Sunday, September 20, 2009

Gun Laws

Okay, I'm a big gun ban supporter, which is odd because I live in a red neck, gun loving state. And I also love the state I live in, even if it is what it is. It's like if your kid's a criminal. You still love them, even though they've made some bad mistakes. Recently, I heard about this (you'll see what I mean in a minute, but I thought instead of expressing this event with a CNN report, I could try the Daily Show once more.

And while I'm at it, I might as well bring up the law saying that you can bring a concealed loaded gun onto a national park. I don't care who you are, why would anyone need a loaded concealed gun on a national park? And don't say, "To protect myself from bears!" because that's what the park rangers are there for, and that still doesn't explain the concealed part of it. Tell me, why? I'm curious as to what people think.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Gun Show - Barrel Fever
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests


  1. I definitely agree. I can understand why some people support a few guns laws, even if I don't support them. Some laws passed are just so outrageous it is bizarre.

    That video was hilarous and made true points even through the humor.

  2. Gun bans are unconstitutional, as are things like licensing laws. The second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Infringed means reduced, restricted, violated. That doesn't leave much room for 'denial' of gun ownership.

    I am not sure what the motivation between the national parks law is- but the Constitution doesn't say anything about there being restrictions in national parks, or on public property.

  3. Yes, bu the constitution was written over 200 years ago. Things have changed a little. If they didn't, it would be a little freaky. But why not try befend the national parks bill? Try to convince me, I'm curious. Really.

  4. Alex, I really don't understand this attitude about the Constitution. It doesn't matter how old it is, it is applicable today as it was the day it was written. The only difference between us and the founders is that we have computers and iPods. Woopie.

    I really don't know enough about the parks bill to defend it, and I already stated my opinion above. Besides, I don't see the need to harp upon one thing like that.

  5. You misunderstand Liberty, Alex doesn't believe in upholding the Constitution (although you could never get him to admit it), he has made is quite clear that he believes it is an antiquated document that has little or no bearing in the modern world. Alex, like most liberals, sees America as a blank canvas to be changed into whatever he and his libby friends desire, regardless of the fact that it is (or was before they got to it) a magnificent piece of art already, and that their meddling is akin to attempting to re-draw the Mona Lisa OVER the original painting in Crayon.

    He does not believe that the MAJORITY of Americans who showed up in droves at the town hall meetings and in DC itself really matter, in fact, he believes they do not even exist.

    Alex, like ODP (Our Dear President) is in a happy little world of his own, where criminals obey gun laws, and will therefore be unable to hurt you when YOU obey said laws. He remains willfully ignorant of one of the primary reasons that The Second Amendment existed, so that if the government became oppressive, the people could rise up and OVERTHROW IT.

    The point is not “Why are they allowed to bring concealed guns into parks?” The question is “Why does that distinction need to be made in the first place?”

  6. One main reason for the concealed part of the law is that some folks, like you Alex, would likely be afraid of somebody with a gun.

    Park Rangers perform an important service, but they can't be everywhere at once. I have been in the back country of a national park and you can go days without seeing anyone.

    In addition to bears, youcould use a gun to defend yourself against another person.

    I would ask you Alex, why should we NOT have gun in the parks or anywhere else for that matter?

  7. Oh Einar, I understand Alex quite well. He and I have been over this turf what, three times now? XD

  8. We shouldn't because let's say you have a metally unstable person who carries a gun liscence, like the Washington sniper.He goes onto a national park carrying a concealed loaded gun. Security saw he had one at the front gate, but could do nothing about it but watch. Like you said, national parks are big places, and the park rangers can't be everywhere at once, so this fella (let's call him Steve) comes across Billy and his dad. Steve, already being unstable, decides to place a game and shoots them. Throughout the rest of the day, Steve walks around the park, shooting the innocent people he finds. By nigth fall, he has been caught, but he was already killed 5 people, and severely injured several more. This entire trajedy could have been prevented if the rangers could have taken away, or at least told him to show his gun. However, since this bill was passed, there is nothing they can do about it. Also, Einar, thank you for telling me how I think. I wasn't aware of how I think or what I'm like, so thank you for explaining it to me.

  9. Everything I stated was something you have claimed at one time or another, somewhere on Blogger, so don't act like I am getting inside your head, you TOLD us that is how you think, although not in the easy-to-read way I said it.

    You can talk all day about how things might have gone if we had better "Gun Control" laws, but two can play that game, I have read countless stories of people defending themselves either in their homes, or at work, sometimes with household weapons, sometimes with CONCEALED weapons. In fact, I have a friend who has had such an experience. However that will do nothing, you completely ignored my main point which was that you do not believe in upholding the constitution. You want the government to take away our guns regardless of whether or not we want it. And THAT, is not only wrong, unconstitutional, and just plain selfish, it is one of the first steps that a communist dictator-to-be takes when planning to take control of things. Which is EXACTLY why we are EXPLICITLY allowed to own and bear arms, as stated in the second amendment.

  10. Well that is just such a GREAT example Alex.

    Lets say this unstable person is interested in harming random people. Do you really think that eliminating gun ownership will stop him? No, unstable people will hurt people no matter what law you pass, because they disreguard the law (like the one about murder as you illustrated).

    The thing is, if Billy and his Dad hadn't been such good, law abiding citizens, they would have had the sense to have a gun to protect themselves from Steve. Unfortunately for them, some liberal idiot thought that outlawing guns would prevent such a tragedy. Steve was unstable, but not stupid, and security saw nothing. Currently, park rangers or any other law enforcement can disallow gun posession if they believe that the person with the gun is unstable.

    Just for the record, I am all for YOU not having a gun (if that is your choice).

  11. Einar...lets keep it simple and on topic. Stick with what is in your head (I wouldn't want you to get messed up trying to understand Alex's mentality....or lack of).

  12. Bard, all you did is fling insults and use invalid points. At least everyone else here is not doing that, but you have always made comments about my intelligence (or what you think of as lack of) and are always throwing up points that are things I would expect and not very original. I knew you would say "Billy and his dad should have had guns!" They shouldn't need to carry guns to protect themselves. And by outlawing ownership, even though it is not 100% pervention, it does help because that way you can get someone who on carrying, and stop what could have been a possible crime. And Einar, I did not say what you said I think, you just made far off assumptions based on what you think you know about me. Did anyone even watch the video? I thought it was pretty funny.

  13. What insult?

    The point of the video, as far as I am concerned, is that no harm is done when citizens carry weapons. There were people there with firearms (even the dreaded assalt rifle) and nobody got hurt....Hmmmm.

    At some point you will have to admit that, as YOU said, there are unstable people in the world, and passing laws doesn't change that. Restricting and prohibiting gun ownership ONLY causes the good folks to not be able to protect themselves. You want to trade the risk of some lunatic randomly killing people (if they are caught trying) for the ability of good people to protect thenselves when law enforcement can't.

  14. I watched it, might have found it funny as well, if not for the f-bomb (I do not expect ya'll to agree with me though, my dislike of cussing is a PERSONAL choice, not one I would expect others to entertain. I hold nothing against ya’ll if you disagree with this view.)
    Correct me if I am wrong (really) but was the point that it was ridiculous that they were bringing weapons to town hall meetings? If it was, I do not really agree, such demonstrations of rights are no different from the tea parties, Liberals, the people who champion socialist health care and currently have a monopoly on the system, also tend to believe guns should not remain in the hands of the people. Those men (and women too, if any one of those meetings was in my state) were simply protesting on a wider scale than the healthcare issue, they were saying that they did not want socialism, wanted to keep their guns, and did not appreciate the liberals trying to take them away.

    Will post more in a bit, sorry I am so slow.

  15. “Yes, but the constitution was written over 200 years ago. Things have changed a little.”

    Exhibit A: you have stated directly that you think the constitution is (or was) out-of-date, and you have quite clearly stated that you are for gun control, which is directly against the constitution.

    “And we need health reform. The majority of the country is in favor with that whether you like it or not.”

    Exhibit B: you claim that millions of people who are causing Obama’s ratings to sink, and SHOWING themselves both in DC and around the country at the town hall meetings are the MINORITY. I know there is no exact count of those at the meetings yet, but the fact that you are willing to ignore the many who have already been seen shows that you do not really care about what they want.
    You could quite easily say that we are doing the same thing by going against the obvious majority Obama had (otherwise how would he have gotten elected?) But again, ODP has already proved that he does not intend to keep many of his campaign promises, so I doubt that he really has as much of that majority now as he did then.

    “They shouldn't need to carry guns to protect themselves.”
    Exhibit C: Anyone who thinks that outlawing guns will keep criminals from getting them HAS to be living in their own little world, criminals are called such because they…break the law? All you would be doing is taking away people’s ability to defend themselves.

    I doubt that you will accept any of these explanations for my remarks, and I know that they ARE assumptions based on things you have said. These things were revealing (sometimes by your own admission) what you think, so thinking (no pun intended) that I was getting inside your head is an understandable reaction. However I am afraid that is not what I was trying to do, I was simply trying to give an accurate profile of “Alex so Far” for Liberty, which has now been proved unnecessary.

  16. You continue to frustrate me, but not, I think in the manner you might assume. On the one hand, such as in the case of your post on Professor Gates, you display clear thinking like that of any conservative, and in nearly half of your posts, you assume a friendly, nearly humble posture, making it much easier to debate with you.

    On the other half of your posts, you speak in an arrogant manner (in my opinion, perhaps not others) and refuse to debate at all, preferring to repeat the same argument over and over again, without addressing any of the questions or accusations made by those who are trying to discover the truth.

    You know what these things reveal about you?

    You are human, flawed, you make mistakes, but as is quite evident in my posts, and those of both of our friends, there is not one man currently alive who does not.
    I implore you now, to look beyond the small mistakes that give you an excuse to ignore the perhaps large value there might be to the posts of those you disagree with. To question BOTH sides, liberal or conservative. To attempt to learn the truth, rather than simply trying to win the argument.
    Debate with us, we may be wrong, you may be wrong, but neither of us will ever know unless we break our views down to some very simple things. A building analogy would work well here.

    Faith, Foundational: such as in God, the Bible, or Evolution, these things will not be compromised without a great deal of evidence, and many of our views rest on these. Many, but not all.

    Facts, Ground Floor: things that we believe simply are, due to the information we have, usually from outside sources, although occasionally from personal experience. We should find as many of these that we AGREE on, and use those as a starting point. Also, we should not challenge another’s fact unless we can PROVIDE clear evidence to prove their fact is wrong. If we cannot, then we must simply agree to disagree and move on.

    Personal Beliefs, Upper floor: these are similar to opinions, only stronger, based on the facts we believe we have, they are not so easily changed, but once the opinions and “false facts” are swept away, they are easier to consider.

    Opinions, The Roof: these are things that are formed from our experience in this world, many are simply half-digested ideas, and can easily be clarified through debate, these should be addressed first.

    The point in debating, Alex, is not to “win” the argument, by making personal attacks (as we BOTH have) but to state what you believe, figure out what you have in common, and work from there. Not only will this cause less and less confusion and frustration as we begin to see the things we agree on, but will provide some tangible progress, rather than a continual butting of heads.

    You have shown that you can do this outside a debate (when you were explaining your logic on your post about Gates, try to operate on those thoughts, rather than on feelings or emotions. Emotions are attention getters, nothing more, they do not define right or wrong.

    The result of doing this will be no means be total agreement, but we may end up agreeing on some things. I think that would be far more productive than simply stating our Faiths, which are foundational, and will not crack or change in the slightest without a massive upheaval that something as superficial as a blog is not likely to create.

    As I said before, we are human and make mistakes, I am sure I have made a few in this post, and you could quite easily pick them out, address them, and ignore the rest, feeling that you have won the argument, but this would serve no purpose. Instead, please look for you things that I got right, and address them, so that we can make progress towards Truth, which is the only reason to debate at all.

  17. Alex, Bard's point is valid. Let me present you with another hypothetical situation.

    Billy and his dad drive up to the state park gate. The people see they have a gun, but know the laws, and so do not confiscate it, assuming that Billy and his father are law abiding citizens (innocent until proven guilty), and have sense enough to know how to use, or not use, a gun.

    Steve drives up minutes later, and is also carrying a gun. Once again, the rangers assume he is innocent, according to the due process of law. They wave him through. Steve drives to acertain point, and gets out.

    He quickly comes upon Billy and his dad. Both have a pistol at their hips. Steve has, let's say, a 9mm rifle. He raises the gun- but Billy and his dad already have theirs pointed at him. Steve is, at this point, easily subdued, and they take him back to the ranger station. The situation is easily defused.

    Do you see now how gun ownership helps?

    Gun licensing and restrictions operate on one basic principle- guilty until proven innocent. This is so wrong. I'm sure you've heard that this country's law operate on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

    But by saying 'we should take all guns away because some people commit crimes with them!" you are in fact assuming guilt on the part of any gun owner. That is so against every tenet of our law, it doesn't even come close to anything vaguely resembling justice!

  18. Listen, this all started because I found a video that I found funny and interesting. I think it is not right that at least two guys were carrying automatic assault weapons at a Presidential rally and were anti-Obama. Although they might not be planning on assasinating him, it would be pretty easy for them to if they changed their minds. Maybe millions of people are, but we live in a country of 100s of millions of people, and the majroty does say we need reform, even if it's not the reofmr Obama's offering. I think that some parts of the constitution are a bit out of date, but that's why we have the repeals system. they also didn't have automatic weapons back then. And, many criminals at least pruchase their weapons legally, as it is harder to gain guns illegally. Plus, many crimes are comitted by perfectly sane people who have gun ownership and fall of the deep end. They shoot someone, when if they had not had a gun, they might have stopped to think it over.

  19. Alex, crime will happen. If someone wants to kill someone else, they will do it. You could kill President Obama with a well-thrown knife, or a bow and arrow. If someone really wants to assasinate him or anyone else, they will do so.

    I do not know how to get my point across to you. The Constitution is not 'out of date.' The founders placed no restraints on future technology- however, they did warn about future perversion of the Constitution's purpose. It is people with your mindset that are slowly ruining this country. I do not know how to make you see my point, and obviously, I am incapable of understanding your point since I firmly believe the Constitution is the most perfect document (besides the Bible) to everh ave been conceived.

  20. You see, that's where you're wrong. It's people like YOU who are strict constitutionalists that are leading us down the wrong path. And the problem is, is that it's like a blind game of follow the leader! What's you're plan for the future? do you have one? Do you think that we will be a conservative pro-life society that let's guns run rampant and has a captialist rules dog eat dog system? Trends working with generations have shown the most of the issues on the 'liberal agenda' will be successful going forward. I'm afraid this isn't a fight you can win. Going forward, things will change. people will wake up. They are already. People are taking a look around saying. Wait a minute! Aren't gays people too? Don't women have the right to their own bodies? Is this system working? The idea of gun bans is to make it harder for crime to prevail. It's not saying that crime will go away entirely, but it will most liekly become harder. And your whole idea of if everyone carried a gun there would be no crimes is ridiculous. I read your post where you talked about how Columbine wouldn't have happened because other kids would have had guns to disable the shooters. I got a good laugh out of that and forwarded it around, but I still found it impossible. That whole idea of society is ridiculous and unsafe.

  21. Let's try a differnt approach. We seem to get caught up in too many points at once, so here is one simple question.

    How will making gun ownership illegal reduce crime?

  22. Because although it will not completely prevent people from gaining guns, it will make it signifigantly harder. Plus, look at spur of the moment killings. Some has a legal gun, snaps, and kills someone. If they hadn't had the gun and snapped, they might have thought it through a bit more because they would not have had the means to commit the crime. It's all about making it harder to challege criminals. Plus, you can use it to sentence someone who cannot be found guilt for a murder they committed, you can instead use illegal possesion of arms as a sentence.

  23. "What's you're plan for the future? do you have one? Do you think that we will be a conservative pro-life society that let's guns run rampant and has a captialist rules dog eat dog system?"

    1. You know I am not Republican. 2. I am not pro-life. 3. I think you're misstating what I think.

    Constitutionalists believe in going back to the Constitution. The Constitution is the founding document of our country. What, the document that started it all is ruining our country?

    The founding fathers put gun ownership in there as a right for a reason. It is in the bill of rights- second in the bill of rights, might I add, only second after freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly. Obviously, they put no restrictions on this gun ownership.

    How many people own guns in the US? In 1997, there were 47 million households with guns, and 59 million adults owned at least one gun. I can assure you that not nearly that many shootings occurred. Not even close.

    And once again, we are back to the innocent until proven guilty issue. I explained this earlier, and you ignored it. You cannot automatically assume that someone is guilty merely because of some predetermined factor.

    To use one of your favorite analogies- it's like during the civil rights era. Black people were automatically assumed to be guilty of something, merely because of the color of their skin. This was not right, far from it, and the ordinary rule of law was suspended in some cases merely because of the defendant's skin color.

    This is called 'guilty until proven innocent'. It is the same thing you wish to claim about gun owners. If they have a gun OBVIOUSLY they must just be yankin' at the chain to commit some sorta' crime!!

    I remember that when I was 12, I engaged in this discussion with someone over the VT shooting. I remember I dug up several statstics, etc. I'll try to find them again.

  24. Black people didn't choose to be black, but gun owners choose to carrya concealed weapon. There is a difference. just because a lot of people own guns, less than 1/6, doesn't mean that some of those people shouldn't have guns. Plus, wasn't the Declaration of Independence the one that founded our country? Actually, before the constitution there was the articles of confederation.

  25. Making guns illegal would make some crimes less likely, while at the same time making other MORE likely.

    You think the vast majority of crimes are crimes of passion?!?!? I don't have any statistics on the breakdown of types of gun crime, but I have to believe that people snapping and shooting other because they have a concealed weapon handy in nowhere near the top.

    I admit that making guns illegal would reduce some type of gun crime...will you admit that it would make some type of gun crime more prevalent?

  26. Just curious, how would it make some crimes prevalent? I'd like to admit it, but I'm really not sure how.

  27. The Declaration of Indpendence declared the colonies' independence. It did not found anything. The Articles of Confederation only created a loose alliance with a weak congress that was subordinate to the states. That was why the Constitution came along. Perhaps you should study that period. It's quite interesting.

    Once again Alex, you are ignoring one of the major points of my comment. When you say 'gun owners will potentially kill someone,' you are assuming they are guilty, which is against every legal code we have in this country. You cannot do that. It is innocent until proven guilty.

  28. Alex - Just like you point out, law enforcement can't be everywhere. The crimes that would increase would be the ones that would have been prevented by good citizens making use of a gun to defend themselves.

    During the period of 1987-1992 82,000 people defended themselves from violent crimes using a firearm. This is according to a study done by U.S. Department of Justice. And before you try to say that most of those criminal would have been arrested before the crime took place just for having a gun, the study states, "In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with weapons other than firearms."

    That makes two points clear. First, were those people unarmed, certainly their success in self defense would have been diminished. Second, with the knowledge that few potential victims would be defending themselves with firearms; it seems safe to say there would be a loss of deterrence that likely prevents even the attempt of many crimes.

    Related to Liberties remark about assuming guilt…You, because of the liberty the Constitution protects, may assume anything you wish to (you have made great use of that liberty on this blog), but the judicial system may not do that as a matter of law.

    Excellent clarification on the function of our various founding documents Liberty!

  29. The Declaration of Independence actually did found our country, and the Articles of Confederation were the 'constitution' for awhile. But that's not important. Bard, I don't think that crime would really go up because people wouldn't have guns to defend themselves. I live in Atlanta which has unfortunately because a crime capital, but I don't need a gun at home.

  30. Alex, even for you, that is one of the lamest statements I have ever heard.

    Let me paraphrase what you just said in the context of this discussion:

    "Because I live in a major city that has a lot of crime, and I don't believe I need a gun at home, that proves that crime wouldn't go up anywhere in the country."

    Just because you have never needed a gun doesn’t mean you never will, 82,000 people did (and that is only the cases that were documented and part of this report).

    The using crime as a reason for gun ownership makes good sense, but is not related to the real reason for the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about preventing a tyrannical government from "changing" the foundational principles of liberty this nation was founded on.

    I bring up fact based studies that prove my point and you counter with "I don't have a gun so nobody should have one." How do you type your response with your fingers stuck in your ears screaming "Na na na na I can't hear you na na na na!"?

    Weak Alex, very weak.

  31. Where are your fact based studies? Saying this many people have a gun and this many crimes happened is not a study. And you made a HUGE paraphrase. But that's okay, because I wrote that comment in a hurry anyway. If you do not stop insulting me (that's lame even for you!) then I will start removing further comments. This is my blog put here because I like debating and discuss important issues, not insults. Take a chapter from Liberty and everyone else, you don't need to hurl mud to make your point.

  32. "This is according to a study done by U.S. Department of Justice." This was my fact based study, do you even read my post?

    I did not insult you, I shared my opinion of the quality of your post. I have read posts where you make sense, the one I was referring to was not one of them. If you made it in a hurry, fair enough, I have done the same, so sorry for slamming you.

    If you like to debate, then debate, but that is not the same as saying something like you said. There are some legitimate points that are logical on your side of the about make one.

  33. There you go again! "There are some legitimate points that are logical on your side of the debate . . . how about make one?" That's just rude. I know I do it too sometimes, but you just never stop! "I didn't insult you, I just shared the opinion of the quality of your posts!" Never heard that one before! Very clever! The point is, guns can be used to do more harm than good. Maybe in some cases they can do good, but you have to admit that there are quite a lot of cases where they can do far more harm.

  34. OK boys, lets break it up and get back to the subject. ;)

    Alex, the reason there is so much bad in the news about guns is that- guess what- only the bad stuff gets covered. They don't cover the good citizen who owns ten guns and has never committed a crime in his life; they cover the serial, insane megolomaniac who goes on a shooting spree.

    There will always be bad apples. But getting rid of the weapon will not solve the crime. If someone hates someone else enough to kill them, they will do it, regardless of whether we remove guns or no. I've seen videos of people who can throw knives with as much accuracy as others can shoot guns. It doesn't take much skill to pick up a rock and fatally injure someone. For that matter, poision darts in a blow gun can be fatal if aimed correctly!

    My point is that guns are not the culprit. People are the culprit. People are going to do wrong, no matter what you remove. How about we just remove people and solve the problem completely? Because that is the only way you will ever remove crime.

    Bard has given information and studies, as I have I, about the 'gun problem'. I have yet to see any concrete evidence on your side. If you have, and I have misread it, please show me where it is. Otherwise, I'll have to think you just don't have any evidence beyond your opinion.


  36. People are the culprit, guns a re the accessory. It would still benefit the country's crime rate, in my opinion, if we had stronger gun laws, that's all. It's basic logic. i'm not saying it will solve crime, but it will pose as a barricade.

  37. By the way, no comments on the AIDS post? The one thing that I thought might bring us together is over looked? Common guys!

  38. But Alex, you are overlooking the main point which I have made twice now.

    By assuming that people with guns will harm others, you are assuming they are guilty. That is against our legal code.

    Our Constitution also gives the right for anyone to carry a gun.

    If you want to stop gun crime, we could institute a thought police system. Because that is what you are going to need.

  39. Okay look, I know I am assuming they're guilty, but they are making the conscious descion to carry gun. Right now, congress passed a bill saying that amtrak would not get it's funding unless they allowed people to carry handguns. I don't want to ride amtrak knowing that someone on board could be carrying a handgun and also be dangerous. That's just me. And don't say I should just carry a gun, because in our society I shouldn't have to carry a gun around with me to feel safe.

  40. Well, that's your problem.

    I live in Texas. A large proportion of our population carries guns. I don't even think about it most of the time. My grandfather owns eight guns he keeps in his bedroom. (He may have more, I dunno.) My dad has a gun. (It really doesn't work that well, but hey, it counts.)

    You cannot simply assume that all people with a gun are a menace to society. If you don't feel safe with gun owners, well, that's your problem. We cannot sacrifice the rights of an entire nation just to make a couple people feel good about themselves because they're insecure.

  41. Liberty is right, feeling safe for you is feeling less safe for many others (including myself). Why should I be forced to give up a right protected by the 2nd amendment ("... shall not be infringed.") just so you can feel safe on a train?

    You know, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, should we have Amtrak disallow box cutters on the train to (probably have)?

    In a special report by the Justice Dept. on Weapon use and violent crime from 1993 - 2001 it was found that Serious injury in violent crimes was broken down as such:

    Firearms - 13%
    Knife/Sharp obj. - 24%
    Blunt Obj. - 20%
    No Weapon - 37%
    Unknown - 6%

    So if the formula is to remove the weapon that causes the crime, how are you going to deal with knives, blunt obj., and no weapon crimes which make up 87%?

    Also, 1% of offenses were thwarted using a firearm. That might not seem like much, but to those 889,646 people in this report, it mattered.

    Guns are not the problem and banning them is not the solution.

  42. Let's just ban people. We'd take care of all crime in one fell swoop.

  43. Some people have to remain to enforce the ban...I volunteer....oh, and I will need a gun to do it. >:)

  44. Guns are not murders, but accessories. It's not about eliminating crime, it's about making it harder for it to happen.

  45. Guns are tools, they function with the intent of the one using them. People with murderous intent will find a tool no matter what you ban. Murder is not a crime of convenience, so "...making it harder..." is not an effective solution.

    If you were talking about banning coffee stirs for some effort to reduce crime, I might say, "Well, that won't work, but whatever." I can't do that with guns, you are talking something that the founders of the nation thought were important enough to create the second amendment.

  46. Alex, Bard posted stats that show that guns are actually rather far down the list of weapon-of-choice for a homicide. Usually, they just strangle the person, or use a knife. That's what I'd use- it's quiet, less chance of being heard, and harder to trace. (I doubt anybody seriously monitors the number of steak knives bought a year)...