And Opti, I personally think changes in the drug laws would go a long way toward bringing down the number of people killed by guns; more so than gun control legislation ever will. Drive-by and gang-related shootings are nearly always carried out because someone's encroached on someone else's turf.

Rox, I agree with almost everything you said. I think my friend put up the petition to get a response from his radio listeners. He did. Viruses, death threats, spamming. He definitely got responses. :grrr:

A couple of years ago when I would walk/run with a friend, she carried pepper spray and a golf club. Those walking their dogs would laugh at us. One beautiful night, she decided to test her new *spray* on some rocks. The damn thing didn't work! What kind of protection is that??

I have no guns here in California. If I had handguns, they would be here for one purpose...shooting a human being, and I don't think I could do that! My brother carries a handgun in a small town in Indiana. He said it isn't safe. I laughed and told him if he wanted to see some unsafe places...come visit me in California. The guns I own are not handguns. They are locked away in Indiana.

I grew up loving guns. I went hunting with my big brothers, and I was their gun caddie. I carried all the little extras they might need as we searched for squirrels, wild rabbits, and deer. As a small child, I use to cry when an animal was shot and killed. All the animals that were killed were eaten. (not by me) I was practically a vegetarian in those days. The only animal I have ever killed was a small sparrow with a shotgun. When I saw it floating down a stream, I cried and have never shot an animal again.

BUT, I am sick and tired of crime! I want people to shape up and save their guns for hunting and target practice.

Rox, what are we going to do so we aren't so afraid? You are living in the capital of carjackings...the San Fernando Valley. I am living in an area where gang members prowl the beaches, both during the day and night.

ARNOLD, if you become governor of this beautiful state of California, what are you going to do about CRIME?? :salute: :salute:

LOL Honey, you are clearly an idealist!

Idealist - One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.

When you say "absolutely no guns", I can only presume you believe that making all guns illegal would physically eliminate them from this country. That there would be no criminal element or black market. That is very naive don't you think?

I would love to hear why you think prohibition of guns will work while prohibition of prostitution and drugs does not??

Life is not a bowl of cherries.

Rox, excellent point! :okthumb:

I agree completely with this assertion.

only on friday nights, when i dress in a skirt and high heels, get drunk on wine coolers and skip down the street singing show tunes. thats when i usually feel most vulnerable.[/b][/quote]
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream collored ponies and crisp apple strudel
Doorbells and sleighbells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites, when the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
Then I don't feel so bad

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream collored ponies and crisp apple strudel
Doorbells and sleighbells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

That's what the responsible owners DO use their guns for. :unsure: Now, if someone attacks me or breaks into my house, then they BECOME hunted and a target. :)

First, what Sare said! Second, yes it is tragic that anyone dies before their time. However, instead of having a knee jerk reaction, perhaps we should think about whether banning guns, knives, bats, swimming pools or automobiles is the right, long-term approach.

Opti, do you realize that there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books in the US? Yes, I would say that an overwhelming majority of gun owners are for reasonable laws. In fact, we already have them.

Assault weapons are not banned where I live (as long as they are not fully automatic). RPG's, grenade launchers, C-4, machine guns, etc. all are regulated by the ATF. You have to have a class 3 license to deal in this type of stuff, which means you are registered with the ATF and have passed an FBI background check. There are many laws. I would imagine that most current laws are acceptable to the people.

For instance, I did not have a problem following the law, taking a class, getting fingerprinted and passing a background check to get my carry permit. I accept the laws about where I can and cannot carry a gun concealed.

The problem that I have is that it is a slippery slope at this point. The fact that prohibition does not work does not register with many people and policy makers. It is clear by some of their statements and the statements of groups like Hand Gun Control Inc and the Brady Group that an all out ban is acceptable to them. They are incrementally moving this direction.

If it persists, only criminals will have guns. And it will persist unless we stop it because each incremental step will get us no where closer to solving the problem resulting in further reaching laws.

Now, I understand it is hard to relate to the US and our gun heritage. But putting the 2nd Amendment aside, the fact is there are 300 million guns in the US and you will never get rid of them all. The choice is do you want them to be only in the criminals hands or not.

I wish I had an answer, Confucy, truly I do. Unfortunately, I think the answer has less to do with law enforcement than with social change that I despair of ever seeing come to pass.

Too many people want the government to shoulder the entire burden of cleaning up the streets so they can feel safe. I really admire those folks I read about who have decided to take matters into their own hands and form Neighborhood Watch groups that patrol the streets on which they live, and have been successful in making their neighborhoods safer for themselves and their children. And most of them have done it without carrying guns -- I can only imagine how much MORE successful these groups would be were there licensed gun owners among the Watch. Even criminals have some sense of their own mortality and would prefer to avoid putting themselves in a position to get killed.

Americans, and especially Californians have become pussified to the point that it disgusts me. They've settled into being stupid, lazy and scared, and would rather whine until they can get legislation passed than grow a fucking spine and do whatever it takes to stop being victims. Granted, so many ridiculous laws are already in place (due in no small way to previous pussy-whining) that tie our hands that it might be a difficult task to insist on the right to take back our streets by forming what some see as vigilante groups. But we should. If the gangs we can run out of our neighborhoods by coming out in force are Mexican, or Black, or Vietnamese, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. They're criminals, period, and as such have no right to continue victimizing law-abiding citizens. There's no question of being "unfairly targeted" due to race; whatever color you are, if you're putting my life, liberty or property in jeopardy, you're a fucking criminal and should be taken out of the picture.

With all that said, however, it's not a coincidence that there tend to be more criminals among some races than others. That's a by-product of the culture in which they live; something white people will never, ever understand or live through. When a young man can feed his family better on the money he makes selling drugs to rich white kids than he can working at a minimum-wage job that's the only thing he MIGHT be able to get, how difficult is the decision?

I believe that changes in the drug laws and education are key to lowering the rate of violent crime and gang activity. But that's a long row to hoe, with many obstacles -- not the least of which is the fact that pharmaceutical companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of politicians to make SURE that THEIR drugs are the only ones that are legal. White folk want a quick and easy fix, carried out by law enforcement and legislation so they don't have to trouble themselves or get their hands dirty; or God forbid, spend any time in those neighborhoods where hopelessness, despair and a lack of access to a decent education breed rage and criminal behavior. All they know is they want "them" to stay in their own neighborhoods, where they won't pose a threat to white folk.

Nope, I don't have any answers, unfortunately. All I seem to have are more questions; none of which are being addressed by the officials who are supposed to be representing me. They're too busy working on laws that will help the pussies feel better about being pussies, like making it a crime to smoke a fucking cigarette in public, absolving the pussies from having to have enough backbone to say, "Hey, your smoke is bothering me. Would you mind going upwind?" :headwall:

Wig,

Excellent post, kudos my friend!

Guns are an integral part of America, and inarguably put us in the position of superpower that we are today. We are a sovereign nation because the common people were willing to take up arms against a King and his men in defense of our liberty. The 2nd Amendment exists because our leaders knew that threats to our freedom don't necessarily always come from without and the People should always have the means and the right to overthrow tyrants, even or maybe especially those who are homegrown.

You make some good points Wig.. in fact we are probably on the same page... You seem accepting of reasonable regulation... (sorry Sarettah, not ignoring your protest) which is an example of what leaves me scratching my head.. Why tout 2nd ammendment issues as an important case to for gun ownership... the 2nd ammendment appears to be the argument of last defence to me.

Rox, apart from drug crime.. fixing poverty problems might make an impact on gun deaths too.... but the accidental deaths of kids issue would be where I would start.. who could argue that isnt important enough to justify at least talking about some sort of new restrictions, without chest beating about the constitution.

American's everywhere are desperate to protect their kids from porn.. and thats more important than finding a way to make the community take enough responsibility with firearms so that thousands of kids per year dont die it seems!

Arguing for free gun ownership because someone wants to hunt or feels the need to protect themselves may be somewhat justifiable reasons to let so many innocent people keep dieing... But using the 2nd ammendant as an excuse for un-regulated gun ownership when the situation is so obviously out of control is about as logical as one lemming following another over a cliff imho.

I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the "accidental deaths" of children from firearms is a MUCH smaller number than the deaths of children from their parent's own hand and even moreso, from accidents in the home that didn't involve firearms.

I did look up homicide stats and you're much more likely to die in a car wreck. In fact, of the top 15 causes of death in the US, firearms - any - didn't make the list. And that number of firearms DEATHS has dropped almost every year since the 1970's.

I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the "accidental deaths" of children from firearms is a MUCH smaller number than the deaths of children from their parent's own hand and even moreso, from accidents in the home that didn't involve firearms.

I did look up homicide stats and you're much more likely to die in a car wreck. In fact, of the top 15 causes of death in the US, firearms - any - didn't make the list. And that number of firearms DEATHS has dropped almost every year since the 1970's.[/b][/quote]
oh.. I thought it was a big issue.. like 4-5000 kids under 18 killed in gun accidents annually and rising...

I will blame Dr. Phil for my misconception.. saw a show he did claiming a really big increase in the numbers a week or two ago... guess he isnt the best source possible.. actually I will blame Dr. Phil and Michael Moore in equal does maybe.. Moore even makes the idea of visiting America a little scarey!

Per the CDC's website, 436 children aged 0-14 (I used that criteria since 15 and above, IMHO, isn't any more "accidental" than an adult) died of ANY firearm related death in 2000 (the most recent year they have listed).

oh.. I thought it was a big issue.. like 4-5000 kids under 18 killed in gun accidents annually and rising...

I will blame Dr. Phil for my misconception.. saw a show he did claiming a really big increase in the numbers a week or two ago... guess he isnt the best source possible.. actually I will blame Dr. Phil and Michael Moore in equal does maybe.. Moore even makes the idea of visiting America a little scarey![/b][/quote]
The last Dr Phil show I watched was about the tragic household accident of children falling out of 2nd story windows ...

i mean no disrespect to the parents in saying this, but ... accidents happen ... the laws of probability will always outweight the laws we make for ourselves. the fact that the parents have devoted their lives to the prevention of this accident through telling other parents to put bars on their windows seems kinda fruitless to me, when all the bars in the world can not stop an accident from happening

x amount of people are going to get bitten by sharks every year no matter how many nets are set up ... people will fall off ladders, trip over their shoelaces and fall in front of a bus etc etc ...

are we going to start an 'organisation for the prevention of ...' for every type of accident that hurts or kills a human being?

Nopers... The first argument is the 2nd amendment on this issue...

It is a guarantee in our constitution.... period...

If someone wants to override that guarantee, then they need to amend the thing, pure and simple...

The amendment in question includes the phrase "shall not be infringed"...

Which means to me that you cannot make a law that regulates what arms a CITIZEN can carry... Unless you amend the constitution to say something along the lines of "within reasonable guidelines" or something....

I am not a gun nut... and in fact think there should be a reasonable limitation (I don't want folks driving tanks up and down my street by any means) BUT to impose some sort of regulation requires the constitution to change....

And before it gets asked... Yes, I think the laws against "Hate Speech" are unconstitutional too... I do not like hate type speech, but at the same time, the constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

which means that if you want to in some way limit the rights of free speech, you have to amend the constitution to provide for those limitations....

************************************************** *****

Amendment 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

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Sarettah.. with all due respect, I reckon you could argue for hours on end the intent of the 2nd ammendment.. Wig's friend argues it clearly guarantees anyone's right to arm themselves anyway they like.. I didn't read it all but I doubt he is putting forward any argument about whether that is a good thing or not...

If he asserts the 2nd ammendment makes it impossible to regulate firearm ownership at all, surely that also should lead to the conclusion that the constitution requires changing... not that the current situation is right!

I respect the idea of the constitution protecting all.. but looking into the fishbowl from back here, the constitution appears to be being used against the good of the people on this issue.

That is a LOT less than I was given the impression were dieing.. but honestly, I still think that is a LOT of kids... Every single day in the US at least 1 family loses a child to a gun accident on those numbers.. I thought it was 10 a day.. so you may be able to see why I am wondering why American's dont talk about this as a prime issue in the gun debate.

1 other reason I relate to this issue is that at the time I grew up in Australia we had virtually no gun laws.. Everyone knew someone who had lost a friend or family member to a gun accident in those days... Mostly stuff like accidents climbing through fences with friends and shooting each other, or loaded guns in cars going off... My guess is that every American would know someone who has died in a gun accident.. BUT now if you ask a younger Australian about this... They wont know ANYONE that has died in a gun accident in most cases... and that change happened over less than 10-15 years. Governments fell over the issue and there is still an on-going fight to mark the lines but criminals dont rule the streets and the vast majority of people seem to support gun control leglislation now.. and close to Zero kids die of gun accidents every year... just like UK and NZ and even Canada I believe.

Anyway.. I am not an anti-gun nut.. I used to love hunting.. it just annoys me that a piece of paper, with arguable definition, that was even designed to be ammended as time went by.. is so often put up as an argument against even talking about sensible gun control.

Nobody liked having to give up the guns they had used legally for a lifetime here.. but 20/20 hindsight shows that most people adjusted a lot more easilly than expected... The Indonesians haven't come swarming upon us becasue we are "un-protected" and the country really is a safer place for it.

In the United States there is more than enough hysteria and hot air surrounding the gun issue to account for a measurable percentage of global warming.

Look at some of the hyperbole floating around in this thread. The assertions of Internet constitutional scholars to the contrary, restrictions on what citizens can and can't carry are have been found to be in compliance with the Constitution, including the 2nd Ammendment - and we've been arguing about it since the Marshall started enforcing the laws when Dodge City started getting civilized.

I couldn't have written a better example proving my point if I tried.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Sep 14 2003, 04:13 AM

Mornin' all!

Yes, kids (and adults) die in accidents with guns... as well as with household chemicals, bathtubs, power tools... the list goes on. People with guns and kids (or other people) in their house should do all they can to minimize the chance of anyone "accidentally" discharging a firearm. Keep it locked up, the ammo in a different location, and be sure that EVERYONE in the house is trained, or at the very least put through an age appropriate gun safety lesson. Again, education is key. Accidents will and do happen; and I'd love to see the statistics of those accidental gun deaths in the context of how many of the victims had been educated about gun safety.

"Country kids" are taught about guns from before they are physically able to use one, generally the accidents we hear about are suburban kids who're likely to have never held a real gun or been out hunting. I'd be interested in the related statistics along that vein.

I don't even own a gun right now (won't until my kid is old enough and physically able to fire one, and is properly trained to do so), but when I do, it's unlikely I'll be buying one for hunting. If I have one, it'll be one of the mankiller variety, because other than the pleasure of target practice, it'll have one use: protection. I'm not ashamed to admit that, nor should I have to be. It's what handguns are made for -- stopping an enemy; defined as "anyone threatening my life, liberty or property." I'm ready and willing to comply with the laws that allow me to do so. I have no argument with most of the laws currently on the books.

The debate will continue to rage on, I suppose. :agrin: I don't mind at all, since it means at least SOME Americans are giving a damn enough to educate themselves; if for no other reason than to argue!!!