Carrying Guns On Campuses For Defense

[Scheetz]

Just had to do it.

just gotta say scheetz you signature is awesome

Thanks, I thought so as well.

[Blue Midnight]

Its better on this side of the fence anyway.

On another note. Right now in Virginia we are standing our ground against the Million Mom March (MMM). We have one more meeting to attend as our last one while it went well for us it down right pissed off the MMM. They were not to happy that we were there to correct them every time they made false claims. Here are the notes from another member of the Virginia group. These are all statements from the MMM people and their supporters.

So let me get this straight, you are protesting a group that is composed of mothers who were either affected by or concerned about gun violence? I don't care what your views are, or who is right or wrong or whatever, that is just some messed up shit any way you look at it. Edited May 31, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[Blue Midnight]

I never said it was OK to impose gun ownership on anyone.

You are tackling the straw man here.

I also dont believe in banning gun ownership.

I used Kennesaw as a basis for statistics in that the presence of gunowners = lowered crime on the whole.

Dude, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here or anything, but did you read my post above? It just doesn't make sense to use these stats. in the way that you (or the Kennesaw police website, for that matter) are using them. Given the data you site, there is no basis to make the claim that presence of gunowners means lowered crime. Violent crime across the U.S. as a whole lowered by over 50% between the mid-1990's and now. It is far more likely that Kennesaw was caught up in that wave than that gun ownership caused the reduction in crime. Again, you are confusing cause and effect. I tried to explain this above. Just because you have one thing that happened followed by another thing, does not mean that the two are causing one another. Only statistical models that control for other possible reasons why crime rates might be reduced could prove whether or not gun ownership caused the reduction in crime you site. It really isn't that complicated, but please believe me as a former statistician, when I say that you are using these statisitics improperly.

Please see my post above for more info and links.

Yeah there could be other possible factors... but you have to realize that a big change like that law, then the effect of crime going down must have been ONE of the factors...stop using the excuse that well its not 100% sure its the one and only factor

Ok, I'm going to say this one more time. Just because one thing happens (ie gun ownership) then another thing happens (ie a reduction in crime) does not mean that the two are causing one another in ANY way. I am a statistician, but it wouldn't take me to tell you this. Anyone who has taken an intermediate course in stats. could tell you the same. You are wrong, plain and simple. Violent crime went down across the board in the U.S. during that same time period without gun laws changing significantly AND without any increase in gun ownership rates. How do you explain that? It is also important to note that a small town in GA would not be nearly a large enough sample to draw any generalizable conclusions from even if causation was provable in this instance. I'm sorry if you still don't understand, but you really are wrong...

Here is some national evidence that suggests that a relationship (and not just a correlation) actually exists between higher gun ownership rates and higher homicide rates (one of many studies located with a simple google search of homicide rates and gun ownership):

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...ss01112007.html


Not that I would expect actual evidence and facts to change peoples minds at this point, judging from some of the posts above... Edited May 31, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[Scheetz]

So let me get this straight, you are protesting a group that was founded by and composed of mothers who were affected by gun violence? I don't care what your views are, or who is right or wrong or whatever, that is just some messed up shit any way you look at it.

You obviously do not know what MMM is fully about. They want the removal of all guns from this country. They are not all composed of families who were harmed by firearms. They are apart of the Brady Campaign. Rosie is one of their supporters and has spoke at their mass meetings before. They do not understand the concept of CCW nor why people want to own firearms. Their meetings in Virginia are just the local people who are trying to remove them.

We go to their meetings politely, yes I said politely because nobody is yelling at them while they scream at us. We just correct their errors and give them our reasons for carrying. One of the women who goes has tried to drive into their brains that she has been raped before and will not let it happen again. Unfortunately these nut jobs do not see the point in her defending herself nor why anyone else chooses to.

Its funny, the people that protest against guns are the ones that have never been attacked/mugged/raped. Unfortunately they will never see our side until one of these events occurs. Once it happens, you take a vow that it will never happen to you or anyone with you ever again.

Ever been walking with your girlfriend or spouse and noticed a group of shady people circle around you? Ever been sitting at a traffic light at night and notice two people approaching your vehicle from either side in a shady manner? Ever been walking back to campus and have a car pull up and multiple people hop out, one shoves an object into your friends back and tells you to hand over your wallet and cell phone or he will shoot you? Ever been walking back to your car when the mall closes and 3 men head in your direction with their hoodies up when there are no other cars in your vicinity?

When you experience those, you will understand why I and many others who have also experienced these choose to carry.

This world is not pretty, the ones who think it is just have not opened their eyes.

[Scheetz]

Ok, I'm going to say this one more time. Just because one thing happens (ie gun ownership) then another thing happens (ie a reduction in crime) does not mean that the two are causing one another in ANY way. I am a statistician, but it wouldn't take me to tell you this. Anyone who has taken an intermediate course in stats. could tell you the same. You are wrong, plain and simple. Violent crime went down across the board in the U.S. during that same time period without gun laws changing significantly AND without any increase in gun ownership rates. How do you explain that? It is also important to note that a small town in GA would not be nearly a large enough sample to draw any generalizable conclusions from even if causation was provable in this instance. I'm sorry if you still don't understand, but you really are wrong...

While what you are saying makes clear sense, you are missing the stats of Kennesaw. They imposed their law because their crime rate was increasing every year. It was not just towns people who were robbing within the town. People within the area knew the town was easy pickings and targeted their town. When they imposed their law the word got around of what was going on and the crime rate dropped. What happend was the crime of the other towns and cities went up because nobody would even dare to touch Kennesaw.

Quoted straight from the source:

According to state figures, Kennesaw's per-capita crime rate has remained essentially static (and low) since 1983. The most recent homicide, in 1989, was committed with a knife. The last gun homicide, in 1986, involved two young men from out of state who were staying at a local motel. "A little alcohol," Chief Wilson recalls, "had something to do with it. They were daring one another to shoot each other, so one of them did."



While we can take into consideration that Gun Town USA will never happen in most places nor will it be common in other towns. We can understand the fact that it keeps robbers at bay knowing they are walking into a town where everyone owns a firearm. Knowing those stats, I would much rather rob someone from another town than risk my life in a town where everyone has a gun.

Lets look at DC for instance. They just now allowed the ownership of guns since they were banned over 20 years ago. Banning guns in DC did what? Jack shit is the words everyone should be looking for. Criminals do not follow laws, hell they do not even buy guns legally. You make an area gun free, just like DC did and what happens. Gun crime does not go down in the least bit. Everyone living in DC knows that nobody but police officers are carrying a firearm. They do not have to worry about picking the wrong person to mug and end up seeing the business end of a handgun. All they see is a bunch of sheep walking around and the wolves are on the prowl.


Now, I will post the following letter which I urge everyone who is reading this topic to read. This letter does not just stand for our military forces, but all those who choose to carry a firearm for the protection of ourselves and those who are in need.

This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades who are veterans of the Global War on Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections, January of 2005.

It was written to Jill Edwards, a student at the University of Washington who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington. Ms. Edwards and other students (and faculty) do not think those who serve in the U.S. armed services are good role models.

To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW) Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your student activity regarding the proposed memorial to Col. Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative folks like me.

You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naivete. It may be that you are, simply, a sheep. Theres no dishonor in being a sheep as long as you know and accept what you are.

William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 said: Most of the people in our society are sheep.
They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.


Then there are the wolves and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.


Then there are sheepdogs and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the uncharted path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep.
They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, Baa. Until the wolf shows up; then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes. The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.
You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers, athletes, business people and parents from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. Edmund Burke.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. Plato

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warriors path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.

Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. It's OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheep dog.
Indeed, the sheep dog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving from baa to thanks.

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And when our number is called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the thousands, millions of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Yowza that was long. I will now step down from my soap box.

[ghostofdavid]

If you want to play the victim card, I had an uncle who was almost beat to death with a sledgehammer in his mechanic shop by some bad men from Chicago; I don't want to ban sledgehammers.

When the bad men from Chicago started walking away thinking they beat him to death, they heard my Uncle still moaning in pain (according to court testimony). They went back and shot him. I don't want firearms banned either.

I like freedom and personal accountability. When someone messes up, they get punished. Murdering someone does not make them a victim of society, socio-economic status, or that their old man didn't hug them enough.

Ever heard of Coatesville, IN ? No? It has one of the highest gun ratios per human ratios in the world. Why don't you hear about it? Because there isn't a crime rate. My buddy Justin is from there. It isn't like the old west, it's a friendly sleepy little town in Indiana.

[insidius]

If you want to play the victim card, I had an uncle who was almost beat to death with a sledgehammer in his mechanic shop by some bad men from Chicago; I don't want to ban sledgehammers.

85 people a day don't die to sledgehammers.


The day someone manages to kill 30 people one after the other with a sledgehammer before 'turning the sledgehammer on himself' I'll consider it.

[Lakemonster]

85 people.....

IF guns were banned, would there actually be 85 less people killed per day?

Murder wont go down.... probably go up.

[insidius]

85 people.....

IF guns were banned, would there actually be 85 less people killed per day?

Murder wont go down.... probably go up.

You missed the point entirely, but that's alright.

[Scheetz]

How about them apples. Sure 85 a day, but there is the break down of it. Alot of those are suicides, who cares, they would just stab themselves to death or jump off a bridge. A removal of guns will not effect those 85 deaths a day.

[Lakemonster]

Was your point that there were 85 gun deaths per day or not?

If thats the case, then doing away with the particular weapon does not mean that there will be 85 less deaths.

[Blue Midnight]

So let me get this straight, you are protesting a group that was founded by and composed of mothers who were affected by gun violence? I don't care what your views are, or who is right or wrong or whatever, that is just some messed up shit any way you look at it.

You obviously do not know what MMM is fully about. They want the removal of all guns from this country. They are not all composed of families who were harmed by firearms. They are apart of the Brady Campaign. Rosie is one of their supporters and has spoke at their mass meetings before. They do not understand the concept of CCW nor why people want to own firearms. Their meetings in Virginia are just the local people who are trying to remove them.

I will concede my point about the MMM since you are right to say that I haven't researched them enough to conclude one way or the other. Their website says that their primary goal is to curb illegal gun sales. The Brady campaign, if I recall, was founded by a guy who's kid was killed. Going to have to confirm that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it started...

Where I'm really going to have to disagree with you is where you note how if you are a victim of certain acts it leads you to believe a certain way (ie the way you believe). Let me ask you something: Have you ever had a gun shoved in your face? Ever have someone threaten to kill you for some perceived wrong that only occured in their imagination? Ever have a similar situation happen to you multiple fucking times?

Here is the thing: How you choose to live your life is shaped not only by what happens to you, but how you choose to interpret and react to these events. Some people see these situations and think "I need a gun to shoot back". I choose to live my life differently, because I have made a choice not to be driven by fear of things that may happen to me or the ones I love in this world. Life is filled with risk, but I refuse to let fear rule my life. Because in the end, I know that the odds are with me. And if they aren't, so be it. As a very famous man once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." And that is how I choose to live my life.

Your comments really display a certain level of arrogance, to assume that those of us who choose not to carry a piece are somehow naive about how the world works, or simply haven't had bad things happen to us. On that point sir, you couldn't be more wrong. Edited June 1, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[insidius]

My point is that guns enable people.


The ease with which one can kill (themselves or another is irrelevant to me; I seem to be the only one here with some semblance of a regard for human life) with a firearm is the factor here, in my opinion. Sure, you can say "If they want to kill themselves they're gonna do it no matter what," no, that is not always true and there is no way to validate that statement.

I believe someone is a lot more likely to kill if they have access to a firearm than if they do not. Please do not misunderstand that statement, I am not saying having a firearm makes people want to kill, no, they have other reasons for wanting to kill; I'm saying having a firearm enables them to kill, psychologically.

Someone wants to take some murder over to a school? Let's see how far he gets with a knife. With a gun, it's an entirely different story.


That's all I'm saying.


Oh, and Scheetz, chill out. This isn't a contest, it's a discussion. There isn't going to be a winner and a prize at the end.


Blue Midnight: I already told you: on the internet, it's practically impossible to change people's minds because on the internet, everyone is an expert in their field.

[The King]

My point is that guns enable people.


The ease with which one can kill (themselves or another is irrelevant to me; I seem to be the only one here with some semblance of a regard for human life) with a firearm is the factor here, in my opinion. Sure, you can say "If they want to kill themselves they're gonna do it no matter what," no, that is not always true and there is no way to validate that statement.

I believe someone is a lot more likely to kill if they have access to a firearm than if they do not. Please do not misunderstand that statement, I am not saying having a firearm makes people want to kill, no, they have other reasons for wanting to kill; I'm saying having a firearm enables them to kill, psychologically.

Someone wants to take some murder over to a school? Let's see how far he gets with a knife. With a gun, it's an entirely different story.


That's all I'm saying.


Oh, and Scheetz, chill out. This isn't a contest, it's a discussion. There isn't going to be a winner and a prize at the end.


Blue Midnight: I already told you: on the internet, it's practically impossible to change people's minds because on the internet, everyone is an expert in their field.

Pff i've already made a trophy with sheetz written on it

[Lakemonster]

The ease with which one can kill (themselves or another is irrelevant to me; I seem to be the only one here with some semblance of a regard for human life) with a firearm is the factor here, in my opinion. Sure, you can say "If they want to kill themselves they're gonna do it no matter what," no, that is not always true and there is no way to validate that statement.

I believe someone is a lot more likely to kill if they have access to a firearm than if they do not. Please do not misunderstand that statement, I am not saying having a firearm makes people want to kill, no, they have other reasons for wanting to kill; I'm saying having a firearm enables them to kill, psychologically.

I gave my father 3 firearms in the course of my adulthood. He had 3 more he aquired by inheretance and self purchase.

He killed himself a year ago, hanging himself with a rope.

Go Fish.

[Scheetz]

I will concede my point about the MMM since you are right to say that I haven't researched them enough to conclude one way or the other. Their website says that their primary goal is to curb illegal gun sales. The Brady campaign, if I recall, was founded by a guy who's kid was killed. Going to have to confirm that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it started...

Yes, that is true but just like laws that are being passed we only know half of what they are doing. The other half shows when you attend one of their meetings and they say hell with just illegal guns we want all guns removed.

Where I'm really going to have to disagree with you is where you note how if you are a victim of certain acts it leads you to believe a certain way (ie the way you believe). Let me ask you something: Have you ever had a gun shoved in your face? Ever have someone threaten to kill you for some perceived wrong that only occurred in their imagination? Ever have a similar situation happen to you multiple fucking times?

My list from my previous post was listed because: Yes, I did endure them. These are not just claims that others have experienced these are mine. If I wanted to go farther to my nuclear family I could list the times that they had attempted assaultings outside of malls and the like. (The hell, is assaultings even a word?!!!)

Here is the thing: How you choose to live your life is shaped not only by what happens to you, but how you choose to interpret and react to these events. Some people see these situations and think "I need a gun to shoot back". I choose to live my life differently, because I have made a choice not to be driven by fear of things that may happen to me or the ones I love in this world. Life is filled with risk, but I refuse to let fear rule my life. Because in the end, I know that the odds are with me. And if they aren't, so be it. As a very famous man once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." And that is how I choose to live my life.

Your comments really display a certain level of arrogance, to assume that those of us who choose not to carry a piece are somehow naive about how the world works, or simply haven't had bad things happen to us. On that point sir, you couldn't be more wrong.

I agree, with your comment on "how you choose to live." I do my best to stay away from fast food places, shady stores and restaurants and unsafe bars. But just because of this does not mean I will not run into trouble. Hell my local Starbucks has beggars everyday sitting out front. They even come inside sometimes asking for change or demanding money. Hell, we had one guy as the employees to give him money from the cash register. No he was not robbing it, but nobody would give him change so he asked if the employees could spare some change from their tip jar and cash register.

I do not carry a gun because "I need to shoot back." I carry because I have out grown the fist fights and scuffles of my teenage years. I do not want to go toe to toe with some thug or random irate citizen. My carry is for the safety of myself when talking my way out of an event will not secure me. We also have to look at who we hang around with on a daily basis. If I am by myself I can easily retreat from a situation I am in shape and can run from the event. If I am with friends or on a date I can not expect my female counterpart to sprint at the same time I do. I also do not plan on getting into a fist fight with someone. Same goes for me in the future with a wife and children.

I also agree with "Life is full of risks." Hell thats why we opened businesses right? Sure the odds are with us, I just choose to increase my odds thats all.

I am not living in fear of anything. I carry my handgun for the same reason people have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

On the arrogance comment. I think you should reread what I wrote in that section. People who carry guns do it because they have experienced how this world works. There are wolves out there. Let us not forget about that. They are always watching and waiting to pick that one person who is completely wrapped up in themselves and not paying attention to anything else.

My point is that guns enable people.

Oh, and Scheetz, chill out. This isn't a contest, it's a discussion. There isn't going to be a winner and a prize at the end.

I know its not a contest. I am just proving my side thats all. This argument for our country will continue long after everyone on this forum passes on. I am not working up my blood pressure over here. Actually I am enjoying a java chip frappuccino.

Pff i've already made a trophy with scheetz written on it

Badass

He killed himself a year ago, hanging himself with a rope.

Sorry to hear that Lake.

[newsman]

The Brady campaign, if I recall, was founded by a guy who's kid was killed. Going to have to confirm that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it started...

The Brady Campaign is a lobbying group dedicated to promoting the cause of gun control. It began in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns.

The NCCH morphed into Brady Campaign in 1981 after an asassination attempt on then president Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley Jr. James Brady, after whom both the bill and the campaign are named, was the White House press secretary at the time. In the asassination attempt, Brady was shot and seriously wounded. Ultimately, as a result of his being shot, he was confined to a wheelchair. The Brady Bill, passed in into law in 1993, required an individual to wait up to five days for a background check before purchasing a handgun.

[insidius]

The ease with which one can kill (themselves or another is irrelevant to me; I seem to be the only one here with some semblance of a regard for human life) with a firearm is the factor here, in my opinion. Sure, you can say "If they want to kill themselves they're gonna do it no matter what," no, that is not always true and there is no way to validate that statement.

I believe someone is a lot more likely to kill if they have access to a firearm than if they do not. Please do not misunderstand that statement, I am not saying having a firearm makes people want to kill, no, they have other reasons for wanting to kill; I'm saying having a firearm enables them to kill, psychologically.

I gave my father 3 firearms in the course of my adulthood. He had 3 more he aquired by inheretance and self purchase.

He killed himself a year ago, hanging himself with a rope.

Go Fish.

Oh, ok. Since your one account 'disproves' mine, it must mean my whole theory is out the window. Right.

The fact is, over half of all suicides are comitted with a firearm.

I'm fairly certain close to 100% of mas murders are comitted with a firearm.


In any event, this discussion is pointless. It's just back and forth, back and forth. Numbers, numbers, who cares.

[ghostofdavid]

I care. I enjoy my right to carry a firearm.

[Blue Midnight]

I care. I enjoy my right to carry a firearm.

This reminds me of that episode of the Simpons where Lionel Hutz gives a two sentance defense of his client that has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, and the judge is left in utter disbelief.

Lionel Hutz: "And with that.....I rest my case."

Judge: "What do you mean you rest your case?"

Lionel Hutz: "Oh, I'm sorry, I just thought I was using the correct legal jargon. What I meant was, CASE CLOSED!"

I miss the days when the Simpons was funny. Edited June 2, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[Lakemonster]

Im not trying to make this a personal thing with you Insidiuos, so please understand that when I come at you with my point of view.

Look. Personal experiances count. Ghosts uncle for one.... my father for second. They are part of the statistics.

I dont expect to change your mind.... I would like you to do your homework or have something to drive your point with.

Nearly 100% of mass murderers use handguns? Are we talking about someone who murders people in large #'s at one time or does that include serial killers who have a trail of bodies behind them? What about mass suicides?

lets address these.

Mass suicides:

Jonestown. 909 people dead. Cyanide laced koolaid.

Heavens Gate. 39 dead. Barbituate cocktail and asphyxiation.

Mass murderers/ Serial murderers.

Anton Probst. Axe

Jack the Ripper. Edged instrument

Hillside Strangler(s). garrotte

The Unibomber. Explosives

Timothy McVeigh. Explosives

Jeffrey Dahmer. Drugged vitims and drilled holes in their heads.

Aum Shinrikyo. Sarin Gas



If you read the following link.... you will find evidence that there are more mass killing due to arson than mass killing due to use of a firearm.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/JMME2.htm

[insidius]

Im not trying to make this a personal thing with you Insidiuos, so please understand that when I come at you with my point of view.

Look. Personal experiances count. Ghosts uncle for one.... my father for second. They are part of the statistics.

I dont expect to change your mind.... I would like you to do your homework or have something to drive your point with.

Nearly 100% of mass murderers use handguns? Are we talking about someone who murders people in large #'s at one time or does that include serial killers who have a trail of bodies behind them? What about mass suicides?

lets address these.

Mass suicides:

Jonestown. 909 people dead. Cyanide laced koolaid.

Heavens Gate. 39 dead. Barbituate cocktail and asphyxiation.

Mass murderers/ Serial murderers.

Anton Probst. Axe

Jack the Ripper. Edged instrument

Hillside Strangler(s). garrotte

The Unibomber. Explosives

Timothy McVeigh. Explosives

Jeffrey Dahmer. Drugged vitims and drilled holes in their heads.

Aum Shinrikyo. Sarin Gas



If you read the following link.... you will find evidence that there are more mass killing due to arson than mass killing due to use of a firearm.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/JMME2.htm

Nevermind.

[Scheetz]

Well I guess its about time to use the best Gun Line EVER:

I carry my gun all the time. My gun sits on my dresser at night. My gun has never up and shot somebody on its own.
-----

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. Thomas Jefferson, quoting Beccari's "On Crimes and Punishment"
----
Don't think of it as 'gun control', think of it as 'victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals. Anon

---
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. William S. Burroughs

----

Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states that did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. John Lott & John Mustard, University of Chicago.

HCI claims one child per day killed by handgun accidents; the figure from the National Safety Council is an average of 256 per year for ALL ages, 10-15 a year for kids under age 5, and 50-55 per year for kids under age 15. For comparison, 381 kids under five drowned in pools in 1980, while 13 were killed by handgun accidents. 432 were killed by fires caused by adults falling asleep while smoking. Car accidents take 190 times as many lives as handgun accidents. HCI cooks the books by picking a particularly violent year and taking anyone under 25 to be a child', thus approaching 365 per year.It still falls short, though.

-----
God may have made men and women, but Colt made them equal. (not something I claim all the time, hell I think its rather tacky)

----

and a statistic I am pretty fond of:

While handguns are used in vast numbers of crimes annually, they are used more often by good citizens to repel crime - approximately 581,000 crimes vs. about 645,000 defense uses annually.

[ASUSEAN1]

i saw a sign driving from AZ to IL that said roses are red, my gun is blue, I am safe, how about you?

i shot some .22's the next day. it made me happy

[ShishaFred]

I frequently see the thing about the fact that if we remove guns from the circulation , then all the criminals will have one , but we will all be left harmless ( Oh noes !). Where I live, you can't carry a firearm unless you're going hunting or you,re a cop. If you get caught with one , you're in trouble. Want to make sure the criminals don't have guns? Give em a 10-20 year sentence for carrying. I'm not sure if they'll still think it's worth the risk.