"Enemies List": Goodman on a bender

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman is up in arms, so to speak, after having been left off the latest NRA "enemies list". The 19-page list of entities and individuals that "have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations" really does provide an interesting cross-section of the rich, famous, and influential. Goodman writes with her familiar, vicious jest, of course, but she does raise the usual interesting points.

And Goodman laments her exclusion with good reason; the oft-vilified feminist would stand in good company, alongside entities like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Bar Association, the US Catholic Conference, the B'Nai Brith, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Washington office of the Episcopal Church, the Friends (Quakers) Committee on National Legislation, the Congress of National Black Churches, the Church of the Brethren, Interfaith Neighbors, the Mennonite Central Committee, the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Methodist Church, the United States Conference of Mayors, and many others. Among individuals, Goodman would have the company of Maya Angelou, Julia Child, Stockard Channing, Walter Cronkite, Phil Donahue, Mary Tyler Moore, Jack Nicholson, Paul Newman, Neil Simon, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah Winfrey, most of the Zappas, and others. The NRA list also targets other influential individuals, including Jimmy Carter, C. Everett Koop, and former New York mayor Ed Koch. Goodman really must have gotten her feathers ruffled by the list of journalists, including cartoonists Steve Benson, Tom Toles and Garry Trudeau; columnists E.J. Dionne Jr., Molly Ivins, Mary McGrory, and Art Buchwald. Corporations and their heads? A&M Records, American Multi Cinemas (AMC), Ben & Jerry's, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Carter Hawley Hale, Hallmark Cards, the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, Levi-Strauss, Sara Lee, Southland (7-11), a couple of the "baby Bells", Sprint, the St. Louis Rams and Cardinals, Stoneyfield Farms, and Time-Warner among others. And the NRA lists media outlets, too: Capital/ABC, Christian Science Monitor, CBS, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Cox Newspapers, Gannet News Services, Knight-Ridder, LA Times, NBC (3 out of four!), Newsweek, Rolling Stone, New York Times, Times-Mirror, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post . . . .

What a list. No wonder Goodman wants to be on it. But what I can't figure out is what it's for. A boycott is impractical. A list of who to bash when you're on Scarborough Country? Perhaps, but what does that say if you really need a list to remind you who you're that angry with?

Yes, it's good to know your opposition, but doesn't something of the depth and breadth of this list tell the NRA that maybe, just maybe, they're out of touch?

To the other, the NRA wants you to join their "Good Guys" list. How do they counter talk of blacklists? By asking you to contribute.Desperately seeking relevance, the Brady Bunch has even launched an anti-NRA website which attempts to bash NRA as "blacklisters" for merely documenting the gun-ban advocacy of such "mainstream" American "luminaries" as Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, and, lest we forget, Moon and Dweezil Zappa.

Duplicitous ads and imaginary "blacklists?" That’s some story.

Alternatively, to demonstrate the broad base of support for NRA and its legislative agenda, we have launched an NRA "Good Guys" List website. It’s a list of law-abiding Americans who support freedom of speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We encourage you to stand up and be counted by adding your name to our "Good Guys" list. You don’t have to be an NRA member to join the list; you just have to believe in freedom. To visit the site and add your name to the list, please go to . . . .Yes, folks, this is the NRA, a powerful lobby committed to keeping lethal violence in the streets."The NRA members are much more sensible than the leaders. The leadership really believes we would be safer if we were all walking around carrying AK-47s. They talk about the slippery slope. If I can't have a grenade launcher today, they'll take away my rifle tomorrow." (Mike Barnes)
Reference links:

- Goodman, Ellen. "Well, shoot! I've been dissed by the NRA." Seattle Times, October 31, 2003. see - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001779049_goodman31.html
- Anonymous/Staff. "Fact Sheet: National Organizations with Anti-Gun Policies". NRA Institute for Legislative Action Library, undated. see - http://www.nraila.com/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=15
- Anonymous/Staff. "Join the NRA's 'Good Guys' list." NRA Institute for Legislative Action Updates and Alerts, undated. see - http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=865

There are plenty who are not on the list

Notable by their absence are pillars of US society such as;

The Crips
The Bloods
The Aztec Souls
The Allport Lovers
The Almighty Latin Kings
And those good old boys in The Aryan Brotherhood.

:D
Dee Cee

Even the best of weapons can jam up and explode in your face. Luckily for the NRA, the British take on it seems more like an Elmer Fudd firecracker episode than any serious shrapnel damage. But from that side of the pond, the NRA's "blacklist" appears to be backfiring: An attempt by America's National Rifle Association (NRA) to "out" Hollywood stars who support gun control appears to have backfired . . . .

. . . . after news of the list leaked out, thousands of Americans have asked to be added to those of the stars . . . .

. . . . "Our members don't want to buy their songs, they don't want to go to their movies, don't want to support their careers," said the National Rifle Association's executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre . . . .

. . . . "If those listed are so embarrassed or ashamed about NRA documenting their anti-freedom position," the NRA website says, "perhaps they should reconsider their positions."

But, far from being embarrassed, several of the stars have said they are proud of being on an NRA blacklist . . . .

. . . . Dustin Hoffman wrote to the NRA's president, Kayne Robinson, saying that "as a supporter of comprehensive gun safety measures, I was deeply disappointed when I discovered that my name was not on this list". (BBC)Wayne LaPierre is such a goofy one; he's the one responsible for the glitzy Clinton-bashing campaign of the 1990s--"Jack-booted thugs", &c. But consider LaPierre's remarks against an appeal for contributions available at the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website: Desperately seeking relevance, the Brady Bunch has even launched an anti-NRA website which attempts to bash NRA as "blacklisters" for merely documenting the gun-ban advocacy of such "mainstream" American "luminaries" as Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, and, lest we forget, Moon and Dweezil Zappa.

Duplicitous ads and imaginary "blacklists?" That’s some story. (NRA)Documentation intended to foster a boycott? Sounds to me like a blacklist: A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized. (Dictionary.com)So which is it, folks? Is the NRA blacklisting or not?

Duplicitous? I think we just covered that.

Reference links

- Carver, Tom. "Gun lobbying plan backfires in US." BBC News Online. November 3, 2003. see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3238513.stm
- Anonymous/Staff. "Join the NRA's Good Guys' List." NRA Institute for Legislative Action Updates and Alerts. October 24, 2003. see http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=865
- see Dictionary.com: "blacklist" - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blacklist

Black listing, yes.

Of course you would expect them to put individual people on their list, but entire companies? Is that even possible? To say that you don't wanna watch CBS ever again (Fox wasn't on the list)?

"Our members don't want to buy their songs, they don't want to go to their movies, don't want to support their careers," said the National Rifle Association's executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre . . . .

Then I guess their members like to sit at home and read books, books like The Turner Diaries.

. . . . "If those listed are so embarrassed or ashamed about NRA documenting their anti-freedom position," the NRA website says, "perhaps they should reconsider their positions."

Anti-freedom? I like that word. As if owning a gun is the ultimate freedom. It's the choice on whether or not to own one that makes you free. It's your own opinion that makes you free. Maybe the NRA has forgotten what freedom is?

All I know is that you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.

Does anybody remember that part in Bowling For Columbine where Mr. Moore goes to Charlie Heston's house? Notice that he really didn't have a response, he just walked away. That's what most NRA members do when you throw something in their face like that.

If I were her, I wouldn't want to be on this list, as it's filled mainly by whackjobs who have not one iota of a clue as to what responsible firearm ownership is.

Exhibit A:Originally posted by tiassa
Yes, folks, this is the NRA, a powerful lobby committed to keeping lethal violence in the streets.Hooray for kneejerk strawmen!

Stokes, you didn't leave much to respond to except to exemplify the degree of maturity common to people who love lethal weapons. People like you are dangerous. You have the right to kill one person in this world. It's real easy to figure out who it is. I suggest you go kill him. Now.

Or, perhaps, you could give a substantive response for once, but we all know how afraid you are of that. It's okay, we know you're deficient. But give it the ol' college try.

You never know, you might actually have a point and make it clearly someday.

Please either get an argument or buy a vowel and stuff it.

Interesting debate. I've read where the recent CDC study found no relationship between gun control laws and violent crime incidence. The following condenses a lot of that into a small amount of space. What's wrong with the study? I haven't read the details, only comments by both sides. Also, any comments about the other study, the one done during the Carter administration that yielded essentially the same result?

http://www.nukevet.com/mt/archives/003165.html#003165

The constitution clearly says that the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon. Many people think that the 2nd amendment is outdate and should no longer apply. You can make some pretty good arguments in favor of that position. Unfortunately many people wish to simply ignore the 2nd amendment and make blatantly unconstitutional laws. If you don’t think that citizens should have guns, the proper course of action in to attempt to change the 2nd amendment. It sets a dangerous precedent when legislatures make blatantly unconstitutional laws.

Of course most anti-gun activists know that they haven’t got the slightest chance of getting the 2nd amendment repealed, which is why they like to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Discuss...:D

Nasor

You tell us about the Second Amendment. Do you know what it actually says? I'm perfectly willing to hold the Second Amendment to what it says. Are you?

Link: United States Constitution - Bill of Rights (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)

Chuck U

This was originally a "notes around" post° to cover various comments by various people, but I've been caught short; I admit it's strange - when the other parent comes home, my parental duties increase. Odd.

At any rate, I'm pilfering the CDC MMWR and looking through a couple of articles.

But a brief comment: Bill Maher has a joke he pulls out regularly these days, in which he rips a new sphincter in an anti-drug commercial. It's the same one so many of us loathe around here: two kids, smoking pot in the den of one child's father. One finds a loaded handgun and accidentally shoots the other. We're supposed to feel threatened by the marijuana? What was dad doing? Cocaine? How did he come to leave a loaded gun so easily accessible to his kid that he doesn't pay enough attention to in order to realize that Johnny's high?

In this case, what it points out is that of course gun control doesn't stop the flow of guns. This is unfortunate. But the reason for the inefficacy of gun control is gun owners themselves. I can't count the number of "responsible" gun owners who simply aren't. I only need one finger on one hand to count the practically-responsible gun owners I know. That's right: one.A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence. I would say that no matter how you cut it, the problem with guns is gun owners. Those of us who don't own and don't wish to own firearms aren't out shooting people. And we're not leaving our guns for our children to steal. We're not leaving our guns for the thieves to steal. We're not circulating guns into the marketplace.

(Outta time for now.)

Edit:
° post - Post, not topic, as I had originally written. Whoops.

Originally posted by tiassa
You tell us about the Second Amendment. Do you know what it actually says? I'm perfectly willing to hold the Second Amendment to what it says. Are you?I am. And until it is struck down by another Amendment, I will continue to be. The Second Amendment is a two-clause article. The first clause delineates what the right is, and the second guarantees it as a right of the people. It is, undeniably, an individual right.
In this case, what it points out is that of course gun control doesn't stop the flow of guns. This is unfortunate. But the reason for the inefficacy of gun control is gun owners themselves.So take away their guns. Don't use their ineptitude as an excuse to take away my guns. Nobody's going to revoke your driver's license because your neighbor got drunk and hit a van full of children and kittens.I can't count the number of "responsible" gun owners who simply aren't. I only need one finger on one hand to count the practically-responsible gun owners I know. That's right: one.I can count the number of responsible gun owners who simply are. I only need one finger on one hand to count the practically-irresponsible gun owners that I know. That's right: one. Isn't anecdotal evidence fun?I would say that no matter how you cut it, the problem with guns is gun owners. Those of us who don't own and don't wish to own firearms aren't out shooting people. And we're not leaving our guns for our children to steal. We're not leaving our guns for the thieves to steal. We're not circulating guns into the marketplace.Congratulations. Neither are we. Who buys the first drink?

I can't begin to understand what exactly your argument is based around. If you're going to begin to argue that private firearm ownership shouldn't be allowed, then let's have some evidence. Remember, the burden is on you to prove why people shouldn't own guns, rather than gun owners to prove why they should. We've already seen that the rash of early-1990s kneejerk feel-good legislation had absolutely no impact on firearm-related crime in the United States, in spite of some of the most patently stupid "assault weapons" bans that fly in the face of elementary logic.

What's your point, anyway?

The first clause delineates what the right is - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the second guarantees it as a right of the people - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Like I said, Stokes, I'm willing to hold the Second Amendment to what it says. The clear majority of gun owners I know are not members of a well-regulated militia serving the necessity of a free state.

The right of the people is ... what? According to you: The first clause delineates what the right is. This would seem to be the right to a well-regulated militia in service of the free State.

Fine with me. Why the gun ownership lobby complains about regulation is beyond me. After all, the first clause delineates what the right is.So take away their guns. Don't use their ineptitude as an excuse to take away my guns. If you're going to introduce that childish lament, you'll have to explain to us how you arrive at that point. Otherwise it's just more cheap rhetoric and fearmongering propaganda.Nobody's going to revoke your driver's license because your neighbor got drunk and hit a van full of children and kittens. Nope, but I wouldn't mind if I wasn't allowed to buy a Hummer when I live in a city because my neighbors show that it's a bad idea to have a Hummer when you live in a metropolitan area.

Besides, your analogy doesn't work. Or are you including the idea of licensing all firearms and users? You have to earn a driver's license. Anyone can pick up a lethal weapon and shoot it. Hell, unlike a car where you have to make sure the key is in the ignition, you don't even have to know that you're firing a gun.I can count the number of responsible gun owners who simply are. I only need one finger on one hand to count the practically-irresponsible gun owners that I know. That's right: one. Isn't anecdotal evidence fun? Point-for-point responsorial anecdotes don't do you much credit here. You're ducking the point. We can look at the same ten shooters and come to different conclusions about gun safety and responsibility.

Close to me? We can look at my partner in the parenting and family venture. She has a gun. Let me tell you about this "responsible" gun owner: She's psychologically unstable, prone to fits of violence, and cites as her reasons for wanting a gun circumstances that are nigh-enough impossible to leave it at that. In addition ... she didn't even know what caliber of gun she owned. And yet she (and her father) think she's a "responsible gun owner". And she will proudly crow about how "responsible" she is halfway through telling one of the many stories about going out target shooting while drunk. (What were you shooting at? "I don't remember.")

Now, admittedly, she's an extreme case, and one rather quite annoying to me because a couple of my friends are attempting to establish a "Phil Hartman Network" on my behalf to inform all of my friends as quickly as possible after she kills me.

But I think of the trained professional (National Guard, for whatever that is worth), and the look on his face when he realized the gun he was pointing at me was, in fact, loaded.

Or the former Navy man who, upon hearing of an escape from a local minimum-security prison (that's right, an accountant broke out of Sheridan), packed up two handguns and a rifle and went down to a local tavern to start up a posse. Later that night, my girlfriend, her sister, and I went down to the tavern in separate cars to start collecting the drunks wandering around in the street with their guns. And every one of 'em is a "responsible" gun owner.

"I didn't know it was loaded when I sat down to clean it. Yes, officer, I had a couple of beers first. No, I did nothing wrong."

Or, "I didn't know my son would go upstairs and get my loaded rifle and shoot his five year-old sister to death. Sure, I talked about capping people's asses, but I'm a responsible gun owner. I've told my boy that he is not to play with the rifle."

How about, "Yes, I'm a representative for a gun manufacturer on a sales call. Yes, I'm a trained, responsible gun owner. No, I do not know how I accidentally shot a teacher in a schoolyard."

Or the comedic: "Yes, I'm a responsible gun owner. That's why I'm hunting deer with a .44 revolver. That's why I lost all my spare ammo when I fell down drunk earlier. That's why I had to beat the deer to death after blowing both its front legs off." (To hear the hunter tell the story really does make it one of the funniest things I've ever heard; a drunk chasing a maimed deer down a hill until he leaps onto its back and proceeds to bludgeon it to death with his pistol and a rock.)

Put some sincerity into your anecdotal evidence, Stokes. When you operate on nothing but ignorant spite, that's about all you show.Congratulations. Neither are we. Do you speak on behalf of gun owners in general?

Then I call: Bullshit.

Lost weapons, the need to transfer firearms with no record . . . yeah, every two-bit punk with a cheap .380 in his pocket has high-level contacts in Al Qaeda to accommodate his need for illegal weapons. Absolutely no weapons used in crimes come from responsible gun owners, right? I accept it in theory, but as you might have noticed, I find the term "responsible gun owner" a mockery of what the words mean when most gun owners I know describe themselves as such.

I think of that trained murderer from the US Marines ... you remember getting pissed at me for posting his little story? How he didn't like what his bartender said about the Iraqi engagement so he went home, got his gun, and put his training to use? Let me guess--he's a responsible gun owner, too?I can't begin to understand what exactly your argument is based around. I'm not surprised. You've not so much failed to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding, but have repeatedly and directly established that you are, in fact, not smart enough to figure it out.

In the meantime, why is it that you gun owners can't ever be honest about your murderous fetishes?If you're going to begin to argue that private firearm ownership shouldn't be allowed, then let's have some evidence. Ah ... so your hissy-fit is actually premature ejaculation.We've already seen that the rash of early-1990s kneejerk feel-good legislation had absolutely no impact on firearm-related crime in the United States And we've already discussed that the problem with that is in part gun owners. Like I noted, I'm not putting weapons on the street: I have none to lose, to sell, to give away. My partner? Hell, we just got the gun back. The responsible gun owner lost track of her weapon for ... seven years. Turned up in a friend's storage unit.What's your point, anyway? Gee, don't you wish you'd asked that in the beginning? Something about premature ejaculation goes here, but it's enough to tell you to go change your trousers.

I think the general point has more to do with the fact that the primary body representing gun owners as a collective unit is a corrupt, duplicitous menace. Take a look at it. First off, they generate a blacklist. And then they appeal for contributions by pretending to be maligned by the "Brady Bunch" when the NRA is accused of blacklisting. On top of that, the blacklist is only useful to a small portion of the NRA membership; its members, as even members of the Brady campaign know, are generally more reasonable than its leadership.

Generally. I don't want to presume you to be a member of the NRA, but I think Wayne LaPierre, the Lieutenant Liar of the NRA, might have some use for a person of your character.

Regardless of how one feels about how the Second Amendment should be read, the "Kill 'em All" philosophy that underpins the entire firearm justification creates and contributes to various problems in this country. Now, we can take them seriously and reduce our problems as a society, or we can go the NRA's merry way and lie, cheat, and steal in order to make sure there's always a reason to shoot someone to death.

And if you can't figure it out from there, Stokes . . . that's your own damn problem, boy.

tiassa:You seem to be operating under the assumption that the second amendment guarantees people the right to join a militia. This doesn't seem to be the case, as the second amendment clearly states that it is the right to keep and bear arms that is not to be infringed upon, rather than the right to join a militia.

Does anyone have any statistics showing a correlation between changes in gun control laws and changes in violent crime rates?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the second amendment guarantees people the right to join a militia. This doesn't seem to be the case, as the second amendment clearly states that it is the right to keep and bear arms that is not to be infringed upon, rather than the right to join a militia.Actually, you're confusing a couple issues.

First off, I would like to know what you think the Second Amendment says. Secondly, what I examined in the prior post to Stokes was the fault in his argument that the first clause--the well-regulated militia--is the right. Please pay attention to such details in the future. And if you didn't actually read that post to Stokes, then I have no idea where you're getting your presumption.Does anyone have any statistics showing a correlation between changes in gun control laws and changes in violent crime rates? Depends on the correlation you're looking for. Chuck provided an article discussing some statistics.

My actual solution to gun-related problems is quite simple: hold everyone accountable for the rounds they discharge.

As a larger comment, though, I've found the idea of being held accountable just pisses off folks who own lots of guns. The last thing they seem to want is to be held accountable for their actions.

Originally posted by tiassa
The clear majority of gun owners I know are not members of a well-regulated militia serving the necessity of a free state.Any able bodied citizen, male or female, between the ages of 17 and 45, is a member of the militia, in accordance with the Militia Act of 1952 (and previously 1792). So, try again.
If you're going to introduce that childish lament, you'll have to explain to us how you arrive at that point. Otherwise it's just more cheap rhetoric and fearmongering propaganda.Your argument that the problem of ineffective gun control is gun owners themselves is a fallacy based on a hasty generalization. One or one hundred irresponsible gun owners is not, specifically, indicative of irresponsibility in the majority. Nor is it grounds for revocation of inalienable Constitutional rights under the Second and Ninth Amendments.

Strike two.
Nope, but I wouldn't mind if I wasn't allowed to buy a Hummer when I live in a city because my neighbors show that it's a bad idea to have a Hummer when you live in a metropolitan area.You wouldn't mind, but many would not be so eager to relinquish their freedom to own and drive what they please. Your personal preference is irrelevant as it cannot be ascribed to the majority of the citizenry. And anyway, you just dodged the issue. The point is, you can't punish me for crimes that others commit.
Besides, your analogy doesn't work. Or are you including the idea of licensing all firearms and users? You have to earn a driver's license. Anyone can pick up a lethal weapon and shoot it. Hell, unlike a car where you have to make sure the key is in the ignition, you don't even have to know that you're firing a gun.Now you don't know anything about guns. You don't just "pick up" one and shoot it. Based on this gaffe, I'm going to venture a guess that I could put a double-action automatic in one of your hands, a full magazine in the other, and you wouldn't know the first thing about loading and firing it. This sort of uninformed misperception is the primary impetus behind such jokes as arbitrary "assault weapons" bans, and other nonsensical legislation.
Point-for-point responsorial anecdotes don't do you much credit here. You're ducking the point. We can look at the same ten shooters and come to different conclusions about gun safety and responsibility.So don't inject anecdotal evidence. Problem solved.

Close to me? We can look at my partner in the parenting and family venture. She has a gun. Let me tell you about this "responsible" gun owner: She's psychologically unstable, prone to fits of violence, and cites as her reasons for wanting a gun circumstances that are nigh-enough impossible to leave it at that. In addition ... she didn't even know what caliber of gun she owned. And yet she (and her father) think she's a "responsible gun owner". And she will proudly crow about how "responsible" she is halfway through telling one of the many stories about going out target shooting while drunk. (What were you shooting at? "I don't remember.")We can look at my partner. She has a gun. Let me tell you about this responsible gun owner: She's a licensed psychologist, a counselor to participants in domestic violence, and cites her reasons for wanting a gun as personal protection. In addition, she once fended off an assailant with her .38 - perhaps saving her own life.

Anecdotes are fun and all, but they get us nowhere. Try to be more objective.
Put some sincerity into your anecdotal evidence, Stokes. When you operate on nothing but ignorant spite, that's about all you show.Who's using anecdotal evidence? I'm not advocating for any, and if you're stuck on it, you're only going to continue perpetuating this mindless fest of frothing demagoguery. For every bleeding heart won't somebody think of the children story you regurgitate, I can fire one right back. Show me some published statistics to back up your gross generalizations, or shut the fuck up.

I think the general point has more to do with the fact that the primary body representing gun owners as a collective unit is a corrupt, duplicitous menace. Take a look at it. First off, they generate a blacklist. And then they appeal for contributions by pretending to be maligned by the "Brady Bunch" when the NRA is accused of blacklisting. On top of that, the blacklist is only useful to a small portion of the NRA membership; its members, as even members of the Brady campaign know, are generally more reasonable than its leadership.Okay, I generally agree with you here, in the sense that this NRA blacklist is a bunch of retardation. There are many smacktards on the pro-gun side that discredit its cause as equally as you discredit your own.
Regardless of how one feels about how the Second Amendment should be read, the "Kill 'em All" philosophy that underpins the entire firearm justification creates and contributes to various problems in this country. Now, we can take them seriously and reduce our problems as a society, or we can go the NRA's merry way and lie, cheat, and steal in order to make sure there's always a reason to shoot someone to death.Strawman. You seem to insist on hiding your head in the sand and ascribing these hilarious charicatures to the majority of firearm owners. It would behoove you not to make blithe potshots. So far you've only managed to hit yourself.

Answer me this: What's your reasoning behind reduction of firearm rights? Is it that it would have a quantifiable and positive impact on crime? Because as of right now, you have a vitriolic aversion to them that I cannot understand, and you haven't made your motivation clear.

Edited to add:Originally posted by tiassa
As a larger comment, though, I've found the idea of being held accountable just pisses off folks who own lots of guns. The last thing they seem to want is to be held accountable for their actions. Ah, so your argument is a fallacy based on anecdotal evidence and cursory generalizations. And a quite selfish one at that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Nasor
Does anyone have any statistics showing a correlation between changes in gun control laws and changes in violent crime rates? Yeah, check this out:

Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials at a loss to explain the debacle.

Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the country's private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves.

The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things, government cannot take care of you as well as you can.

In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent, and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73 percent.http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/000711.shtml

Any able bodied citizen, male or female, between the ages of 17 and 45, is a member of the militia, in accordance with the Militia Act of 1952 (and previously 1792). So, try again.Yes, that makes them a well-regulated militia.

It was a nice try, though, Stokes. Keep at it, slugger.Your argument that the problem of ineffective gun control is gun owners themselves is a fallacy based on a hasty generalization. One or one hundred irresponsible gun owners is not, specifically, indicative of irresponsibility in the majority Nonetheless, it is people in possession of guns that give us reasons to protect ourselves from guns and the people who wield them. That's the point of well-regulated, Stokes. It's in line with the government's obligation to the general welfare and the common defense included among the reasons for the Constitution and its Amendments in the first place.Nor is it grounds for revocation of inalienable Constitutional rights under the Second and Ninth Amendments. What issue are you arguing here? Where the hell is this coming from?

I mean, I'd love to see the game you're watching, but I could have sworn you were trying to take part in this topic.

You would have thrown a great pitch there, Stokes, if home plate was in left field.You wouldn't mind, but many would not be so eager to relinquish their freedom to own and drive what they please. Um ... that argument doesn't work with me on the grounds that other people's selfishness does not entitle them to endanger other people.Your personal preference is irrelevant as it cannot be ascribed to the majority of the citizenry.This, coming from you?

I'm impressed, Stokes. I admit it. I didn't think I could laugh that hard at something you wrote.Now you don't know anything about guns. You don't just "pick up" one and shoot it. Right. So the children who accidentally kill themselves ... what? What did they do? Where did they learn to fire a gun, Stokes? From television? Shall we blame Studio City?

I can drop a gun and discharge it, Stokes. What the hell are you talking about? You can't just pick up a gun and shoot it? What does that even mean, Stokes? Because there are some dead people in the world who would be very interested to hear your explanation if they were capable of recognizing the opportunity was afoot.

Again, I'm very impressed. You're another reminder that people don't need drugs to bend reality; they can just talk to you.Based on this gaffe, I'm going to venture a guess that I could put a double-action automatic in one of your hands, a full magazine in the other, and you wouldn't know the first thing about loading and firing it. Ah, here we see the error in your machismo-in-lieu-of-logic.

Really, Stokes, what argument do you think you're having?So don't inject anecdotal evidence. Problem solved.Let's try this again: anecdotal evidence has what value people choose to perceive. When they perceive you standing there pouting like a little child saying, "Oh, yeah?!" Well, that's all you're worth, kiddo.

But keep at it, Stokes. With some practice, your mind might someday be worth something to somebody.Anecdotes are fun and all, but they get us nowhere. Try to be more objective.Anecdotes have value, Stokes, when they're true. Now, given your perpetual attitude problem and your penchant for dishonesty, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, pooch.

Seriously, you're either attempting a dishonest sleight-of-hand with this bizarre argument you're trying to have, or else you're just that stupid.Who's using anecdotal evidence? I'm not advocating for any, and if you're stuck on it, you're only going to continue perpetuating this mindless fest of frothing demagoguery Well, you seem to be deploying lies in lieu of anecdotal evidence.

I mean, far be it, Stokes, for me to presume you're a human being, an individual. Right? Is that how it goes? If you exist, you must obviously have the same experiences I do? And you must necessarily see things exactly as I do? Wrong, Stokes. But look at you. You can't even represent yourself honestly.For every bleeding heart won't somebody think of the children story you regurgitate, I can fire one right back Yes, but as you've pointed out, you're telling lies.

Nice job, Stokes. Keep working on it. Show me some published statistics to back up your gross generalizations You demand this amid a litany of more specific examples that you refuse in order to carry out a phantom argument based solely on your own dishonesty?

Your prerogative, I guess.shut the fuck up. Which comes back to the basis of any Stokes Pennwalt argument, eh? Stokes is right, so shut the fuck up?

What? What part of it did I miss?

Try explaining to me what argument you think you're having, and then I might be able to accommodate your sorry ass.Okay, I generally agree with you here, in the sense that this NRA blacklist is a bunch of retardation. There are many smacktards on the pro-gun side that discredit its cause as equally as you discredit your own.Hey, Stokes ... once in a while, you ought to make your arguments about the issues, and not about the posters that you don't like.

I mean, seriously ... look at you: you don't know what argument you're in. You have to ask me what my point is after you tell me how wrong it is, and here you can't even look at the general overview which you demanded oh-so-eloquently without reducing the issues once again to your petty dislike of me.

Open mouth, insert gun, and do what comes next, Stokes. Do the right thing, boy.Strawman. You seem to insist on hiding your head in the sand and ascribing these hilarious charicatures to the majority of firearm owners. It would behoove you not to make blithe potshots. So far you've only managed to hit yourself.And if you were smarter, you could show us all how I've done that. In the meantime, go change your trousers again, boy. I don't think it was premature ejaculation this time. I think you were just too full of shit from the outset.

True, though. Perhaps "steal" is a bit strong. Lying and cheating ... that's well-documented. Hell, there's even examples of it in this topic.

No, stealing isn't too strong. The NRA steals lives.What's your reasoning behind reduction of firearm rights? It's not the rights, but the people. The rights are just fine. It's just that the people aren't honest, and are demonstrably--by the results of their actions--incapable of delivering the ideals they promote. In many instances this is just annoying, but when the issue is a device designed to kill and destroy, we must necessarily take action to regulate according to the US Constitution bearing in mind the government's obligations to the welfare of the people.Is it that it would have a quantifiable and positive impact on crime? It is that it would, over time, have a quantifiable and positive impact on the human condition.Because as of right now, you have a vitriolic aversion to them that I cannot understand, and you haven't made your motivation clear. Well, they're machines designed to kill living things. And people demonstrably cannot use them responsibly. The crime rate itself speaks to that. Stop holding gun owners above the rest of humanity. You're just as dumb as the rest, and that actually makes you a little more dangerous than most. And in your case, specifically, Stokes .... Be thankful that the pro-violence, gun-loving crowd doesn't get it's way, or else I'd be well within my right to blow you to dust in defense of the human species.

Haven't you figured it out, yet? It's all well and fine to say that a gun is good for stopping fights and bad things, but they also are good for starting fights and bad things.

Look at someone like me: On one side is the criminals. On another side is the police. Rounding out the troika is the NRA. Now, just think about that:

- Criminals: lie, steal, kill
- Police: lie, steal, kill
- NRA: lie, cheat, steal

Someone, somewhere has to hold the boat together. Someone has to bail the bloody water left behind by people with guns. Hell, throw soldiers in there: kill, kill, and lie if ordered to.

Somebody has to bury the bodies. Somebody has to comfort the grieving. Someone has to look forward to the day when the politicians get serious and realize that guns and bullets and the people who use them really are more dangerous than words and the people who use them.

Originally posted by tiassa
Yes, that makes them a well-regulated militia....with the inherent right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for proving my point, Professor.
That's the point of well-regulated, Stokes. It's in line with the government's obligation to the general welfare and the common defense included among the reasons for the Constitution and its Amendments in the first place.No, the primary purpose of the militia, in the context of the Framers, was to be a check against the Federal military. Posse Comitatus changed this somewhat, but the legal aspects remain exactly the same.
Right. So the children who accidentally kill themselves ... what? What did they do? Where did they learn to fire a gun, Stokes? From television? Shall we blame Studio City?

I can drop a gun and discharge it, Stokes. What the hell are you talking about? You can't just pick up a gun and shoot it? What does that even mean, Stokes? Because there are some dead people in the world who would be very interested to hear your explanation if they were capable of recognizing the opportunity was afoot.OH NOES PEOPLE DIE! Give it a rest; you're not fooling anybody. "I can drop a gun and it will go off" is the kind of thing that can only come out of the mouth of somebody whose experience with guns extends as far as prime time network television. They don't just "go off". Even my Colt M1911A1 .45, a classic military sidearm known for its light SA trigger pull, cocked and loaded, has a trigger break of 4.2 pounds. You could throw it at a cement floor at the perfect angle all day and it wouldn't discharge. The kids that end up casualties of gun accidents got their hands on a weapon that somebody left loaded, and that they knew how to operate themselves. Unlike Hollywood, you can't wrap your paw around the grip of a pistol, pull the trigger, and unleash a hail of high velocity lead that makes cars explode. So, your assertion that you can "just pick it up and shoot it" is utter nonsense. Go to a range sometime. I'll quote you some John Stuart Mill: He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that.
Anecdotes have value, Stokes, when they're true. No, they have no place here. You're painting the entire firearm owner population of this country with your broad brush of uninformed opinion, and you're using a few cliche and uncorroborated anecdotes as proof. This hardly constitutes a cogent argument. You need tabulated statistics. Until you can provide some, I'm forced to conclude that you've got nothing to stand on.

Wading further through, to the real issue:
And people demonstrably cannot use them responsibly. The crime rate itself speaks to that.Some can't, others can. That's my point that you seem to be missing. I absolutely advocate punishing criminals for their actions. You seem to be advocating punishing the general population of a subculture for the actions of a few.
Stop holding gun owners above the rest of humanity. I'm not. You're demonizing the majority based on the actions of a few. And, not surprisingly, you have no proof to substantiate your radical opinion.
Haven't you figured it out, yet? It's all well and fine to say that a gun is good for stopping fights and bad things, but they also are good for starting fights and bad things.You don't need to preach to the choir; I've seen my share of the good and the evil guns can do, and were I to bet, probably a good deal more than you have.
Somebody has to bury the bodies. Somebody has to comfort the grieving. Someone has to look forward to the day when the politicians get serious and realize that guns and bullets and the people who use them really are more dangerous than words and the people who use them. Somebody has to make some sense.

Read the article I posted in response to Nasor above, which I suspect you summarily ignored. It completely trumps all of your vapid rhetoric. Draconian firearm legislation has not had a measurable impact on gun-related crime in the United States. Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that continued progress down that road will inevitably lead to an increase in crime, as happened in Australia and the UK.

The burden of proof is still on the touchy-feely leftists to show me why I shouldn't be able to be a responsible gun owner. And no, "angular black objects and loud noises make me incontinent" isn't a valid reason.

Thanks for proving my point, Professor.Yes, I suppose I should have made more effort to make my sarcasm clear, but then again, you're the only person who needed clarification on that point.No, the primary purpose of the militia . . . .And ...? Why, exactly, did you change the subject?

Consider the difference, please:

- That's the point of well-regulated . . . .
- No, the primary purpose of the militia . . . .

Apple? Orange. Apple? Orange. Starfruit!They don't just "go off". Even my Colt M1911A1 .45, a classic military sidearm known for its light SA trigger pull, cocked and loaded, has a trigger break of 4.2 pounds. That would explain the holes in the ceiling of one of the folks I know who is a responsible gun owner. Of course the gun didn't "just" go off. He did, in fact, mean to shoot holes in his ceiling on two separate occasions, once without the aid of a gun, I might add, so we can deal with the one occasion. You see? Just like I pointed out earlier: gun owners are liars. I should never have believed his story about the accidental discharge.The kids that end up casualties of gun accidents got their hands on a weapon that somebody left loaded, and that they knew how to operate themselves. Well, that was part of my point originally, but you seemed to disagree with it.Unlike Hollywood, you can't wrap your paw around the grip of a pistol, pull the trigger, and unleash a hail of high velocity lead that makes cars explode And this has to do with what? It only takes one round to make someone's head or heart explode.You're painting the entire firearm owner population of this country Actually, I'm not. You're imagining that. I admit the sense may have come through in the secondary rhetoric, you might realize a number of things:

- Yes, it's a limited number of gun owners I know. I apologize that I am not God and therefore am not knowledgeable of everybody on the face of the planet.
- Yet if we examine these cases, we see something about the range of possibility of what constitutes "responsible gun owners".
- Shall we pretend that every idiot calling themselves "responsible gun owners" just happens, by statistical chance, to be in association with me?
- Since we cannot, we might then return to the diversity of opinions regarding what constitutes "responsible gun ownership" and realize exactly how meaningless such a phrase is. That's my point that you seem to be missing Actually, I'm rather well aware of it.And, not surprisingly, you have no proof to substantiate your radical opinion.What proof do you want? I'm still not sure what discussion you think you're having.You don't need to preach to the choir; I've seen my share of the good and the evil guns can do, and were I to bet, probably a good deal more than you have.And heaven forbid that reducing the evil should inconvenience your superficial desires?

What? What is your point? You seem to be having an argument that was not necessarily taking place before you decided to have it.Draconian firearm legislation has not had a measurable impact on gun-related crime in the United States.Draconian? Quit your whining, boy. Draconian my ass. Show me draconian.

Besides, it's not just crime that I'm worried about.The burden of proof is still on the touchy-feely leftists to show me why I shouldn't be able to be a responsible gun owner. Is that the argument you think you're having?

Well, sir, then the burden is on you to make the idea that you're a "responsible gun owner" something more than meaningless rhetoric.And no, "angular black objects and loud noises make me incontinent" isn't a valid reason. I can't imagine why it would be. However, if you're of the low character you advertise at Sciforums, I'd say you're one of the last people that should have a gun. You're too quick to judgment. You're too quick to hatred. And, as you've shown, you don't necessarily know what is actually going on around you. But that's too hard to codify, so why don't you spell out what you think responsible gun owners deserve and perhaps explain what responsible gun ownership is, and then please advise me you have any problem with the idea of being held accountable for every round you discharge, and then ... maybe ... we'll be close enough to the same page that I can figure out what the hell argument you think you're having.

Thanks, tiassa, for reminding me why I stopped posting in the politics section. There are far too many people here who think that a collection of ad hominems, hasty generalizations, and anecdotal evidence amounts to a rational argument. I'm going back to the science forums, where people always disagree, but are at least able to discuss things in a meaningful way.

We understand.

I wonder what changes the foundign fathers would have made to the second amendment if they had known that this would be an issue. I can see where someone would see that it means only militia, I can also see how it would mention two things in such a way as to make them seperate. The right of a state to make a militia, and the right of the people to bear arms.

Back to the original topic, the NRA and its competitors have fallen down the pit many lobbying groups have stumbled into in recent decades, becoming political entities more interested in staying in the spotlight than actually doign what thier founders intended.

Current gun control laws are not effective. Gun bans seem ot do more harm than good. The system is like Welfare, Social Security, NASA, and Medicare(as well as a few other things I can't think of right now). It needs to be scrapped, and a new, better, working system put in place. Like that'll ever happen.:rolleyes:

Any suggestions?

:m: Peace.

gifted


Gun bans seem to do more harm than good

how do you come to this conclusion :confused:

Originally posted by tiassa
Consider the difference, please:

- That's the point of well-regulated . . . .
- No, the primary purpose of the militia . . . .

Apple? Orange. Apple? Orange. Starfruit!You said: "The clear majority of gun owners I know are not members of a well-regulated militia serving the necessity of a free state." So, either you don't know any able-bodied gun owners between 17 and 45, or you're full of shit.

That would explain the holes in the ceiling of one of the folks I know who is a responsible gun owner. Of course the gun didn't "just" go off. He did, in fact, mean to shoot holes in his ceiling on two separate occasions, once without the aid of a gun, I might add, so we can deal with the one occasion. You see? Just like I pointed out earlier: gun owners are liars. I should never have believed his story about the accidental discharge.First, I'll entertain your anecdotal evidence: I would question his aptitude and discipline with firearms, personally. You may think of him as a responsible gun owner, but I don't. Anybody who allows a gun to accidentally discharge into the ceiling of a room clearly is not competent enough to have one in their custody.

However, I don't know anybody who's had an accidental discharge like that. If anybody can explain to my why tiassa's anecdotal evidence weighs more than mine, I'm all ears.

And this has to do with what? It only takes one round to make someone's head or heart explode.I used hyperbole to illustrate how ridiculous your assertion was.

Actually, I'm not. You're imagining that. I admit the sense may have come through in the secondary rhetoric, you might realize a number of things:

- Yes, it's a limited number of gun owners I know. I apologize that I am not God and therefore am not knowledgeable of everybody on the face of the planet.
- Yet if we examine these cases, we see something about the range of possibility of what constitutes "responsible gun owners".
- Shall we pretend that every idiot calling themselves "responsible gun owners" just happens, by statistical chance, to be in association with me?
- Since we cannot, we might then return to the diversity of opinions regarding what constitutes "responsible gun ownership" and realize exactly how meaningless such a phrase is. This is either blatantly illogical reasoning, or an admission that you're in over your head. You admit that you have no statistical proof to back up your cursory generalization, which we agree on. Then you go on to posit that, although you have zero proof, you can make such ridiculous assertions because your own subjective opinion of what constitutes a "responsible gun owner" is, in fact, not. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
What? What is your point? You seem to be having an argument that was not necessarily taking place before you decided to have it.Likewise.
Draconian? Quit your whining, boy. Draconian my ass. Show me draconian.Learn yourself some 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock A pistol grip A bayonet mount A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle) A grenade launcher.Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers". The retardation inherent in this draconian ban is axiomatic:
Unlike the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 doesn't care about how the weapon actually functions but instead concentrates on cosmetic differences of a questionable benefit in reducing violence (Seen anybody bayoneted in the news lately? How about a drive-by grenade assault?). Not only that; but the 1994 ban makes life exceedingly difficult for collectors who instead of being "innocent until proven guilty" must prove beyond a doubt that there firearm was built before 1994 or face serious legal penalties. On top of it all, different state and local law enforcement interpretations of the law make for widespread confusion about what is legal and what isn't.Link (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm)

And as the CDC has recently told us, this knee-jerk legislation has had no impact on gun-related crime in the United States. Thankfully, this ban will sunset next year - it's a 10 year life span - and it will not be renewed. If I hadn't gone through the arduous process of registering and being specially licensed for all of my so-called "assault" weapons, I could have been sent to jail simply for owning a weapon that looked like something some lawmaker saw in the movies.
Besides, it's not just crime that I'm worried about.What else then?
Well, sir, then the burden is on you to make the idea that you're a "responsible gun owner" something more than meaningless rhetoric. I own many guns, and have for a while. I am a volunteer instructor in firearms safety at a local range. I have a concealed carry license in the state of Massachusetts, which is not an easy thing to get. I can explain the application process if you're curious. Prior to this point in my life, I had a good degree of experience with small arms during my time in the military, including submachineguns and so-called "assault" rifles - the kinds of things that make uninformed soccer moms pee their pants. Also, light and heavy machineguns, and grenade launchers. I am a reserve police officer.
I can't imagine why it would be. However, if you're of the low character you advertise at Sciforums, I'd say you're one of the last people that should have a gun. You're too quick to judgment. You're too quick to hatred. And, as you've shown, you don't necessarily know what is actually going on around you. But that's too hard to codify, so why don't you spell out what you think responsible gun owners deserve and perhaps explain what responsible gun ownership is, and then please advise me you have any problem with the idea of being held accountable for every round you discharge, and then ... maybe ... we'll be close enough to the same page that I can figure out what the hell argument you think you're having. Your pitiful ad hominems aside, I'll answer your question.

Responsible firearm ownership entails acquiring your guns through legal means, storing them securely, shooting them safely, and ensuring that anyone else who has access to them is also trained in their use.

Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who do not do these things, and I abhor them for the tarnish they bring to the community. However, there are many, many more who are the responsible types aforementioned.

My point is, that you cannot punish a majority for the actions of a few. That is what travesties like the 1994 assault weapons ban do - they take guns away from everybody because of one or two idiots. Such reasoning is fallacious at the most foundational level.

Additionally, you'd do well to stop sniveling about personal attacks and what not, as you seem to be the only one calling names. It's becoming increasingly frustrating to extrapolate a logical argument from your posts. Like I've asked you before - keep your posts tactile and germane. Otherwise they're just the dogmatic babbling of an uninformed pundit in total cognitive surrender.

Originally posted by goofyfish
Any suggestions?

:m: Peace. Hold people accountable. Take the gun laws we've had for a long time (machineguns and their ilk have been illegal to own since the 1934 Firearms Act) and enforce them. When somebody commits a crime with a gun, punish them. Look, I'll be one of the first to advocate punishment for psychos like John Lee Malvo. Not only because they're sick individuals, but because they give responsible gun owners like myself a bad name. Tossing them in jail, and then passing laws that keep honest citizens from owning the same hardware that they used in their crimes does nothing to prevent future crimes. As is the party line for gun-control opponents: If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

Gun-related crime is symptomatic of a larger problem in America - crime in general. Following the gun bans in the UK, violent crime rates did not decrease, they actually increased. The weapons used? Clubs, knives, and other melee implements. One aspect of the gun argument that both sides frequently miss is that Switzerland has zero gun legislation, and very little crime. Japan, on the other hand, has the most draconian gun laws of all, and very little crime. The common denominator between the two is that people in both nations exhibit a high degree of civic responsibility, which is something that isn't as prevalent in the United States, et al. Blaming inanimate objects for shortcomings in our society is only exercising willful ignorance, which, through evasion of the causality, only perpetuates a damaging myth that systematically strips citizens of their congenital freedoms. The results tabulated by the CDC tell us this.

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
gifted


Gun bans seem to do more harm than good

how do you come to this conclusion :confused: Read the article I linked to on the previous page.

The common denominator between the two is that people in both nations exhibit a high degree of civic responsibility, which is something that isn't as prevalent in the United States

so wouldn´t be a gun ban a good thing for the usOFa ?

From CDC:
"In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 deaths in 1998."

source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortality.htm


This number is very high when compared to Canada, and other nations of EU.

My point is, that you cannot punish a majority for the actions of a few. That is what travesties like the 1994 assault weapons ban do - they take guns away from everybody because of one or two idiots. Such reasoning is fallacious at the most foundational level.

Why not? America has done this at every juncture. Patriot Act. Treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW2. etc. etc. etc.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. Punishing the whole group for the acts of a few is not fair. *cough* Musims, Racial Profiling *cough*

But why is it that Americans shoot one another at such a higher rate than any other peoples?

nice article stokes .... but it´s pointless somehow ........
i´ll tell you my simple point :

when guns in my country would be free like in the usOFa , we would have thousands of additional deaths every year ! we have no real problem with such crimes .... but we would have them if we would allow everybody to have guns here !

how do you come to this conclusion Stokes explained it very well:Gun-related crime is symptomatic of a larger problem in America - crime in general. Following the gun bans in the UK, violent crime rates did not decrease, they actually increased. The weapons used? Clubs, knives, and other melee implements. One aspect of the gun argument that both sides frequently miss is that Switzerland has zero gun legislation, and very little crime. Japan, on the other hand, has the most draconian gun laws of all, and very little crime. The common denominator between the two is that people in both nations exhibit a high degree of civic responsibility, which is something that isn't as prevalent in the United States, et al. Blaming inanimate objects for shortcomings in our society is only exercising willful ignorance, which, through evasion of the causality, only perpetuates a damaging myth that systematically strips citizens of their congenital freedoms. The results tabulated by the CDC tell us this.

so wouldn´t be a gun ban a good thing for the usOFa ? It might help, if you also banned miscalaneous melee weapons, baseball bats, large rocks, etc. etc. and cut off the illegal supply, a sticky point that the anti-gun lobby seems to ignore. Taking them away from the irresponsible legal citizens does nothing if yo udon't take them away from the criminals as well. Some current laws would fix this, if they were enforced properly.

Here's an interesting article, without having to wade through a lot of statistics. Poe summarizes some of them very well, the comparisons between the US and other countries.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe2.html


More stats summarized for your convenience:

http://criterion.uchicago.edu/issues/iii4/naud.html

And, Lott's book with some comments:

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm

Per capita Canada has more guns then the US, and per capita we have MUCH less gun crime. Why? Could it be the 2 big R’s??? REGULATION, REGISTRATION! Oh my, could be?!? Funny that the vast majority of guns in Toronto are smuggled in from the US, and they are illegally brought into the hands of the "gangs", and funny that the game hunters can keep their guns. Obviously registration is not a bad thing. Of course why should a citizen have a right to bare any arm? Does someone really need a pistol, or a revolver? Here in Canada it's rare here in Toronto to find anyone with a gun.. why? Because here guns are rare, and they few and far between. Our criminal’s in house invasions usually don't carry guns. It's a cycle of violence that must be curbed. The reason why the US doesn’t have new laws is because of the powerful Gun lobbies in Washington. Canada is a example of a state that the American people should look at as a example. I don't really give a shit about Americans killing Americans, I just find it Ironic that Bush is fighting for the freedom and safety of American citizens abroad.

You said: "The clear majority of gun owners I know are not members of a well-regulated militia serving the necessity of a free state." So, either you don't know any able-bodied gun owners between 17 and 45, or you're full of shit.And you seem to have left parts of the conversation out. And you seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.

Educate yourself, Stokes.I would question his aptitude and discipline with firearms, personally. You may think of him as a responsible gun owner, but I don't. Anybody who allows a gun to accidentally discharge into the ceiling of a room clearly is not competent enough to have one in their custody. Ah ... finally, Stokes, something to work with, no matter how irresponsible or presumptuous it may be.

You've simply pointed out a huge part of the problem. The point is that "responsible gun owner" becomes a meaningless phrase when people like that puff their chests and say gun laws trespass on their "responsible gun ownership".

The nearest I can figure, you're so anxious to have an argument by rote that you're simply overlooking the obvious.

Again, I'll try to make such aspects more clear to you in the future, but I don't find compelling the notion that anyone else needed such clarification.However, I don't know anybody who's had an accidental discharge like that. Fair enough. It could be that, being part of the gun culture for so long, you know people who do qualify as "responsible gun owners". Like the one I know. No, a gun doesn't go off without a deliberate attempt to discharge it. Two questions:

- Do you have any firearms which you keep in display cases? By that I mean, do you keep firearms aside from one under your pillow or in your nightstand in order to shoot the first shadow that frightens you?
- If yes, do you leave them loaded?

Okay, a third question: If no, you do not leave them loaded while on display, why not?

Just to protect and preserve the mechanics of the gun?If anybody can explain to my why tiassa's anecdotal evidence weighs more than mine, I'm all ears.It's the way you treat the evidence with spite and presume irresponsibly the contents of the gaps you perceive.I used hyperbole to illustrate how ridiculous your assertion was.Your problem. Your fault.

You are tilting windmills, sir. Inventing phantoms to attack in lieu of addressing any actual issues.You admit that you have no statistical proof to back up your cursory generalization, which we agree on. Which cursory generalization is that? You're inventing so many, Stokes, that I don't know which part of your rock and roll fantasy you're referring to.Then you go on to posit that, although you have zero proof , you can make such ridiculous assertions because your own subjective opinion of what constitutes a "responsible gun owner" is, in fact, not We've already discussed your serious problem with presumption.

Shall we revisit? It's only a couple paragraphs above:

- You've simply pointed out a huge part of the problem. The point is that "responsible gun owner" becomes a meaningless phrase when people like that puff their chests and say gun laws trespass on their "responsible gun ownership". I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Laugh if you can. I will respect you more if you can laugh at yourself occasionally.Likewise.Well, dude, it is my topic. I mean, I did sort of establish the discussion about the conduct and behavior of the NRA before you tromped in and decided to have ... what argument is it?Learn yourself some 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: Doesn't seem that draconian.Not only that; but the 1994 ban makes life exceedingly difficult for collectors who instead of being "innocent until proven guilty" must prove beyond a doubt that there firearm was built before 1994 or face serious legal penalties.Interesting, but that makes gun owners like everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty? Hey, while gun owners were worrying about their right to own guns, other important fights were taking place. Considerations on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments at least have been boiling in the War Against Drugs and now in the War Against Terror. Now the precedent is in place and while it's wrong, it was wrong before. But guns were too important to these "patriots" to actually protect themselves against the indirect encroachments.

Between marijuana and speech, I live every day knowing I'm guilty until proven innocent if my government ever comes for me. Yes, I will stand against that for gun owners. But it would have been nice to have the gun owners in the prior fights. Too bad they couldn't think beyond themselves for a moment, eh? If they had seen the injustice affecting others, they might have been more prepared for it.

We obviously have some difference about what degree constitutes Draconian. If I hadn't gone through the arduous process of registering and being specially licensed for all of my so-called "assault" weapons, I could have been sent to jail simply for owning a weapon that looked like something some lawmaker saw in the movies Oh, paperwork and ... regulation ... it's not like the Second Amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. Oh, wait, it does. But you seem to have some problem with that term: well-regulated.

Quit your whining, boy. That's just ridiculous.What else then?That's right. Children never shoot one another accidentally. No round has ever fired without deliberate action taken to discharge it.

Here, Oklahoma's Department of Health talks about some problems related to firearms. And ... surprise of surprises, Stokes, not all of it is about crime.I own many guns, and have for a while.
I am a volunteer instructor in firearms safety at a local range.
I have a concealed carry license in the state of Massachusetts, which is not an easy thing to get. I can explain the application process if you're curious.
Prior to this point in my life, I had a good degree of experience with small arms during my time in the military, including submachineguns and so-called "assault" rifles - the kinds of things that make uninformed soccer moms pee their pants. Also, light and heavy machineguns, and grenade launchers.
I am a reserve police officer. Your opinion of your qualifications tells me much about your priorities. I know people who can say the same (well, other states). But there are some things not on the list. Ever shoot your gun while drunk? Of course, we already know that you've never in your life discharged a round without intending to, since such an event is apparently an impossibility in your Universe.

The thing is, Stokes, that you may well be a wonderfully responsible gun owner. And you know what you add up to? Anecdotal evidence. And we know what you think of that. Your pitiful ad hominems aside Which ad hominems? After all, I do think your dishonesty is apparent, and is also relevant to the credibility (or lack thereof) of your argument in this topic. I mean, look at it: you keep changing subjects, even lying. Look at your litany of attacks, Stokes, they're all dishonest and spiteful. Ad hominem? In this case, your character is a relevant issue, Stokes.Responsible firearm ownership entails acquiring your guns through legal means, storing them securely, shooting them safely, and ensuring that anyone else who has access to them is also trained in their use I agree. And there are many who claim to be responsible gun owners who would disagree in practice while nodding and bobbing foolishly.

And, like you, they would say things about who is or isn't competent enough to have one, but that someone is always some abstract John Doe out in the world and never themselves.

You should give that aspect some consideration, instead of imagining me painting according to your grasp of stereotypes. Remember when I was talking about the diverse range of possibility of what constitutes "responsible gun ownership"? Of course you do. You dismissed it without any evidence to support your position and then, as we see, come back to a point where it would behoove you to pay attention for once.Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who do not do these things, and I abhor them for the tarnish they bring to the community. However, there are many, many more who are the responsible types aforementioned.See the prior paragraphs of this response.My point is, that you cannot punish a majority for the actions of a few. It's a nice principle, isn't it?

Unfortunately, Stokes, you exist in human society, in which we all make sacrifices for the benefit of the idiots as well as Mr. Kite.That is what travesties like the 1994 assault weapons ban do - they take guns away from everybody because of one or two idiots. That really does seem to be the way of society at certain points. Drugs, free speech, firearms, drunk driving . . . .Additionally, you'd do well to stop sniveling about personal attacks and what not, as you seem to be the only one calling names Which names? Go ahead, list them out. And then I'll list your dishonesty that moves me to some of my harsher criticism. If you don't want to be thought of as a liar, try some honesty.It's becoming increasingly frustrating to extrapolate a logical argument from your posts. It's your choice to stick your nose in, Stokes. Don't blame me if you bite off more than you can chew.

Try explaining what discussion you think you're having.Like I've asked you before - keep your posts tactile and germane As is quite obvious, the problem with accommodating you is your own perception and your own presumptions.

Nobody forced you to enter this topic and post, right? So why the hell did you?Otherwise they're just the dogmatic babbling of an uninformed pundit in total cognitive surrender.You're welcome to think that, and even to say it. But you may wish to consider the evidence you've provided that you don't really know what discussion you're having.

And since you don't actually know what's going on, I'm not particularly worried about your opinion of a discussion you are apparently incapable of comprehending.

Get an attitude adjustment. Don't carry that freaking chip on your shoulder from topic to topic that relies on libelous mischaracterizations, melodramatic whining, and blind ignorant presumption, and people won't have any reason to wonder what the hell your problem is. And after that, well ... we can take a look and see how badly your reading comprehension has been victimized by your anger.

I think Stokes is forgetting one thing. 1791 is when this was written. This was clearly because of the British! The 'colonists' did NOT want to be part of the empire. Read the ammendment again, you should see this! That is what the ammendment is about. If, for example, Georgie boy and his cronies were to try to enslave the American population, then, and only then, the people have the right to bare arms to protect their freedoms. There is a difference, and I think that you cannot see that!

Tiassa, for every legal expert you can find who feels that the second amendment does not support the private ownership of firearms, another can be found who feels that it does.

I agree with the earlier post, if you do not like the second amendment, work on changing it.

Though I was once a member of the N.R.A., I've let it lapse. I believe that disarming the law abiding will only be counterproductive. The drug war has been completely unable to keep drugs out of the country, and out of the hands of crminals. I see no compelling reason to make the same mistake with firearms.

The N.R.A. has an extremist wing. I really feel no affinity with most members. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. My support for them is much like my support for the A.C.L.U. Both sometimes behave in ways that make me cringe. But I support both the first and the second amendment.

I hear people gun ownership and car ownership often. What everyone seems to forget is that you do not have to have a license, nor do you have to register a car. You only have to do these things to operate on public roads. Keep it on your own property, no ones business but your own.

I've never understood why so many on the left who mistrust government want the government to have a monopoly on firearm ownership.

The Brady bill was stupid and useless. I remember losing respect for Bill Clinton because of something he said in support of that bill. right after that nut Colin Ferguson (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/lirr.html) shot up the subway.
The weapon he used had a 15 round clip, and he had another with him. Bill said that this demonstrated why we needed to ban high capacity clips.
The law limited clips to 10 rounds. So instead of 2 - 15 round clips, he would have had 3- 10 round clips. Feel safer?

Never forget, the criminals will always be armed.

Tiassa, for every legal expert you can find who feels that the second amendment does not support the private ownership of firearms, another can be found who feels that it does. And in the end, the reality is that the Miller precedent isn't enough to prevent the government from fulfilling it's obligation to being well-regulated.

A militia that you join by simply existing? (See Stokes' posts if you wonder why I raise such an issue.) That's not exactly well-regulated.I agree with the earlier post, if you do not like the second amendment, work on changing it.Why change it? It's fine how it's written. The problem is that most people arguing the "gun ownership" side seem as if they would rather change it so that the first half of the amendment doesn't exist.

None address it directly. I agree with the first paragraph of your post, but I don't really see you addressing either the term "well-regulated" or the word "militia".I believe that disarming the law abiding will only be counterproductive. I resent this argument from gun owners because nobody's trying to disarm you. I mean, really: just because you can't own a grenade launcher, does it really mean that the government has disarmed you? How about an automatic weapon? (A pro-gun article from several years ago discussed the Rhodesian Bush War, and while trying to connect the inefficacy of automatic fire to the government wanting to confiscate your shotgun, the author accidentally demonstrated to a certain degree that automatic weapons, for instance, are inferior. No, not inferior per se, but rather, in the words of the author, "What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting." see link (http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/lststand.htm)) The point is that I've heard many people talk about the government "disarming" them, but at one point in my life, it was automatic weapons, for instance. I don't see how not being allowed to own a fully-automatic weapon like an AK-47 equals "disarming".

Nobody's disarming law abiding citizens. Unless we count the constitutional ideas of "well-regulated", "general welfare", and "common defense" to equal "disarming". Those who seek the oddball extremist that does seek utter disarmament of the people should pause to consider how much they have to seek.

I find the use of phrases like, "I believe that disarming the law abiding will only be counterproductive," rather useless to the discussion insofar as I believe the Second Coming of Christ is going to be a bad thing for humanity and the world, but that doesn't mean Jesus is coming back.

In terms of the debate that Stokes is trying to have, for instance, I would find such a phrase as, "I believe that disarming the law abiding will only be counterproductive," to be somewhat offensive, as it would be insisting on a condition brought to the table only by the person who needs the idea present in order to have something to resist.The drug war has been completely unable to keep drugs out of the country, and out of the hands of crminals. I see no compelling reason to make the same mistake with firearms.So ... government regulation equals "disarming" people? Do I understand you correctly?I hear people gun ownership and car ownership often. What everyone seems to forget is that you do not have to have a license, nor do you have to register a car. You only have to do these things to operate on public roads. Keep it on your own property, no ones business but your own. (1) The constitution does not prescribe a sovereign right to own a car based on the need for a well-regulated militia.

(2) A car is designed for transport. A gun is designed for killing. (That's one of the things I liked about The Simpsons episode #5F01 (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F01), in which homer bought a handgun; there's a scene where Homer uses his gun "as a tool" during an NRA meeting, horrifying his fellow gun owners--in other words, a gun is not a light switch, remote control, can opener, &c. Point being, a gun is designed for killing.)

Other than that, you do have a point. If we narrow the limits of the examination to the act of possessing a thing, you're absolutely right.I've never understood why so many on the left who mistrust government want the government to have a monopoly on firearm ownership.Which monopoly is that?The law limited clips to 10 rounds. So instead of 2 - 15 round clips, he would have had 3- 10 round clips. Feel safer?In the abstract, no. After all, it only takes one. To the other, though, having had one of those things unloaded the hard way with the intention of putting holes in me? Fifteen rounds sound really fast in the movies. It's an incredibly long time when someone's shooting at you. The closest round to me, insofar as it's the only one I heard impact, was somewhere around number twelve. If that round had hit me or one of my friends, I might feel differently.Never forget, the criminals will always be armed. Which further indicates that gun owners are a huge part of the problem. The criminals with guns are gun owners. Remember that those criminals are resorting to brute force because they're not smart enough to figure anything better. Shall we say the same of the rest of society?

There are certain parts of your post, Repo Man, that I'm very sympathetic to. But when I see things like, "I believe that disarming the law abiding will only be counterproductive," and, "I've never understood why so many on the left who mistrust government want the government to have a monopoly on firearm ownership," it reminds me that you're not approaching this discussion from any semblance of reality I can perceive. It sounds like so many other appeals to the Second Amendment: regulation equals disarmament. And frankly, I just don't get it. Where does this sort of "disarmament" rhetoric come from?

Geez, look around at that First Amendment that you support. There are many curbs on our speech. Do you stand with the post-gothic leftists in black shirts with electrician's tape over their mouths claiming that the government is "silencing" them? Seriously, I despise all "Alien and Sedition Acts" of American wartime, but by any standard, I'm somewhat seditious. Saying that I can't publicly threaten the life of this nation's executive officer does not equal cutting out my tongue. That I cannot stand in a public classroom and denounce niggers or kikes or honkies or Christians or Muslims or the fat students, or whatever does not mean that I have not my freedom of speech or religion. What's that? I can't threaten someone's life? Oh, heavens, the government is so fascist.

In other words, can you explain what you mean by "disarm" or "monopoly on gun ownership"? And you're welcome to apply your voice generally on behalf of gun owners.

Hi Repo Man:
You make an excellent point IMO, about cars vs firearms. also, I too have also wondered about the seeming inconsistency from those on the left about the second amendment.


Concerning the statements in the links I posted previously about the incidence of firearms related violence in the US being on a par with Canada and even Sweden,
has anybody located anything that disputes those claims? Or, maybe some criticisms of the methodology etc. of those studies?

Concerning the militia issue, I think that contemporary events point to the value to a nation of a well regulated (meaning well trained, well disciplined) militia. When a nation's military is completely vanquished, an unarmed populace is entirely at the mercy of the occupying forces. If the citizens wish to resist, they can't do a hell of a lot unless they have some weapons and the experience in how to use them. But, what if there is a militia, composed of the citizens themselves, to strike back?



How many GI's were killed or wounded today in Iraq?

But, what if there is a militia, composed of the citizens themselves, to strike back?And how do you propose regulating this militia according to the Second Amendment?

As to your articles, they suffer from a malady plaguing most of the gun debate on both sides. Crime and guns aren't so exclusively linked that other social factors aren't at play.

They're telling numbers. To hop back to another point people are pushing, the assault weapon ban brings no significant reduction in crime. Of course not. People use handguns for most gun crimes.

And you know ... I keep forgetting that crime is the only concern to guns at all. They don't just "go off". A round simply cannot discharge without someone intentionally operating a firearm in order to discharge it. (Ask Stokes about that; it makes no sense to me and doesn't match up with reality, and he's the one who keeps pushing these odd things about guns.) So of course. There are no accidents, no problems with guns that don't come directly from a criminal's use of a gun?

I mean, we started this topic with Ellen Goodman ridiculing the latest propaganda trip from an organization well-known for its duplicity, and we end up with people apparently pretending that crime is the only consideration involved in the problem of firearms. Well, that and what ...? I have to look to the "disarmament" crowd to fill in that detal. Oh, wait ... the "unarmed populace" ... I guess I can look at you, as well, and say, What's the deal with the paranoia?

I'd add the joke there, Does it come as an accessory with the gun purchase? But you gun folks are just too ... humorless. Unless, of course, you're ridiculing those who disagree. (See Stokes' posts for that.)

At any rate, hang up your hangups. We might look to Repo Man, who, while letting his NRA membership lapse, still shares with the organization that strange disarmament paranoia that seems so groundless and unestablished.

Tiassa, we both know that most gun control groups goal is the eventual total banning of firearms. Not all of these groups, but most. Much in the same way that anti abortion groups are attempting to ban abortion one step at a time, beginning with so called "partial birth abortion". Like chopping the liver you were forced to eat for dinner into very small pieces when you were a kid to try and not choke on it.

Most of these people feel that the country would be a better place if there were far fewer firearms. Many of them demonize guns, and irrationally fear them. Many of them do not.

I sympathize with their idealism, but I do not think their goals are achievable, and I think the law of unintended consequences would certainly rear its ugly head were any meaningful restrictions/gun bans to be made into laws.

Like I said before, I view anti drug/ anti gun people as being very similar, even though they are usually on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Tiassa, we both know that most gun control groups goal is the eventual total banning of firearms. There was a time when I would have believed that. I think I was in high school and the ridiculous plastic handgun debate was going on. But I just don't see it anymore. Mostly, the total banning argument is raised, much like it has been in this topic, by the gun ownership folks.Not all of these groups, but most.Don't look at me. I'm not going to go make that list for you. Maybe we will the day I decide that "total banning" and "disarmament" and "government monopolies on firearms" is a good idea.

But as long as we're working with generalizations, I'm wondering if I could get your opinion of this one: I do find the link between the NRA and the GOP somewhat disturbing insofar as the NRA and the "gun ownership" lobby point consistently to crime statistics to back their case, yet these folks are, by majority, Republicans, and the Republican platform relies on economic stratification, minimal education, and anti-crime policies that replace annoying crimes with violent ones. For instance, the GOP won points with libertarians in the 1990s by cutting government budgets. In these cuts, schools suffered. A lack of education contributes to poverty, and it is a fair generalization to point to the correlation between poverty and crime. All of these conditions limit opportunity, and as the crack wars showed us, people will seize any opportunity for advancement, even if it means getting gunned down violently for it. In the end, my problem is not actually with the guns themselves, except to recognize that they are designed to kill. Aside from that, all I ask for is that "responsible gun owner" is not reduced to an empty phrase, and that "responsible gun owners" who really do legitimately fear crime consider what other things they can do at the ballot box, what other priorities they can respect, that will reduce the need for protecting against criminals.

Now then, this is what I find wrong with people trying to steer the discussion toward the "disarmament" fearmongering.

Convince me that the gun-control extremists you fear so greatly have any more chance for success than the Death Penalty for Homosexuals movement.

Take a look through this topic, Repo Man. Part of the problem is that as near as I can tell, people tend to want to avoid the idea of regulation. Like this disagreement I had with Stokes: - That's the point of well-regulated, Stokes . . . .
- No, the primary purpose of the militia, in the context of the Framers, was to be a check against the Federal military.I don't actually argue the point about the militia. But the direct counterpoint to my point was to change the subject?

And you yourself, Repo Man, hop over with Stokes to the "disarmament" argument. I just don't see it. How is it that anything short of anarchy is "disarmament"? Why does nobody want to discuss the idea of well-regulated? Stokes even put forth an idea of a militia, but it's not a well-regulated militia:Any able bodied citizen, male or female, between the ages of 17 and 45, is a member of the militia, in accordance with the Militia Act of 1952 (and previously 1792) Great. And while I admit I need to just skip the sarcasm with Stokes, he seems to think that "if you exist, you're part of a militia" equals well-regulated. Obviously, I disagree. But moving beyond that, what is the issue people have that compels them to equate regulation with disarmament?Much in the same way that anti abortion groups are attempting to ban abortion one step at a time, beginning with so called "partial birth abortion". Like chopping the liver you were forced to eat for dinner into very small pieces when you were a kid to try and not choke on it.And what of the idea that the anti-abortionists who lament the tragedy also encourage conditions that create a demand for abortion? You know, keeping kids ignorant of what's happening inside their own bodies, opposing birth control, and so on.

Unlike the gun debate, though, the people empowered to practice (doctors, for instance) do support policies designed to reduce the number of abortions demanded each year--e.g. sex education, birth control, personal responsibility. Look back at the generalization above for context.I think the law of unintended consequences would certainly rear its ugly head were any meaningful restrictions/gun bans to be made into laws This statement only bugs me at all because I spent a couple of posts with Stokes insisting against the law of unintended consequences (no unintentional discharges, for instance). If I put that aside and deal with you instead of him, I'll disagree with you because of your earlier phrasing: far fewer firearms. Arming the people to the teeth isn't the solution, despite attempts in Oregon and Florida to do just that. (Laws were proposed in both states that would have required all households to have a firearm. Florida during the mid-late 1980s, and Oregon in the early-mid 1990s.)Like I said before, I view anti drug/ anti gun people as being very similar, even though they are usually on opposite sides of the political spectrum. It's certainly an interesting perspective, and not one that I protest. Except, of course, that you're rooting that comparison in what I consider to be a rather irrational fear of total disarmament.

And while I might complain about the duplicity of the NRA, I might look to the rhetoric of gun owners I've known and listened to in the past and discussed with here. I don't trust it. It's not rationally founded. Given some of the perceptions of reality I've experienced among some gun owners, come on ... what, it's Stokes' right. But the way he addresses the situation here? Maybe he really is a decent chap in life, but if he's going to bother badmouthing people like he does, he ought to put some effort into it. Seriously, what am I supposed to think when, one day, a "responsible gun owner" with a dangerously warped sense of reality is standing next to me, armed to the teeth, looking to provoke a fight?

In the end, one thing the gun ownership lobby has right is that it's not the guns. Guns themselves generally don't scare me. I loathe the guns themselves because they were designed to kill. But what I find really scary is a human being with a gun. Whether it's the guy without a black man in his rural sight fearing urban street gangs, a Texas man so frightened of the world that he shot a man through a closed door when the guy tried to ask directions on Hallowe'en, the professional firearms salesman who accidentally shot a teacher a quarter-mile away, the disturbed woman I live with who owns a .38 and didn't know what kind of gun it was and has a penchant for spontaneous flashes of violence and has threatened to kill me before, the "responsible gun owner" who didn't think it dangerous to shoot at cans in a field with nothing to stop the rounds that miss while drunk . . . . No, these folks aren't all gun owners, but are all the deviants really that close to my life experience? What are the odds?

They're human beings. In all their imperfect glory. With all their passions. With all their loves and hatreds and sacrosanct principles. And they're armed to the teeth and afraid of ... well, not quite everyone. And honestly, when I look at the regulation/disarmament leap, no, I don't trust your perception of reality until you can make that a little more clear to me. Frankly, I'm glad I most likely won't be around the day you feel compelled to turn a weapon on somebody for whatever reasons noble or otherwise.

And in the end, you and I and Stokes and Charlton Heston and everyone else live in society. Civilization. It is a cooperative venture. Cooperative - this word sometimes confuses people of many different politics, not just gun politics.

The state can keep a gun out of the hands of someone like Patrick Purdy? But it means I can't buy a handgun right now while I'm really pissed off? And it means that I can't be a criminal or regarded by law as insane and buy a gun? Well ... that's just it. The government is trying to disarm the people . . . .

I mean, really . . . .

And no, the state can't keep a gun out of the hands of someone like Patrick Purdy. Because ... and this is an image that will stick with me for a long time ... picture yourself at a swap meet in Salem, Oregon. It's a dusty kind of summer day, and your eye catches a glint of chrome. So you walk over to see what shines through the settling pollen and dirt and there is a table just covered with handguns. These are small. I can hide them pretty much behind my hand. And they're of various caliber. And I'm talking to the guy who is selling them. "Well, do they shoot straight?" They'll stop a mugger, he tells me, and then turns to serve customers who are openly talking about putting a cap in somebody's ass. Gonna walk right up and put one in his dome. That sort of crap.

Come on. Seriously. I'm standing here watching guns being purchased with criminal intent. But no. Putting a stop to this would be bad because ... what? Regulating such distribution would be "disarmament"?

We can say with some humor that one of the chief reasons I don't advocate a total ban is that I can't deny the evidence that I'm still alive, which means that none of y'all has killed me yet. And that's worth something.

Look, it's not about disarmament. You can let disarmament scare you for no reason, and if I want I can go let a street preacher convince me I'm going to Hell. But in doing so, neither one of us would do ourselves any credit.

On par with Canada in gun related incidents? lol :) ;) That is sooooo FUCKING scewed you don't know what way is up, do you? If you believe that, you are really gullible!

Originally posted by tiassa
And you seem to have left parts of the conversation out. And you seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.

Educate yourself, Stokes.We'll come back to this at the end.
Ah ... finally, Stokes, something to work with, no matter how irresponsible or presumptuous it may be.

You've simply pointed out a huge part of the problem. The point is that "responsible gun owner" becomes a meaningless phrase when people like that puff their chests and say gun laws trespass on their "responsible gun ownership".I like the part where you say it's meaningless, but don't say why. Not trying to sound condescending, but you really should take a class or two in debate and elementary logic. Were this a formal, moderated debate, you'd have been laughed from the podium a while ago.

Two questions:

- Do you have any firearms which you keep in display cases? By that I mean, do you keep firearms aside from one under your pillow or in your nightstand in order to shoot the first shadow that frightens you?
- If yes, do you leave them loaded?

Okay, a third question: If no, you do not leave them loaded while on display, why not?

Just to protect and preserve the mechanics of the gun?
I keep all my firearms locked away in a fireproof gun safe.

Regardless of where they are, they are never loaded unless I have the explicit intention of firing them at that very moment. Read: at the range.

If I did display any of them, I would not leave them loaded. Mostly, because any firearms safety course will tell you that that is a dangerous practice. I keep my guns locked in one safe, in my basement workshop, and my ammunition is locked in another one next to it. Also, there are other reasons to not leave guns loaded that have nothing to do with safety. Leaving magazines loaded keeps the feed spring compressed, causing it to lose strength over time, which leads to inadequate feeding and jams during firing. Obviously revolvers and some shotguns don't have this problem, but most of my guns are automatics.
It's the way you treat the evidence with spite and presume irresponsibly the contents of the gaps you perceive.Want to know why? Because, in logical/philosophical debate, anectodal evidence is fallacious. Anecdotal evidence, true or not, is inadmissible in logical debate for two chief reasons. One, it very rarely can be corroborated. You can make up all kinds of stories to support your assertion, but I have no way of knowing that they are true, and you can very rarely prove them to be so. Two, if they are proven to be true, they don't constitute irrefutable proof of anything. So what if every gun owner you know is an idiot with no trigger discipline who gets drunk and shoots at roadsigns? Every one that I do doesn't, and we're right back where we began. Your stories have no bearing on society as a whole, and I would submit that your experiences are as esoteric as mine.

Thus, the only sort of evidence that either of us can bring to the table is that which has been documented by a reliable source. Here is a link for you about the fallacy of anecdotal evidence: click (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp)
Which cursory generalization is that? You're inventing so many, Stokes, that I don't know which part of your rock and roll fantasy you're referring to.No, I've cited legal precedents, documentation, and sound logic, while your entire foundation appears to consist of your personal exposure to the subculture you seem to despise. Then, you go on to assume that the entire subculture is identical to those you've had exposure to.
Description of Hasty Generalization:

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization: X% of all observed A's are B''s. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs. The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious. Here is a link (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html).

Well, dude, it is my topic. I mean, I did sort of establish the discussion about the conduct and behavior of the NRA before you tromped in and decided to have ... what argument is it?If you're under the suspicion that I'm supporting this list of the NRA's, I'll explicitly state that I am not. Repo Man summarized this quite well in one of his posts: "politics make for stange bedfellows". Like he, I despise the extremists in the NRA and ACLU, yet I am a member of both, albeit sometimes reluctantly. There is nothing in this world I value more than personal freedoms.

Doesn't seem that draconian.If you had to go through the lengthy and expensive process that I did, I posit to you that you would feel otherwise. However, this is a subjective opinion that you will always be entitled to, and I won't argue that.

Interesting, but that makes gun owners like everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty? Hey, while gun owners were worrying about their right to own guns, other important fights were taking place. Considerations on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments at least have been boiling in the War Against Drugs and now in the War Against Terror. Now the precedent is in place and while it's wrong, it was wrong before. But guns were too important to these "patriots" to actually protect themselves against the indirect encroachments.

Between marijuana and speech, I live every day knowing I'm guilty until proven innocent if my government ever comes for me. Yes, I will stand against that for gun owners. But it would have been nice to have the gun owners in the prior fights. Too bad they couldn't think beyond themselves for a moment, eh? If they had seen the injustice affecting others, they might have been more prepared for it.I don't know why you think you can ascribe your self-percieved values to all gun owners. Maybe the ones you know are shallow and selfish. I don't know, nor is that relevant. If you're curious, I do my fair share to protect our other amendments as well.

Oh, paperwork and ... regulation ... it's not like the Second Amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. Oh, wait, it does. But you seem to have some problem with that term: well-regulated.

Quit your whining, boy. That's just ridiculous.Prove that paperwork, regulation, and the outright banning of many entire classes of firearms is what the Framers had in mind.
That's right. Children never shoot one another accidentally. No round has ever fired without deliberate action taken to discharge it.

Here, Oklahoma's Department of Health talks about some problems related to firearms. And ... surprise of surprises, Stokes, not all of it is about crime.No, it is crime. Do you know why? Because leaving a gun unlocked and loaded where it can be accessed by children is, in most states, unlawful already. And even if there's no law on the books specifically forbidding this, you would surely be charged with a crime if one of your kids shot his or her sibling with a gun you left loaded and lying around.

Your opinion of your qualifications tells me much about your priorities. I know people who can say the same (well, other states). But there are some things not on the list. Ever shoot your gun while drunk? Of course, we already know that you've never in your life discharged a round without intending to, since such an event is apparently an impossibility in your Universe.Of course I have never fired a gun while drunk. Nor have I allowed an accidental discharge. Ever.

The thing is, Stokes, that you may well be a wonderfully responsible gun owner. And you know what you add up to? Anecdotal evidence. And we know what you think of that.I will quickly acknowledge that I do. But, you're the one who asked for my qualifications. If you hadn't I never would have bothered, because my personal aptitude is irrelevant. Also, I figured you'd accept it, since anecdotal evidence is all you've managed to provide thus far.

Which ad hominems? After all, I do think your dishonesty is apparent, and is also relevant to the credibility (or lack thereof) of your argument in this topic. I mean, look at it: you keep changing subjects, even lying. Look at your litany of attacks, Stokes, they're all dishonest and spiteful. Ad hominem? In this case, your character is a relevant issue, Stokes.I agree. And there are many who claim to be responsible gun owners who would disagree in practice while nodding and bobbing foolishly.You call me a liar, yet you provide no proof that I am, or what I am lying about. You say I'm not capable of comprehension, yet you provide no data for me to digest. You make questionable assertions yourself, yet you provide nothing to prove that they are true. You make incorrect assumptions about the technical aspects of the topic, but when disproven, you carry on as if facts and knowledge are merely optional accessories to forming an argument.

You should give that aspect some consideration, instead of imagining me painting according to your grasp of stereotypes. Remember when I was talking about the diverse range of possibility of what constitutes "responsible gun ownership"? Of course you do. You dismissed it without any evidence to support your position and then, as we see, come back to a point where it would behoove you to pay attention for once.See the prior paragraphs of this response.

It's a nice principle, isn't it?

Unfortunately, Stokes, you exist in human society, in which we all make sacrifices for the benefit of the idiots as well as Mr. Kite.And here I thought you lived in the United States. Sorry pal, but this ain't a hive. If a socialist utopia is what you're after, I suggest you may be happier living in Europe.
Which names? Go ahead, list them out. And then I'll list your dishonesty that moves me to some of my harsher criticism. If you don't want to be thought of as a liar, try some honesty.You make inferences that I'm selfish. You paint the firearm owners of the entire country as irresponsible, alcoholic, or reactionary. You assume I can't read. You engage in illogical argument under the false assumption that I'm unable to discern it. You use condescending pejoratives. The problem is that this is done in the absence of an argument. Calling somebody an idiot is a baseless personal attack. Calling somebody an idiot and then explaining why? Well, that's a little different. I don't mind being called names so long as I get a reason. Then again, generally people resort to name calling in lieu of providing an actual argument, so name calling tends to make one look like an intellectual cripple.
It's your choice to stick your nose in, Stokes. Don't blame me if you bite off more than you can chew.

Try explaining what discussion you think you're having.You've given me nothing to discuss yet, other than the semantics of the Second Amendment, and a few footnotes about firearms function.
Nobody forced you to enter this topic and post, right? So why the hell did you?It's a public forum, and a subject that is near and dear to my heart. Is that satisfactory enough for you?
Get an attitude adjustment. Don't carry that freaking chip on your shoulder from topic to topic that relies on libelous mischaracterizations, melodramatic whining, and blind ignorant presumption, and people won't have any reason to wonder what the hell your problem is. And after that, well ... we can take a look and see how badly your reading comprehension has been victimized by your anger. And you seem to have left parts of the conversation out. And you seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.

Educate yourself, Stokes.These two claptraps are examples of exactly why you're really not getting anywhere here. Just because my world view does not dovetail seamlessly with yours does not mean that I am copping an attitude or have something to prove to anybody. If you take my posts as such, I suspect you are projecting.

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
so wouldn´t be a gun ban a good thing for the usOFa ? No, better criminal control would be good for the usOFa. Attack the causality, not the symptom.

Originally posted by nico
Per capita Canada has more guns then the US, and per capita we have MUCH less gun crime. Why? Could it be the 2 big R’s??? REGULATION, REGISTRATION!Yeah, well, we have that here too.

Originally posted by norad
I think Stokes is forgetting one thing. 1791 is when this was written. This was clearly because of the British! The 'colonists' did NOT want to be part of the empire. No, it was because the colonists did not want to ever have to worry about an Orwellian state. The British were gone. The colonists wanted to ensure that the US government would never become like the British Monarchy had been.

Unless the discussion comes seriously back on track,
this thread will be closed around 3:00pm EST.

To Canada’s standards? I very highly doubt that, do you Americans have laws that make certain types of guns illegal to posses? Do you have a gun registry that has every gun owner in the country registered, or is it a state by state idea. I am just proving Tiassa's point that some "responsible gun owners" aren't. You are confusing the line here, you assert that Tiassa is saying all gun owners, he's not. What he is saying is that the actions of the large minority are proving a dangerous proposition. Would you give Iraqi's guns, just because most of them won't shoot you? The logic is not there, it is selfish, and it is ego trip. Why do you need a semi-automatic gun? Or a grenade launcher, isn't that overkill? D