ok, of late there have been discussions on abortion and the death penalty and i thought why not give the issue of guns (lovely lovely guns!) a go?

to start off, i am very much pro gun. i don't believe in any restrictions (except for no guns to criminals guilty of crimes of a serious nature). whether it be a weak .22, a powerful bolt action rifle, an assault rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or even a machine gun, if you want it, i want you to have it.

no registration or licensing, they only lead to confiscation as britain, australia and some areas of america have found out.

what are other people's opinions of guns?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Answers

Don't want them; don't need them. Get rid of them all, I say. Mind you, up here in Canada they're much less of an issue than they are south of the 49th parallel. We have a national gun registry going into full effect by the end of this year, in which all gun owners must register their firearms with the federal government. There's some carping about it out in Alberta from the big game hunter contingent, but I'd say 90% of the population is all for it. (Sport hunting; there's another noble cause.)

I would say the gun culture of the USA as a whole is rooted very much in the history of your nation. The States was borne in violence, has gone through tremendous expansion by forecefully knuckling others under and has had one of the bloodiest wars in history take place in its own front yard. You've even added an amendment to your nations constitution in this regard, for criminys sake.

The key to all this is that this entire gun-toting mentality should be buried in history along with all these past events. Still, it's human nature to NOT learn from our past and keep repeating the same gaffes as we progress through time.

Guns, begone!

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

In England the police doesn't wear guns anymore and since they stopped wearing them the violence against police officers has gone down.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

I dunno, Rob. I'm not as big a fan of guns as Ashley appears to be, but I think maybe your assessment of the USA is unduly harsh.

You write:

"I would say the gun culture of the USA as a whole is rooted very much in the history of your nation. The States was borne in violence, has gone through tremendous expansion by forcefully knuckling others under and has had one of the bloodiest wars in history take place in its own front yard."

1.) (assuming you mean "born" rather than "borne") I guess the USA was born in violence, in the sense that it had to fight for its independence rather than being content to wait a couple of hundred more years for Britain to voluntarily release it from colonial obligations that it saw as being unreasonable. On the other hand, I'd argue that most countries have had to fight wars at some point early on in their history, either to gain or assure their independence, so that doesn't make the USA particularly unique.

2.) I don't think there was anything particularly unique about the USA's means of expansion, since the same thing was going on everywhere else in the globe during the 19th century.

3.) The Civil War was almost 150 years ago. Moreover, since then there's been a notable paucity of wars fought on American soil. I'm not sure that that's adding a whole lot to any modern gun culture.

I think you're probably right as far as it goes in saying that the gun laws are rooted very much in the history of the nation, but not that any of the examples you cited have much impact on modern opinions on gun control, or lack therof. I don't think that fighting wars, expanding through violent measures or having an internal conflict make the United States particularly unique among the world's nations. Great Britain, for example, has done all three (albeit over a longer period of time), and their gun laws are radically different.

I think it comes down to the fact that guns have always been legal in the United States. The country's founding fathers were distrustful of a strong, aloof, national government, and that condition has persisted to the present day (at least if you listen to Rush on AM radio). Guns have always been legal, and as you said, there's a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing that right. Because of that, it would be tremendously unpopular to make firearms illegal, or have too strenuous of a registration process.

My perspective is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. There's no way that there's enough support to make guns illegal, and since making gun ownership illegal would be both unconstitutional and (IMO) unpopular, that will remain legal. I wish the existing laws requiring background checks and the like were better enforced (I think that could make a real difference), that there were more additions like gun locks to make their use by unauthorized (or underage) users impossible, and that parents thought long and hard before bringing a gun into the house where children could access it. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done.

For the record, I don't own any guns, and have no plans to do so. But I'm happy I have the right to purchase one should I choose to do so.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

I can't for the life of me understand why you want or need the right to have easy access to guns. Don't those school shootings teach the USA anything? That kind of stuff doesn't seem to happen anywhere else.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Sus, hasn't the number of crimes gone up? I recently heard an NPR piece on the proliferation of crime in England and they interviewed Britains who were pushing for re-arming the force. Evidently, and surprisingly, the criminals are beginning to use guns there more frequently and not obeying the law!

Mind y'all. I'm no NRA person, nor do I own a gun, nor have I ever hunted. I did fire my step-granddaddy's .22 a few times 15 years ago. However, I do believe that laws only affect those who MIND them. There are so many guns out there already, I feel that I have the right to obtain one if I need/want to.

Lastly, I HATE government intrusion.

There are more people killed because of sex (abortion/stds/aids), fastfood, cars, cigs, and alcohol each year than are killed by guns in the US. We probably should ban those items first, I guess.

However, I have to disagree one one point. Assault weapons seem to be a bit much in my opnion. How many times does someone have to defend themselves from an Army? Those things need to at least be registered or something in my opinion.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

The problem with trying to limit easy access to guns is that most of the horrific crimes you hear about, and most of the everyday shootings and killings (sad, that they're not horrific...) are done with guns which people have owned for months or years. It's not often that we hear of somebody deciding to go kill people, buy a gun and start shooting. When it is an impulse purchase, the guns are probably not bought from sporting good stores. What would-be murder in his right mind is going to use a gun he's got registered in his name to commit the murder? He's going to go buy a Saturday Night Special.

I agree that too many people are being shot, and too many of them are cops and victims of domestic violence, but limiting access to guns for people who want to use them for home defense or hunting makes about as much sense as Germany putting dogs to sleep because their drug-dealer owners train them as attack dogs and then take them for walks without a leash.

Anybody got any numbers for crime in that town in Texas where gun ownership is mandatory?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

More Guns, Less Crime

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

first, just want to clarify that i am australian, not american. i don't own a firearm either, although i am engaged in that process at the moment. after the massive knee jerk reaction to the port arthur massacre here in australia 4 years ago the gun laws have become very draconian. all semi-automatic weapons, along with pump action shotguns have been made illegal. so target shooters, hunters and responsible citizens have been made to hand in their firearms. have to love shortsighted, narrow minded knee jerk reactions.

i don't know about crime in the town in texas where gun ownership is mandatory. but follow this link and i think you'll see some interesting figures.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Hi Mike -

First off, it's Ron, not Rob. :-)

Secondly, I was speaking in very general terms; a forum such as this can be limiting at times when it comes to expressing details. I wasn't intentionally trying to sound harsh; apols. if it came across that way. As for 'borne', that was a typo.

Perhaps it's that whole 'right to bear arms' thing that's the crux of the issue, as you've said. There's a whole grey area of right vs. priviledge that we could delve into; ones drivers license is a good example. We don't have the automatic right to drove a car; we have go through a series of tests to earn our license, then pay insurance on any vehicle we purchase. If that same mindset were applied to gun ownership, then maybe that would be a means to remedy things.

Mind you, given the way most people in Toronto drive, you can toss my whole argument right out the window. :-)

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Ashley, I read the link you just posted, and it's an insult to anyone who knows anything about statistics!

The town described is a rural community of 13,000 residents, so "only" having 3 murders per year is hardly an accomplishment (the town where I grew up has 35,000 residents and hasn't had a murder in years). In light of this fact, their statement that violent crime decreased by 75% in one year could easily be a statistically insignificant fluctuation.

I haven't read the Lott book, so I can't comment on the validity of that research. But even if concealed weapons did decrease crime, there are many other factors to consider, such as accidental gun deaths in those communities. I, personally, would rather be raped and murdered ten times over than face the guilt of accidentally shooting a child.

In addition, not everyone is able to use a gun (small children, the blind, the infirm)...wouldn't they be singled out as targets under this system?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Oops, I misread the statistic about the murders--three over the time period studied and not three per year. But even so, I don't think this is unusual for a small town.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Jen, there have only been three murders in the EIGHTEEN YEARS since the law came in. one in 1984, one in 1987 (both with knives) and the last in 1997 (with a gun).

your post was an insult to anyone who knows anything about reading comprehension ;)

you might prefer to be raped and murdered ten times over than face the guilt of killing a child, but shouldn't that be upto each individual to decide?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Well, i'm strongly pro-gun too. I don't own one, but that doesn't mean the right to do so should be abridged. When you wade past the general politicking crap and look at the cold, hard facts, the anti-gun position simply doesn't pass the acid test.

I'd recommend people go take a look at the studies of people like the esteemed professors Dr. Lott (aformentioned by Jim) and Dr. Kleck (who freely admits he is an otherwise card carrying ACLU member and all around liberal Democrat), or at the Uniform Crime Reports made up by the FBI. The vast majority of firearms in America are never used in the commission of any crime, and many are used in a defensive manner. Also, in states with concealed carry laws, crime goes down an average of about 30%.

I can understand why people take the anti-gun position though, it seems sensible on it's face, although once you look at the issue more througly, it becomes more and more clearer the problems the anti-gun position has.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Ashley wrote:

Jen, there have only been three murders in the EIGHTEEN YEARS since the law came in. one in 1984, one in 1987 (both with knives) and the last in 1997 (with a gun). Yes, and if anything, I think that's somewhat high for a town which had a population ranging from 5,000-13,000 over that time. The page also fails to mention that a population boom such as that one probably indicates economic growth, which is STRONGLY associated with reduced crime rates, independent of gun laws.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

I grew up in the Maine woods, in a small town where almost every family had a hunting weapon or two. Many of my friends' families had very low cash incomes, and a fair amount of the protein in their diet came from rabbit and small game (everyone hoped for lots of venison, of course). The only handguns I ever saw belonged to law enforcement people. Back then, my attitude was that there shouldn't be any restriction on firearms.

Now that I am a city boy, guns terrify me. Shortly after I moved to New York, my wife and I were walking down Fifth Avenue when I spotted a concealed handgun on a man walking in our general direction. It occurred to me how helpless we would be if he had any evil intent. I have felt that on several occasions since then.

The only two solutions to the problem are to get a gun myself or to restrict them as much as possible. If I argue in favor of arming myself, I have to argue in favor of arming all of my fellow citizens -- including a lot of people whom I regret having cars, let alone guns. I just don't think universal gun ownership is practical for the millions who live and work in New York, where the culture is in-your-face at the best of times. So, I have reluctantly become an advocate of a complete handgun ban.

I still feel different about rifles and shotguns. They are difficult to conceal, used in many fewer crimes, and as I said earlier there are some people who rely on their guns for food. I do think that the law should require long guns to be made safer. The US already restricts shotguns to having small magazines -- I think three or four rounds -- and could do the same with rifles, without disadvantaging hunters too much. Game does not often stand still under fire, so you get a very few shots per animal. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Of course, how you get around the Second Amendment I don't know.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Ron-

That'll teach me to post before the morning coffee has taken effect. Sincere and humble apologies for the misattribution, especially since I think I've done it before.

I like the car comparison. To drive a car in Maryland (where I'm still registered, so I'd appreciate it if nobody alerted the Virginia authorities of my new address), you have to pass a written test that shows you know the rules of the road, and a driving test that proves you can drive a car in a reasonably safe and lawful manner. That seems like a reasonable standard for guns -- except that people would argue over what the standards of the tests should be, who should administer them, and all the random details that would probably doom the idea before it got off the ground.

And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily solve the problems of the school shootings. Aren't there a lot of drunk-driving accidents caused by people driving with suspended licenses (or none at all), much like these school shootings were undertaken by people with guns they weren't permitted to use (at least, I assume that's the case).

In both cases, it's critical not to allow people access to instruments of destruction who aren't legally permitted to use them. I think the laws are mostly there -- they just need to be enforced.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Under our present system, plenty of people who by all rights should not have legal access to guns still do so. This is an e-mail I received two months ago following an alarming incident in the office where my graduate program is administered (I go there once a week or so). The e-mail is quoted verbatim, although I have abbreviated the names and omitted some identifying details:

"This past Tuesday afternoon, a temporary employee in the Physiology Department named C. (who had been assisting Cindy K. for several days) began to behave quite inappropriately, talking under his breath and moving strangely. The temporary agency that employs him was told that his services would not be needed after the end of the day on Tuesday. Later that afternoon, C. disappeared for some time, confided in Lauren M. and Cindy that he was afflicted with demons, and he began to talk with people who were not there. Some of the statements made to Lauren and Cindy could in retrospect be thought to be threatening.

After talking to me near the end of the day, Cindy and Lauren talked to some of our psychiatry faculty, who arranged for the psychiatry resident on call to meet C. in the Emergency Ward. When arrangements for the psych resident were made, Michael N. began to escort C. down to meet him. C. ran off, and we informed the medical center security people, who had already heard that someone was walking through the hospital and was acting bizarre. After being lost and found twice, C. was finally spotted by Lauren near the elevators in Millberry, and she persuaded him to accompany her back to the Emergency Ward, where he fell on the floor shouting and was detained by psychiatric and security staff.

When the psychiatric nurses were looking through his possessions for family contact information, they discovered a loaded gun and an extra clip of ammunition. C. was kept at the UC Medical Center until the middle of the night, when he was taken away by the Police. Apparently, during the time he disappeared from the Physiology Department, he had been trying to get an appointment with the Chair of another department where he had worked for several months as a chair's assistant.

Since he was taken away, we have learned that C. apparently has no criminal record and had owned the gun for about 2 years. We are now told that he will be held in a maximum security psychiatric cell until at least June 6. We also learned that carrying a concealed firearm is a felony in California, with greater penalties for doing so on University grounds. It is not clear what will happen after June 6, and it is possible that C. might be released on his own recognizance at that time. We will inform the Physiology Department staff members who work in (room number) immediately during working hours when we hear about his release, and the Police promise to keep us posted.

I would like to express the gratitude we all feel to Cindy and Lauren for the compassion and courage that they showed in getting psychiatric help for this man, who appeared to be very ill. One can only worry about what might have happened if armed Police has shown up to take him away from our Department office.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Mike - No worries; we've all been in that pre-coffee phase, I'm sure.

Rights licenses and such issues aside, the primary question about guns I've always had is this:

Why would I need one?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Why would I need one?

maybe you don't need a gun. but why do you need a computer, bicycle, fishing rod, surf board, ice skates, etc?

for many people target shooting/hunting is a hobby they enjoy. just as a person who goes fishing has a fishing rod, a hunter/target shooter has a rifle or shotgun. or maybe they have the weapon for home defense. its no different to any other tool. it has its purposes, and a great majority of the time is used legally and without incident.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Actually there's a huge difference between a gun and any other tool. A gun is designed to kill, be it animals, people or flying targets.

Home defense - assuming the gun owner is responsible, the weapon is locked away in a cabinet, unloaded. How is this going to help someone defend their home? Alternately, leaving a loaded weapon "lying around" in the remote chance someone tries to break in leads to so many more potential problems. I don't buy it, sorry.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Why would I need one?

Personal protection. You may not feel this need, but many do, and with good reason.

I'll refer ya'll to Dr. Lott's book for the numbers, but our experience in Texas strongly indicates that when more law-bidding citizens carry guns, then there is less crime. Fewer people die from violence.

For most of the history of Texas it has been illegal to carry a concealed weapon. About 4 years ago Texas adopted a concealed carry law. If a Texan can pass a background check and a course on safety and the law of firearms, then he or she can carry a concealed handgun.

When this law was passed the Molly Ivins of the world went wild, predicting chaos in the streets. They predicted that gun-crazed Texans would immediately begin mowing down their friends and neighbors. Every fender bender was expected to result in a shootout.

The liberals were totally wrong. As usual they way underestimated the intelligence and good judgement of the average citizen. The people with concealed carry permits turned out to be far more law- abidding than the general population. No one has been shot as a result of a fender bender.

A number of permit holders have successfully defended themselves against attack (many permit holders have jobs that place them at higher risk than the general population).

The last session of the legislature (they only meet every other year) expanded the concealed carry law, and I expect they will do so again. It's a good law.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Personal protection? From what exactly?

I live in Canada, where the vast majority of folks don't own or carry guns. Our crime rate has always been much lower than that of the USA. I think to a certain extent that negates your more guns = less crime argument. If you want to look at our crime rate statistics over the last few years, then have a look at the subpages at http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/justic.htm

I'm not saying we're crime-free; that's an impossiblity given human nature. What I'm trying to say is that it all goes back to the whole national mentality argument that I didn't present as succinctly as I wanted to in my original post. The USA is inherently more violent than other western nations, be it from cultural, historical or constitutional (or all 3) origins.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

I'm very much against guns. I don't understand why anyone needs one. If they can prove they need one, they should be licenced and regulated like cars and other deadly equipment. I think confiscation is a good idea.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

I think that all guns should be made huge, heavy, and really hard to load. Like muskets, but bigger. I'd like to see gang members carrying two or three big-ass muskets around. And as far as self- defense goes, hell, you could tackle somebody before they got one of those things loaded.

There's my solution to the gun control problem, right there.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Ron, no one is saying you need to have a gun for personal protection. but in what way don't you buy that personal protection is a legitimate reason for posession? you can buy small safes that fit nicely next to your bed. with special hand grooves on the top they can be opened easily within five seconds in the dark. remove gun, load ammunition. all done in 8 to 10 seconds. not very difficult.

you say that guns are DESIGNED to KILL people/animals/things. look at the USAGE of guns. how many are used to kill? very few. some guns are designed to kill, some aren't. again, what are they used for? target shooting, hunting and in unfortunate (for the person defending themselves) cases self defence. the majority fit in the first category, then the second and third. so yes, the mortality rate for targets at rifle ranges is rather high.

when it comes to guns and hunting animals, how is this a bad thing? i just spent 22 months in canada. i ate some delicious moose meat that a friend killed a few days before while hunting. tasty stuff! unless you are a vegan who doesn't wear leather or use fossil fuels you probably shouldn't slam hunters and their guns because it's not a "noble cause."

you are right when you say america is inherently more violent than canada. what does this have to do with guns? guns don't create the violence. you are making links that don't exist. there are many millions of guns in canada. switzerland has the highest rate of gun owndership in the world (its mandatory). crime rates so low as almost to be negligble. japan, almost no guns, almost no violent crime. the guns don't create the crime. this is another myth created by the media and people who look on the surface and don't do research.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

"Our crime rate has always been much lower than that of the USA..."

There are couple of non-gun related reasons for that. I haven't lived in Canada, but I have lived in England and I know that people there have a lot less freedom than we do in the States. That's probablly a contributing factor.

Canada's culture is more homogonous and a lot of people in Canada work to keep it that way. That's probablly a contributing factor.

As Dr. Lott points out, pointing to other countries gun control policies isn't really very helpful to us in the United States, it's just too hard to normalize the data.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Fair enough re: the small safes for the bedside - I wasn't aware that such a beast exists. I'll defer to your point there.

I agree that guns don't create the crime - people do. However, these people do use the guns to commit the crimes, which is why gun control and responsible gun ownership need to be properly enforced. The easy availability of the guns makes committing the crimes that much simpler.

The hunting issue is food for another discussion entirely, guns or no guns, so I'd be willing to agree to disagree on it and let that part be as is.

As for America being more violent and how it relates to guns; unless I'm otherwise mistaken, the USA is the only country in the world where its citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms. That alone ties guns in with the society argument. The link exists.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Actually Jim, Canada is the most culturally diverse nation in the world. We are anything but homogenous. I think the only Canadians that are working to be homogenous are the separatists in Quebec.

As for the level of freedom one country has vs. another, I'd say that's all a matter of perspective and what one is used to. For example,I could argue that I have more freedom in Canada than in the US on the basis of our universal health care system; that I can walk into any hospital in the country and receive treatment without having to worry about how I'm going to pay for it. (I'm talking in generalities again, btw. There are many flaws currently in our health care system that need some fixing up.)

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

i don't know about crime in the town in texas where gun ownership is mandatory. but follow this link and i think you'll see some interesting figures.

Gun ownership in Texas isn't manditory (I live in Houston, have for 20 years, I know) – in fact, there is a whole group against it. Personally, I think our law makes us look like uneducated, white- trash hicks who haven't moved into society since the 1800's where you *needed* a gun.

While I'm writing... You register a freaking car in the U.S. and a car's purpose is NOT to kill or do harm. Yet you won't register a gun? Come on. Grow up. Move into reality and stopped being paranoid.

P.S. And in Texas, you have to have a concealed weapon's liscense to carry the gun - And in order to get that, you have to go through a background check, criminal history, AND training. Manditory.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

They were talking about one particular town, grace, that does exist.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

An important point to remember about comparing gun registration with buying a car is that you don't have to have a license to buy a car-- you just have to have money. You don't even have to know how to drive.

I would rather see penalties for using a gun without the skill to operate it properly, rather than for owning a gun which the government doesn't know about. If they don't care if I paid my uncle 500 bucks for his beat up chevy that's sitting out in my back yard for the next two years while I rebuild it, why should they care if I have a rifle I got from that same uncle, so long as I have no ammo for it and will never use it?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

There's a town here that required you to own a gun!!!! That's nuts! Where?!

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Perhaps our government could flood the illegal market with defective guns, i.e., guns that work properly for a limited time, then jam due to part of the mechanism breaking. (oh, internal hairline cracks manufactured in, or poor metal composite in the trigger mechanism)

These guns would be indistinguishable from other guns (I doubt even a trained Radiologist could see tiny internal cracks with an x-ray, but anyway...)

It would be illegal to buy or sell these guns so they would never legally fall into the hands of law abiding citizens, and criminals would be unable to verify whether they got a good gun or a bad gun when acquiring one illegally. So, at their peril, they could be depending on a gun to fire, and all would fail without warning at some point.

Of course, some liability law disclaiming all responsibility would have to be written to excuse lawsuits of any kind for illegal gun use injury.

I'm not sure if such a program is really feasible -- just an idea.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

...well to clarify, I don't mean guns that blow up, just jam.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

While I'm writing... You register a freaking car in the U.S. and a car's purpose is NOT to kill or do harm. Yet you won't register a gun? Come on. Grow up. Move into reality and stopped being paranoid.

it isn't paranoid at all to not want to register a gun. registration does lead to confiscation. in the last five years england and australia have confiscated guns. how? they outlawed certain types of guns. then people were told we know who has what through the gun registry and you have a certain period of time to hand in those guns. after that your considered a criminal, and we will come after you. this did happen in australia and england and it has happened in certain areas of the united states. other countries have used gun registration for just the same purpose.

when comparing cars and guns. first as someone said you don't need a license to buy a car. but more importantly there is no real movement to ban cars. it wouldn't be politically beneficial. when it comes to guns some politicians know its popular to be anti-gun. ban a few guns and all the soccer mums will feel safer that all those nasty rednecks and gang bangers wont be running around with their "assault weapons" (a non existent category of gun).

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

The "you register your car, why not your gun" argument is a bogus strawman.

The fact is that if you have a car that you keep on your own property, or that you tow on a trailer when you travel, then YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER IT.

The same applies to guns in most parts of the United States outside of the crime ridden cities of the Northeast.

In Texas if you want to keep a gun on private property, or carry it between counties in the trunk of your car then that's fine. If you want to carry a gun in your pocket, you have to be checked, trained, and licensed. The emphasis is on the human, not the inanimate object.

It's a good law, and one of the many reasons why Texas is such a popular place to live.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

The fact that car registration is required for use but not for purchase of a car is in no way central to the debate.

You don't have to register a car when you buy it, but practically everyone does (although I have heard that in Texas and certain other states, cars are propped up on cement blocks and used as lawn ornaments (har, har)). It's really inconvenient getting a car to your house if you can't drive it. If there were a significant number of people purchasing cars and then not using them, then I'm sure the registration requirement would be shifted to the point of sale. As it is, it's relatively easy to enforce registration laws, as cars are almost always driven in public places (i.e. roads).

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Okay... if you're going to say that registering guns is manditory, then *BEFORE* you make people register when the program is launched, you determine what is and isn't okay. Semi-automatic, not okay. Hand gun, okay.

This, however, does nothing to track guns that aren't registerable before the law, does it. Grandfather them. You aren't allowed to sell, but if you can prove you owned the gun before thus and such date, it is okay, as long as the gun isn't found because of the commission of a crime (other than owning a gun - robbery for example.)

Then have gun manufacturers implement a tracking system, again, to use the car analogy, like cars and VINs... All guns manufactured after the date of the law have to be tracked.

It isn't the best solution - I'm willing to listen to other options, but I think a middle ground should be explored.

Does anyone have thoughts on the 2nd Amendment? I've heard that arguement about "keep and bear arms" wasn't the intention of the founding fathers... I haven't studies it in depth, but if ya'll would like to enlighten me, I think understanding the arguements would help me.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

"lovely lovely guns" was meant as a shot at people who like to portray guns as somehow being evil, as if the guns themselves had an intent to take a course of action (ie, the usual bogus claim that guns are designed to KILL).

i've never owned, touched or shot a gun, so the fetish thing is irrelevant (although, as with any object i'm sure this is the case for a very small segment of people).

people that defend gun ownership passionately generally do so because they either enjoy shooting/hunting and wish to continue doing so, or wish to maintain the right to do so at a future date. it has nothing to do with a fetish.

if a significant segment of society started demanding computer control, i imagine many on this forum would be defensive and demanding the right to keep using their computers. i have a feeling this would be because of an unusual fetish for hard drives and 17" monitors.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Ok, you're off the hook. (but only you)

Since I don't find the 2nd Amendment particularly holy (and why should I), I look for another rationale to explain the fervor I see for gun ownership.

In a nation with the most sophisticated weapons on earth this right is antiquated as a means to resist a tyrannical government, if that was indeed its purpose.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I should say "for gun ownership in the states." I don't know if there is fervor in other places or not.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I wouldn't want a gun because I know I would use it and do something completely and horribly wrong. Simple as that.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Another reason why we need to get more efficient gun control:

http://thestar.ca/editorial/updates/top/20000720NEW01b_CI-SHOOT.ht ml

Granted, the 19 year old was probably carrying a black market weapon, but you have to start somewhere with these things. I agree Ashley that the violence in this incident was bred of the two participants, but if the shooter didn't have a sawed off shotgun in his backpack we wouldn't have to deal with the escalation of this incident from a scuffle to attempted murder.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

as i said earlier in this thread, i lived in ottawa, canada for the last couple years. one evening i was walking past the rideau center (right in the middle of downtown, about 300 meters from parliament). and on the sidewalk was a man who had been stabbed to death a few minutes earlier.

stabbing and shooting alternate as the most common method of murder in canada each year. in 1998 there were 184 stabbing murders, 151 shooting, 126 beating and about 94 from other causes. the year before guns were used in slightly more murders than knives. beating is right up there as well. these figures are from the statistics canada link you provided earlier.

that case you mentioned is sad, but he could have been stabbed or beaten. the knife, gun or fist are the tool used, not the reason.

in light of the statistics why don't we ban knives? afterall they are made to cause destruction. that sounds like a pretty silly suggestion as most people use them in a non violent manner. they are seen as nothing more than a tool. firearms nicely fit in the same category. the only difference being that many people's contact with firearms is limited to what they see in movies or on tv, where guns are usually shown being used to shoot people.

another interesting statistic is that the majority of people murdered in canada are killed in their own homes. having a gun in your home might not save you, but it also might. i'd prefer not to rely on the fact that the criminal has only theft, and not murder on their mind.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Yes, he could have been stabbed or beaten; I'll agree to that. My point is that having the gun gave him an easy out of the situation where he could feel that he was the victor. A hidden knife or machete would have done the same thing.

Perhaps my original "get rid of them all" was a bit too blunt and incorrectly coloured my viewpoint. I think we're likely both the same side of the page, just having gotten off on the wrong footing. Let me redraw my p.o.v.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with owning a weapon of lethal force. I believe a system of educating people on the proper use and storage of weapons combined with a national registry of all such weapons would be extremely beneficial. I do not believe that it is one's birthright to bear arms; it is a priviledge that one must earn akin to earning a drivers license. I beleive there should be a limit on the number and calibre of weapons that one can possess. I also believe that if someone is convicted of a felony where the use of such a weapon is involved then they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I hope that clarifies my feelings on the matter. Having taken the time to think it out, I notice my original post to this thread was rather kneejerk in tone. Consequently, most of the posts I've been involved in have been tainted by my own original misrepresentation.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

One more quick clarification; when I refer to the maximum extent of the law, I mean Canadian law. We do not have capital punishment in Canada, so maximum extent in the extreme case means "lock them up and throw away the key."

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I'd like to see some clarification on the registration question here.

What exact crime or set of crimes is gun registration intended to stop?

Do people think that requiring registration will end the black market sale of unregistered guns to criminals or those intent on criminal acts?

Do people think that owning a gun which is registered will prevent someone from committing a crime with it?

I don't object to the idea of registration; I object to the idea of pointless legislation. If the proposed changes in law won't change anything in reality, they are a waste of time and money.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Gun registration is not meant to be the complete solution to the crime issue. It's one piece of the puzzle, but it's a step in the right direction.

It likely won't do much to stop the black market arms sales. Truthfully, the black market is always going to be there, be it for weapons or alcohol or under-the-table employment.

It also may not deter someone from committing a crime using a registered weapon. Those are 2 legitimate points you do make.

What it does is give law enforcement agencies a national reference of all weapons legally owned by people. This would be a beneficial tool in solving crimes. If you read the text of the Firearms Act, it really is no different that getting your vehicle registered.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/owners&users/fact_sheets/owner_en.html#licen ces

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

What it does is give law enforcement agencies a national reference of all weapons legally owned by people. This would be a beneficial tool in solving crimes. If you read the text of the Firearms Act, it really is no different that getting your vehicle registered

the difference is that firearms registration leads to confiscation. this is not something people have to consider when they register a car.

how does registration help solve crime?

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

You can have your car impounded by the police; how is that different than having your gun confiscated? What's your logic behind this "registry = confiscation" statement?

Are you saying a national reference of legally owned weapons wouldn't help solve crime? Here's a "what-if": Let's say we have a weapon that is used to commit a crime, and the police have recovered it as evidence. They could check the serial number of the weapon against the registry to determine who the registered owner of the gun is. It would give them a place to start in their investigation. How is this a bad thing?

If you want to read the full text of our Firearms Act, take a look at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/FTP/EN/Laws/Chap/F/F-11.6.txt

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

(ie, the usual bogus claim that guns are designed to KILL).

Why is this a bogus claim? If guns aren't used to kill, what are they used for? Gardening? no. Reading? no. Driving? Well, in some instances, yes, but fundamentally, no. (you know, car jackings.... hehe ha.)

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

gun registration has led to gun confiscation in australia, bermuda, cuba, germany, great britain, greece, ireland, jamaica, georgia, parts of the united states and other countries.

i'll use new york city as an example of how registration leads to confiscation. in 1967 a law was passed requiring that all rifles and shotguns had to be registered. in 1991 the city passed a law banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (the police chief testified that no registered gun that fell into the banned category had been used in a crime in NYC). guns that had been banned had to be surrended to the police or rendered inoperable. the gun registry allows the government to know who has and has not done this, and to follow up on the people who have not.

australia is another example. depending on the state registration has been around for varying numbers of years. then there was a massacre in 1996 killing 35 people. massive knee jerk. all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns along with pump action shotguns are banned and have to be surrendered to the government by a certain date. after this date you are a criminal if you own one of these guns. the gun registry allows the police to track who has what weapons and ensure they are handed in. thankfully registration was introduced in most states within the last 20 year or so. there were an estimated 3 to 4 million banned guns in australia. 755,000 in the state i live in. 260,000 registered that fell into the banned category and 207,211 were surrended. almost only people with registered guns surrended their firearms. with their guns registered they knew what fines and prison time they faced by failing to surrender their guns.

england. gun registration introduced in 1920. various tightenings of the gun laws over the next decades making gun ownership conditions more difficult. after dunblane massacre in 1996 england had a massive knee jerk reaction. all handguns are totally banned. semi-automatic rifles are completely banned. pump action shotguns are completely banned. all confiscated. how? all legal guns are registered and so the police can come knocking. with registration having been around for almost 80 years at the time almost all guns were registered.

as jen wade said earlier, registration laws are easy to enforce. once you have everyones name and what they own all you have to do is decide what guns to outlaw, and then you can confiscate.

i'm sure some people that believe in registration have good intentions. but when it comes to guns, registration really does seem to lead to confiscation.

having the police impound your car is not the same as gun registration and confiscation. an equivilant is the government banning sedans (semi auto rifles) and hatchbacks (pump action shotguns) and then confiscating cars (guns) of this type. kind of silly isn't it?

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I see where your logic is coming from; it's not the registration that leads to the confiscation, it's the banning of specific types of firearms that leads to it. The registration simply makes it easier for the law enforcement agencies to determine who owns what weapons are newly banned. It's not the cause of the confiscation, it's just a tool that's used. You make a good case, but your logic is flawed.

As for banning sedans and hatchbacks, you obviously haven't experienced Toronto drivers on a regular basis. :-) I say ban the drivers and keep the cars. And yes, it's all rather silly, isn't it?

I've posted more in this thread than any other in my personal history of forum discussions. I think I'll take a rest and let others fire at will. This can be exhausting!

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I don't think that accessiblilty to guns is de fact bad. Are there any more [legal] guns in American homes then there were 25 or 30 years ago?

My husband grew up in a Wisconsin town where hunting is a popular activity. At an early age, kids learned about guns and how to operate [and respect] them. Virtually every home in his neighborhood had guns, but no one every considered taking them to school to take down classmates.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Joy, I was going to say the same thing -- even though my home town was full of guns, it never occurred to any of us to take our parents' guns to school and shoot our annoying classmates or teachers. Of course, we weren't very creative, there was no cable TV, most of us had parents that wouldn't let us go to R-rated movies, and the only video game we had was Pong. I never saw an innocent person gunned down (not counting characters on the cop shows who were already murder victims when they entered the story) until a movie I watched at sixteen -- was it Body Double? I forget. But I remember it upset me. I often wonder if there is a link between how peaceful our imaginations were and the lack of violent stimulation. I guess that's another thread, huh?

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

I see where your logic is coming from; it's not the registration that leads to the confiscation, it's the banning of specific types of firearms that leads to it... It's not the cause of the confiscation, it's just a tool that's used. You make a good case, but your logic is flawed.

its not flawed logic at all. registration is the first step in gun control. it leads to confiscation. its proven historical fact that registration leads to confiscation. its not the cause. the cause is usually knee jerk reactions.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Lovely, lovely guns! Gee, I wish we had that mentality here in the Netherlands. I just could go out and follow the shining example set by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, 'defending myself' against anyone who rubs me the wrong way, jerking off with my gun and killing everyone in sight! Wouldn't that be a blast! Lovely, lovely guns! Yeeeee Haw! But darn, I'm stuck here in this civilized country where we have laws about those kind of things. Wish I was still living in the middle ages like you, Ashley.

You make me wanna vomit.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Stay out of Belgium or Switzerland Stijn! Both those countries are swiming in guns. Unlike civilized places like Texas and the Netherlands, those Swiss can even carry automatic weapons in public!

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Indeed. Is it a coincidence that both the Belgian King (openly) and the Swiss government (in secret) collaborated witn the Nazis?

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

When I was a child, I used to live in a not-so-good neighborhood in the heart of New York. I remember being woken up by gunshots in the distance, being so scared that I couldn't go back to sleep for the rest of the night, and being very frightened during the day after as well.

When I was a teenager, I used to live in a not-so-good neighborhood in Virginia. I remember being woken up by gunshots in the middle of the night, and having trouble falling back asleep as well.

When I was in my early twenties (well, I'm still in my early 20's), I remember coming home from work and seeing images on television about incidents in Jonesboro, Littleton, Oregon and wondered what in the world was happening to our society.

I know people who use guns safely and responsibly. I know people who use guns in the sport of killing animals, and not necessarily human beings. I know people who think it is their inalienable right to own a gun.

And I know people like me who shudder at the devastation and atrocities that come with gun ownership. Take them all away, for all I care, because if it means one more child will be able to sleep soundly because they're not afraid they're going to get their brains blown out, in school or elsewhere, then I think it's a wise investment all around.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Stijn validates Godwin's Law.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

I agree with Jim. This thread was getting kind of old, anyway. Let's talk about something new.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Just one final unrelated comment: I will be going on vacation this afternoon. I must ask the other conservative Xeney-philes (and I know you are out there) to be doubly alert to outbreaks of unchecked liberalism in these forums for the next two weeks.

We have a duty to protect and enlighten our liberal friends so that they see The True Way.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

I don't think that guns CAUSE violence, but they certainly make a difference in the results. A perfect for instance: (I didn't think of this myself, I saw it somewhere on TV, I don't remember where...)

The Beatles. One Beatle, John Lennon, was attacked in New York. Another Beatle, George Harrison, was attacked in England. One is dead. Why? Because one attacker had a gun and the other had a knife.

I am an American living in England. I love it. I love it that when I turn on the TV or open a newspaper I don't hear about mass shootings, carjackings, etc. A shooting here is a RARE thing.

I don't understand why the Second Amendment is so holy. The Constitution was not perfect when it was first written. Slavery was legal. Women could not vote. Countless other changes have been made. The second amendment was written by men who had been able to take up arms and overthrow an opressive government. Of course they thought that right was important. To them it ensured that if the government they were creating went wrong somewhere, then the people could again take up their arms and overthrow it. Do you really think that is possible now? Seriously? Democracy on a large scale was very new back then, now it is tried and tested. If we want to overthrow our government now, then we vote them out. I think that the second amendment is archaic. No one is going to jump your claim now. I am not against hunting guns, or even target practice guns, but I don't see anything wrong with registering guns and YES confiscating guns that don't fit into what is legal seems like a good idea to me!

Lastly, Jim said:

"I haven't lived in Canada, but I have lived in England and I know that people there have a lot less freedom than we do in the States."

Ummmm... that's a load of bollocks. If anything there is more censorship in the USA. Choosing to make carrying an unlicenced gun illegal doesn't make this country any "less free" than the USA. In the states you are not "free" to carry an alcoholic drink from one bar to another. You are free to do so here. It's all relative.


Meggie

-- Anonymous, July 22, 2000

I don't like guns. I don't like violent thing. Violent noises, sudden changes in velocity. They make me nervous.
But I can't say I can really get behind the restriction of a tool. I'd rather people just stopped manufacturing them. Perhaps that's what I'll use my next wish on.
The argument where it is stated that if a car that stays on one's own property doesn't require registration, a gun that stays on one's own property should be as free from restriction is one I'd like to pick on. Seems to me that that analogy only holds if all the bullets remain on the property as well. Which is substantially more difficult to enforce.
Actually, I don't like that analogy too very much, because of the numerous differences between a gun and a car.
Something else I'm thinking about: It seems to me that the only situations in which a bow or a knife wouldn't serve equally well (i.e. hunting, target-shooting) are those in which one is worried that another person will have a gun.
A suggestion: On a crowded corner in New York we place a few loaded firearms. Atop a nearby building, we place a sniper with a high- powered rifle. Around the corner, we place a highly skilled janitorial crew. As soon as any passerby attempts to pick up one of the guns, thereby demonstrating a predilection for carrying/using firearms, the sniper would deliver a quick shot to their temple, quickly eliminating a potential gun user. The janitorial crew would race in, cleaning up any corpses in 30 seconds flat. Thus, slowly but surely, the segment of the population that can stand guns would be eliminated.
Of course, the sniper would have to shoot himself as soon as his task was complete. But his sacrifice would live on in story and song.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

I've avoided getting involved in this discussion but I have to take Ashley to task on his rather loaded (pardon the pun) term "gun confiscation" about what happened here in Australia.

What happened - yes, there was a reaction to a particularly horrific mass shooting. I'm no fan of our current (conservative) Prime Minister, but I must give him credit for acting in a decisive way. Semi-automatic and automatic guns were not confiscated, but the law was changed requiring them to be licenced and there was a hand-in period where guns were _purchased_ by the government; a significant period of amnesty was given before they became items which required registration and specific licences for their use. **Not** confiscated. A change in the law, yes, and a hand-in, yes, but confiscation? no. Handguns are illegal except for licenced pistol clubs (at least in NSW, where I live; the largest population, probably as multicultural as Canada).

For an academic view on murder statistics in New South Wales - http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tmurder.html. According to that research, 34% of murders in my state involve guns. By comparison, the Justice Statistics Clearinghouse/NCJRS (US) cites 59% of murders by firearms. (in 1986, the latest I could find in a quick search). Comparisons, statistics, are odious, I know, but for me; I like living in a place where I don't see guns next to sporting goods, and seeing people with guns *in their cars* in the US freaks me out.

My husband is an ex-cop from Sacramento, CA, and now lives in Sydney - we live in probably one of the more confronting inner-city areas in Sydney. He is constantly amazed at police arrest techniques - he sees cops stopping cars, and keeps me amused by saying - "I'd draw my gun ... NOW".

Well, kind of amused.

I'm staying here. cheers A

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

What's the matter, Mr. Howard? Chickening out? I make one - admittedly cynically phrased - comment about the glorification of violence on this page and about a regime which glorified violence like none other in the history of the world, and all of a sudden you call an end to the discussion? What's up with that? It's OK to be a right wing extremist who endorces violence, but it's not OK to be compared to other right wing extremists who endorced violence in the past?

That's censorship on your part, pure and simple, and I'm not about to be silenced by some misinterpreted 'law' conjured up by someone who's afraid to face the music. Not when there are no less than four WWII memorials within walking distance of my front door, all erected on spots where innocent civillians were struck down by Nazi guns. Not when, everytime I go to visit one of my best friends in Amsterdam, I have to walk right past the National War Memorial and the Anne Frank house. 55 years after the fact, my country still bears lots and lots of scars from the Nazi terror. I was born 19 years after the war, but I've always chosen to acknowledge the memories of the victims. And one way of doing that is to go against gun nuts like you and Ashley. If you're not prepared for an emotional response to that sort of behavior, then you're a coward, Mr. Howard. No wonder you want to hide yourself behind the barrel of a gun.

I'll probably regret posting this rant afterwards, but right now I'm way too outraged to care.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

oh cry me a river stijn. no one has glorified violence, and the only endorsement of its use was in self defense.

the thread had nothing to do with H or any other dictator or war. if you couldn't see that, then well, what can be said.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

"All weapons and tools are used as symbols for the male organ: e.g. ploughs, hammers, rifles, revolvers, daggers, sabres, etc." -Sigmund Freud (emphasis mine)

I guess Freud would classify your fear of gun confiscation as a form of castration anxiety, Ashley!

(There should really be a Freud rule like the Hitler one).

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I'm fascinated by the "self-defence" justification for owning "lovely, lovely guns"; try answering the "reason for owning a gun" in New South Wales and "self-defence" is top of the list to refuse a licence.

lookee here

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

jen, such a rule would be good. but when dealing with the deranged comments of stijn all good sense goes out the window ;)

and if castration was a law i think being a little worried about that would be entirely justified :)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I'm fascinated by the "self-defence" justification for owning "lovely, lovely guns"; try answering the "reason for owning a gun" in New South Wales and "self-defence" is top of the list to refuse a licence.

yes, thats true. quoted from gun "buyback" handbook:

"Self defence is not accepted in any State or Territory as a reason for owning a firearm. Anyone who uses a firearm in self defence is subject to the provisions of existing State and Territory criminal laws."

self defence laws in our country have always put the person defending in a difficult situation. whether it involves fists, knife or gun. you defend yourself and you have a chance of facing prosecution. the force used must generally be in proportion to the threat. you have to put yourself on an equal playing field with the intruder/attacker. no overwhelming force. thankfully juries are more often that not happy to acquit people charged in this manner.

also, just because the law says that guns can't be used for self defence doesn't mean its right. i would find it amusing if not so stupid that a person can own a gun in this country to target shoot or hunt, they can store that weapon in their home, but they may not have it there for self defence.

i live in a peaceful largely crime free area, so for me i have no interest in owning a firearm for that reason. but if i did own one and i thought my life was in danger i would find it difficult not to use something that would give me an overwhelming chance of stopping an intruder. playing fair when my life is on the line is not something that would enter the equation. i also doubt it would enter the mind of the police or a jury.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Guns are weapons designed to cause death. Violent death. Therefore, endorsing guns equals endorsing violence. Violence does not become less violent when it's committed in self defence, nor does it become right. People who commit deadly violence stoop down to a deplorable level of savagery which can easily be compared to a certain person I'm not allowed to mention here. A person who claimed he was DEFENDING the world against a mortal threat. It's not the scale of the violence that counts, it's the mentality that comes with pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger. No exceptions, self defence or not, and never even mind the guilt they might feel about it afterwards. If you think that's a deranged opinion, suit yourself.

"Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference."

Now where did I read that one?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I don't understand why the Second Amendment is so holy. The Constitution was not perfect when it was first written. Slavery was legal. Women could not vote. Countless other changes have been made. The second amendment was written by men who had been able to take up arms and overthrow an opressive government. Of course they thought that right was important. To them it ensured that if the government they were creating went wrong somewhere, then the people could again take up their arms and overthrow it. Do you really think that is possible now? Seriously? Democracy on a large scale was very new back then, now it is tried and tested. If we want to overthrow our government now, then we vote them out. I think that the second amendment is archaic. No one is going to jump your claim now. I am not against hunting guns, or even target practice guns, but I don't see anything wrong with registering guns and YES confiscating guns that don't fit into what is legal seems like a good idea to me!

Meggie, you're my hero for today. That's the best and most lucid anti-gun argument I've read for ages.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Mine too. You've put into words something I've been struggling with for a while. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Bill Bryson has a very lucid exposition of the "right to bear arms" as an historial anachronism in "Made in America", one of the best books I've read (generally. It's not all about guns. Mostly it's about language).

cheers

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I don't own a gun and I would never own a gun "for my personal protection" because I don't know how to use a gun. When I was in college, I bought a gun and traded it for a 14' Hobie Cat. the guy didn't want cash for the Cat, he wanted a gun. He was from another country and forwhatever reason, he couldn't buy a gun. Seemed reasonable then but scares the hell out of me now.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Ashley!! RIGHT ON!!

I agree with you. Guns are not the real problem. And any government that fears the armed public should be strictly watched. Germany started out by registering guns, and looks what happend to them! I refuse to give mine up! They can pry them from my COLD DEAD HANDS! THE MORE GUNS THE BETTER!

Signed Gun nut & NRA member

Nolan

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

You must have made a killing from selling all those bumper stickers. Are you single?

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

It seems to me, however biased I may be as a gun owner, that the relevant point has been danced around somewhat. In my estimation, the question of firearm ownership is a question of individual liberty. Does a society trust itself to provide its members access to the ultimate "equalization" in the moment of gravest danger, or does society choose to reduce the risks posed to society at large by those objects of equalization by instead offering social protection services. The oft-argued topic of guns offering more or less risk to society is, at this point meaningless. Despite a proliferation of manufactured statistics pro and con, firearms will always be involved in accidents, murders, and other incidents of death or injury. Again, what is the true issue here is individual liberty, and how a society defines what freedoms are provided to its members. The topic of relative freedom as it regards to alcohol was brought up by our dear canadian neighbor. Alcohol also causes accidents, murders, and other incidents of death and injury. At one point in the United States history, the same document that was amended to allow freedom to own firearms was amended to disallow the consumption, sale, and manufacure of alcohol. We quickly learned, however, that while the majority of law abiding citizens obeyed the laws, criminals capitalized on the ability to operate in a newly created black market and soon a reign of terror ensued. My point is not intended to argue for or against guns or alcohol, but rather to show that ultimately, there is no right or wrong, just the opinion of the majority. The majority in countries like Canada and England are socialists, which explains why they choose to rely entirely on a social protection scheme to handle inter-societal aggression, at the same time denying members of society the ability of protect themselves as individuals to minimize risks posed by armed individuals. It seems to work fine for them. We here in the US take a different approach. We accept the risks inherent to private ownership, banking on the notion that "an armed society is a polite society." It seems to work fine for us, since most individuals choose not to own, while still enjoying the benifits of an armed police force, and to a lesser degree, armed citezens. I mentioned above that, with regards to private versus social protection, there is no right or wrong, just the opinion of the majority. As indicated by events around the world from time to time, in the absense of right or wrong, might makes right. When it comes right down to it, whether I am killed by a drunk neigbor, a jealous ex spouse, a desperate addict, a thrill seeking teenager, a russian paratrooper, a initiating gang member, rival tribe, a wild mountain lion, or a horny Canadian moose that couldn't find a mate: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? - I'M DEAD! Before that happens, I'm going to empty two magazines of pistol ammunition into what ever is trying to kill me. If I die anyways, well so be it. If you choose to die without struggle, good for you. I choose to struggle, so good for me. Like I stated before, there is no right or wrong - just opinion. choose for yourselves, not me.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001