."
Reducing the rate of drowning deaths is one of CPSC's strategic goals. To help achieve this goal, CPSC is holding two public hearings to explore strategies to prevent drowning deaths. The first public hearing will take place in Tampa, Fla., on June 21, 2004, and the second hearing will be in Phoenix, Ariz. on July 27, 2004. "We want to find new solutions and try to create new awareness about this hazard," Stratton said.
Swampdweller: We need to outlaw swimming pools. If it saves the life of just ONE child, it will be worth it.
In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Unintentional injuries are usually caused when children play with guns or are hunting.
Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S. But of this two percent, children and adolescents are involved in 55% of these deaths. The majority of the injuries occur to children playing with or showing the weapons to friends. The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths.
See! Swimming pools are more deadly to children than guns. Education is the answer. Instead of letting your child get their education about guns from television, that is, witnessing thousands of murders or shootings on the tube....Take them to a range and teach them and show them what a gun can do. I showed my five year old daughter what happens when you shoot a gallon milk jug with a twelve gauge hollowpoint magnum slug. She was appropriately shocked and I explained that ALL guns are readily capable of rendering catastrophic damage to a person. That's why we have to be very careful with guns, because a bullet, once fired, cannot be called back. Always be aware of where the muzzle is pointed and to never put your finger into the trigger guard until you are ready to destroy whatever the gun is pointed at. Simple? You bet! Even the most severely afflicted hoplophobe can appreciate the simplicity of the logic.
Be safe out there.
An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.
The HealthGrades study finds nearly double the number of deaths from medical errors found by the 1999 IOM report "To Err is Human," with an associated cost of more than $6 billion per year. Whereas the IOM study extrapolated national findings based on data from three states, and the Zhan and Miller study looked at 7.5 million patient records from 28 states over one year, HealthGrades looked at three years of Medicare data in all 50 states and D.C. This Medicare population represented approximately 45 percent of all hospital admissions (excluding obstetric patients) in the U.S. from 2000 to 2002.
"The HealthGrades study shows that the IOM report may have underestimated the number of deaths due to medical errors, and, moreover, that there is little evidence that patient safety has improved in the last five years," said Dr. Samantha Collier, HealthGrades' vice president of medical affairs. "The equivalent of 390 jumbo jets full of people are dying each year due to likely preventable, in-hospital medical errors, making this one of the leading killers in the U.S."
HealthGrades examined 16 of the 20 patient-safety indicators defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) - from bedsores to post-operative sepsis - omitting four obstetrics-related incidents not represented in the Medicare data used in the study. Of these sixteen, the mortality associated with two, failure to rescue and death in low risk hospital admissions, accounted for the majority of deaths that were associated with these patient safety incidents. These two categories of patients were not evaluated in the IOM or JAMA analyses, accounting for the variation in the number of annual deaths attributable to medical errors. However, the magnitude of the problem is evident in all three studies.
"If we could focus our efforts on just four key areas - failure to rescue, bed sores, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative pulmonary embolism - and reduce these incidents by just 20 percent, we could save 39,000 people from dying every year," said Dr. Collier.
The HealthGrades study was released in conjunction with the company's first annual Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient SafetyTM, which honors hospitals with the best records of patient safety. Eighty-eight hospitals in 23 states were given the award for having the nation's lowest patient-safety incidence rates. A list of winners can be found at http://www.healthgrades.com.
Study Highlights Among the findings in the HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study are as follows:
-- About 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000-2002.
-- Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81 percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident(s).
-- One in every four Medicare patients who were hospitalized from 2000 to 2002 and experienced a patient-safety incident died.
-- The 16 patient-safety incidents accounted for $8.54 billion in excess in-patient costs to the Medicare system over the three years studied. Extrapolated to the entire U.S., an extra $19 billion was spent and more than 575,000 preventable deaths occurred from 2000 to 2002.
-- Patient-safety incidents with the highest rates per 1,000 hospitalizations were failure to rescue, decubitus ulcer and postoperative sepsis, which accounted for almost 60 percent of all patient-safety incidents that occurred.
-- Overall, the best performing hospitals (hospitals that had the lowest overall patient safety incident rates of all hospitals studied, defined as the top 7.5 percent of all hospitals studied) had five fewer deaths per 1000 hospitalizations compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals. This significant mortality difference is attributable to fewer patient-safety incidents at the best performing hospitals.
-- Fewer patient safety incidents in the best performing hospitals resulted in a lower cost of $740,337 per 1,000 hospitalizations as compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals.
The complete study, including the list of AHRQ patient-safety indicators, can be found at http://www.healthgrades.com.
"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of death included medical errors, it would show up as number six, ahead of diabetes, pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease and renal disease," continued Dr. Collier. "Hospitals need to act on this, and consumers need to arm themselves with enough information to make quality-oriented health care choices when selecting a hospital."
Distinguished Hospital Awards and Findings
In addition to its findings on patient safety, HealthGrades today honored 88 hospitals in 23 states with the Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient Safety, the first national hospital award to focus purely on hospital patient safety. The award was designed to highlight hospitals with the best records of patient safety in the nation and to encourage consumers to research their local hospitals before undergoing a procedure.
HealthGrades based the awards on a detailed study of patient safety events in hospitals nationwide from 2000 to 2002, using the list of patient-safety incidents developed by AHRQ. "Best" hospitals were identified as the top 7.5 percent of the hospitals studied and had significantly different patient-safety incident rates and costs compared to hospitals that were average or in the bottom 10th percentile. Among the "best" hospitals, the lower number of avoidable deaths and in-patient hospital costs were directly related to their lower overall patient-safety incident rates.
"If all the Medicare patients who were admitted to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals from 2000 to 2002 were instead admitted to the "best" hospitals, approximately 4,000 lives and $580 million would have been saved," said Dr. Collier.
About HealthGrades
Health Grades, Inc. (OTCBB: HGRD) is the leading independent healthcare quality company, providing ratings, information and advisory services to healthcare providers, employers, health plans and insurance companies. HealthGrades works with healthcare providers to help assess, improve and promote their quality. HealthGrades provides consumers access to information about healthcare providers and practitioners through its Web site and provides liability insurers, employers and payers with critical information about healthcare quality.
Contacts
Scott Shapiro, Fenton Communications
(212) 584-5000 x307;
You have a much bigger chance of dying from a doctor's mistake than dying from a gun. Much bigger.
It happened Sunday night at a home on Portage Avenue in South Bend.
The 70-year-old woman called 911 about 9 p.m. sounding frantic, but prepared.
“I’ve got my gun out. Somebody’s trying to get in my house,” she told a dispatcher. “I’ll have to shoot him if he comes in.”
“What kind of weapon do you have?" asked the dispatcher.
“I have a .38," the homeowner responded.
Minutes later, the intruder was inside, breaking through a window, but was stopped by the homeowner.
“I don’t want to have to kill anybody, but I will,” she said.
“She felt threatened by a man entering her home illegally by breaking the window and she was going to protect herself,” St. Joseph County Police Sgt. Bill Redman told WSBT News.
And gun retailers say this woman isn’t alone. At Midwest Gun Exchange in Mishawaka, owners say they've seen a strong increase over the last year in people buying firearms to protect their home; two age groups specifically.
"One is the young couple, first time home buyers with small children at home,” said owner Brad Foster. The other, he said, is the elderly. "Those people are saying, ‘I want to be able to protect myself.’”
After holding her intruder at gunpoint for almost five minutes, police arrived and arrested 28-year-old Cyrus Brown on preliminary charges of burglary, resisting arrest, and intimidation.
But Brown told police and the homeowner he was just looking for help.
Police said he crashed his car near this woman's home because he said he was being chased by gang members trying to kill him.
Authorities took Brown to the hospital for a broken leg before being booked into jail.
Police are still looking into that part of the story.
Man, 93, shoots alleged intruder
By Kelly Mori
Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Springfield, Ohio — Police are investigating a weekend shooting of an alleged intruder by a 93-year-old homeowner.
Mark Leon Applin, 32, address unknown, was taken by helicopter to Miami Valley Hospital with life-threatening injuries from the shooting that occurred about 8:30 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 3, according to police reports. The hospital was unable to release information on Applin's condition Monday.
According to police reports, officers were dispatched to the 200 block of West Southern Avenue following a report of a man trying to gain entry into a home.
When police arrived, a woman was standing outside her home pointing to Applin who was lying on the sidewalk. She identified him as a man who was trying to get into her home. She said she did not know how he ended up on the sidewalk or how he was injured.
At that time, another officer observed an elderly man in the house next door holding a gun in his hand. Police secured the gun from the man who said he shot the younger man, identified as Applin, after he broke into his home.
The man told officers that Applin, whom he did not know, kept knocking on his door and he told him to leave several times. Applin then allegedly entered through an unlocked back door and walked to the front door and ripped down the curtains. The homeowner said he then retrieved a gun from a box in the living room. He warned Applin he would shoot him if he didn't leave. Applin reportedly kept walking toward the homeowner, who said he fired one shot. Applin fell on the floor, then got up and ran out the front door, ending up on the sidewalk, the man said.
No charges have been filed, pending an investigation.
"The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths."
Oops, another journalist or some self calimed authority made another judgement for us. And, as usual, it was incorrect.
The reason children get hurt by guns due to accidental shooting is not because there are too many guns or because the guns are in easy access. It is beacause of lack of adult supervision.
If the child ran out in front of a car while playing on the sidewalk near their front yard and got hit by the car, nobody would say that sidewalks, front yards, streets or cars were detirmined to be in too easy access. The adult supervision would immedietly be called into question.
Any attack on lawful ownership of firearms is due to a lack of common sense and also a lack of education about our rights under our republic's constitution.
It is unconstitutional to infringe on my rights to keep and bear arms.
One can say what they want about limited rights, but there is a short list of inalianable rights that should never be argued about.
To say that "...all of our rights are limited in some way and we are still trying to figure out the best way to... yda, yada, yada" is a lie, sir. You are trying to limit my rights by obviscating the constitution of these United States. There is no intelligent discussion available where the US Constitution is concerned. Most law abiding Americans are not still trying to figure out how our rights are limited. You are along with your socialist appeaser buddies. I'm not questioning the Constitution. There is no grass roots upswelling from the citizenry to give up our gun rights. There is no medium ground here.
You are wrong if you want to limit my right to protect my family with a gun. My right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with public health; more obfiscation.
This argument is not about public health. You are not trying to have an intelligent discussion about public health, you are either missinformed or a liar. Take your pick.
This is also not a case of my opinion against your opinion. My opinion is backed up by so much documentation that you are drowning in it. All you have is unconstitutional psuedo laws and lies, Al.
Al T,
Isreal has a far different problem than the US does. The Jewish State sets right smack in the middle of Muslem nations that don't like them in their neighborhood. Plus they have the Palistinians causing trouble. Of course they want to know that they don't have a terrorist running around armed in their country.
The US doesn't quite have the same problem, although we are under a threat from terrorist.
You want to make firearms a public health issue? OK, let do that. Restictive ownership and carry by law abiding citizens creates health issues. It's sort of like a vitamin deficiency. History tells us that the best form of theropy would be an increase in vitamins (guns) for the Law abiding citizens. Think of it as pumping up society's immune system in fighting the crime bug. There are statistical studies that show that this works quite well. Are there side affects from the treatment? Yes, but they are minimal and are far out weighed by the benefits of the treatment. With proper education in firearm safety the side affects can be further minimised.
This isn't a cure for crime by any means, but it will bring the discomfort of the desease to more tolerable levels. Ther is a cure for crime, but yuo don't want to go there. It would require the complete extermination of all humans on this planet.
>>Restictive ownership and carry by law abiding citizens creates health issues. It's sort of like a vitamin deficiency. History tells us that the best form of theropy would be an increase in vitamins (guns) for the Law abiding citizens. Think of it as pumping up society's immune system in fighting the crime bug. <<
Jerry,
Thanks for your rational response. It does little for gun law pros or cons to just discuss the issue just with those that agree with them. There really isn't much value to having someone tell you what you already believe-- there is no analysis or validation, so I appreciate the feedback and your the thoughts.
To clarify, I am not opposing guns in the right hands under safe circumstances. Israel seems to be an example of the precise situation where one could argue for widespread personal protection with guns, yet that country seems to have fewer gun related intentional and unintentional deaths and injuries. Fear is certainly probably greater in Israel even than in this courntry and a probable justification, as here, for some degree of gun ownership for personal protection. I doubt if we had statistics like Israel that there would not be much of an opposition to unregulated gun proliferation. In addition, I don't think the NRA has been taking a very serious approach to dealing with the public health problem of guns.
Do you disagree that gun injuries are much higher in households with multiple guns? A single gun is probably adequate for most personal protection needs since it it hard to use more than one gun at a time. I would be curious about the risk of injury from household with 1, 2, 3, ....10 guns. I suspect that the greater the number of guns, the greater the risk of injury.
Do you disagree that there is a much greater likelihood that a member of the gun household will be injured or killed by a weapon than an intruder?
Data and statistics should always be looked at very critically, whoever presents them. On thing that I notice on the NRA website-- that site compares accidental injuries from guns to other injurious events. The public health problem with guns is not just accidental injuries, it includes intentional criminal injuries, homocide, and suicide. It would be like comparing intentional injuries from guns to intentional injuries from cars. That would be misleading in the other direction. We should be looking at the total impact on society.
Regarding cars, I have tried to stay away from that comparision. I am not arguing that cars are "safe" but as all types of injuries from cars are considered a public health issue, lots of efforts have been made to make them safer. More people need a car to get to work than need a gun to get to work and car use is highly regulated in public areas.
I just think we need to introduce some rational thinking into the whole issue. It is clearly a hot button subject, although it is not clear to me why it should be. If we had deaths from circular saws, blenders, or flashlights that approximated the injuries from guns we would be looking for solutions not arguing about history. I am sure there have been heroic uses of guns; it seems that use is overshadowed by gun injuries and problems. Gun benefits are so rare that they are reported in the news; gun injuries are so common, they are rarely reported.
Your example of vitamins should recognize that like all drugs, excessive amounts are toxic. (Vitamin E). Even water can be toxic in excessive amounts. It seems that we have reached a toxic condition with guns.
Finally, and I am going to get flack for this, but the idea of appropiate response should be introduced to gun usage discussion. It is not legal to shoot and kill someone who is standing on your land. Trespass is not a justification for capital punishment. In addition, even home invasion must occur under circumstances to pose a significant threat to the home owner (in my state) to justify the use of lethal force. It is probably not appropiate to shoot a drunk teenager who got confused while coming home late.
"Do you disagree that gun injuries are much higher in households with multiple guns?"
*Absolutly not. This is pure B.S. Propaganda talking points spewed out by the Brady Bunch.
"A single gun is probably adequate for most personal protection needs since it it hard to use more than one gun at a time."
*Perhaps one may be enough but my constitutional right does not limit the amount or quantity of firearms that I may possess, and I choose to own more.
"I would be curious about the risk of injury from household with 1, 2, 3, ....10 guns. I suspect that the greater the number of guns, the greater the risk of injury."
*Sorry to disappoint you there Al but the majority of households with guns are not more prone to violence, having or processing more than 1,2,3....10 guns does not make an individual prone to violence. Guns (Firearms) do not possess magical powers nor can they influence how anyone acts. Nor do they possess these powers in groups. They are inanimate objects and have no ability to influence their environment unless a human interacts with them.
Do you disagree that there is a much greater likelihood that a member of the gun household will be injured or killed by a weapon than an intruder?
*More Brady Bunch B.S. Propaganda. Firearms save more lives every day in the US in the hands of honest law abiding citizens than is or will ever be reported by the media, you see it doesn’t make for good news, it has no shock value nor does it fit their political agenda. (That would be the same ajenda as yours)
BTW "Firearms are a Pubilc Health Issue!" More Brady Bunch Hype & B.S. Look anything can be construed as a public health issue but it doesn't make it true. Here's some simple logic for you Al, perhaps you can understand it. Firearms are not the issue, a firearm is only a tool, much like a hammer or screwdriver. It is only as dangerous as the person using it. How hard is that for you to understand? People are the issue, not the objects or "Tools" they use. Drunk drivers kill prople using automobiles every single day in this country. Where is the hew and cry to ban cars? or limit cars to one per household? (Hey Al how many cars do you own?) Again banning objects NOT THE ANSWER. Stop letting your fears and ignorance about firearms get the best of you. Big bad gun can't hurt you unless the person holding it want's to hurt you. See Al, people problem! Not gun problem!! Banning the object will not stop the behavior! You must correct behavior first, otherwise problem will continue, using a different tool. See previous post REF: England and pointy objects.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
--- Machiavelli
"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit
Friends, below are a couple of links with real stories of self-defense. Stuff like this happens every day in the U.S. Imho, fortune favors the well-prepared.
http://hematite.com/dragon/gunuses.html
http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html
Al said "If we had deaths from circular saws, blenders, or flashlights that approximated the injuries from guns we would be looking for solutions not arguing about history."
Al's attempt to equate guns with common place objects completely defies logic. There is no second ammendment that insures that we the people have the right to protect ourselves with wood cutting tools, food preperation machines, and illumination devices. Of course history is a major factor.
This confusion comes from turning a self defense issue into something it's not. It is not a public health issue just because humans are hurt or killed in a certain number.
And, regardless, making something a public health issue does not change the constitution. Accidental child deaths be damned, the citizen needs some personal guarentee of self defense. Not public defense, but self defense.
You want to regulate self defense as if it were some standard household commodity that is less important than "public health" issues. It is not. Self defense subordinates to nothing. If anything, public health comes in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th behind other individual issues. Anything public suboardinates to individual and then civil issues. By the standards of crises management, public health is almost a luxury, Al.
The only time public health becomes an equal issue with civil or individual is in times of national crises like an epidemic. Looking up "epidemic", even by the exagurated values usually spouted to make the accidental gun deaths seem out of proportion, that issue is not even close to epidemic. And even if it were, it's obvious that the answer would not be to remove guns from the law abiding citizens. Some other answer would have to be found.
In all of this Al, it seems that you don't think that you might someday be attacked by a criminal who could be stopped by a bullet from your gun. Is this true Al? Do you really think that you are somehow immune from becoming a statistic?
A word about appropriate response.
If someone threatens me or my family with bodily harm, I have no idea how far that threat may go. Will they stop after just subduing me? Will they stop after kidnapping my wife? Will they stop after robbing me? Or are they going to kill me no matter what happens? We don't know. This is why the law is (depending whether one is in front of a real judge or a socialist appeaser) is so lenient on home invasions. Citizens are not normally trained to paramilitary standards in the use of aggressive force. Therefore whatever is at hand is fair game to stop the attack.
In the movie with Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage, Cage's character dispatched an aggressor during hand to hand combat at the business end of a benign missile (no warhead) trajectoried out to see. This was certainly self defense in an appropriate fashion. It happened to be the only weapon at hand and it stopped the aggressor.
The argument of measured response is only for planned military tactical planning, not for personal self defense.
Common sense and torte law holds that if an aggressor individual has apparently made the decision to be viewed as in the process of attacking an otherwise innocent victim, law dictates (not "allows" but DICTATES) that victim has the right and responsibility to "stop" the attack as quickly and efficiently as possible using the best means available. Any injury or death to the attacker is deemed justified.
One never has the time to decide what an appropriate response might be. One needs only stop the attack.
While in police training in Oregon (the most liberal state in the union in my opinion) we were taught that self defense terminology does not include "kill" or "wound". The correct attitude for a self defense action is to "stop". There is no room for intelligent argument about measured or appropriate response within the word "stop". This is why peace officers carry side arms; for personal protection, that is all. They might carry tasers in addition to a side arm now-a-days, but even the night stick, the PR-24 and the billy club are all phased out. There is no measured response in self defense for the citizen.
Al, from where are you getting your passive socialist ideas for arguments? Who are you listening to? Who are you reading?
There have been a lot of provocative, personal questions and statements that I will not respond to.
However, the constitutional issue keeps coming up. I don't understand why every other actitivity spelled out in the constitution is limited but some people insist that the 2nd amendment should not be limited; that the 2nd amendment is absolute and unrestrictable? If the 2nd amendment is absolute and unabridged, then felons, terrorists, mentally unbalanced persons, psychotics, and children should have guns. All guns would be allowed to everyone. By arguing for an absolute right in the 2nd amendment, you are arguing for the rights of criminals to have guns! Even if you believe that criminals should have guns, who would argue that children should have lethal weapons? There will always be restrictions on personal liberties in society and the second amendment will always be limited in some way. We are only arguing about what limitations will be or are best for overall public health concerns. Public health concerns, on all issues, if serious enough will trump every right we have (inspections for weapons at airports, imprisonment without trial for possible terrorists, libel, slander, disclosure of "state secrets", confinement for drug resistant TB, prevention of assembly that could cause riot, etc. ) . Why else would certain weapons be unlawful? Only because they are potentially too dangerous to society. The public health issue for highly destructive weapons transcends the privilege to bear arms without restriction. Why not allow grenade launchers or machine guns?
The beginning of a solution to the consititutional issue would be to standardize gun laws nationally so that we do not have a confusing and inconsistent set of federal, state and local laws on gun privileges. In that respect, the federal rule on guns in parks may have some merit (by exerting more federal control over gun issues). Unfortunately, this particular rule has just made the gun situation more confusing.
Since the 2nd ammendment and common sense work hand in hand with America's judges, there is no benifit in arguing whether or not the long list of unentitled entiies need to have a hand gun issued them. Waste of time. The law is clear to anyone accept those attempting to subvert and obviscate it.
Next issue.
Al. Why will you not answer how you will react to being attacked by one of the gunmen who attack your fellow Americans daily?
I’ll make it easy (I’ve tried this before and it rarely works);
If attacked in your home by a gunman, will you;
A) Call 911?
B) Reach for your gun, then call 911?
C) Reach for your gun?
D) Do nothing and hope the gunman only wants to rob you.
(Prior entry null)
Since the 2nd amendment is a macro statement instrument, there is no benefit in arguing whether or not the long list of un entitled entities need to have a hand gun issued them. Waste of time. The law is clear to anyone accept those attempting to subvert and obfuscate it. You must have forgotten what the A2 says regarding to whom the uninfringed right is apparent and for what purpose. It was not alluding to the matters you initiated.
Al. Why will you not answer how you will react to being attacked by one of the gunmen who attack your fellow Americans daily?
I’ll make it easy (I’ve tried this before and it rarely works);
If attacked in your home by a gunman, will you;
A) Call 911?
B) Reach for your gun, then call 911?
C) Reach for your gun?
D) Do nothing and hope the gunman only wants to rob
Come on Al, I'm trying to play nice. I'll do my best to answer YOUR short quiz.
Comment By Gun Owner, 1-07-09Al, your constantly harping on the same old issue regarding the 2nd Amendment and that it should be limited, Well bud you need to do a little research on the matter; look at every gun law and control measure out there, more than 20,000 of them, each and every one of them limiting the 2nd Amendment in some manner or fashion. You consistently bring up criminals processing firearms.... well last time I looked it was still a felony in each and every state in the union for a criminal (felon) to possess a firearm, yet they are arrested with and commit crimes each and every single day with firearms.... Why you ask? We have laws against this! you say! How can this be you ask!! We must surely need to pass additional laws and ban firearms you say! Yet while all this is happening you yet again fail to see just like every other liberal (Socialist) Gun Grabber out there fails to see.... Another law, ban, prohibition, or restriction WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Criminals do NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! This is why they are called Criminals and Felons!!!! Duh!
They live outside the of law and you still think somehow passing one more law/ban/restriction will make them magically see the error of their ways and bring them into the light.
The only purpose your laws and bans serve is to disarm the Law Abiding citizen making them easier prey for the predators. Victims for you and your other statistic quoting fellow socialist gun grabbers to use to pass your next brainstorm solve everything gun control law!