For some in U.S., guns are a way of life

it seems to be a way of life because street crime is.

YOu can ban hunting, ban skeet shooting, but leave me something to defend myself with. Most cities have banned nunchakus, long knives, billy clubs... how the hell are we supposed to defend oursevles.... just look at yesterday's news in Denver should give you some insight on why I'd like to keep a gun.

Why don't you put your time and energy into making it harder for young people to comit crimes before you take the last thing I have to defend myself with.

The gun situation in the U.S. is a complete joke.

Most other countries can get by just fine without citizens having to arm themselves.

This doesn't say much about civility in the States.

The sad thing is, the door has been opened regarding allowing citizens to pack heat, and the horse has well and truly bolted.

PS: if this situation existed in any other country, I would be equally critical.

skip: "Why don't you put your time and energy into making it harder for young people to comit crimes before you take the last thing I have to defend myself with."

Still playing this tired old tune? Here's a fact, if a crime is committed involving a gun, there's a much higher chance that deaths will occur. The states with more guns have higher gun deaths. YES, all crime should be frowned upon and people should refrain from committing them; she me ONE SINGLE person who denies that! but at the same time simply saying, "Well, until crime in general goes down everyone should have access to guns" is just plain rubbish.

Make gun laws stricter, you'll see less death, simple. 86% of gun-related deaths with people under 21 occur in the US, skip (among industrialized nations). That's no coincidence. Now unless you can prove that 86% of all crime committed by people under 21 is ALSO in the US, there's no reason why you have to wait for crime to decrease before you can start limiting access to guns.

Here's a solution to your request, Skip.

All guns, current and to be produced, now require a fingerprint ID to unlock them. This can be conveniently placed near the trigger so it doesn't slow you down in a pinch; if you need to fire in more than an instant you're probably not thinking enough about it anyway.

Fingerprint IDs are to be issued at Police Stations only, and are for people 21 and over.

What's that? It's too expensive or impractical? Not if you are willing to commit enough money to the problem.

Of course, this assumes that people simply won't co-operate with restrictions on their weapons. And that goes hand-in-hand with the argument that young people are wanting to get their hands on weapons. The same young people who are committing crimes with the weapons.

My laboured point is that young people ARE using guns for crime, and that less guns will mean less crime. It's very easy to feel badass with a lethal weapon in your hand, but removing the substitute cajones will only reduce the courage of criminals. You say guns are necessary for defense, but crime won't decrease if the tools are easy to access.

A gun is just a tool, blame the user. Guns are hard to get in the UK so you end up with more stabbings...so lets ban the sale of knives? No- most crimes commited with guns in the US are commited with guns that were aquired illegally and not by registered law abiding gun owners. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners-http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

I think the whole argument related to crime is a side issue, to be perfectly honest. If gun laws are tightened, I will admit it's the criminals who aren't going to follow the laws anyway.

Where the gun control can play a MAJOR part in reducing deaths are in the kind of heat-of-the-moment homicides where a tiff gets out of hand and people start whipping out guns. A slightly drunken argument can become a blood bath, as was the case when a man tried to help out a woman in the midst of a domestic dispute... i think it was just before Christmas and the stampede in WalMart in which, again, things got out of control (separate incident) and people whipped out guns, started shooting, etc.

What's more, all of these murders committed by the kids, and the boy shooting himself WITH AN UZI! could have been avoided with better restrictions to gun access.

Fingerprint IDs are to be issued at Police Stations only, and are for people 21 and over.

Why not leave it to private orgs such as the NRA and gun clubs and even militias? You keep the prints out of the hands of Big Brother, AND you give those orgs a way to profit ie, a reason to exist and expand.

But honestly, there are cheaper and more reasonable solutions that are not even high tech. Why not have strict licensing? Owner's certificates? Require notaries in the event of a sale who check licenses? Require certain weapons (not meant for home defense) to be kept at gun clubs or militia offices, in a communal safe guarded 24/7, unless taken out for hunting or shooting at the range? Why not have all the above run by gun clubs and militias?

Granted, those probably would not have prevented the above tragedies, unless, where the tragedies occurred at home, the families had kept the weapons in that communal safe. But they would prevent a whole lot of the other gun problems.

But, then again, the licensing would surely come with courses that teach 11 year olds that shooting your father's pregnant fiancee is COMPLETELY wrong and out of the question. It seems like somebody forgot to tell him that. If only somebody had.

Guns are hard to get in the UK so you end up with more stabbings.

I would rather try to outrun a knife than a bullet thanks. I would also rather be stabbed than shot, as I would have a better chance at preventing the next stab wound than the next bullet. And whoever is doing the stabbing better be fit. But any kid could blast me with a gun if they put their mind to it. In other words, I would rather face a knife than a loaded gun on any Sunday, and any day in between.

Comparing guns with knives is just plain poppycock. Knives are dangerous, sure, but nothing like guns. If guns disappear and are replaced with knives, I would say that is one hell of a victory.

Comp

"The gun situation in the U.S. is a complete joke"

Tell me about it! When I went to Wal-Mart to buy a gun, I had to show ID, and on top of that, I had to wait three days!

Tell me about it! When I went to Wal-Mart to buy a gun, I had to show ID, and on top of that, I had to wait three days!

I think the point is Sarge, that you did eventually get the gun. Please tell us it is illegal for a war loving, reason hating, blindly taking sides person like yourself to touch ammo.

"Tell me about it! When I went to Wal-Mart to buy a gun, I had to show ID, and on top of that, I had to wait three days!"

Heh, the cheek from the Home Defence Area at Wal-Mart.

I don't have a problem with regulated gun ownership...and it's far too late to ban guns in the US. Anyone, however, giving an 11 year old boy a 12 bore for a christmas present needs their breathing rights taking away.

Lots of different things could be considered a way of life for people in America. If you don't like the thought of American citizens exercising the rights guaranteed them by their Constitution or you're just too sensitive a flower, don't visit.

I'm all for freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility. And sometimes it seems as if America, as a country, isn't responsible enough with that freedom.

smith, thanks for the grilling.. sushi too.. anyway, I kind of like saborichan's post:

All guns, current and to be produced, now require a fingerprint ID to unlock them. This can be conveniently placed near the trigger so it doesn't slow you down in a pinch; if you need to fire in more than an instant you're probably not thinking enough about it anyway." that's not a bad idea.

Fingerprint IDs are to be issued at Police Stations only, and are for people 21 and over." I'd go with the 21 and over. Its the police I don't trust.

What's that? It's too expensive or impractical? Not if you are willing to commit enough money to the problem." No, most people who buy guns for self defense usually make enough to for such a service. I am for it and I'll pay for it.

Of course, this assumes that people simply won't co-operate with restrictions on their weapons." If its a law and one the makes sense, then charge them if they don't comply.

My laboured point is that young people ARE using guns for crime, and that less guns will mean less crime." Prove to me that banning guns will reduce the current amount. Now, if you are talking about going into places, collecting them and charging those who refuse to hand them in or who those who have a gun but no legally is a good start. But, if that happens, there will be a large price of civil liberties to pay. You are basically going to give the government to right to walk up to any gang member (those who commit the most violent gun crimes) and frisk him but then that will prove to be a problem perhaps even profiling. So, in the end you are only taking guns away from law abiding citizens and not criminals. They'll still hve them and contrary to most here, I have been practically able to buy a gun in almost every country I have been to in the western hemisphere, so the gun laws don't work even in those places.

It's very easy to feel badass with a lethal weapon in your hand, but removing the substitute cajones will only reduce the courage of criminals." Really?

You say guns are necessary for defense, but crime won't decrease if the tools are easy to access." that is what I am saying. Look at the states with strict gun laws and compare it to gun crime. Oh, check out some other, as smitty puts it, civilized countries.

Now, I have lost a father to a gun crime and I still say if he ever dropped his stupid call for what is being discussed here and bought a gun while watching mom's shop, I firmly believe he'd be here today. Oh, and the two charge for his murder: under 18! So, they were out quite quickly. thanks guys!

additionally, I think I said this before. If guns go away, I could careless. I don't like carrying one, but until someone does something about the street crime that is affecting us normal people, then don't take what I have to defend myself until you do something about the crime.

Over the last twenty years, crime has become more violent, yet sentencing and the types of jails to keep people have been more or less a cake walk. Treat the gang members with love and care, yet treat me with hate and distain because I decide to protect myself.

So, when you do take my guns away and I drive back to see my relatives and someone tries to jack my car, are you going to get my car back? And if what happens that happens to many where the jacker just shoots a driver and the passenger..... what are you going to do about that guy? hug him, rehabilitate him, show that there is this mystical god full of love and let him out of jail, should he even ever get caught in the first place that is.

Somehow, the following quote seemed to sum it up for me about the people in America, and their mentality, who demand the right to bear arms (but not brains)................

Jordan and his father lived with Houk and her two small daughters in a farmhouse in the rural western Pennsylvania town of Wampum

Wampum. Rural. Western Pennsylvania.

Most people posting here have no clue about what principles the United States was founded on and why we have the right to bear arms to begin with. Educate yourselves before spouting off a bunch of nonsense that does little more than show how little you know regarding the subject. Guns are no more responsible for killing people than pencils are for misspelling words. Read up on your American history lads. It can be argued that the reason the United States has been able to enjoy a large amount of success in its young history is because it hasn't followed other countries. For those of you that think that Japan is safe....well it certainly is at the moment but society is fragile and if it ever goes to hell who will you look to for protection?

Also JT I love the headline! It's a sure winner to bring out the America bashers.

simon, I really don't think these people are yelling about their right to bear arms. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that they really don't even know what their rights are.

Here is a fact, we have a right to bear arms. We have had that right for a long time and only recently, last 20 years or so, have we seen such a rise in violent gun crimes. I for one hardly hear of violent gun crimes coming out of western Penn. So I think the rant towards them is unwarranted.

We really should be ranting about the violent gun crimes coming over the border, but then you will be called a bigot, so that's hands off (unless you are me, and I am Hispanic so I can say that without much worry), we should be screaming about the violent gun crime in the inner city streets, but you will called a racist if you did. So, I guess the best target is the hillbillys.

Why are we not yelling about media's portrayal of violent gun crime, including paraphanilia like gun shot stickers, rappers talking about how they would cap a gun, violent films like shoot em up...?

Why does this article only come out after some hillbillys shoot themselves?

timesup: "Most people posting here have no clue about what principles the United States was founded on and why we have the right to bear arms to begin with."

A couple of quick questions:

1: Was the US founded only yesterday, or was it more than 200 years ago? 2: Was the reason for having guns then the same as now? 3: Why do morons think that because it's written in the constitution that it's a 'god-given right' and should not be changed?

Personally, I think the constitution, like bush said, is an unimportant piece of paper. Some of it is still pretty legit and should be kept in an updated form, but the reason to have an 'armed militia' with flint-lock pistols to protect from the British invading? Nope.

timesup, I think it's actually YOU who needs to research why you needed guns in the constitution in the year the country was formed, but why you do not at all need them now. The problem is, people like yourself never end up questioning the 'need' for guns until your little kid accidently shoots themselves, or you, or you accidentally shoot them.

Why not just stop making guns? Surely there are enough guns already.

Yeah I know... I will never understand this aspect of American culture.

Americans don't care if foreigners understand or not.

If you don't like our gun laws don't visit.

Boycott US companies.

Buy Russian or Venezuelan or Cuban or Iranian or Yemeni or Somalian.

We don't care.

lots of disinformation here:

Crime is up since the recession (many more break-ins and thefts) and gun sales are very high to where some dealers sold out. Gun laws very from state to state: to own a shotgun or rifle the age is low (12,14,16 etc) whereas to own a pistol it is usually 18.

But since we are on the subject of guns: The hard hitting 7.62x25 CZ52 or Tokarev are both suitable for home defense, but be aware of overpenetration. Any older noisy (mechanical slide) pump shotgun (I prefer the trench models with bayonette (affixed)) is more practical for intimidation purposes (12ga over 20ga of course). For those that sort of want the best of everything; the Saiga (AK style) 12 Guage auto shotgun is a good choice (AKA "The Big 12").

Most guns have bad karma, but in a recession bad karma is all around anyway.

Like a whole host of things, gun ownership has its place. At least in America, we have the freedom of choice to buy a gun, a Bible , or a Koran, whatever. Bet you cannot do the same in most countries on this earth...

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." As in Japan. Everyone is vulnerable here and people do not get involved for a reason.

Next up on JT: "For some Englishmen, a cuppa is a way of life."

"For some of the French, adultery is a way of life...."

Heh, but gun ownership is similar here too.

badsy: Ok, you hit one point. I like the idea of owning a gun until the crime shifts down, but I cant fathom the idea of having those AK's or anything like that. I personally think they should only be sold the military.

But, with this economy now, you would be putting a lot of Russians out of work.

Badsey,

My father would agree with you. He is a retired police officer who never once fired a shot in the performance of his duties. However, he mentioned that on more than one occassion, the "chick - chack" of a shotgun made for a great focused-attention getter. As a gun owner (although I haven't even touched it in almost 5 years), I'm glad I went through a safety course and I believe all gun owners should have to go through a class and take a test, similar to what needs to be done in order to get a driver's licence to ensure a certain degree of proficiency in handling the weapon is achieved.

For those totally against gun ownership, please remember this. A lot of people in rural areas rely on guns to put food on the table. It's not just for sport. Heck, for the first 18 years of my life, I'm sure I ate as much venison and bear as I did beef.

Taking away the right to gun ownership puts a lot of people in a bind as to how to feed their families. Where I currently live, you can shoot 1 buck and 1 doe for a $60 deer tag. That's a heck of a lot of (tasty) meat for that price.

Taka

This is not really meant as an anti-gun post, just a question. How many pro-gun people have any first hand experience of gun violence? Have ever seen what a man's face looks like when some nutjob pulls out a gun to "defend" himself, and points it at that guy's head? Have ever seen another guy five feet away rolling around in tears in the fetal position because he thinks he is about to die? I've seen it, though by unbelievable luck, in this case nobody got killed, not least of all me. And that is why I am very skeptical that anybody who is pro-gun has any idea what they are talking about. If somebody has had that kind of experience and is still pro-gun, well fair enough. But I am betting that those people are a very, very small percentage of the pro-gun group.

Human brutality has no set form. Take away the guns and you'll see an increase in stabbings, take away the knives you'll see an increase in fatal beatings. And none of these regulations actually take away the weapons from the people that use them to inspire fear and cause harm. Do any of you have any idea how easy it is go get a high caliber weapon in south detroit? Do you think those things are registered or their wielders liscenced?

In addition, any of these acts of restriction would be in direct conflict with consitutional law. This is not a subjective interpretation, this is a fact laid out in the document that is the basis of all U.S law. If the government trys to take away all the firearmes I can only wonder how many millions of the registered weapons in the U.S will turn up 'missing'.

GJDailleult, would it have been different if it were a knife to his throat instead of a gun to his head. I think not. And in responce to your question, yes. Never go to Ecorse City.

skipthesong I'm sorry you lost your dad to a crime.

When I was growing up as soon as we could hold a gun Dad showed us how to shoot and treat guns. They were behind every door and they were always loaded. I have 6 brothers (real and step) we knew that guns were tools/weapons for our protection and hunting.

I had a lot of troubles with my Dad growing up, but when it came to guns, there were no doubts about how they were to be treated. < :-)

Take away the guns and you'll see an increase in stabbings, take away the knives you'll see an increase in fatal beatings.

How many children would be killed by stray knives, when a drive-by stabbing occurs?

I don't think children should have access to guns. Too many maturity issues. But mentally competent legal adults should be allowed to have them if they prove that they are for something other than committing a crime and they have a valid reason. There just has to be more control and not a free for all.

For those that sort of >want the best of everything; the Saiga (AK >style) 12 Guage auto shotgun >is a good choice (AKA "The Big 12").

Worst choice you could make. If you ever had to defend home and family and hd to use lethal force on an intruder, you want them showing the jury a nice hunting shotgun preferably with duck engravings, not some darth vader/terminator ASSAULT weapon that's going to make the little old ladys in the jury gasp.

An 11-year-old boy in Pennsylvania is accused of killing his father’s >pregnant fiancee with the shotgun he got as a Christmas present.

What moron would give a shotgun to an 11 year old to start with?

In Arizona, an 8-year-old boy fatally shoots his father and his father’s >roommate.

The responsibilty of teaching children "Don't Touch" and keeping the gun stored in a location not accessible to children is the responsibility of the parent. Actually it was a program that the NRA came up with and wanted to introduce in US schools but the anti-gun lobby fought to keep it out, solely because it came from the "NRA". That it probably would have saved lives is completely ignored.

An 8-year-old boy accidentally shoots himself with an Uzi at a gun show >in Massachusetts.

OK, this one blows my mind. Never have I seen anyone load any weapon, much less an Uzi, at a gun show. Of course the Uzi would be a semi-auto version, the only kind legal, but the article gives the image of an 8 year old spraying the area. I really think that this article is very misleading. It addresses gun ownership in the US and gives some horrible examples to implant an image of gun owners as irresponsible idiots. I think that even thinking anti-gun folks are aware that gun laws pertain only to legal gun owners, and laws don't stop criminals with illegal guns. Of course the all emotion anti-gun folks simply don't see any difference as they would just like all guns out of civilian hands.

If you are really into the 7.62x39 AK look the VZ58 is what you really want. Canadians get the best deal at about $400, but CZ-USA also makes a new version ~$1000. A Yugo SKS can be had for <$200 and is maybe the better gun

A good 8mm Bolt-action Mauser can be had for $100-200 (Turk Mauser, K98 German) and will outshoot any AK. Some of these are approaching 100yrs of age and are not even considered guns anymore since they are antiques.

Bottom line: Not smart trying to rob the War Vet farmer/homeowner = they are armed.

I don't agree with letting kids have their own access to guns. This also includes people like Hillary Clinton (Penn PR hunting shoot) or uneducated gun owners like Barrack Obama. Many things can go wrong with a gun or ammo. You really need to know what you are doing at all times.

E.G. -many gun parts are hardened, by heating said gun parts ( to mount a sight or welding) you destroy the hardening (annealing) and the part must be hardened correctly again. Usually a regular person can't do this since the metal lost carbon in the annealing process so by hardening it again the metal is now brittle. =a very dangerous gun that could break apart.

Then you have the goodball politicians (like Cheney) that tend to shoot others. Politicians and guns are a bad mix.

If you are really into the 7.62x39 AK

No I'm not. Because the Russian and East European stuff is expensive and as a result alot of cheaper Chinese versions are sold. Chinese as in NORINCO...controlled by high level PLA folks. So why am I going to buy something that goes into the coffers of an army that trains with the United States as the designated enemy? Support the 5.56X45 and 7.62X51.

GJDailleult, would it have been different if it were a knife to his throat instead of a gun to his head.

Actually he wouldn't have been able to get close enough to him to put the knife to his throat, so there would have been no situation. And I wouldn't have had to try to figure out how to get out of there before getting hit by a stray bullet.

Anyways, I get the logic of "everybody has a gun so I need one too", and I am not criticizing that. Just saying that there is a big difference between a person who says "I have been in a situation where somebody had a gun to defend himself and so was able to prevent something bad from happening" and someone who says "I can imagine that situation".

OssanAmerica, Badsey is quite deaf. But you are killing me with laughter! Great posts in response to Badsey's wanton and reckless "used car" salesmanship.

Norinco is banned in the U.S. But very popular in Canada. = you cannot get the M14S in USA, and the older PolyCom Chinese stuff has issues. The CMP has those American classics you so richly deserve (Garand, Carbine, 1903), but they sell-out fast when the repatriated stuff gets in. You may just want to settle for an undervalued .303 Savage Enfield. I'm a big fan of the Swiss K31 7.5x55 (.308 bullets) also -couldn't afford the Sig57 I guess.

Actually it was a program that the NRA came up with and wanted to introduce in US schools but the anti-gun lobby fought to keep it out, solely because it came from the "NRA". That it probably would have saved lives is completely ignored.

Hmmm....I think it might have had more to do with dragging guns into schools, thereby giving them a new level of legitimacy, not to mention panicking parents, and also introducing kids to guns who don't even have them in their homes.

When I was in junior high, we were offered a hunter safety course. It was purely voluntary. I do not come from a hunting family. My family is fairly anti-gun with the exception of my father. My grandfather kept an old rifle in the closet, but let me emphasize that it was hidden and never talked about. But I took the course anyway and I am glad I did. But looking around the room, I saw a lot of young men who did not belong anywhere near a gun. You could see the mania in their eye, and I am sure many of them could rattle off models and prices at a machine gun pace. Scary people. But, granted that it was better they took the course than didn't, because they do have guns at home.

Anyway, the NRA does not need to teach anything at schools. They should be happy to advertise there and just get interested students to come down to the community center or something. Teachers who know those kids have guns at home should also encourage them to go get educated on things like: shooting pregnant women is wrong, and you will go to jail for it even if you are 11.

laws don't stop criminals with illegal guns.

To a large degree, yes, they do. Criminals do not want to go to jail either, so they stay within the law for the most part. To say otherwise would be to suggest they openly carry their guns 24/7 and shoot them off all the time. They do not.

Also, the laws prevent guns passing into their hands in the first place. Better laws, such as real licensing requirements and owners certificates and the requirement of a notary at every sale would also help a great deal.

Perfection will never be attained. But there is certainly room for improvement.

Gun possession is a compensation for some other shortcoming. The police have guns. Those of us who are not police and are amply endowed can get along fine without owning guns.

Hmmm....I think it might have had more to do with dragging guns into >schools, thereby giving them a new level of legitimacy, not to mention >panicking parents, and also introducing kids to guns who don't even have >them in their homes.

Precisely. The anti-gun crowd has villified the NRA to the point that no sane parent would want their child anywhere near the NRA or "guns". Nearly all states have law prohibiting the posession of firearms on and within a certain distance of any school structures. The program could easily use plastic replicas. Additionally, the program wasn't design specifically for kids who had homes with guns in them, they were also designed for kids who might accidentally find a gun somewhere. There have been cases of gun accidents resulting from such "finds" by kids.

To a large degree, yes, they do. Criminals do not want to go to jail >either, so they stay within the law for the most part. To say otherwise >would be to suggest they openly carry their guns 24/7 and shoot them off >all the time. They do not.

I disagree. Anyone who is going to commit a crime, which if caught is going to result in jail time, isn't going to care about whether having a gun during the crime is going to put him in jail. If anything, the use of a gun by a criminal is to avoid being caught for the planned crime in the first place.