world

Gun laws are getting looser across much of U.S.

174 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

174 Comments
Login to comment

"And they have. On July 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court rulled against Washington DC's restrictive gun laws, recognizing the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a state or collective right. Get your facts straight featherhead."

Do you clowns REALLY believe that ANYONE on the left is not familiar with your arguments? We ALL are aware of the 2008 travesty and it means nothing. The court screwed up, and this can be fixed. I mean, esppcially now that the right wing famatics are out of the universe. And you KNOW which criminals I'm referring to. The country, and the WORLD accepts the direction AWAY from what Bush and the right represented. The only project now is to try and keep Obama from caving in and becoming another Republican like Clinton.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thepaceisglacia and ca1ic0cat,

First of all, I'm revisioning nothing. I am also not misquoting anything. Also, if you had bothered to read what I had written you would have noticed that it's irrelevant as to which "interpretation" one wishes to fight for, as this has exactly nothing to do with the notion that getting rid of guns is a good thing. What of the 2nd Amendment said all white folks should own black folks? Still gonna' "fight for the Constitution" or "Bill fo Rights". Here, let's keep it simple. These are words written on pieces of paper. They can be changed, and should be changed. Period. Guns are bad, useless, good for nothing, and cause lots of harm. Doesn't take a genius to conclude that money, enery, and time would be better spent doing something creative and worhwhile. Desiring to own a gun is a mental illness, and as soon as we start perceiving that way, the sooner we can rid ourselves of the disease. Same goes for war. Same goes for prejudice against minorities, gays, women, etc...Same goes for those who shun the environment. Again, it's REALLY not complicated. One wonders (not for very long though)why some try to make such simple notions complicated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wouldn't it be better to spend more time and energy on not spawning so many violent criminal types?

Yes definitely. We can start with animal rights terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The usual lack of any differentiation between legally owned guns and illegally owned, unregistered undocumented guns. Legal gun owners aren't the problem, the illegal ones ie; the criminals are. Most guns are ownwdfor sporting purposes but a great many are indeed owned for self protection, espacially handguns. And people in positions where legally owning a gun for protection include Lawyers, Judges, Politicians...you get the drift. So let's not expect any resolution to this argument very soon, if ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

featherhead:

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

And they have. On July 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court rulled against Washington DC's restrictive gun laws, recognizing the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a state or collective right. Get your facts straight featherhead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You added ideas to my post that were not there.

really where? You said that in order to get the vicious cycle of murder under control you have to get weapons under control, more specifically guns. You really think that if you can get weapons under control you will be able to control murder also once you get something under control you can end something. Give me a break.

What vicious cycle numbskull? Unless your black person in the USA, the murder rate is less 3 per 100k, the only reason why the murder rate is "so high" is because of the black murder rate which is 20 per 100k and over 80% of those crimes on blacks are from fellow blacks, back in the early 90's it was around 50 per 100k. Over 85% of the nations counties report 0 annual murders each year. I'm so sick and tired of people acting like the USA is such a violent place and that murder rates are out of control even though the USA is one of the few nations in the developed world to actually be reducing their violent crime including murder. So what vicious murder spiral is there numbskull when the USA has been reducing their murder rate. I have never heard anyone say that if you reduce a crime its becoming a vicious spiral, your the first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It simply is not necessary to have that many weapons on the streets of America which reminds me that the gun laws are very strict in japan lest we would see the locals offing each other in amazing fashion due to the in-your-face high pressure culture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving:That is one of the most ignorant and naive statements ever, the belief that if you get guns under control you get murder under control and can end it. You will never be able to get murder under control when you factor in that it is part of human nature and always will be and that a human can kill another with nothing more then just their own bare hands.

And that is one of the dumbest replies ever. You added ideas to my post that were not there. Of course I know murder will never disappear. But murder can be controlled better than the vicious spiral we have in America today. And control does not mean "absolute" control as in zero murders. If you have a horse in a corral, you have control over the horse, but it still could get spooked and bolt and jump the fence and trample someone. But that happens more if the horse runs free. In America, we have not corralled the horse properly. The horse runs free and bolts and tramples people far too much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I personally don't mind people having guns, but I do mind that so many people who own them have no clue about how to use them or how to store them safely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am a lifetime member of the NRA... and support this movement. aw

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939),

You're misquoting Miller and you've forgotten Heller (2008)

You're pretty good at bending facts (and history) to support your arguements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I go to my mother's town, calling a cop is almost like asking a god to help you, because he may the one taking your money.

Seems like skipthesong has already given up on law enforcement. I on the other hand continue to have faith in our loyal men and women who serve and protect. Yes, there are cops you can't trust, but there are many more who are doing their best to uphold the law and protect us. To slip into the idea that the only way to protect ourselves is through the ownership of a gun totally bewilders me.

Even at a rate of 33,000 a year, which is one out of every 9,214 people is still lower then Japan. Your suicide problem is greater then our gun problem.

Yeah, but waynegrow, I'm not afraid at all about some bloke who decides to kill themselves. Yes, it's sad, but it causes no loss of life to me. On the other hand, people carrying guns do scare me, and have a greater possibility of causing bodily damage to me. Nearly every suicide in Japan is a sole suicide. Yes, there is a higher sole suicide rate in Japan, but the murder-suicide rate is higher in the U.S. Estimates show that between 1,000 and 1,500 people in the U.S. die in murder-suicides alone; and over 92% of those are due to a gun; which is staggering considering many more than that die from a straightforward homicide, robbery, or assault.

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2009/11/recent_murder-suicides_follow.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Show me a single thing in psychology that says you will be able to get rid of human's ability and in some cases need to kill featherhead. You can't even get rid of lying or stealing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@featherhead nice revisionist history. Go back and try again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the foreseeable future, humans will continue to exercise violence; however, what one can do, is mitigate it a little. The fewer options (weapons) and the more personal you make it (no agents) and the more immediate you make the confrontation (closeness) the less likely people will commit these sorts of things. If people have to get primordial, to achieve their violence, they are less likely to do it, on average.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving, speaking of ignorant and naive statements, you said that killing is part of human nature and always will be. Not only is that naive and ignorant, it's downright dangerous and depraved. It's the same lame arguments which have always been put forth by folks with desires and interests for things NOT to change. Same arguments were made about slavery. "There has always been slavery. It's natural. It's just human nature that some folks own others. After all, look at history. There have been slaves throughout history." However, and fortunately, history can be changed, as happened with slavery. I see no reson why attempting to rid the world of other depraved evils, murder, war, guns, disease (of which the prior three all qualify as being), stealing resources from third world countries, attempting to promote capitalism, messing up the environment, etc...cannot themselves be gotten rid of. Biggest obstacle in the way are usually people making statements such as such just being human nature, so why bother trying to change anything. Not only that, the REAL depraved folks even think that any attempts TO cure these ills are themselves the problem. This is why we get lunatics fighting against those folks who are trying to clean up the environment, get rid of guns, and most of the other noble, sane, things. Oh, and I'd much rather take my chances with a guy trying to kill me with his bare hands than with him going after me with a gun. But remember: Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Oh, and ca1ic0cat,

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The vicious spiral of murder cannot end until we get the weapons under control

That is one of the most ignorant and naive statements ever, the belief that if you get guns under control you get murder under control and can end it. You will never be able to get murder under control when you factor in that it is part of human nature and always will be and that a human can kill another with nothing more then just their own bare hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the US 33,000 people commit suicide a year, more than in Japan.

and that is what 500 more suicides then japan, even though the US has nearly 2.5 times the population of Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a small amount of the population that owns legal guns here.

That is a lie, there are over 64 million legal gun owners who own a total of over 300 million guns. Sure they don't make up the majority but they at least make up 1/5 or 20% of the population.

Moderator: Don't ever accuse another reader of lying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was just trying to make the point that this article gives the image of all Americans running around just shooting at each other on every street corner. If you have never been here; you would think it is the Wild West show. It is a small amount of the population that owns legal guns here. There are criminal in every country that have guns and that is the true problem; how do you get guns out of criminal hands? The idea of throwing the baby out with the bath water is silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes the rate is higher because Japanese are not allowed to own a gun. Even at a rate of 33,000 a year, which is one out of every 9,214 people is still lower then Japan. Your suicide problem is greater then our gun problem.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. Japan is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the US 33,000 people commit suicide a year, more than in Japan. Many in the USA used guns to commit suicide. As for handgun murders the rate in the US is 200 times greater than Japan.

Try to compare apples with apples. If the USA had sane gun control the numbers for murder rates would go down significantly. But the NRA wants to sell guns and unfortunately so many just blindly repeat the NRA propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In 2007 9656 died of gun related deaths in America. In 2007 30000 died of suicide in Japan. There are 304,059,724 people in the US; that is one out of every 31,489 people die due to guns. There are 127,704,000 people in Japan; that is one out of every 4,257 people die by suicide. I think most people are blowing this gun thing out of proportion, like we American’s are running around in the Wild West show. Growing up in Japan you are more likely to kill yourself then die by guns here in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the average citizen owning a gun,

The phrase "the right of the people" is held by American jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court, to mean that the right applies to the individual. You are just plain wrong on the intent of the amendment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as that goes, I thought they were being sarcastic and I agreed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uhhh...I don't think so. No one winds me up. If I'm wound up, I've chosen to be. Takes more than this to wind me up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Feather, Altria is winding you up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Just 8 days ago it was the anniversary of the murder of one of the greatest promoters of peace in human history. "

Did you have to remind us? Now I'll have "Imagine" in my head for months. John Lennon really was one of the greatest promoters of peace in human history. Really , he was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just 8 days ago it was the anniversary of the murder of one of the greatest promoters of peace in human history. He was murdered with the use of a gun, which made it all so easy. He was John Lennon. The vicious spiral of murder cannot end until we get the weapons under control

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SebastianFlyte : There is no undoing of US civilization. There is what has always been. Reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Altria mistakenly said:

"Idiots, it's right there in the 2nd Amendment: "All 'mericans can keep guns fer shootin' folks and critters"

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the average citizen owning a gun, not that it would matter of it did. It says a "well-armed militia", and NOT just anyone and everyone. There was no army, or perhaps a small one. and it was in reference to something akin to the Reserves. That being said, so what if ANY Amendment said anything of the sort? Change it if it's broken. Allowing guns to flourish has exactly NO redeeming qualities to offer society. None. Zero. It allows immature and intellectually underdeveloped boys play cops and robbers. As I said, it's a mental illness, or at least a developmentally delayed problem which should really be dealt with. Perhaps ween them off with paint guns first. Then squirt guns. By then perhaps they'd have actually learned to focus their energies on reading, or doing something worthwhile, and forget the notion of guns. I'm looking forward to the day when our great, great, great (hopefully MUCH sooner) grandchildren go to museums, looking at such relics, wondering what the hell were they thinking. There will be special walls of photos and statements made by those who tried to make arguments from why guns were good or desirable, and will look upon them with disdain. Elementary school children with look upon the displays with surprise, and be shocked at the ignorance of their forefathers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JHansen is correct. Doesn't get much simpler. Nothing really even to debate as far as I can see. Guns kill. No one needs a gun.

waynegrow said: "Japan has striped their citizens of owing a firearm so I would not expect them to understand it is our right to have them."

Uhhh...I'm afraid that your picture as presented is not quite accurate. You've made it appear that Japan was all nice a well-armed and happy, but lost their "freedom" to own a unnecessry killing tool. However, I haven't met a single person in the 12 year I've been here who think they have been deprived at all, and would probably uncharacteristically riot were someone to actually try and start pushing for some depraved notion of "right to bear arms", which they do NOT want. Not a single person I've met feels deprived. Quite the contrary, they feel much more free knowing that not just any angry idiot can go get a gun, have a few drinks, get fired, and go on a killing spree. It's nothing for a lady to walk home at 2 or 3 a.m. without the least bit of fear. Sure, there are incidents, but nothing remotely like the U.S. If a kid pulls a knife on another kid in school here it makes national news, and there's a shame that society has develoved to the point where anyone would do such a thing. In the U.S. a killing with a gun probably doesn't make anything but local news. Gotta' kill dozens to get the good media. If there's one thing for certain, the U.S. should be one of the last countries to allow it's citizens to own guns as they've time and again, for years and years, demonstrated that they're not mature enough to control them. There are no excuses. There is no need for guns to exist. And the notion that some feel that the people should be armed so as to be able to "protect themselves from the government" is delusional. Not only that, it shows a complete disdain, as well as misunderstanding, of what the concept of democracy even means. That being said, why not just allow everyone to carry uzis? Bazookas? Why not apply the right-wing terrorist ideology of "preventive war doctrine" to everyone. You know, the doctrine which says that the U.S. should be able to strike first because it would be stupid to wait until we were hit i.e., terrorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin: not sure what you mean by that.

I guess not. Saying the president won't authorize napalm in the event of rebellion is like saying Sherman's March to the Sea was a family picnic on the beach!

You can look at the National Guard as a militia if you want to, but "militia" means more than that and "arms" means more than guns.

Basically it all proves that either that the paranoia is not justified or its already too late.

That said, I would support better armed militias if they had strict legalized standards of membership and arms storage. I would also support gun ownership by citizens if that entailed not only backround checks but also required training and competence checks. The NRA won't though, and its all to do with sales volume.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really? Then you might want to explain to me how a well-regulated militia can get by in today's world without napalm, stealth bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, aircraft carriers, automatic weapons, shoulder launched missles, and all the other arms they are not allowed to keep and bear? You think semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns got it covered?

not sure what you mean by that. BTW, National guard was supposed to be the militia, but government took it under its wing. Should there be a major rebellion in the US and people do decide to use guns. Do you think the president will give order to use stealth bombs and napalm against them; and if he does, do you think that order will be followed. It takes 1 platoon commander to refuse that order to turn things around.

The reason the NRA is changing the law so that criminals can shoot police with legally acquired guns is very simple, more guns get sold. And that is what the NRA is all about. All the rest is pure crap, including using the constitution to help sell guns. 25,000 people die each year in the USA due to gun deaths. The biggest risk to gun owners is that they shoot themselves.

Great, you can read numbers! out of the 25000 how many were shot by illegal firearms that NRA has nothing to do with? Besides NRA is useless, like all regulatory bodies, it should be dismissed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Idiots, it's right there in the 2nd Amendment: "All 'mericans can keep guns fer shootin' folks and critters"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America is hilarious. Other countries have their own problems, but America's views on drug prohibition and gun tolerance border on ridiculous. Wanna get a bottle of Jack? Wait till you're 21. Wanna get an assault rifle? Yeah sure, 18's fine! Wait, you still want something lethal and you're only in High School, you say? Here's a hunting rifle, ya little rascal. Now go kill someone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pamelot, "Being self-sufficient and responsible is what it's all about" Is this the reason behind the undoing of the US civilization?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The best scenario would be that all the gun owners shoot each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin: While US is US, this will never change. Any attempt to change it will be seen as reason to act as described in first quote.

Really? Then you might want to explain to me how a well-regulated militia can get by in today's world without napalm, stealth bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks, aircraft carriers, automatic weapons, shoulder launched missles, and all the other arms they are not allowed to keep and bear? You think semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns got it covered?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin,

make that 131 now.

The reason the NRA is changing the law so that criminals can shoot police with legally acquired guns is very simple, more guns get sold. And that is what the NRA is all about. All the rest is pure crap, including using the constitution to help sell guns. 25,000 people die each year in the USA due to gun deaths. The biggest risk to gun owners is that they shoot themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing! Government propaganda has prevailed. 130 posts and only one mentioned true reason behind liberty of gun law in the US.

"...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

I think the text of second amendment says it all: "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." While US is US, this will never change. Any attempt to change it will be seen as reason to act as described in first quote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being the owner of a liscensed firearm is insurance. It says 'I'm taking care of me and mine'. Being trained on how to use a weapon helps keeps personal crime from happening. If you need a policeman, chances are pretty big that upon their arrival, it's too late to make the initial difference. Being liscensed and getting the proper training on how to use, maintain, and store a weapon is what the NRA supports.

Being self-sufficient and responsible is what it's all about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point isn't that you can make booze in your bathtub but not a gun, the point is that cocaine and imported scotch were / are all smuggled across borders all the time. Cigarettes are smuggled into Canada to avoid taxes. Hamas gets arms shipments from all over the place, even in Gaza. If people want guns they are going to get them. You aren't going to stop it. For example, where do the Yaks get their guns?

Nope, I'm not giving up my liberty to satisfy your paranoia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being an American I can say that there are many many of us who hate guns and the gun culture that is being sold here as being essential to our freedoms. Gun nuts will never acknowledge that the easy access to their “tools of rage” is why the US has a murder rate on par with the barrio of Sao Paulo. No it must be some other reason, they chortle, never mind that most firearms in US that are used in crimes were stolen from the unsecure homes of NRA members...

Guns=death! I am glad that the Japanese government has decided to restrict ownership of guns. This decision has helped create one of the safest places on earth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has striped their citizens of owing a firearm so I would not expect them to understand it is our right to have them. It’s better to have a gun and not need one; then to need one and not have one. If you are selling drugs on a street corner you better well have a gun. If you have young children in the house, you better lock your guns in a safe. If you are picking on other school kids because you are more popular or stronger, you better wear a bulletproof vest. Do you think the people of Iraq wish they had guns when that dictator was torturing them?

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons. Do you think the Jew’s would have liked to have the rights to guns? “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolf Hitler “All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government.” — SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933. “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.” - Heinrich Himmler. Sounds like....”You want an assault rifle? Join the Army!” ~Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Marxist idiot. “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” -—Sarah Brady

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uhhh...Wrong elbudamexicano. People with guns kill people. And often people with guns kill the people who wish to kill people. And more often, people kill themselves and others accidently with guns. Basically, there is no reason for any rational or sane person to have a gun, or even have any desire to have one. Personally, I think the basic desire to own a gun is a mental illness similar to the disease of war. The merchants of death, like the NRA, LOVE it that criminals can easily obtain guns. This way the average person who would probably be rational enough not to even think about one are put into the position of thinking they might need one to "protect" themselves, though this usually ends up killing them. There is exactly NO reason for any civilized people to have guns. And if those who are stuck in a pre-adolescent developmental stage where they like to play with guns, perhaps society could allow for a few indoor shooting ranges for the deviants to fulfill their demented desires. Basically like an S&M club, though actually worse. The arguments against banning guns are about as worthy as a heroin addicts arguments trying to rationalize their desire for continued use, though this is not actually fair to the addicts as this primarily harms themselves, whereas guns most often harm others. It's quite simply. Turn in your gun, or go to jail for 20-30 years. I'd be more than happy to be a part of the round-up committee. Sort of a doctor curing cancer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns do not kill people! Only people kill people! Long live our beloved NRA brothers and sisters!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HOW?!?!? HOW in the world can you compare banning guns, to banning drugs and alcohol. You can make alcohol with 10$ and some corn!!!! you can grow weed for 0$. Dude! do you think you can go into your kitchen and make semi atuo Glock?!?! sure there will be guns. But less new ones if the gun makers cant make and sell them anymore. It works just fine in countries where guns are banned. They are about as rare as whale meat in Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love guns. Absolutely love them. I am also 100% AGAINST gun ownership. guns in movies and games. great. Guns in the hands of cops and soldiers. great. Airsoft guns, toy guns. great. Real guns. What is the point? The point is to kill someone, hurt someone, kill your self, or accidentally hurt somebody (which is the majority of gun victims). So I ask you. Whats the point? Is the big bang you hear and feel really worth the chance of someone getting hurt or killed. Think it wont happen to you, that's what EVERYONE who ever got shot thought. and your just selfish. MAYBE, just maybe you can own a gun. Use is responsibility, and no one EVER gets hurt with your gun. Thats great and fine with me. But it supports gun makers, and gun laws for idiots and criminals to get guns easier. Sure you can get guns in Japan, but they are rare. I was barely 22 in the USA in College when I saw with my own two eyes an illegal drug money bought .35 revolver. Do you think that if YOU didn't legally own guns, and we didn't have gun ownership laws. do you think that gun would be on the street anyway?!? no it wouldn't. it would have never been made. There has to be a point in human evolution where we move past killing and hurting each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ok numbskull if it isn't just murder then why do all the gun critics of the US only focus on the people killed by guns? Can you give me the ladies name numbskull? The truth of the matter is that the US has been able to reduce it's gun incidence by 80% over the past two decades. We are one of the few western developed nations who's violent crime is going down. More people are hit and injured and killed by cars in the US then by guns even though there are more legally owned firearms then cars in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All those who are saying that banning guns is going to reduce the number of guns on the street should take a hard look at the history of prohibition in the US and the bans on drugs around the world in general. Banning something really doesn't affect the availability to people who want the banned item.

Banning things might seem to be far easier than reforming society but, in the long run, bans accomplish very little.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: And here is the best part molenir, according to the US department of justice only 15% of all counties in the US experience at least one murder every year.

There is a lot more going on than just murder though. Like the lady playing with her children in her own yard with white mittens on one winter. She was not murdered by the hunter that somehow thought her mittens were deer tails, but she is just as dead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: Those few who do, are happy they had them. Those extremely rare few who tragically have their kids killed by their own guns, wish they didn't have em.

And everybody would be happy if the other guy didn't have em.

And there is no easily defining the NRA like that or any other large org. Some in the NRA are out for money. Some for power. Some believe in the cause, and some don't, and plenty of overlap in there too. I would like the NRA a lot better if they were more proactive on potential legislation instead of reactive. One would think the ones with the great ideas on how to get the U.S. on par with other gun toting countries in terms of gun crime and deaths would be in the NRA. But they are too busy complaining and threatening politicians to do anything positive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The decline of our civilization continues to gain speed. The NRA represent gun and weapons makers and they just want to make money. They make a lot of noise about the rights of people to bear arms and protect themselves, but it is all smoke and mirrors for their real purpose... profits and influence.

Wow, what a pessimistic statement. The NRA just wants to make money? Ah the companies that are supposedly being represented just want to make money. Well, thats obvious. They're companies. If they don't make money, they go under, people lose their jobs, and people are unhappy.

The NRA is an advocacy group, however the reason its such a successful one is not because it represents some for profit companies, but rather because it represents millions of hard working Americans. Americans who vote, and who aren't afraid to cast their ballot against someone who takes the wrong position. The NRA isn't out for a profit, their out to represent those people who feel the same way about the issue as they do.

Regarding your other statements. The suggestions that if you try to protect yourself, you'll end up a victim. Well, that does happen. No one will argue differently, however the vast majority of people never need their guns. Those few who do, are happy they had them. Those extremely rare few who tragically have their kids killed by their own guns, wish they didn't have em.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

three people could come knocking on your door or jumping around in your back yard, and you could assume they were Jehovah's Witnesses, a kid chasing his boomerang, or someone selling something you sure don't need. In another world, they are a black kid, a rapist, and a thief trying to get into the house. In white suburbia, the difference has to do with how much TV you watch

So you're saying I should watch more TV just to be on the safe side?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The decline of our civilization continues to gain speed. The NRA represent gun and weapons makers and they just want to make money. They make a lot of noise about the rights of people to bear arms and protect themselves, but it is all smoke and mirrors for their real purpose... profits and influence.

If you try to protect yourself with a gun, odds are you will end up a victim of it. If you keep weapons at home for protection, chances are you will kill yourself, some member of your family or experience a deadly accident with the weapon.

There is no common sense rationale for owning hand guns or assault type weapons. There is no reason to have a local militia, which was the intent of the original amendment. So there is simply no reason to own dangerous weapons.

We have too many would be Rambos and cowboys toting around guns to make them feel powerful and strong. What these people really need is a good therapist to help them deal with the issues that make them feel the need to carry a weapon.

We should ban guns all together or heavily regulate them. For sports persons they should be able to own very limited types of weapons. For practice shooting, let the ranges provide weapons to cleared people on site only. Then the yahoos can shoot all they want but go home without a gun that may harm someone later.

Life is not a movie guys. You don't know what you are doing with guns to protect yourselves, and should not have them since you pose more danger to yourself and loved ones than the criminals do. Ban guns!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seijichuudo9sha, the reason why you have had such a hard time trying convince them is because their entire life experience has shown them the opposite of what you are trying to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And here is the best part molenir, according to the US department of justice only 15% of all counties in the US experience at least one murder every year. That means 85% of counties in the US don't experience a murder annually. It is hilarious talking to people who think the that in the US you have a high chance of getting killed because our murder rate is like what 5 per 100k.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speedracer. I live in the states now. I believe I know the situation in the US. There are some areas that are more dangerous then others, whether because of gangs or other factors, but the vast majority of Americans don't worry about gun violence. They have good reason for this. Because while it happens, it is extremely rare outside of certain areas. Thats at least partially why people are always shocked at it. Because it doesn't happen nearly as often as you might think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suzu

Like I said, everyone is a target when everyone has guns. They don't have to be "carried on their person" to do harm. One of posts linked above has to do with a three year old girl who shot herself with grandma's gun.

The "actual situation in the US" is that all kinds of people are being killed and many more are being injured. When you say that it is "very unlikely" that you will experience gun violence, I think you don't know the real situation in the US. As I posted above, it appears that your odds of being KILLED by a gun at some point are about 1 in 100. Several posters have been shot at. Maybe many people have seen brandished weapons before. Emergency medical technicians see it almost daily.

The last person in my family to have been killed by gun violence was in about 1985. I think 4 or 5 family members own guns. I am pretty sure that a couple of family members witness violent encounters with guns 2 to 4 times a year. One works in an urban area. The other lives in a state where weapons do not have to be concealed, so shoplifting can easily end in a gun battle. Actually, both are women, and both are packing.

More to the point, even if only some areas of the US and some races or economic strata were affected, which is not true, we know that innocent bystanders are killed, and that overall death is a huge number. My uncle who was shot in the head twice was selling flowers. That three year old girl was certainly not part of the drug culture. The guy in Times Square could have shot 20 people. Shooting randomly, his likelihood of hitting a tourist would have been 9 in 10. The kids at Columbine High School, even the shooters, were not part of any drug culture. Littleton Colorado is not known for its gangsta culture.

I feel exactly as Cleo does, I think. I am appalled and I am glad that I have zero worries about guns. I wish the rest of my family did not live in the gun infested US. They are playing russian roullette just like everyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've never owned a gun in my life, nor felt like I needed to have one in order to be safe. Having said this, I am glad I have the right to go out and buy one if I wish. Whatever that says about me, I don't care. Thats honestly how I feel. Maybe I'll go out and buy one someday, who knows.

Heh, oddly enough my dad had an uzi for awhile. A client of his couldn't afford to pay him, and so he took the gun in trade. Don't think he had any ammunition for it, just liked pulling it out and showing it off at parties and to family. Oooh, look I have an uzi! He kept it for about 2 months, until my mom found out about it. She laid down the law to him. He ended up selling it back to the guy he got it from. Worked out quite well for him. He got paid and got to play with a submachine gun for a few days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

speedracer: Love your posts. Intelligent, insightful with a dash of sarcastic humour!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just my two cents.

I am hardcore anti-gun.

However, I recognize the very real problem that skipthesong illustrates with his personal story and my condolences to your great loss.

The US needs to find a way to get illegal guns off the streets permanently. While I agree that people should have the right to defend themselves, we must also acknowledge that legalizing gun sales makes it very easy for people to get guns illegally. If guns were outright banned, it would be more difficult to get guns.

I was involved in breaking up a fight last night on the train tracks. It's a luxury to live in an almost gunless society where I could feel safe to intervene in a violent conflict. (though I had my eyes looking out for blades)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Props to numbskull and speedracer. I gave up ages ago trying to tell my fellow Americans how bad guns are. Maybe if they hear it from you Canadians they will sit up and listen. I suppose its worth the effort. You have my gratitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone is a target when everyone has guns.

This is a classic example of how ignorant most people are of the actual situation in the U.S. Very few people carry guns on their person. Even among those who have concealed carry permits, most don't carry on a regular basis.

If you are not part of the drug culture and are not associated with gang activity it is very unlikely that you will ever experience gun violence. This is why when cases come up in which innocent individuals are shot IT MAKES THE NEWS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Numbskull, we basically agree, but you say it is complicated. I say it isn't.

People split hairs in the Hattori kun case too, but what it comes down to is that there was no need for a person to die. This guy killed her on his driveway, not his kitchen.

I totally agree with you about the psychology. People have "the right" to own a gun. People have "the right" to use it. etc. etc. The lax laws on handguns weave this tapestry of legal rights to do this and that, and nobody steps back and says, gee... do I really need lethal force in my hand in everyday life? Who cares? I am exercising my rights. People will bend over for cavity searches before boarding a plane, but they will scream about a homeless man's RIGHT to have a MAC10 pistol in Times Square... or the RIGHT to shoot your sister down in cold blood for being on their driveway.

Did you ever pull a prank when you were a kid that was harmless but which could have got you shot? I sure did. I shudder to think of how many retrieved frisbees or kites get people killed nowadays.

Americans should be outraged. Three or four times as many people are killed annually than on 9/11 and the carnival continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. Sarge. I understand your OH MY. I was tired. I wanted to emphasize that someone shooting another person in their driveway is not just a Detroit thing or a hillbilly thing. It is not a hispanic thing or a black thing or a gated community thing or a trailer park thing or a gangsta thing.

I know personally of people who read a newspaper about a slaughter and just say, "Well, that is LA for you." or "Ah New York, New York."

Coincidentally, the age of the woman shot in Colorado is the same age of the woman in the news in Detroit. One was a grandmother, one was a partier. Everyone is a target when everyone has guns. It is a point worth emphasizing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SpeedRacer: "This is a very suburban place. I am sure they were both white, etc."

Oh, my...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, lost the end of this link:

http://myprops.org/content/NBC-TODAY-Show-Woman-Kills-Home-Intruder-911-Tapes-Show/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Check this out too. In the fairy tail world of smithinjapan, this woman would be dead if she didn't have a "useless tool" in her home.

http://myprops.org/content/NBC-TODAY-Show-Woman-Kills-Home-Intruder

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why keep a hi-cap semiauto(assault weapon)? Why keep a handgun? Answer: Guns and the will to use them are the best tools to insure freedom from tyrants and hitlers. This is the heart of the 2nd amendment. A Gun all by itself does not cause someone to pick it up and kill. The link between guns and crime is fictitious. The Swiss have easy access to assault rifles and they have virtually no gun crime.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

The gun banners agenda never changes. They want gun free public "safety". This is exactly what Hitler wanted too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you really want to get rid of guns your going to have to come up with a better way of killing. One that's cheaper, more effective, has a longer range, makes less noise, might I suggest pyrokinesis. Until that point people are going to keep using them to commit crime, defend against crime, and, in my case, keep using them because they're fun to shoot. You can't get rid of crime and you can't get rid of guns, if you tried a roundup like they did in Britain you're just going to end up with tens of millions of 'missing' 'stolen' or 'misplaced' firearms that people have had for decades.

Good Lord, no! Lock the doors and windows, go upstairs and phone the police.

Ha, only thing I would trust my friendly local police to do would be to zip up my body bag and tell channel 4 new what a shame it was they couldn't get here in time. I wouldn't shoot her in my driveway thats for sure, I'm a bit reserved about shooting at a lady anyway. Now if it was a man aiming a gun at me that's different.

I don't entertain the 'what if I was being attacked line' as often as some of you may think. I tend to argue the constitutional protection angle or the freedom side but here's my bit. If a guy tries to mug me or rob my place with no weapons I'm more than willing to beat him into a coma, or at least try to. But if he's got anything bigger than a pocket knife I'm going straight for the pistol, why? Because I can't run from a threat, neither psychologically (due to an irrationaly stalwart defense of pride and property) or physically (due to advanced arthritis I'm pretty much restricted to walking or jogging in a hobbling, mildly pathetic manner).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5: See... I can't concede this. She was drunk. She was angry. She had a gun. She was not the Avon lady. So what. Not only was the killing unnecessary, the courts are kookoo for calling this self defense.

Its complicated. She raised her gun at him, or so the article says. But I side with Cleo's train of thought. It looks to me like he put himself square in her headlights and left himself no choice. He made no attempt to defuse the situation by removing himself deep into his house, locking the doors and calling the police. He pretended this was a western and he could not face the townspeople if they called him a coward. And they would have. Americans don't have the sense to realize that another course of action could have been saving the woman's life. They are like teen-age boys petrified of being called "chicken", so they won't run and hide. I had to leave America to see how Americans are too proud like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The pro-gun people are correct in how to end it, but "

See... I can't concede this. She was drunk. She was angry. She had a gun. She was not the Avon lady. So what. Not only was the killing unnecessary, the courts are kookoo for calling this self defense. Not sure about Colorado, but just feeling like you are in danger is not nearly enough of a justification in most states. Apparently he was alone, he had a weapon, and he was in his house behind locked doors and barriers.

Nine times. He shot her nine times. She never shot back.

Your second post above is closer to the mark. People can deal with this. In the long run, property damage is nothing, just nothing compared to maiming and murdering someone.

Thanks for posting the link. You know... the fact that we can take a headline from any day of the week to support our arguments just highlights the insanity of guns in the US. If you need another reason for why guns should be outlawed in the US, just wait 20 minutes, another one will come along. Oh Here is one now... from Detroit this time. A toddler blown away... tsk tsk.

http://www.freep.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/912110329/1322/Evans-calls-for-gun-safety-after-3-year-olds-death

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo is right. I could think of lots of things to do.

Fleeing is a perfectly rational thing to do. In fact, "standing your ground", as some posters above have written, does not make a lot of sense.

Locking doors and closing up and then calling the police is great. You can set up any kind of scenario or "defense in depth" that you want if you do it that way.

Of course, if you have a gun, why bother to use a brain? That is what the gun is for, right? This is the problem. This is why Hattori kun is dead. The person with the trigger has to be circumspect and take responsibility for others. And once you shoot her, if you know she has a gun, you HAVE to finish her off just to be safe, right? That was the dilemma that this guy put himself in. Once he shot, he had to empty the clip.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another thing we need to ask is why this guy had his gun so handy? That is a little bit odd. Sounds like he was waiting for her. Sounds like two people power-tripped because they both had guns. People in other countries also deal with their neighbors, but they do it with far less drama and death.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=128678&provider=top&catid=188

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge:I don't know all the details of this case, but if some drunk wacko woman was walking up your driveway with a gun, and you had a gun, are you telling me you wouldn't shoot her at least once?

The woman was angry because she thought that guy called the police to complain about her party. I think the thing we need to focus on here is that, drunk and angry, this non-criminal grabbed her most likely legal gun to confront someone about calling the cops about a noise complaint. The pro-gun people are correct in how to end it, but refuse to acknowledge how the death could have been prevented in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He had a .22, I recall. She had a .308. Hers was concealed. (was it planted after the fact? was it hers?) So it basically amounts to him punching little holes in her and watching her bleed to death out on his driveway.

All perfectly legal. No witnesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge. Kind of the point is that I don't have a gun, so I could not shoot her. So would she really shoot me? If she had no gun, would she use a knife? Would I?

Of course you will look at the situation and just shrug and say too bad. I will look at it and say. OMG. How did it ever come to this? What policies and practices leave two people out in the middle of nowhere with these choices? The truth is that if these people were not allowed to own guns, she would be alive, and he would never feel threatened. If you cannot see the absurdity, Sarge, I, well, I am sorry.

I guess I want to say that guns are (almost) never the answer to any problem. I am certain that you could give me a stumper situation, but then I could tell you that I would never be in such a situation. I resist people who say that guns are the answer to many many problems of daily life.

You can google the article. It will pop right up. This is a very suburban place. I am sure they were both white. etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if some drunk wacko woman was walking up your driveway with a gun, and you had a gun, are you telling me you wouldn't shoot her at least once

Good Lord, no! Lock the doors and windows, go upstairs and phone the police.

Second thoughts, I probably wouldn't do that...I'd probably stand watching her because I don't live in a world where any drunken looney can get their hands on a gun, and I probably wouldn't believe it was real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speedy - I don't know all the details of this case, but if some drunk wacko woman was walking up your driveway with a gun, and you had a gun, are you telling me you wouldn't shoot her at least once? And if she was still coming at you after the first shot, you wouldn't shoot her again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beelzebub: I would love a link to that 30 deaths number. I suspect it is right, but I would love to know.

You really nailed the explanation of the contrast. Japanese people do not live in fear. If guns were made legal here, Pandora's box would be opened. This is also why America will never ever be rid of them. People will always assume that someone else has a gun.

Game theory explains it. Guns are so destructive that the probability-adjusted risk of meeting up with someone who has a gun JUSTIFIES the costs of getting a gun yourself. The only way out of the spiral is outrage and trust. Japan has them, America doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is one for you Sarge. Hot off the presses. This is today's news. Quiz: Just from this paragraph, can you tell who is the whacko?

"GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- No charges will be filed in the death of a 42-year-old Mesa County woman who was shot nine times in the driveway of a neighbor who said he fired his gun in self-defense."

Answer: All of the Above!!

It is a trick question. They all are whackos because the logic is so warped.

The shooter is a whacko because his only means of self defense is to shoot someone 15 meters away nine times. (?) The deceased is a whacko because she was drunk and had a gun too. (Perfectly legal!?) The courts are whacko because they agree that emptying 9 rounds is self defense.

I repeat: Yeehaaaaa!

Merry Christmas. I need some more apples.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the useless tool it is"

OK, now I'll admit I've never had a gun in my hand except for M-16 rifle training ( those things are a bitch to disassemble and assemble in 3 minutes ) in the military, but I can assure you they are not useless tools. They are great for killing lions, tigers, bears, dangerous criminals, and terrorists/wackos.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans are idiots on the gun issue, bottom line. Heston is dead, and it's time to take the gun from his cold dead hands and realize it for the useless tool it is (except in spreading death, of course).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever else one might think about Japan, life here is as far detached from the plot of a Peckinpah film as it's possible to be. One can walk down the darkest alleyway of any city and not fear armed robbery. And if a gun owner were to shoot someone who had broken into his home, he'd serve time in prison. Safe, sane and gun-free. Hope it stays that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another observation. Recently, people in the US have had real trouble getting behind one single idea. They used to be united by hope, faith, freedom, ambition, and looking out for the other guy. I wonder if that is true anymore. Certainly, belief in God is controversial.

I have a modest proposal. If you look at how the US has come to view solving problems, whether it is defense of their values, their wide screen TVs, their bling, their children, or their important national interests, it DOES seem pretty clear that Americans should have a new motto.

In GUNS we trust.

Now it might seem absurd, but pose the question to any gun proponent posting now, would you give up your guns or your faith in God? Would you give up your guns or your faith in your fellow man, in justice, in the Constitution, or anything?.. I mean ANYTHING... and the gun proponent would choose guns. Guns are the ultimate solution to any problem. Guns are the way, the power, and the light. Killing is victory. Killing is justified. Killing is protection.

Dolphingirl is inclined to believe in the good nature of people and someone immediately alludes to rape. That is the depth of their cynicism and despair. It is THAT BAD. To them, the world is crummy enough that they have lost faith.. in everything. Wanting a gun for the sole purpose of killing another person is the goal. They love their guns.

Which is precisely the problem. These people are already in hell and want to drag everyone else in with them, one bullet at a time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo was using someone else's text. Look back over the thread and you will see that Cleo and Numbskull and Dolphingirl make all the right points. Very nice accounting of themselves I see. Cleo even beat me to the Hattori-kun comment.

Just to flesh that out more and weave some of their points together, in one world, three people could come knocking on your door or jumping around in your back yard, and you could assume they were Jehovah's Witnesses, a kid chasing his boomerang, or someone selling something you sure don't need. In another world, they are a black kid, a rapist, and a thief trying to get into the house. In white suburbia, the difference has to do with how much TV you watch.

Oh sure, cases like that of Hattori kun are just honest cases of mistaken identity until you give someone a loaded weapon that can kill at 50 yards and instill all the fear in them that Steven Seagal, John Wayne, and David Duke possibly can. It becomes easy to imagine things and pull a trigger and end someone's life. Civilized societies do not give a jury and judge the power and authority to take a life, why does that power belong in the hands of absolutely anyone who wants it? Oh yeah. The second amendment.

I have had relatives killed by guns and knives. So what. Do I blame the person or the gun? Well, the person. But we all know that the gun makes it easier to kill, and that one whacko with a gun can kill 30 or 40 reasonable people in a heartbeat. They can even do it on a military base in Texas, or a school in Colorado, or in a post office, or in a McDonald's in San Ysidro. In the end, it IS the guns. Guns are the fulcrum that can leverage one person's internal turmoil into body bags by the dozen. The homeless guy in Times Square had a Mac10 with a 20 round magazine. Think he could have shot 20 people in Times Square? (Oh, but a police officer shot him dead! Whew! Thank God for guns!)

I will also tackle that .000083. How pitifully safe each gun is. Astounding. Ever play russian roullette? Get enough bullets in those chambers or play long enough and BAM! Everyone in the US is playing just by walking down the street. Everyone is a target. clicclicclicclicBAM there goes another clicclciclicBAM ooops another. Now acknowledge that those are DEATHS. 25,000 per year. How many injuries is that? Like 10 times as many? The more guns there are and the more people have them, the higher the cumulative probability gets. Dolphingirl is so correct. If you make gun laws less strict, you increase the cumulative probability that unbalanced people are going to wind up with killing force. .000083 is not a number to get smug about.

Multiply it by a lifetime just for fun. The probability reaches 7 per thousand. A 7 per thousand chance of dying from a gunshot DYING from a gunshot during your lifetime. DYING from a gunshot. Not in war or by cancer, but by a private person's firearm. That is almost 1 in 100. That is insanity. Forget the probablity of merely being disabled for life or losing an organ or limb or eye or just having a hole in you. That probability is probably more like 1 in 10. Having a newborn baby facing a 1 in 100 chance of dying from a gunshot wound is just sad. Why bother curing cancer if you are just going to kill em all anyway?

There is a point at which a lottery jackpot gets so exciting that everyone wants to play. In the US, this is kind of a bizarro lottery where the more people have to lose, the more they want to play. Truly. The US fascination with guns is one of the modern wonders. It shines like a beacon of idiocy. It defies reason. I am sure that things will get worse. As we know, it is already headed that way, and the vicious circle of violence will not be stopped there.... ever. But Americans sure do love the ride! Yeeehaaaa!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think I am the "go ahead, make my day" open-carry type of gun-owner.

However with security cameras being so cheap and everyone having a cell phone -that can be a potent weapon also.

-I think criminals/bullies days are becoming limited.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Living in the woolie-backs I support gun-owning rights to a certain extent.

How in hell anybody can argue for machine-pistols or asault rifles, however, is anyone's guess. A 12 bore sending rock-salt into pikey ass is enough to freak out the most hardened thieving gypsy MOFO sneaking around in your barn out here....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you live in a land where you think half the population is out to get you

Cleo, that's hysterically nonsensesical. d The Second Amendment of my Constitution legally gives a citizen the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull: Glad someone finally said it!

USARonin: The problem is '...someone who would kill them'. I'm sure there are many cases where a person with a gun overreacted to the situation and someone died. If someone robs me at gunpoint, they may or may not be intending to kill me. But if I have a gun too and pull it out, the odds of someone (or both of us) dying goes up quite a bit. There are many ways of defending oneself without using a gun. Besides, if there are fewer guns around it also means that there are fewer criminals with guns.

If people are allowed to take guns to work, to bars and restaurants that wouldn't make me feel safer at all but a lot more scared!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphingirl, it's not a matter of national paranoia.

dolphingirl, this: It is morally acceptable - man, woman or child - to defend with lethal force the threat of lethal force upon them.

Do you disagree that an individual is morally correct to kill someone who would kill them?

Nevermind bazookas, grenade launchers and other silly, implausable arguments,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All these excuses for guns...they all sound to me like "I loves me guns...LUVS ME GUNS!" And I cannot help but feel that the love for guns is due to a feeling that God shortchanged them in some department of masculinity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: I didn't mean your morals, personally but rather the morals and values of a nation. My point is that people should be polite and kind to each other for the sake of being polite and kind. Not because of fear. Living in fear is not how I want to live. Maybe I am a bit naive but I believe in the good in people. If you choose to see the bad, that's likely what you are going to get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The thing that bothers me about some of these recent gun laws is the effect they have on businesses and workplace safety.

I really don't care about Americans in America owning guns. It's a personal choice and a constitutional right.

I do care about my coworkers being able to bring a gun in to work. I do care about going to a bar and having to worry that some guy with an itchy trigger finger and a beef is going to shoot up the place.

My right to personal safety should trump somebody else's right to carry a gun, ALWAYS.

Does anybody here watch "The Office"? Would you be comfortable with Dwight bringing a gun into work? I've worked with a few people in my time that I would classify as "Dwights" and the last thing I would want is for this person to be armed near me at my job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Everyone's polite when you don't know who's armed.'--If you are only being nice because you are afraid someone is gonna shoot you, it doesn't say much about your morals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Preston, it's what we call our Second Amendment.

The 56 YO elderly woman who killed an intruder at the same time she was on the line beggin' for help used a shotgun which is legal in most Western and non-Western countries. Do you object?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o

It may difficult for you to understand but America is a nation of rebels as well as a nation of laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

30061015, like the bumper sticker says:

"Everyone's polite when you don't know who's armed."

30061015, makes some jobless punk givin' someone the finger on the highway think three times about it beforehand, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Time for the US to pick up a few valuable values?

Ya absolutely but I wouldn't over do it though of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Got a whole lotta guns here in Montana and its a real peaceful place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What the NRA is saying is 1) Guns are toys for boys and 2) the US government is unable to protect its citizens. And what is implied and accepted by the GREED is that peddling firearms is good business. You only need to look at violent crime statistics in which firearms were used and the number of prison inmates in this country and compare that with European states to see that something is seriously wrong. But we have known that for decades, haven't we. We will talk about abandoning nuclear weapons, WMD if you will, but by all means, let Americans have their private guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphingirl, listen to yourself...

By your reasonin' I should've lied back and enjoyed it and not troubled anyone else.

The police? They don't normally show up to prevent anything. They show up to try and stop what may still be ongoin' and count the bodies before they even got the call.

dolphingirl, don't be silly... my guy was not there to sell me Girl Scout Cookies in the middle of the night at my back door.

Yes, dolphingirl, you're right. I should've allowed my wife, my family or myself to be terrorized or murdered. At least I would've spared someone such as yourself whose philosophy towards non-violence supercedes my own philosophy of self-defense against someone who will only show his intention to murder when he's followin' through with it.. I'm sorry I put some non-violent person such as yourself at personal risk. Mea culpa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the would-be miscreant goes to ronin's neighbour's property, where he kills the wife, rapes the dog and steals the family silver. But that's OK, because it's not ronin's problem. Naturally the neighbour vows 'Never again' and gets himself a lethal arsenal.

Then the next time ronin pops over one dark evening to borrow a cup of sugar, neighbour sees a shadowy figure 'trying to come on to his property' and .....bham!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, there are over 300-million Americans and you point to one incident that I believe shamex one American husband and his wife? So, Cleo, how did - was it Louisiana - react? Was the husband charged?

Even in England you've got bobbies in bullet-proof vests and protestin' citizens demandin' their gun rights back exactly because people who believe as you have left them defenseless.

Your violent crime rate has risen since you - you - disarmed law-abidin' Brit citizens.

Enjoy your dogs, play on the computer, save the whales, ignore your husband who already ignored you, play at moralizin' about stuff you don't live.

I love ya, Cleo. I hope we can enjoy some tea and biscuits some day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: Yeah, what exactly do you mean by 'someone tried to come on to my property'? Do you mean a person was on your front lawn, or trying to break a window or what? And as you pointed out, this guy will probably just find some other house to rob, if that was his intention. So in fact, brandishing your gun does not prevent crime but merely pushes crime to go somewhere else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the primary reason why non violent crime and just crime in generally is lower in Japan has to do more with honor and losing face and the family name honor. These are values that are not really held as strongly by people in the US.

Time for the US to pick up a few valuable values?

I can tell ya that one time someone tried to come on to my property to either steal something or kill my wife and rape the dog. Seriously, all I had to do was brandish my lethal weapon to that dude and he ran in the opposite direction as fast as he could, probably to victimize someone who was not so well armed

Or maybe he was just someone looking for a Halloween party in the wrong place, but was a bit more street-wise than young Hattori-kun. Maybe you looked to him like a rabid Rodney Peairs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dolphingirl, it's estimated that in America a firearm is brandished between two and three million times a year to prevent crime. By 'brandished' I meand 'displayed openly' to someone bent on naughtiness.

From personal experience, I can tell ya that one time someone tried to come on to my property to either steal something or kill my wife and rape the dog.

Seriously, all I had to do was brandish my lethal weapon to that dude and he ran in the opposite direction as fast as he could, probably to victimize someone who was not so well armed.

Did I call the police? No. I didn't want to spent a lotta useless time explainin' my lawful conduct. Did the bad guy call 911 and report me? I guess not, 'cause nobody came back and queried me on that.

Did I want to kill that guy? Probably. Did the situation legally warrant grantin' me my fantasy? I don't think so. When merely met with threat of lethal force, your - your - worst nightmare chickened out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fewer guns doesn't necessarily lead to reduction in crime but fewer gun does lead to few gun-related crimes, murders and accidents.

Yes that is true but so can be the opposite. The USA for example has more guns and more ammunition on the streets today then it did back in the 90's and yet gun crime has fallen more then 80% since 1992.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But I suggested that part of the reason the culture is like that is because the culture is sending a clear message that guns and weapons are not cool. America sends mixed signals by only paying lip service to peace while guns and weapons are so easily available. There are more reasons why a culture is like it is to be sure, but that is one that I see and maybe you don't.

I agree with that but you were basically suggesting that primary reason why the culture was like that is because of the government's restriction. I think your overstating it. Especially when you consider the fact that the primary reason why non violent crime and just crime in generally is lower in Japan has to do more with honor and losing face and the family name honor. These are values that are not really held as strongly by people in the US. Gun's really are not as easily available as people think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think I could even outrun an old Derringer bullet*

M16... Derringer... There ain't any real significant difference if the shooter with either has anyone in his physical sights, numbskull.

You should be "concerned about violent crimes that end in death". You should also run your (dame-da) cyberspace mouth to support those who end up havin' to use lethal force against those lowlifes who would use lethal force against them.

C'mon, numbskull... When push comes to shove, dya think people with your philosphy will save their lives?

Ho, ho, ho... It's Christmas, not April Fool's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: 'It is also a Western concept that it is morally permissable to use lethal force in the face of the threat of lethal force.' --I'm from Canada and I don't believe in this concept. I believe in the right to defend myself, sure. And if I had no other choice but to use lethal force to defend myself, I would. But I truly do not understand how people feel it is their right to carry a gun.

Logically, looser guns laws mean more people with guns in more places, which means a higher chance of someone discharging their firearm, which means a higher chance of someone being shot, which means more people being injured or dying from being shot. It's probability 101.

Fewer guns doesn't necessarily lead to reduction in crime but fewer gun does lead to few gun-related crimes, murders and accidents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion I've got government training, I'm registered, and I've been in unsavory situations before and know how to get myself out of them so long as I have some leverage in the situation.

I realized long ago that I am the best driver on the street. The reason I got into accidents was simply because other people have cars!

I am also the most responsible gun owner, and I have owned and shot firearms. Its everybody else having guns that bothers me. I cannot wear a gun on my hip 24/7, so I would rather face other weapons if I am unarmed than some guy with a gun. In fact, I did assist in taking a knife off a belligerent dude one time. I am very very happy he did not have a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is an interest point but again that statistic deals with suicides. There are 25k gun deaths half of those are suicides that means there are only 12,500 suicides by guns spread out over all age groups unfortunately. I don't know the exact number of suicides by teenagers that commit suicide but over half of them are from guns. However though I do know that according to teendepression.org website that 90% of teens who commit suicide had a mental illness such as depression, bipolar, Schizophrenia, alcoholism. In fact according to them 20-50% of teen suicides in the US have to do with drug problems/use. Based upon teen suicide statistics in the US it most likely that when it comes to young people it has nothing to do with a immature fascination or even a fascination of any kind when it comes to firearms.

teendepression.org/articles1.html

As you said this more about guns than suicide, and I'm successfully proving that you are wrong and that it is culture not guns when it comes to why japans violent crime rate as well as non violent crime rate is lower than the USA, just like how it is culture when it comes to suicides.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: Did you know that on a per capita basis the UK has 2.5 times more violent crimes per 100k of people then USA.

I am actually more concerned about violent crimes that end in death. I would hope not to experience a violent crime, but I prefer it do death. I prefer hundreds, maybe even thousands. After that, I may prefer to die. And I like having the option of running. I can run pretty fast! But I don't think I could even outrun an old Derringer bullet! They were slow, but deadly.

Again, research has shown that the primary reason why violence along with non violent crime is less in Japan then in the USA has more to do with culture then with absence of a weapon.

I agreed with that. But I suggested that part of the reason the culture is like that is because the culture is sending a clear message that guns and weapons are not cool. America sends mixed signals by only paying lip service to peace while guns and weapons are so easily available. There are more reasons why a culture is like it is to be sure, but that is one that I see and maybe you don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now we just need to know how many of those actually used a gun.

In 2006 firearms accounted for 54.6% of suicides. I guess if you're going to off yourself a chunk of lead travling about a thousand feet per second is about the fastest way to do it. Tad bit messy though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because of forced military duty

NoLiving, what are you talkin' about? In America 'forced military duty'?

Please explain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving, cleo has an interesting point by focusing on the group more likely to have an immature fascination with fire-arms. Now we just need to know how many of those actually used a gun.

This is more about guns than suicide you know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because of forced military duty NoLiving, what are you talkin' about? In America 'forced military duty'? Please explain.

Well since it clearly states I'm talking about the swizz and not about America, I don't really see how your getting it that I'm talking about america when it comes to forced military duty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is another thing to consider numskull, the swiss. The swiss have an incredibly high gun ownership rate, not as high as the US though mind you. The vast majority of guns in private homes in Switzerland is a SIG SG 550 assault rifle. In 2006 they had 34 people either killed or attempted murder by a gun, they had 69 people killed or attempted murder by blades and over 526 people who were bodily harmed by knives versus the 89 that were bodily harmed by guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because of forced military duty

NoLiving, what are you talkin' about? In America 'forced military duty'?

Please explain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Time to try and do something about the culture, then?

Absolutely, I mean if I'm not mistaken the swiss have a higher gun ownership rate then the US when it comes to high power assault rifles, (because of forced military duty?) in their homes and yet their deaths by guns are lower then the US.

Crime has more to do with culture then with the presence or absence of a weapon.

Actually, among young males (the group most likely to have a morbid and immature fascination with guns?), the suicide rate is higher in the US, in fact considerably higher: Japan 10.1/100,000 US 21.9/100,000 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/heasuiratyoumal-health-suicide-rate-young-males (you need to put underlines before and after all the italics to make the link work)

To be fair though I'm talking about the overall suicide rates between the countries, not a certain demographic of the statistic. For example according to the world health organization the Japanese male suicide rate per 100k is around 35-36 while in the USA is around 10-11 per 100k. For females, in Japan it is around 13 and around 3 in the USA per 100k. Which country do you think has a higher overall suicide rate?

who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The safer be is on you shooting yourself, since that's statistically more likely than you using the gun to shoot someone in self defence.

Once got beaned by a ricochet from my pellet gun trying to scare a squirrel away from my bird feeder, if that counts, but as long as you know what end the ouchie ball comes out of you either have to be really stupid, really drunk, or really unstable to shoot yourself. And considering how many firearms there are in the U.S (223 Million) as compared to how many accidental deaths (30,536 in 2006) I'd say the numbers are on my side for not shooting myself. I'm actually more likely to die in a motor vehicle (45,316 same year) or by accidental poisoning (37,286 same year). Numbers courtesy of the CDC. Heck, I'm more likely to get killed by an asteroid in 2029, that one has a 3% chance of hitting. Thats courtesy of NASA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it has actually been successfully proven that the primary reason why is culture

Time to try and do something about the culture, then?

Also when you factor in that nearly half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides shouldn't the US then have a higher suicide rate then Japan when considering how much easier access to a gun?

Actually, among young males (the group most likely to have a morbid and immature fascination with guns?), the suicide rate is higher in the US, in fact considerably higher:

Japan 10.1/100,000

US 21.9/100,000

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_you_mal-health-suicide-rate-young-males (you need to put underlines before and after all the italics to make the link work)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving, what you have not considered is that it has been easier for the Japanese to reject all use of violence in part through the government's and society's of highly restricting many weapons and not just guns, which are tools of violence.

Again, research has shown that the primary reason why violence along with non violent crime is less in Japan then in the USA has more to do with culture then with absence of a weapon. Again if the presence of a weapon is the cause of crime, then non violent crime in Japan should be the same level as that of the USA but it isn't. You can easily see culture at work when it comes to suicides between the culture, by your argument, the USA should have a higher rate of suicide then Japan considering the wider availability of weapons and tolerance of violence. I mean after all half the gun deaths in the USA are suicides. The problem here is that my position is supported by years of research. Your argument doesn't really, believe me I've looked. One of key questions has always been how is it possible that Japan, which has a significantly higher population density then the USA, is able to maintain lower violent crime but more amazingly non violent crime, crime committed without weapons. The conclusions have always primarily been culture.

Really just how restricted are they? Will they be able to stop me from taking a knife outside of my house and stabbing people? Do they prevent me from buying matches to light things on fire? Do they prevent/restrict me from buying knives at a store? Do they restrict me from buying a hammer? How about nails? How about screw drivers? How about an ax or a drill? Ya they have laws that prevent you from carrying blades out in public but what real means do they have of enforcing it? Do they have police officers that pat your body down as soon as you step outside? Seriously what do they have in place that is effective that prevents me from taking a knife and walking to my neighbor's and killing them. Nothing! No country in the world has an effective policy to prevent someone from stabbing another, from taking a blade out into the public. Japan has easy access to lethal weapons, especially the ones I just listed.

A great deal of America's culture of violence thrives on the fact that real guns and other real weapons are widely available.

Yea there is no denying that just like how UK and Australian violence thrives on the fact of alcohol. Did you know that on a per capita basis the UK has 2.5 times more violent crimes per 100k of people then USA. In the UK the per capita of violent crime is 1500 per 100k, in the US it is 600 per 100k. Pretty amazing too considering that the US much looser rules when it comes to firearms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie... Darwinism happens...

Truth be told, the average American gun owner is more proficient, i.e. accurate, with his personal weapon than the average police officer or average soldier.

The average American gun-owner doesn't shy away from gun safety courses and was probably reared by a responsible firearm-ownin' adult.

You may know already that 'America gun deaths numbers' would drop precipitously if we took 'urban' gun statistics outta the equation. Fools with guns and their lives are soon parted.

There used to be a word for a factor that skewed truer gradin' indications but it escapes me right now.

For me, the best part of shootin' is usin' a quality weapon and hittin' what I aimed at. The worst part?: Bein' a responsible gun owner and meticulously cleanin' the firearm afterwards.

Most of my quality firearms are made in Eurabia, not the USA. I don't, however, dispute that the US makes the finest firearms. It's a good argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

heck if you managed to take away every gun, knife, baseball bat, rock, and sharp stick from all the criminals I'd still want it around. Why? Because it's the safe bet

The safer be is on you shooting yourself, since that's statistically more likely than you using the gun to shoot someone in self defence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the general argument of NRA is that people in cities own firearms to protect themselves from criminals with illegal firearms*

Question, I believe the argument of the NRA is the Second Amendment to the United States Constition.

Since President Obama's election, firearms sales in Hawaii have gone up something like 400 percent. I believe national trends may be similar.

If anything, with high volume sales, President Obama should be a one-man tidal wave in drivin' your and my costs down.

'The range is now hot. Fire at your targets at will.'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now, the general argument of NRA is that people in cities own firearms to protect themselves from criminals with illegal firearms. I wholeheartedly disagree; even if you managed to take every gun from every criminal I would still have my firearm, heck if you managed to take away every gun, knife, baseball bat, rock, and sharp stick from all the criminals I'd still want it around. Why? Because it's the safe bet. I've got government training, I'm registered, and I've been in unsavory situations before and know how to get myself out of them so long as I have some leverage in the situation.

Plus I enjoy recreational target, trap, and range shooting as well as deer, pheasant, goose, and boar hunting with the little arsenal that I've accumulated over the years via gifts, heirlooms, or by just spoiling myself. I just wish the people would chill out, they're driving up the cost of ammo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull, you're puttin' the burden of defense from a violent criminal on a defenseless elderly woman.

You believe in the concept that she had the obligation to run.

In my country, we overwhelmingly believe in the concept that the innocent have the right to stand their ground.

It is also a Western concept that it is morally permissable to use lethal force in the face of the threat of lethal force.

numbskull, why do you put all the onus on a defenseless elderly woman? She hadn't done anything wrong and she was within her own home? Not only that, but you call her lazy and takin' the easy way out by protectin' her own life. How low can you go?

You're really somethin' else, numbskull.

I enjoy your handle and the reason you picked it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Had she just had one room to go to with strong doors and this one room had bars on the window, she could have held up there long enough for police to arrive."

Numbskull - now you promote the "live in constant fear" mantra of the bush years.

Please stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a little fact, most of the criminals who commit violent crimes with guns do so with guns that are bought illegally.

Which could be found because of a massive market in legal guns! Why is this all so hard for you to see? Those guns had to come from some where, and most of them were originally purchased legally. If your logic held water, gun crimes would be largely comitted with fully automatic weapons. They are not, because the illegal market did not appear out of thin air.

Come on. What is your real reason for promoting guns. Your arguments are terrible and it is impossible to believe you really put stock in them. So what is the real reason? Love of a warm barrel? They look so cool? Holding one makes you feel adequate? What?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin, you cannot be cornered if you live in a fortress and have a cell phone.

Had she just had one room to go to with strong doors and this one room had bars on the window, she could have held up there long enough for police to arrive. Open your ears and listen to the poor woman. She did not want to shoot the man. But she did so because people like yourself advocate taking the quick and lazy way out, and sadly, she listened. She has to live with that the rest of her days.

A dog is just another option in a sea of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These laws that are coming into play are restrictions for those who are law abiding and have gone through the proper process of regisering for a gun and had the background check. No where does it say that now anyone can own and carry a concealed gun. This article is trying to play on the anti-gun movment by not presenting the facts.

Here's a little fact, most of the criminals who commit violent crimes with guns do so with guns that are bought illegally. So they are not following the gun laws in the first place since a parolee is not allowed to purchase a gun and would in no way be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Before the "then just ban all guns" posters come out, let's look at this logically, and not ideologically. Ban all guns, then criminals who do not obey the laws in the first place will still have them. Guns are banned here in Japan or strictly controlled, yet we still see cases reported here of criminal types using guns in killings. So that will not work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So accordin' to you, numbskull, this elderly woman should have owned a dog to save her life from any dark eventuality.

Dogs are out with the progressive crowd. Keeping a pet like a dog is too great a strain on Gaia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull, I didn't cherry-pick the net. That story was on the news this week. I only Googled a link just for you.

So accordin' to you, numbskull, this elderly woman should have owned a dog to save her life from any dark eventuality. She should've turned her home into a fortress with bars on the window to keep potential rapist-murderers out. She should have let herself be cornered - unarmed - in a small confined space which is easy to break in to. Accordin' to you, the death of this criminal with a long history of criminalty is the fault of this law-abidin' 56 YO woman who was alone and mindin' her own business within the alleged safety of her own home.

Do you know how you sound, numbskull?

Yes, just like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it has been easier for the Japanese to reject all use of violence in part through the government's and society's of highly restricting many weapons and not just guns, which are tools of violence

numbskull, I gotta admire the Japanese in a weird sorta way... They like to do all their killin' up close and personal, usually with a blade.

Me? I prefer keepin' threats at a distance. Firearms are good tools for doin' just that.

If your government has neutured you from gun ownership, you may wanna address that. Northern Irelanders enjoy their gun rights apparantely, and mainland Brits are demonstratin' in the streets that the government has left them defenseless against criminals who have no problem gettin' firearms.

Bobbies wearin' bullet-proof vests nowadays agree with these civilians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving, what you have not considered is that it has been easier for the Japanese to reject all use of violence in part through the government's and society's of highly restricting many weapons and not just guns, which are tools of violence.

A great deal of America's culture of violence thrives on the fact that real guns and other real weapons are widely available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: Is there anyone who thinks this 56 YO woman did the wrong thing?

I did not hear a dog barking, you? How did he get in? No bars on the windows I expect. She admitted having no other rooms to lock herself into except the bathroom. The problem is that she decided to skip steps 3, 4, and 5 and go straight to step 6 when things she found herself in a pinch. She took the easy and lazy way out, and by the sounds of her voice, even she regrets it.

Rather than scanning the net for cherry picked evidence to support something you already made your mind up about, why not look at more generalized evidence and draw conclusions from it. If you do that and your brain works, you will change your mind. I think that is what you are most afraid of though, even more afraid of that than the possiblity of a house invasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

.0000083

Should be .000083

0 ( +0 / -0 )

25,000 per year shot to death by guns in the USA last year, NRA must be proud of that as well. Fact is gun owners are more likely to get shot than those that do not have guns. Many times gun owners shoot themselves.

Half of those are suicides plus that statistic also includes killed by law enforcement and law enforcement are obviously going to be carrying guns.

So lets see here, 25,000 divided by 300 million+ (Total number of legally owned firearms in the US) equates to a fatal death rate of around .0000083. Wow that is really a threat isn't it.

In the news everyday in the US. In Japan, homicide rate is 1% of the USA. Why, gun control.

Actually no, it has actually been successfully proven that the primary reason why is culture not the absence of a weapon. In order for your example to work you would have to also explain why non violent crime that involves no weapons are also lower in the Japan then in the US. If it was indeed because of gun control then Japan's non violent crime rate should be a lot higher then what it currently is. Also when you factor in that nearly half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides shouldn't the US then have a higher suicide rate then Japan when considering how much easier access to a gun? So why doesn't the US have a higher rate of suicide? Cultural views regarding suicide are the culprit, again suicide is seen as a cowardly way in the US, it does not necessarily have the same stigma in Japan as it does in the US as a result suicide is not as widely frowned upon in Japan as in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there anyone who thinks this 56 YO woman did the wrong thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun use in crime needs to be highlighted and discouraged.

Maybe the Yakuza or Saudi Arabia have something positive to offer.

Use of a gun in a deliberate crime to bring automatic minimum loss of one section of small finger. Three sections max. (Besides the regular fine, imprisonment, lashes, etc.)

After that, lop off the right hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I bought a Beretta pistol after I heard Vice President Biden mention he had one."

Gosh, Biden's not setting a very good example, is he?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong - Why do you gotta be like that? Look, I am down with the whole demonize white America thing. Okay? I could NEVER live in a gated community. I bought a Beretta pistol after I heard Vice President Joe Biden mention he had one. But I am afraid to take it out of the box.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Props, numbskull. You come straight from the street, baby. like so many of us progressives." hardly any so called progressives I met are from the street.... most of you are some rich white gated community types who believe you have all the answers. And don't come back with I'm a winger crap, that another word reserved for your kind.

Unfortunatetely, I cant always spot them. Caribou barbie Palin really scares me" And I am sure you might have the urge to shoot her!

numskull: I think you are getting me wrong, I'd prefer that guns never existed. But until they meet their demise and can fall into some idiots hands and illegally, please allow me to defend myself until you guys find a better method.

TravelingSales Your list got me, the countries that have strict gun laws actually have some of the top makers? Odd, really odd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun"

If I was a job candidate and the interviewer asked me if I had a gun, I'd have to assume that a "Yes, I do" answer would deny me the job, and so if I did own a gun ( I've never owned a gun ) and I really wanted the job I'd lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have been shot and robbed at gunpoint.

Sorry, should be shot AT. I was not hit. And I certainly was not trying rob anyone either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TravelingSales: I am not going to be confined to my house at night. That's crazy.

Then exerise the host of other options I gave you. Or Cleo's. Or accept that there will be some risk to everything you do in life. I have been shot and robbed at gunpoint. I guess I just have the nads to not run for guns.

In general states with minimal regulation of guns (think Alska and Vermont) are far safer thsn states which are very restrictive (New York and Illinois).

Now you tell us the tail wags the dog, as if Vermont and "1 person per 1000 miles" Alaska were ever as dangerous as south-eastern N.Y. or Illinois. States with easier gun restrictions are that way because they can afford to be, because the people there are more sane. The easier restrictions most certainly did not make those places safer. Nor did more gun restrictions make anyplace more dangerous.

And before you bring up the FAT LIE of Washington D.C.'s hand-gun ban (which did not concern shotguns..hello?) the rise and fall of crime does not correlate well to laws but correlated perfectly to the rise and fall of crack cocaine.

The spin and lies of the gun lobby are there because of two kinds of people: the ones with ulterior motives (money, love of guns) groping for excuses and the fools who actually believe the hype.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not going to be confined to my house at night. That's crazy.

In general states with minimal regulation of guns (think Alska and Vermont) are far safer thsn states which are very restrictive (New York and Illinois). That is partly because politicians perversely react to illegal use of guns by restricting legal possession of guns so that only people who do not feel constrained to obey the law are armed. However, even when you compare large urbanized states, freer states have less crime than restrictive states (e.g. Florida & California).

The people who are most disadvantaged here are those in retricted states living on the border of free states. If you are a thief and you break into my house in Connecticut, I will shoot you. If you drive 5 miles north and rob my neighbor in New York, he is not allowed to have a gun. Which would you choose?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because every time you reach for the easy and false answer, you lose your resolve to do what really needs to be done." Not sure what you mean, but I've never shot anyone.

A good start the nation would be to protest to get non-violent crime punished less to free up room in prisons. Far too many marijuana users and statutory rapists (who marry their "victims's" after release) etc. clogging the prison system now." good point.

Guns are false security anyway." true, but merely holding one up works.

There are a plethora of other things you can do personally that offer better security. Bar your windows, buy burglar alarms, get to know your neighbors and set up emergency plans with them, buy and TRAIN a dog, buy a stun-gun, exercise, don't go into bad neighborhoods, don't go out at night, walk quickly, hold your head up, don't look people in the eye until they challenge you, learn how to defuse situations (and other psychological techniques), start a neighborhood watch, move, etc. etc." Wow, so not only are you saying I must be a prisoner, I shouldn't go into my mom's neighborhood. Trying to difuse a situation with words, is that what you are saying? That doesn't even work in a fight without gun. Not the young people of today at least, who are the ones shooting everyone up. I hope you are not over 40, because then what ever I say is moot.

America has been awash in guns for a long time now, but America is not getting more secure for them, is it?" Well, we had less gun crime when we had zero regulations. The easy and lazy answer is the not the best one." Why do you paint me as lazy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack.”

Wouldn't it be better to spend more time and energy on not spawning so many violent criminal types?

Both efforts should be supported.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack.”

Wouldn't it be better to spend more time and energy on not spawning so many violent criminal types?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is the open letter ATF sent to all Montana firearms dealers informing them that the new State law did not relieve them of any responsibilities they had prior to the law's passage:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2009/07/071609-openletter-ffl-montana-legislation.pdf

An identical letter was sent to Tennessee dealers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article is misleading in its mention of state laws passed in Tennessee and Montana. ATF, the agency responsible for enforcing Federal gun laws, has made it clear that the law does not provide any relief from Federal law. There has been no change whatsoever in the enforcement of laws. If the U.S. does ban guns, it should start with all the foreign manufacturs first - no more Sig Sauer (Switzerland), Glock (Germany), Heckler & Koch (Germany), Taurus (Brazil), Sako (Finland), Star (Spain), Beretta (Italy), FEG (Hungary), FN (Belgium), Walther (Germany), IMI (Israel), Izhmash (Russia), Norinco (China), CZ (Czech Republic), Miroku (Japan), MKE (Turkey) and Astra (Spain) among others. Then see how much the world reacts to gun control efforts in the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: So, I ask you, why does anyone have to go through just a sample of what we went through because you decided that guns are bad, even for self defense?

Because every time you reach for the easy and false answer, you lose your resolve to do what really needs to be done.

A good start the nation would be to protest to get non-violent crime punished less to free up room in prisons. Far too many marijuana users and statutory rapists (who marry their "victims's" after release) etc. clogging the prison system now.

Guns are false security anyway. There are a plethora of other things you can do personally that offer better security. Bar your windows, buy burglar alarms, get to know your neighbors and set up emergency plans with them, buy and TRAIN a dog, buy a stun-gun, exercise, don't go into bad neighborhoods, don't go out at night, walk quickly, hold your head up, don't look people in the eye until they challenge you, learn how to defuse situations (and other psychological techniques), start a neighborhood watch, move, etc. etc.

America has been awash in guns for a long time now, but America is not getting more secure for them, is it? The easy and lazy answer is the not the best one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NRA losers, can never just accept the truth. Gun owners die at a higher rate because they shoot themselves." I'd thought you be happy that the right winger NRA losers are shooting themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Homicide apologists, aka NRA losers, can never just accept the truth. Gun owners die at a higher rate because they shoot themselves. Or they shoot their families. In the news everyday in the US. In Japan, homicide rate is 1% of the USA. Why, gun control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or a knife, look at this recent link:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Pregnant-Officer-Slain-Cops-Hunting-for-Estranged-Husband-.html

And guns do work in self-defense - look at this, also recent:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml

People have a right and duty to defend themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could never really understand the US fascination with firearms" You are aware that regardless of the all the regulations and laws they pass year after year, illegal gun use increases. What is the fascination? You know the answer to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more things change, the more than stay the same.

Could never really understand the US fascination with firearms. Don't get me wrong, I received my first rifle at the age of 8, and then commenced to decimate the local rabbit population. But then again, I grew up on a farm in rural Australia, a place where firearms are tools, used to shot feral animals and fend off undesirables who are after the women folk (that is joke). Anyway, I just don't get it. Indeed, if firearms are so necessary for city folk, etc, is that necessity itself just a symptom of a sick society? Just an idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

numbskull: Let me say it better, I'm scared in a lot of places in the states, and the ones scaring me are not the usual right-wing white guys, its my own. Like I said, something changes where street crime is minimal at the least, by any way possible, and I will throw my gun away. I would also like people who shoot others during a crime get hefty sentences. Not get out because on "good behavior" in less than five years. Do you realize what a slap in the face that was? My mother to this day is still kind of a nervous wreck (she was next to him when it happened). She couldn't/wouldn't work, we went on some sort of state assistence, moving back to her old neighborhood which was already in a state of emergency. So, I ask you, why does anyone have to go through just a sample of what we went through because you decided that guns are bad, even for self defense?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TravelingSales: People who go buy guns include a disproportionate number of people who reasonably believe themselves to be in danger

Because.....somebody else has a gun! And around and around we go.

But I wonder if you, Einstein, could even show us some sort of proof that people who reasonably believe themselves in danger outnumber those who are simply PARANOID? Or just love guns and will make any excuse to possess a deadly weapon that just makes their insecure fragile little egos feel warm at night?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: Having lost someone to a crime who refused to have a gun with the idiots basically getting slaps on their wrists, I agree 100%

Sorry for your loss, but forgive me for being skeptical about your take on the causes and solutions for that horrible event. The gun is the easy and lazy answer, and the easy and lazy answer is rarely the best one. In some rare situations it is, but most of the time, its not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong:Did you really have to state the guy's race?

Why not? It gives a clearer mental picture of the scene. If it makes you feel better, I am sure you can dig up a gun crime for every race on the planet but happened in America, land of the gun-loving idiot. Not to say all Americans are such, just that America has far too many.

So did Obama try to take any one's guns away yet? Yeah, that paranoid lot really showed their paranoid colors with that one. Why don't we want them to have guns? Uh...maybe because they are PARANOID?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see zurcronium is not going to be a challenge to Albert Einstein any time soon.

People going to hospital are more likely to die than people who don't. Is that because hospitals are dangerous? No (unless you live in the UK with their super-bugs). People who go to hospitals are disproportionately sick and sick people are disproportionately likely to die.

People who buy guns are more likely to die than people who don't. Is that because buying guns is dangerous? No. People who go buy guns include a disproportionate number of people who reasonably believe themselves to be in danger (because they live in a bad neighborhood, have a dangerous job, believe their former spouse to be potentially dangerous, etc.) and people who reasonably believe themselves to be in danger are disproportionately likely to die.

There are creatures lying on their backs in the bottom of ponds that can handle this level of logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact is gun owners are more likely to get shot than those that do not have guns." Well, I guess my dad was just one off the stat then. Oh, the guys that did it, they weren't legal gun owners...

anyway, before I get ticked, your number 25,000 a year.... that's the whole point why I keep a few on me in most places in the states, and you can not tell me that number represents people who are owning guns legally. The gov instead of saving guppy fish, should be trying to figure out ways to kill the crime on the streets, which is not by legal gun owners, but street gangs who own guns illegally. If you like, I'd invite you to my mom's neighborhood, who refuses to leave, and when someone holds a gun to your head, ask them if they own that gun illegally, or when you are getting jacked at a stop light, which I've been, ask the one doing it if they own that gun legally. I'm not a member of the NRA btw. Get the crime off the streets, and I will gladly melt my guns down to make pachinko balls. badsey: what are you going to do with a rifle like that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

25,000 per year shot to death by guns in the USA last year, NRA must be proud of that as well. Fact is gun owners are more likely to get shot than those that do not have guns. Many times gun owners shoot themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not the guns that's the problem -it's the ammo shortage right now.

Just recently bought a Remington 597 .22 (Gander Mountain only) blue laminate. -but beware, since Cerberus Capital bought them out quality/customer service has been down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently the purpose of gun ownership is not hunting or sport. It is defense from criminal attack. This really says it all. Law enforcement has become an oxymoron in America. People are being taught to rely on firearms to resolve problems."

That's the only reason I keep guns with me back home. Never hunted in my life. Having lost someone to a crime who refused to have a gun with the idiots basically getting slaps on their wrists, I agree 100% with the poster above. If I go to my mother's town, calling a cop is almost like asking a god to help you, because he may the one taking your money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right of self defense by law-abiding Americans,” says Chris W Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist. “We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack.”

Translation: Authority. Patriotism. Law. Fear. Fear. Fear.

It is nice to see that the NRA has its gloves off. Apparently the purpose of gun ownership is not hunting or sport. It is defense from criminal attack. This really says it all. Law enforcement has become an oxymoron in America. People are being taught to rely on firearms to resolve problems.

Juxtapose that with this from a 69 year old who knows better:

“People go in there and start drinking and then they want to start a fight. What are they going to do if they got a gun in their hand?”

Mr. Cox, meet Mr. Speck. When is starting a bar fight the same as protecting yourself from criminal attack? Any old time you want it to be. This will not end well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beelzebub: Did you really have to state the guy's race? Why not just a CD pedlar? You are going to give others the impression that it is us who the gun toting people and we are not!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This quote from AP: There are "too many guns on the streets," NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday. "This is one of the great public health threats. And our police officers are clearly in danger."

What was a Hispanic CD pedlar doing in Times Square armed with a machine pistol? Why is poor America still locked into its "Back to the Future," 19th century, Dodge City mentality? Spread the body count over 50 states and "every day is Virginia Tech".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This story has got to be a lie. Barack Obama is trying to take away all guns, the republicans tell me this everyday. I walk into my gunsmith shop and they have this fictous story about Obama taking away guns.

Then every time that the democrats come up with a new bill, the republicans come out with emails that say there is a provision that strips guun rights.

So this has to be all lies. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites