the contrarian - Just Another Month

What, things slow in Iraq to write about, no MRAPs events? So what's your solution specifically Dave, we all move to Japan... or change the Constitution? Just what is "strict" gun control anyway?
Never mind...

Maybe if enough Johns read this they will indite themselves. Why would the Constitution need to be changed if one simply wrote and enforced sensible gun control laws.

I am a firm believer in the "Right to bear arms" David. Our family lost a wonderful young and beautiful member years ago to crime carried out with a gun. But these crimes are carried out by criminals, who would find another way to get away with what they want, many of those crimes where carried out by sick and unbalanced people, who must have displayed some sort of problem somewhere, and no did anything, or at the hands of children who had parents who were irresponsible with weapons and the storage of them.

It is just as easy for criminals, and sadly children, to learn how to make a cheap bomb, or get their hands on a bad drug or gas, as it is a weapon. When we lost our family member, a lovely young woman it was so devastating, I did not think I would emotionally survive it. She was someone who would not have ever hurt anyone. But I wonder if she had a fighting chance if she would be alive today. I shudder in 2009, to think what a criminal would be capable of if he/she thought the good of this country could not keep a weapon in their home, or own a gun. The time to stifle the flow of illegal weapons here is long past. It is too late. But without that right, for the law abiding citizen, we are at the mercy of people that far out number law enforcement. And sad as it is, we must be able to protect ourselves from the ever present dangers of nut jobs and real criminals, or worse, God forbid. And as I stated above, they would find another method, and often do already to accomplish the deed they set out to do.

I do not know what the answer is, but removing weapon's ownership from the citizens of this country is not the right answer. Especially now. It is personally hard for me to read the stats up there in your well-written article, but I have to agree that we need the right to keep weapons. There are so many horrendous crimes committed without a gun, and having been in the nursing field I can tell you that they are just as heinous. All loss of life, by whatever means is too horrible to think about. That someone decided on their own, that a life must be stopped. But that is a "person" who is sick and the trigger. Sorta like a person who drives while drunk, knowing they can kill themselves or somone innocent. To pig headed to call a cab. In the home, a parent or family member must do what is proper with a weapon.. I think all citizens who own a gun should be forced to attend a safety/usage class before they can finalize a purchase, and those who sell without the wait for that to happen must be punished severly. But myself, I have lost a lot of respect for the justice system in the last few years. I am trying to maintain, but it is difficult. Think of what we have been through in the last ten years. To take away guns is not the answer, it lies in the hands of the people who have them. Just as with everything else. I thank you for reminding us of the horrors that guns can cause, that need to stress safety, and constantly remind a careless public about it is something we must do, but I just cannot agree that all of us should not be able to own a weapon because of the misuse and sadness some idiiot or criminal caused. Old age makes you tougher. You really learn the "what ifs". This has also made me agree with the right to bear arms. The right to defend yours and your own. Thanks for the article. But it goes on everyday, the loss of life, and like everything else that is wrong with our beautiful world, the capability to stop such acts is long gone. Ellen B

But, but why are so many talking about taking away guns when the administration has not indicated that? If one is thinking about restrictions on certain type guns that is still a far cry from having guns taken away.

When it comes to gun violence we need to strictly enforce the laws on the books, address the issue of bad parenting skills and get to the the root cause of why America embraces a culture of violence. A few days in Chicago we had a 18 yr old shoot 3 people before being gunned down in an alley by the cops and dying like an animal.

We need to know why that 18 yr old picked up a gun and shoot people instead of a school book and died in an alley instead of becoming president, senator or business owner? In order to address the situation. Why was this 18 yr old willing to shoot 3 people, reject learning and embrace violence and die like an animal in an alley? We really need to find out why?

I have no issue with someone owning a gun if they are a responsible and law abiding citizen, even though I'm not into guns myself. What makes no sense to me, is that some people only want to read half of the second amendment; and forget about the other half. the second amendment reads: 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. It says WELL REGULATED militia, not a UNREGULATED one. I don't understand how someone can read the second amendment fully, and see any or most regulation of guns as violating their rights.

Education is also extremely important, as another Ellen B. pointed out; people need to be educated on not only how to use a gun- but the importance of storing them very securely. I grew up around guns, and my parents were always very careful with keeping them locked up; as well as emphasizing they weren't toys

...and during this same month, firearms were used approximately 150,000 times for self defense. In over 99% of these cases, it was not even fired.

In several of the situations in which it was fired, the gene pool was drained a bit further.

Controversial article Dave.
I am firm believer of no guns for the common folks except law enforcement, the military, and special case needs such as people who really do need weapons because of their jobs. The right to bear arms was written during the times of independence (against the Brits) and also when we were exterminating the Indians. The Brits have gone away and the Indians have been subdued and placed in rez's (reservations).
As such, we the people, the biggest, best and baddest to have ever inhabited this planet are the only industrialized, developed et al country to have so many casualties stemming from gun violence.
My mentor who is a retired federal judge keeps saying that we should adopt gun laws similar to those in Singapore. Gun crimes there are non existant and those who commit a gun crime (including firing in the air by accident) are hanged.
Will such laws ever be passed? No, unfortunately there are too many with a cowboy mentality at this time. However if such a lw were to be passed, there would be an immediate and noticeable decline in gun crimes and run related deaths.
Just out of curiosity why aren't assault weapons banned? Can't use them for hunting can they? (A long time ago, I went pheasant hunting with an m-16 in a chopper ... what I found out was 1 round = no bird, they have a nasty tendency to disintegrate in mid flight). Home defense - Just who are they fighting/protecting themselves against?

I pine for the good ol days when disputes were setteled with good ol fashioned kinfe, tire iron, baseball bat fights : )

however, guns don't kill, people do.

Gun control is NOT preventing all people from owning a personal firearm. It is about licensing weapons that are out there, and taking Uzis and AK-47's off the street. Ellen, surely you don't think having a weapon like this in your home would be necessary? I have family that love to hunt, and I firmly believe in their right to do so. I also know I have a family member who is allowed weapons now when he should not be! He dares anyone to take his guns away, and he keeps weapons that are not legal for hunting, and are military grade. The police can't do anything because he can legally own everything he has. Do you want to be the one that lives or works next door to him when his bipolar disorder blows, and he uses those guns?

To call an 11 year old a criminal is outrageous. This child was apparently upset that his dad was remarrying and has watched a million TV and Movie shows were Rambo solved the issue with hatred and a gun or two. What do you expect when that's what children learn. In the USA we hide the sexual movies but let even very young children watch violence. We adore and glorify violence and lie when we say one can tell clearly the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in real life.

If you aren't intending to assult anyone, you have no need or use for an assult weapon. They should be made illegal again. Private citizens should not have more fire power than trained and certified officers of the law.

Most of this 'gotta have a gun nonsense' is conspiracy theorists full of fear about "the government." Well, guess what, YOU ARE the government. You and Me and every citizen of voting or near voting age. If there's something wrong with the government, it's because you and I didn't help choose trust-worthy individuals to represent us.

Getting in a fire-fight only solves things in the movies, in real life, it ruins lives. We've been a country for 300 years-- isn't it time to become civilized and stop worshipping violence?

I watched a video where educators took a gun into a kindergarten class, held a discussion about how dangerous it was, many of the children contributed: guns hurt and kill people, don't touch a gun, call an adult etc. One boy said his dad taught him about guns, never point one at anyone, this boy said. Never pick up a gun unless your mom or dad are there.

Then the adults left the room, leaving the realistic looking toy gun on the table. They watched through a one way glass. No sooner had the door closed than the kids crowded around discussing the gun, repeating the warnings. Then one child put out a finger and touched the gun. Soon they all, save two, had touched it. Last, the boy who was trained by his father about guns, picked up the gun, saying he knew how to keep it safe.

Next he pointed it at the head of his friend and pulled the trigger.

If we are going to allow guns in homes, trigger locks are essential. But then, the owners couldn't blow someone away without a thought. A friend of mine, killed her son because he came home from college unexpectedly. Her husband was away and she thought she was alone in the house. She pulled the gun from beneath her pillow and fired at the figure in the doorway of her bedroom. Then she turned on the light. If she had called 911 her son would be alive.

Conservatives and Republicans are stockpiling guns as fast as they can.
They need them to protect themselves.

From us liberals. . .

Haven't you heard David?
Liberals are going to send all Christians and Republicans and Conservatives to "re-education camps.
Ask Savage, Hannity, LeVin, they know.


However, if we are going to be a nation of armed to the teeth citizens, I would certainly favor mandatory gun training and gun safety classes for everyone in the nation.

The conservative talk meisters insist they are not advocating violence, but do tell me where all this "hunting" is taking place?

Why is it that ordinary citizens and children and especially women are being killed not bear and deer?

Jim H. ?
Can you tell us where to verify your numbers. Did you make them up? if non, there must be some place to verify them?

I mean, if I hear a
possum on the porch and get out my big gun, was I defending myself
against a criminal?

My husband had a friend who was a police officer. When he came to our house, he opened the gun and took out the bullets which he buttoned into his shirt pocket. Then he placed the gun at the back of the coat closet shelf. I greatly appreciated that because we had three children 4, 7, and 12. People who can't show great respect for a firearm, should never have access to one. Period.

The solution to the problem is to hold everyone who in involved with a gun responsible for what is done with that gun. From those who contribute to its manufacture, its distribution, its sale to an owner and whoever that owner allows access to it, if a gun is used to harm someone, accidentally or on purpose, every one of those people is held responsible.

We have the technology to keep track of all the guns and know which guns were used to fire each bullet recovered from a victim. The responsibility should be enforced. With considerable work in getting sample bullets fired from each gun (or gun barrel) and with a registry of who owns each gun, such a future is quite realizable.

Firearm deaths in the U.S are running at close to 1,000 per month, according to the FBI, 75% of which involve handguns. The price America pays for catering to the NRA and worshiping the Second Amendment is apparent.

The question that needs to be asked, in the broader context, is whether certain portions of the Constitution are appropriate in this quite different day and age. The subject in this article touches on two of them - the contamination of our political process by the monied interests and the proliferation of firearms.

Thanks, Richard B., for providing that inevitable cliche. I was getting concerned that no one would mention it.

A travel agency right off the Mass Pike in the downtown area has had anti-gun ads for more than 20 years. For months at a time, it would feature the faces of young children killed by guns; other times, it would give the statistics of gun ownership in homes.

Usually, it would also state on this huge billboard next to the Pike that a child has a better chance of growing up in Massachusetts because fewer people own firearms here than in many other states.

Yet, in my town, a lovely and academic town, one out of five homes has a firearm.

I'm with you. I lived and worked in London for years, and I never felt safer. I don't understand the gun culture of this country. It's a death wish and power trip that makes no sense to me. Other than police and hunters, no one needs a gun. Period.

To Richard, "guns don't kill, 12 year old boys do." What's wrong with that picture?

Dave, I agree with your sentiments, but I think you miss the point when all these incidents talk of firearms killing people..." A pistol killed a boy..." "A pistol killed a fiance..." etc. Richard's point above (though the example is questionable) is that weapons kill people, but you need a human being to fire that weapon. More accurately, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Also, unfair to compare Japan's death rate by gun vs. the U.S. as Japan has far less people. More fair to look at the % of murder in the population (people are very creative, and if they don't have a gun, they'll use something else: knives, blunt intruments, etc.) However, I think your examples illustrate the number of stupid people in the population who have dangerous weapons and other items at home (such as poisonous household cleaners and heavy machinery) who don't take the precaution to keep them away from their kids.

I'm with you on gun control for the simple fact that there are too many stupid people in the world and we need laws to protect innocent people from stupid people.

55 against 12,000 Mario?.....Thanks for the comment but I don't think the population difference explains that. What does explain it however is gun control in Japan and lack of it in USA.

Thanks also for your comment, Today's Illusion...I think the figures Jim H. cited are equivalent to your Gather name...It would obviously be impossible to document such instances...but I'd wager the source to be either Fox News or the NRA.

...and by the way, Mario, the structuring of the sentences to show that the weapons killed those men, women and children was purely intentional.

To answer your question, John S., "strict gun control," as it relates to Japan, means, among other things, no handguns allowed. And for others who want to continue killing animals, the banning of handguns would have no impact on your "sport," although - don't say it - the NRA has been dfoing that enough - "it would be a foot in the door that would lead to more stringent measures." Not necessarily so, of course.

And as for another patented argument for guns, does anyone really think that a father who massacres his family quite easily with a handgun would be so disposed if he had to slit their throats or bludgeon them to death? - or that the insane coward who goes postal and commits mass murder would do so if he didn't have the convenience of a firearm?

Some might but most would not.

Here in California, the LA Times reported that 70% of the drivers on the road have a gun handy. It's definitely not a good idea to make eye contact with anyone on the highways, as there are many road-rage shootings.

I would like to know who saved himself from death by having a gun in the house under the pillow maybe?

I think it is uncivilized to have guns like assault weapons and allow any one the ability to purchase such weapons.
The argument anyone could make a bomb is irrelevant, we are talking about guns.
Any country in the world that regulates and makes it harder to possess weapons does not have the number of deaths we have.
I think the NRA is off on this one and eventually things will have to change and we have to be tougher on who can buy an assault weapon.

I have read everyones comments and each person does seem to have a valid oppinion. However, I have to say that I am for people owning guns. The cops can not be every where all the time. Just because you make a law saying no one can own guns doesn't seem to apply to the criminals. They do not walk into a store and purchase a gun. The other thing is that guns do not kill but people kill.

What Brian said.

Great list David!

Spencer T. -- Here, here!

I will agree that guns don't kill, people do. But why is it that whenever people are killed by other people with a gun, the gun has been placed into the hands of people who have no business handling a gun?

It's NO accident that good people get killed by good people. If the gun is not present, people cannot use one to accidentally hurt anyone.

Consider the murder rate in Chicago. Though the CPD reports that there has been a 20% decline in the murder rate this year compared to the same period last year, 108 homicides is still quite a substantial number.


CHICAGO - Officials of the Chicago Police Department say there has been a 20 percent decline in homicides in the first four months of this year compared to the same period last year.

Chicago police on Friday announced there were 108 homicides from January to April 30. Officials said violent crime declined 2.8 percent, and property crime dropped almost 10 percent.

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis says specialized units focused on gangs, guns and drugs, and working with school officials for the decline.

Weis said as the summer approaches, the department will look at tactics used to make the streets safer and try to get the public involved in the efforts.

Now let's take a look at Chicago's gun laws...........



Purchase
A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm.
The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police.

The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.

A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.


Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID.


Requirements for Foid
Application for a FOID is made to the Illinois State Police, FOID, P. O. Box 19233, Springfield, IL 62794-9233. Application forms can be obtained online at http://www.isp.state.il.us or by calling the Firearm Owners IdentiAn applicant is entitled to a FOID if he:
Is over 21 years of age. If under 21, he must have the written consent of his parent or guardian. In such case, the guardian himself must not be ineligible for a FOID, and the applicant must never have been convicted of a misdemeanor or adjudged a delinquent.

Has never been convicted of a felony.

Is not a narcotics addict.

Has not been a patient in a mental hospital in the preceding five years.

Is not mentally retarded.

Is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.

Is not subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting the possession of a firearm.
Has not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed.

Has not been convicted of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed on or after January 1, 1998.

Has not been convicted within the past five years of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before January 1, 1998.
An applicant for a FOID must consent to the Department using the applicant's digital driver's license or Illinois ID card photograph, if available, and signature on the FOID, and must furnish the Department with his driver's license or Illinois ID card number.

The Department must approve or deny the FOID within 30 days and is authorized to deny the FOID only if the applicant does not meet the listed qualifications. The FOID is valid for five years from the date of issuance. The Department shall forward to each FOID holder, a notice of expiration and a renewal notice application, 60 days prior to expiration.

A FOID may be revoked and seized if the holder made a false statement on the application, is no longer eligible, or whose mental condition poses a clear and present danger to self, others, or community.


Possession
It is unlawful to possess any firearm or ammunition without a valid FOID.

It is unlawful for any person under the age of 18 to possess a handgun, or concealable firearm.

It is unlawful for any person to possess any firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another.
It is unlawful to possess any rifle having one or more barrels less than 16" in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18" in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

It is unlawful to possess any firearm in any place licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering (except a gun show) at which an admission is charged. An exception is provided for the owner, manager or an authorized employee of the establishments.
It is unlawful for the following persons to possess a firearm or ammunition:
1. Under 21 who has been adjudged delinquent or been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense.
2. Narcotic addicts.

3. Within the past five years has been a patient in a mental hospital.

4. Mentally retarded.

5. Convicted felon.


A person with a FOID card can loan a gun to a non-FOID card owner as long as the gun was used at a range and under the supervision of the owner.

It is unlawful to possess firearms or ammunition at schools. Exempt include students in firearm training courses, parades, hunting, target shooting on school ranges.

Note: In Chicago it is unlawful to keep any firearm unless it has been registered with the Chicago Police.
Carrying (Residents Only)
It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about the person, except on one's land or or fixed place of business.
It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm on any public street or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village, or incorporated town, except when: an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of firearms or the lawful commerce in firearms.

Exceptions are persons using their firearms on established target ranges; licensed hunters, trappers, or fishermen while engaged in their licensed activity; transportation of firearms that are broken down in a non-functioning state or are not immediately accessible, and transportation, carrying, or possession of a firearm which is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid FOID.

Under the Wildlife Code, it is unlawful to have or carry any firearm in or on any vehicle or conveyance unless unloaded and enclosed in a case.

Miscellaneous
It is unlawful for any person to store or leave a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a FOID is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is:

1. Secured by a device or mechanism, other than the firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable, or
2. Placed in a securely locked box or container, or

3. Placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor.

I obtained the information posted in my comments above via a Google search using the words ' Chicago murder rate ' and ' Chicago gun laws ' . I then subsituted ' Kentucky ' for ' Chicago ' and there wasn't very much information available considering the 2009 murder rate in Kentucky...a murder here...a murder there and that was about it. However considering the gun laws in the State of Kentucky, I found the following. I would suggest that eech person reading this article compare the gun laws and murder rates of Chicago and Kentucky...numbres don't lie.



Purchase
No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.
Residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky who are citizens of the United States shall have the right to purchase or otherwise acquire rifles, shotguns, handguns, and any other firearms which they are permitted to purchase or otherwise acquire under federal law and the Kentucky Revised Statutes from properly licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, or collectors, and unlicensed individual person in Kentucky or in any other state or nation outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.


Posession
No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

Carrying
It is unlawful to carry a concealed firearm on or about one's person. This applies to carrying a concealed firearm in one's own premises or dwelling.
Exempt from this prohibition are persons issued a license to carry concealed firearms, police officers, agents and messengers of express companies when on duty, and U.S. mail carriers on duty.

"Concealed on or about the person" has been recently defined as "concealment in such proximity to the person as to be convenient of access and within immediate physical reach."

Kentucky courts consider firearms located under a driver's seat concealed "on or about" the person, and are, therefore, unlawful. Firearms located in glove compartments, locked or unlocked, are not considered concealed.

The Department of Kentucky State Police shall issue a license to carry concealed firearms if the applicant:

Is a citizen of the United States who is a resident of this Commonwealth and has been a resident for 6 months or longer.

Is a citizen of the United States who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is on active duty, who is at the time of application assigned to a military posting in Kentucky, and who has been assigned to a posting in the Commonwealth for 6 months or longer immediately preceding the filing of the application.

Is at least 21 years of age.

Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to federal or state law.

Is not a fugitive from justice.

Is not under indictment for, or have been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Has not been adjudicated an incompetent and has not been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Has not been committed to a state or federal facility for the abuse of a controlled substance or been convicted of a misdemeanor relating to controlled substances within 3 years.

Does not have two or more convictions for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other substance which impairs driving ability within 3 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted.

Does not owe a child support arrearage which equals or exceeds the cumulative amount which would be owed after 1 year of nonpayment.

Has complied with any subpoena or warrant relating to child support or paternity proceedings.

Has not been convicted of a violation of Assault in the fourth degree or Terroristic Threatening in the third degree within the three 3 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted.

Demonstrates competence with a firearm by successful completion of a firearms safety course offered or approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Training.

The firearms safety course shall:
a) Be not more than 8 hours in length.
b) Include instruction on handguns, the safe use of handguns, the care and cleaning of handguns and handgun marksmanship principles.

c) Include actual range firing of a handgun in a safe manner and the firing of not more than 20 rounds at a full-size silhouette target, during which firing, not less than 11 rounds must hit the silhouette portion of the target.

d) Include information on and a copy of laws relating to possession and carrying of firearms and laws relating to the use of force.


The application shall be obtained from and submitted to the office of the sheriff in the county in which the applicant resides. The application fee is $60. The license is valid statewide for 5 years. The applicant shall submit a recent color photograph and a photocopy of a certificate of completion of a course that demonstrates competence with a firearm. The application will be sent to the Kentucky State Police within five working days.
The Department of Kentucky State Police shall, within 90 days, either issue a license or deny the application, in which case the applicant shall be informed in writing of the grounds for denial and his right to submit, within 30 days, documentation relating to the denial.

The applicant shall also be informed of the right to seek review of the denial in the District Court of his place of residence. The applicant shall further be informed of their right to seek de novo review of the denial in the District Court of his or her place of residence.

Effective July 12, 2006, U.S. citizenship is required to be eligible to obtain a CCDW license. A CCDW License Application- Citizenship Affidavit must be completed and submitted to the sheriff of your county of residence to be attached to the application.

The licensee shall carry the license at all times the licensee is carrying a concealed firearm or other deadly weapon.

As much as I personally hate guns and abhor gun violence, the first thing that occurred to me as I read this was how funny it was that you stated "a gun killed" and "a rifle killed" as though the guns themselves were the problem. In Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine he gave statistics showing how, for instance, Canada has a high ration of guns per capita but an incredibly low rate of gun violence. I don't think the guns, or gun control, is the problem. I think the problem lies within us, the American people.

Richard got it right.

There is no issue that points out the political divide in our country like the right to bear arms.

On one side are the liberals who want to control the lives of others because they believe their opinions are always "right", and opposing opinions are always "wrong". Their hubris allows them to believe that they can require all of us live as they do.

On the other side are the conservatives who, like the founders of our country, believe in personal freedom with accountability for one's actions. They believe that each person should have the freedom to realize his/her full potential without interference from others, either individually or through the power of government.

I predict that the current political divide will result in conflict because of the fundamental issues of human rights and liberty involved. I expect a revolution, perhaps during the Obama administration, that could be either peaceful or violent, depending on how hard the extreme left pushes their agenda.

Richard,
"however, guns don't kill, people do."

I say people WITH guns have a much higher success rate.

While a killer CAN use a bomb, or a knife... no school has been blown up by sick teens and no school save one has been attacked by a knife. That person stabbed one and cut another who subdued him. Certainly not death in the numbers we see when a gun is involved.

Randy W: your post explains a lot and not about guns. What twisted, fearful thinking. Maybe that explains why the conservatives are for spying on citizens, keeping lawful demonstrations behind chain link and barbed wire, torturing perceived by unproven "enemies" and the many other things done by the prior administration.

How sad to let fear take over one's life. Maybe you should turn off Limbaugh and Fox News for a while. Exercise your own brain rather than listening to brainless "entertainment" (I use the term lightly) These people are preaching a dangerous sermon.

The great loophole is what goes on at gun shows...

WOW - what a month.
I really hope that any illegal caught with a firearm is sent home immediately.
Do you know if they are?

"While a killer CAN use a bomb, or a knife... no school has been blown up by sick teens and no school save one has been attacked by a knife. That person stabbed one and cut another who subdued him. Certainly not death in the numbers we see when a gun is involved."

You must have forgotten about Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Now just how many people did they kill without guns?

Dave,

"The Associated Press reported that firearms had cause 53 mass deaths in the past month."

"53 mass deaths" . . . Is that different than 53 individual deaths?

Much different, John....There were likely over 1,000 total firearm deaths in that one month period, if it was an average month, and it seemed to be at least that. The "mass deaths" referred to mass killings only.

And incidentally, the 53 shootings recorded in Japan in 2006 were just that - shootings. They did not all necessarily result in deaths.

"And incidentally, the 53 shootings recorded in Japan in 2006 were just that - shootings. They did not all necessarily result in deaths. "

53 shootings in a country that has strict gun control is way too many.

If every gun on this planet, including firearms carried by the police and the milkitary, were destroyed. along with every evil person on the globe, I might buy into a gun ban. But you seem to live in some sort of mystical fairyland that doesn't actually exist except in a person's dreams.

I just have to ask since you wrote it in this particular manner...did those guns feel hate when they killed? Will they prosecuted under the pending hate crimes bill or do the states have such? Will current law allow the death penalty for those firearms?

In all cases, someone either deliberately or accidentally pulled a trigger but you write this as some deep piece on the dastardly firearm itself. You want more gun control, great...get like minded citizens and push for changes in the Constitution. Or like most things today, ignore the Constitution and declare this is an emergency and needs doing "for the people"

So take it to the marketplace of ideas, you have the media behind you and currently an administration little constrained by our system of law. Should be an easy fix though likely the backlash will be a far more bloody than the current problem. Crime sure as hell will jump if the population is disarmed but at least the accidental killings and those of passion (with firearms) will end.

for today's illusion, and others: The numbers I gave were 'made up.' However, they are a reasonable interpretation of the scholarly data that has been collected on this subject.

See this link: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Defensive use of firearms, especially those instances in which the firearm is NOT fired, is a problematic study--but, a reasonable estimate is somewhere between 400,000 and 2,500,000 instances occur each year.

I chose a nominal median--low, actually. As for the percentage of shootings, that number was derived from ball-parked estimates of these unshot numbers combined with CDC reporting of firearms injuries and deaths. Again, I chose to err on the conservative side--in reality, firearms are fired in self-defense much less than 5% of the self-defense presentations.

The real problem with diatribes like this post is that they not only conflate the tool with the action, but that they also do not differentiate the human behavior involved in the incident. IOW, how many of these shooters were in fact--simply, criminals--i.e., involved in criminal conduct? By now the Million Moron numbers about children have been well destroyed--many of the so-called youth were gang members, and at times the Million Morons have included 'children' not merely to the age of 21, but also to the age of 25.

Given the fact that Dave McGill is a former insurance company executive, it's easy to understand his bias--eliminating risk is desirable for profits. It also leads to well-written polemics such as this one. It generates adoring praise from like-minded individuals, but provides no substance for discussion, really.


BTW--I do not watch FOX news or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I am a reasonably-well-educated person with some conservative values and a strong commitment to liberal principles which should not be confused with the Democrat Party's 'liberalism.'

I used to vote for Hubert Humphrey--whose quote on the 2nd Amendment is this:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.,” said Humphrey to Guns Magazine (“Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns Magazine, Feb. 1960).

Jim H.

FWIW--how many of you have read or heard of the following news item about a personal defense situation in which a firearm was fired? It currently the hot item in gunny forums--and it apparently has made it to the front page of digg....

Here's the link: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

And, here's the text--

COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

TOM JONES: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader


Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.


How many of you had heard of this incident? It was reported on a week ago--on May 4, 2009.