Slashdot Mirror

and found to have zero effect
Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This Brady Center study found an effect:
https://www.bradycampaign.org/...

That being said, those states with more gun control laws generally have fewer deaths. Hawaii for instance has very little gun violence and has some of the most strict gun laws.

Idaho's murder rate is lower than Hawaii's (200.9 per 100,000 vs 287.2 for 2011); its gun laws are so weak that the Brady campaign gives Idaho 2/100. (For those outside the U.S., the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" is a leading advocate for the criminalization of gun ownership; in their scale, a higher number means more legal obstacles to exercising the right of self-defense.) Mississippi has a murder rate close to Hawaii's, 269.8; it gets 4 on the Brady's scorecard.

Illinois gets 25 from Brady, and a murder rate of 429.3.

Brady's favorite state is CA, with 81 points; homicide rate 411.1. Texas gets a 4 from Brady, and has almost the same murder rate as California, 408.5.

The Bradys don't rank DC, but we know it has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; it has a murder rate of 1,202.1. (The cynic in me thinks this is why Brady doesn't rate it...) The lowest murder rate is Maine, 123.2, a whole order of magnitude less than D.C.'s rate; its permissive gun laws get a 7 on Brady's scale.

Across U.S. states, gun control laws seem to have no correlation with murder rates. The same applies internationally and across our own history -- the U.S. homicide rate has fallen 50% since the early 90s, the decline starting before the Brady bill and the "assault weapons" ban and continuing after the ban expired, while more and more states liberalized CCW laws and the number of guns in private hands increased.

According to the NHTSA, 4,869 children (aggregate of ages 0-20) died in car crashes in 2010, out of a total of 32,885 crash fatalities (all ages).

For slightly more modern stats, according to this data, there were a total of 3,067 gun deaths in 2007 for children age 0-19, and the breakdown is as follows:

2,161 - homicide
683 - suicide
138 - unintentional
60 - indeterminate cause
25 - legal intervention

I think you mean T+3 hours. T-3 hours indicates the future.

That being said - at what point is it okay to talk politics? 12 hours after someone shot someone else? 24 hours? Three days? A week? A month? A year? A decade?

Because, believe it or not, the US has seen no less than 17 mass shootings this year, including this one. That's roughly once every 21 days, so if you want people to wait more than a month to discuss politics, then that will never happen. But the first one on that list is from July, so that's 17 shootings in six months, so closer to once every 11 days.

Even worse than that - in the US there are 87 gun deaths a day. That's more than once every 20 minutes on average - so again, if we have to wait more than 15 minutes before talking politics, then that can never happen either.

What you may want to wonder, is why a country like Switzerland, where every household is legally required to have a rifle, has less than one fifth the amount of shooting homicides per capita (0.58/100,000) of the US (2.98).

And if you weren't so blindly upset, you would instead look at the facts freely available to you, and point out that per capita/A, the US (2.98) is in the same "boat" as France (3.00) and Austria (2.94), better off than Finland (3.64), but much worse off than Canada (0.76).

But back to my original point - how long SHOULD you wait before talking gun policy? And does the distance to a crime matter? Does the amount of news coverage it gets matter?

You bitching about it being "too soon" isn't helpful. Tell us when, exactly, it is okay to talk about gun policy, without stepping on your toes.

Actually, there is pretty good data on the deaths directly associated with coal mining at least. See here. This data only goes back to the 30s when most of the miners had already unionized in the U.S. That's significant because on the top of their list when striking were things like an 8 hour work day, and being paid to construct safety equipment. The status quo was that miners only got paid for tons of coal and didn't get paid to create construction equipment. All told, in excess of 100k people have died directly due to coal mining accidents.

Oh, by the way, since you went off on the "anti-nuclear hippies", I'd just like to point out an example of a conservative lifestyle choice leading to deaths: in 2007 there were 613 accidental gun deaths and ~18,000 injured, and if you keep a gun in your home, you are four times as likely to shoot yourself or your family than use it in self defense. The point is that people act irrationally sometimes, not just liberals or conservatives.

It's not like that belief isn't parroted *all over the internet*. I'm sure if you bothered to look you could find a few hundred such references here, here, here, and here. Concentrate your searching to the time when gun laws were being liberalized.

What you say about Texas is true. But over all, conservative states have the least restrictive gun laws over liberal ones. Regardless, Texas is least restrictive compared to Washington despite the open carry status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/BradyScorecard.pdf

The Republican base is truly frightening, on a Taliban level

The Democratic base is truly frightening, on a Lenin level. See how easy it is to put the shoe on the other foot? Can't you just admit that you are rationalizing the failings of the Democratic Party?

They are the American religious zealots who BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION want to turn America into a theocracy

So what? The Democratic liberal base wants to turn America into some sort of socialist paradise where people will be punished for being productive, the government will mandate "fairness" in free speech and nobody will be allowed to own a firearm. I really don't regard that as any improvement over the desires of the far-right.

Republicans and Democrats both want to pilfer my wallet and give it to their contributors, but only one of those two groups wants to invade my bedroom.

Right, and the second group wants to invade your gun safe, radio station and video game. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why this is better.

They seem to believe that God wants them to be rich because they are better than me

And Democrats seem to believe that I'm rich because I'm a selfish SOB who stole from the poor. See how absurd these types of sweeping generalizations are?

because I should know my place and not try to climb above it

Sounds like the Democratic politicians that think there should be a different standard for the elite and whom advocate in favor of "progressive" taxation that punishes people who have the nerve to make more money than the rest of the herd.

Sure, I'd like something else, but voting for anyone else but the Democrats in our current system is simply asking for the American Taliban to turn our country into a theocracy, and I will not have that.

And yet, amazingly enough the Republicans controlled all three branches of the Federal Government for six years and we didn't become a theocracy. So what you are really doing is supporting the political system that you claim to hate because you've been whipped up into a fearful frenzy and think that agents of the state are going to bash down your bedroom door and arrest you for having sex outside the confines of the missionary position between a married heterosexual couple.

It sounds to me like you've bought the fear being sold by the DNC hook, line and sinker. Eventually you'll wake up and realize that the shit they are shoveling is virtually the same as the shit that the Republicans are shoveling. The Democrats are just shoveling it from a different pile and using a different salesman to try and sell it to you.

I've done a little more research. This article supports my point:
States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates, January 11, 2007
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

Your point on Sweden is misleading because Swedes have compulsory military service, and their firearms are rifles with a small clip and the guns are difficult to conceal. Further, citizens undergo regular training throughout their life on firearm use.

The Brady Campaign (while clearly supporting the assertion that guns are problematic) is telling:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/

In particular, the USA has over 11,000 firearm homicides a year, compared to (for example) Canada's 184. That's 44 firearm deaths per million citizens in the USA per year, compared to 6.1 per million in Canada. Statistically, the USA is economically superior to Canada in virtually every way, including the distribution of wealth (as measured by per capita income).

However, I think those statistics may fail to reveal something sinister. There seems to be a racial or class segregation in the USA, and the per capita income fails to illuminate the number of people who are essentially destitute in the USA. I expect that gun violence (and the fear of gun violence) reinforces this segregation.

I do not feel I have an adequate explanation of the aberrant level of gun violence in the USA. I feel you are correct that the violence is in no small part due to the disparity in wealth. However, it seems clear (from the Harvard article, the Brady statistics, if not common sense) that the abundance of easily accessible guns significantly contributes to the amount of violent crime.

What you can *do* about those hundreds of millions of guns, now that they've polluted the country, is another issue.

Crime statistics in the USA indicate blacks are responsible for over 7 times the rate of crime as whites.

Gun violence among blacks is only twice that of the average (source).

While blacks make up 1.9% of the Canadian population, they make up nearly 10% of the American population.

Gun violence in the United States almost 3 times that of Canada.

If we were to grant you're premise, wouldn't we have 5 times the gun violence in the US versus Canada?

Texas has some of the loosest gun control laws in the country, according to the Brady Campaign. It also has the 10th highest violent crime rate, according to the DOJ.

Personally, I'm not a fan of gun control laws. As is says on the ABC News site, "The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't." Gun control opponents need to acknowledge that that statement works in both directions. Just because gun control laws don't help deter crime doesn't mean they encourage it. Statistics imply the laws have no effect in either direction.

Please, stick to the facts.

From http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/ firearm_facts.pdf : In 2004, there were 649 fatal accidents and 235 deaths with unknown intent. Maybe you were thinking auto, not firearm accidents.

From http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ : In 2005 there were 43,443 motor vehicle accident fatalities.

Flamebait?

It's not flamebait, it's the truth.

E.G., http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ki ds has "As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children."

You know why they pick 15-19? That's where a good number of the drug and gang related murders are. You know why they pick 1984 to 1994? During that time period there was a large increase in drug and gang related murders.

They are picking the age range, and the time range, carefully, so that they can cite a horrifying "222% increase", when that increase is actually due to the rise of drug and gang violence. However, they frame it as basically a "Think of the Children!" question. The general public does not think to actually look and find out that the "children" they are talking about are late-teens and involved in gangs and drug dealing. Cherry picking your statistics and stating things in a manner that avoids talking about what is really going on is, in fact, basically lying.

Nothing in the above post is false, or intended to incite a flamewar. It's simply the truth.

And yet you can still buy a firearm at a gun show in Florida with no background check, and police must destroy records on gun sales within 48 hours and are prohibited from maintaining gun sale records that could be used for gun tracing and criminal investigations.

What THE HELL is wrong with this country???

In order to protect law enforcement, certainly.

Like when the original restrictions were allowed to sunset and we were assured by Millions of Moms that we'd be awash in ruthless killing machines. We have to do something to protect our kind hearted, well intentioned, peace loving peace officers, whether from violence thirsty lunatics with sandbagged machine gun nests or from speed gun toting stalker weirdo suburbanite couples. These people, hell bent on their vigilante campaigns against docile doe eyed public servants, have to be stopped.

Conversely, North Dakota which is shown as having the lowest violent crime rate has fairly lax gun control laws (North Dakota got a "D" grade by the Brady campaign).

Of course, none of the referenced data allows one to determine a cause/effect relationship.

I actually just had to figure out exactly when I worked there in order to see if that was indeed the case, and nope, it's not. I was hired there in June of 2002 and remained with them until October of the same year... yes, all the horror stories you hear about working at Wal*Mart are true.

Anyway, to keep this somewhat on topic: I looked up Delaware gun laws, and it seems that there is still no type of waiting period. I'm not sure if this includes handguns, but I definitely remember hearing about a waiting period being applied to them back when I was involved with the whole gun thing.

No state requirement that there be a waiting period for gun sales beyond the "instant check" in federal law. Police are not given any additional time to run a criminal background check to make sure the gun buyer is not prohibited from acquiring firearms. There is no "cooling off" period to help prevent crimes of passion.
From the first result on Google.

From the "footnote quote": Minors in Kansas City, Missouri, are not allowed to purchase cap pistols; they may buy shotguns freely, however.

Uh, bullshit. Stop trying to put spin on the situation by using what is an outright lie.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/vie wstate.php?st=mo#juvsale

Go fucking educate yourself. Or does small things like "presenting the truth" not wash around slashdot?

As much as I wish he had, John Lott didn't prove anything, and all of his work has been largely debunked

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lo tt

This is a man who has posted reviews of his own book on Amazon.com, pretending to be one of his students. A man who's own co-author admits to huge flaws in their study. A man who used a study that he supposedly funded himself, and then lost when his computer crashed, as the lynchpin of his argument.

You or I could want an armed populace to be justified by something like crime deterrance - but fake studies aren't going to do us any good. Plus, if you really believe the populace should be armed, for defense of liberty, or because it's wrong to restrict their rights, or whatever other reason you have, that should be enough in itself.

Just when I think the Democratic Party is starting to grow a spine and stand up for some libertarian principles rather than pander.... No, this is not intended as flame-bait - it is an expression of frustration with a binary political system that has segmented every issue into a "They don't think it's right?!?! Then it MUST be right! Write up a bill legislating it for us to vote on, intern! Oh, and say it's to protect the children!!!" - mentality.

Here's a wacky idea - instead of legislating a bill "protecting [kids] from a coarsening culture" (Senator Bayh) in fictional video games, how about a bill protecting kids from real gun violence (Over 5,000 kids killed by guns in the US in 1997), real poverty (35,000,000 in 2003 in the U.S), and real rape (204,000 in the USA 2003-2004)? Oh, right, that would involve hard choices about civil liberties, responsibilities, Constitutional rights and freedom of choice, and other complicated things. Screw it, it won't get votes. Ban those nasty video games instead!!!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ki ds#1

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GU NS/GUNSTAT.html

Maybe Ou is up at 4AM protecting Microsoft's customers for free because it doesn't cost Microsoft anything. Microsoft needs a class action suit loss, or steep hikes in their insurance rates anticipating such a loss. The days when publication of unsafe product exposés like Unsafe at Any Speed transform an industry are long gone. Industries have learned to insulate themselves from books read only by the tiny American intelligentsia by publishing vast overbalancing PR. Some industries even have bought immunity from liability for their unsafe products. Since the Supreme Court has now found that software companies are liable for damages caused by their users' use of their unmodified products, maybe we will see Microsoft liable for the vast damage caused when people use their products the way they promote them. Or maybe we're looking forward to an imminent release of a WiFi "Microsoft Machinegun".

Well, remember you're talking about California.

Among other things, they used a .50 cal, which I don't remember them specifically saying was illegal in California[1]. It was amazing how the bullet disintegrated in the water -- not what I expected

Another show they had to get a friend from the FBI to supply tracer rounds because they were 'illegal' in California.

[1]according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/vie wstate.php?st=ca


California - State law restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons that have specific military features such as pistol grips and folding stocks as well as a list of assault weapons and their copies such as the AK47 and Uzi. People who owned such assault weapons prior to the law are required to register the weapons and may not sell or give them to anyone else in the state. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire ammunition magazines in excess of 10 rounds.

California - State law restricts the sale of Saturday night specials or "junk" handguns. Handguns must meet two basic safety tests: a drop-safety test and a firing-performance test to prevent accidents. The drop-safety test ensures that handguns won't go off if dropped. The firing-performance test makes sure that handguns won't break apart with repeated use. But there is no restriction on the sale of small, snub-nosed handguns if they meet the two safety tests. In 2002, California strengthened the law to allow the state Department of Justice to "spot-check" handguns on sale in gun stores to make sure they met the standard and to increase DOJ oversight of the safety test procedures. Also see: Safety Standards.

They did not find any evidence that Grokster publicly promoted abuse. They found "intent" by a corporation, which is not a person who can "intend" (even if you believe that a person's intent can ever be proven).

Why do you think I can still go to a gun store and by a semi automatic rifle and a semi/auto conversion kit?

Hate to tell you this, but you're absolutely wrong when it comes to conversion kits. But you don't have to take the law's word for it. Check an Internet forum.

Your point is about getting organized is perfectly valid though, but your childish proposal for intimidation is doomed to failure. No one with any sense of self-respect would tolerate intimidation. A much more mature and effective tactic would be constructive engagement.

A private citizen isn't required to, a dealer is.

Pravate sales are governed by a completelt different set of rules. A ruleset even more lax than a gun dealer. A dealer DOES have to sell you a weapon if you are legally allowed to have one. I'm not advocating this, trust me, but attempting to create arguments to refute it won't change the fact of the matter. These businesses broker a constitutional right, and because of that they are subject to a strict protocol of sales. That protocol does not allow them to make "judgement calls" not defined by the law. These owners have the right to refuse sale, and then they will procede to get their asses handed to them in court. Ultimately they may have prevented a violent crime, but they also got sued into the ground because of it.

AFAIK, firearm manufacturers aren't marketing their guns to gangs.

Certain gunmakers have marketted "fingerprint resistant" guns. This is a marketting strategy that could very well be aimed at criminals, and I believe there has been at least one lawsuit based on this claim. Of course, in this case, the gun makers are not advocating use of the product for crime, simply advertising a feature that would be primarily useful to criminals. It is the difference between creating a p2p client "with strong anonymity features" and one that "is great for downloading the latest hollywood movies".

From the legal POV, any weapon at all (including a Mac PowerBook or even bare hands) can be used to threaten someone. I think it's fair to say that 'a reasonable person' can imagine uses for a PowerBook or bare hands other than the crime of assault. There is also, on the linked page, the idea that certain weapons, can be used to commit the crime of assault even if the victim isn't aware they have been targetted. I'd hazard a guess that the same 'reasonable person' would include bow & arrow under the same type of logic - namely, any reasonably accurate ranged weapon can be used to commit assault. Are you really implying that there is no imaginable use of a bow & arrow which is non-nefarious?

In the context of the military definition of 'assault rifle', there are plenty of imaginable uses for a rifle that is chambered for an intermediate caliber round (intermediate, if you didn't follow the link means a round in between a typical pistol round and a typical long rifle [generally speaking a long rifle is the longest/heaviest/most powerfull type of rifle that is practical for a single soldier to use] round) beyond human combat at intermediate ranges. This list may include marginally nefarious uses as well as marginally silly uses, but should also include uses which really are innocent. Just a few off the top of my head: "target shooting", "hunting", "rodent control", "propping open a window", "collecting", "investment", "historical re-enactment", "sunflower support", "mixing concrete", "opening a jar of peach preserves".

In the context of the AWB, which is what I guess you really mean in the context of your message, the same list of imagined non-nefarious uses applies as was given for the military term. In order to truely understand what you seem to be calling for (renewal of the AWB), you should understand first that it was about having more than one of a narrowly defined list of features, and second that it only applied to the sale of weapons made during the time it was in place. On the progun side of the debate, it was generally assumed that the intent of the ban was to reduce the sale of 'scary looking' weapons. As an example, a rifle could be sold with either a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher alone, but couldn't be sold with both. I'm having a hard time imagining a nefarious use for both those features which would be foiled by allowing only one.

by nizo (81281) * on Tuesday February 22, @12:44PM (#11746137)

I prefer #79 (TASER X26, 2003) If you have one of these you can probably eventually get everything else on the list.

Semiautomatic assault weapons are not machine guns of the sort used by Al Capone. The sale or transfer of fully automatic machine guns, which automatically feed ammunition into the chamber so that one depression of the trigger automatically sprays multiple bullets as long as the trigger is pulled, were restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (see The Six Federal Gun Laws). These fully automatic machine guns are still available, but acquiring them requires the payment of a significant tax, a thorough FBI background check, and the approval of local law enforcement officials. Moreover, as replacement parts for these truly military guns become harder to find, the price of these weapons has steadily increased while their availability have declined.

Semiautomatic assault weapons are only slightly less deadly than machine guns. Pulling the trigger on these guns fires a single bullet, but also automatically loads the next bullet into the chamber, so that the user can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds by repeatedly pulling the trigger. The best-known semi-automatic weapons, including the Israeli UZI, the Chinese-made SKS rifle and the Soviet AK-47 were all developed for military use, and are ill-suited for hunting.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows the government to prohibit the import of guns not designed for sporting purposes, which most certainly includes assault weapons. As crimes committed with assault weapons increased, President George H. W. Bush took the first step in controlling these weapons by banning certain imported assault rifles in 1989.[...]
Although it took four years and enormous public support to overcome the National Rifle Association's implacable opposition, the 1994 crime bill specifically banned the future manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons with no hunting or sporting purpose. The crime bill defines semiautomatic assault weapons both with a list of 19 specifically banned weapons, and with objective criteria designed to ban the futher production of these weapons clearly intended and accessorized for military or criminal use. The crime bill also banned the future manufacture and import of large-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.


The brady campaign website - the people who designed the assault weapons ban of 1994

Other crusades have been

The prohibition of Alchohol during 20's. Alcohol was the the leading factor in bad health, missed work, crime, violence, etc. ie, it was the root of all evil, so banning it ofcourse would fix all these social ills.

Communism during early fifties. For its strange ability to make people homosexual. Which of course makes it the root of all evil.

The evil "switch blade" which suddenly in the late 50's became the root of all evil and in the midst of much hysteria in congress, had to be banned for our own good.

Child Porn during the late 70's. mentioned above.

Public key encryption during the early 90's, Logic dictates that Citizens with unbreakable encyption are probably criminals.

Mean looking guns, which have supplanted switch blades as the source of all crime during the 90's.

copywrite infringers in the late 90's.

Terrorists which somehow only live in oil rich nations for the 2000's.

and now video copywrite infingers.

I think his point is that its just another crusade. Something blown out of proportion to what it really should be. Check the stats:

In 2002, there was an estimated 896,000 cases of abused children. More than 60 percent of child victims experienced neglect. Almost 20 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, almost 20 percent were associated with "other" types of maltreatment based on specific State laws and policies.

Of those 10% that were sexually abused, how many were abused just so that they could be photographed? Does Child Porn really get the attention it deserves or is it getting a lion share because it is somehow more dirty and news worthy than a kid getting beaten to death by his drunk step dad.

Ok, AK47s, 20yrs and anarchy are bit over the top.

What I am trying to say ( as I did to someone else on ) is that the "CCW theory" and other nonsense gun theories are deliberate FUD. They select only the facts that support the message of nameless vested intrests .

I am 45 and I live, work and can still shoot as many ferral pigs as I want in Australia. We were fourtunate enough to wake up to the FUD in 1989 when common sense gun control was started in Australia. The restrictions were eased in over several years using a buy-back scheme and an amnesty. The laws came in to full effect in 1997, thats why I chose the 1998 fact link above. It was a mainly bi-partisan response at both state and federal levels to the massive and sustained public outrage over The Senseless Port Arthur Massacare .

I invite you to look at our governments stats and pretty graphs on the subject

"many will still commit the crimes"-Sadly yes.

Protecting citizens from violence is one of the very few jobs the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to be doing, according to the Constitution.

I could go on and on about the crimes of Bush and Ashcroft, but it's clear you're not interested in hearing other sides of an argument.

The Brady Bunch would love to have you join.

And how is "against an intruder" defined? Did it include all the cases where a firearm detered the crime but the intruder or the victim was not injured? Was suicide removed from the study?

Blood will run in the streets tomorrow when the AWB expires.

Dont forget to vote for Kerry.

He's a moron, but I think when gun makers made Saturday Night Specials they knew exactly what they were doing. Those are used almost entirely for criminal uses. The people responsible should be shot by someone with poor aim.

Coca Cola is brainwashing.

Liberalism is brainwashing.

But if my corporate goal in life was to produce tools and give it to the people in the area to better their lives, and if those people then taught their children not to use weapons

Ah. So if they don't know how to use weapons, they won't have any proclivities to fight. Because they're peaceful and pacifistic, no random nation (or small armed force) will want to attack them? Get real. Weapons aren't just for making war; they're also for defense. For every household that has a masked Jihadist with an AK-47, there're two households where a father has a loaded AK-47 stashed somewhere in case he has to protect his family, which doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to protect them exclusively from a weapon-wielding human.

Your ideolistic world isn't going to come about by grabbing weapons from people with one hand and handing them a copy of some Ayn Rand book with the other. Try that, and the people you take weapons from will fucking die, because they don't live in the world you're imagining. You don't even live in that world (and it doesn't matter where you live. There are people near you that would as soon kill you as not, if not for the bother).

In the end, what we (the USA) are doing over there will help the Iraqi people. They'll end up with cleaner water, plenty of electricity, the educational system will get better, and life overall will improve--all things that wouldn't have been possible with Saddam in power.

Why isn't there a "Peace, Inc.", and why haven't any governments done anything to create a market for such a thing?

Peace isn't the reality of the world, especially in a country where the ruler's son can randomly pick women to rape and nobody can do anything to stop him. If you plan for peace, you'll get destroyed when war comes around. If you plan for war, you'll be ready when the shit hits the fan. Governments typically choose the second route, because there's no common sense in the first.

Lastly, there are a number of movements in the USA concerning gun control, a topic you seem to stress heavily in your posts under this story. You might check out the Brady Campaign website if you're interested in disarming people for the sake of disarming people. You should also check out the HCI parody website. Most of the high visibility gun-grabber lunatics in the USA are quite rich, and use their money to hire armed bodyguards (Rosie O'Donnell). Other rich gungrabbers live in cities like New York City, where their money and high profile are considered reason enough for them to be allowed to carry pistols, but the common person walking the street is barred from doing so.

There's a ton of hypocrasy involved when you want to disarm people. If you're truly interested in peace on a small scale, why don't you go to Iraq and walk down some random street at night (unarmed and unguarded, of course) and spread your message of peace? Not a whole lot of common sense, that.

More food for thought on this issue for fellow /.'ers: The Brady Campaign maintains factual information on gun violence issues. There are also some well researched issue briefs on child access to guns, sale of assault weapons, concealed weapon statutes and other aspects of state and federal gun policy.

More food for thought on this issue for fellow /.'ers: The Brady Campaign maintains factual information on gun violence issues. There are also some well researched issue briefs on child access to guns, sale of assault weapons, concealed weapon statutes and other aspects of state and federal gun policy.

• Are minors restricted from possessing guns?
  State law restricts juveniles under 18 from possessing handguns without parental permission or authorized supervision. But there are no restrictions on juveniles possessing rifles or shotguns including semiautomatic assault weapons. (These kids used shotguns.)
• Is a license/permit required to buy handguns? No.
• Are gun owners held accountable for leaving guns accessible to kids?
  No. No state requirement that gun owners take responsible steps to prevent children from gaining easy access to their firearms. Gun owners are not held accountable for leaving loaded guns around kids, even if a young child shoots themselves or someone else with a gun left in plain sight.

If they're going to let kids have guns, there's no point in worrying about video games.

You think the people at the Violence Policy Center are runaway slaves? You're an even bigger moron than I thought ...

Handguns are made for killing people. All opinions aside, that's a basic fact. Handguns are a tool designed for killing, and specifically for killing people. Arguing that they have some other practical use is just silly.

Before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance on this subject, you might wish to visit this site and enlighten yourself. At the very least, you might consider at least not automatically taking what these maroons say as gospel. This is also highly-recommended reading.

It's just a suggestion...take it or leave it, but I'd rather not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. It's too much like shooting fish in a barrel...it quickly gets boring.

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
• A silencer
• A grenade launcher.

While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
• A silencer
• A grenade launcher.

While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?

Well, if you divide the progressives up into pragmatists and idealists, I'd guess less than a percent of the former want to ban handguns, whereas perhaps half of the idealists do. But those are many of the people who say they want to legalize hemp to help the textile industry, if you get my drift. I'm not alone in my lack of trust of idealogues, be they progressive or otherwise, and they don't often get elected.

Most of the pragmatic progressives these days who care at all about gun issues are focused on things like making a chamber round indicator mandatory so kids don't keep shooting each other. We lose a whole lot of kids every year because they think ejecting a magazine unloads a gun.

As for things like registration, mandatory training and safety inspections, trigger locks, etc., that's another story, and very well within the meaning of the 2nd amendment's words, "well regulated." Even "The Brady Campaign works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United States but does not seek to ban guns."

For example gun manufacturors do not face such action for providing people with items that could be used in a crime.

This is not true, see: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles County, Newark, NJ, Cincinnati, others.

Nah, most people appreciate pedants!

His spelling makes it sounds a bit like "insult weapons."

Anyone interested in the statutory definition of "assault weapon," as set forth by the 1994 gun control law, can check here. Note that factors such as clip size are paramount -- IMHO, as this may draw ire, if you can't finish off your mugger with 10 rounds you need to spend more time at the firing range. (pardon my citing a partisan source; I try to avoid that but don't feel like going to the trouble of finding the statute itself. Anyone seriously interested should do so.)

Some things like silencers I believe are unlicensable, and are subject to a stiff prison term. Machine guns are legal but strictly limited to the 100,000 licenses extant.

Ah yes it was... it was on the sixth line down on the comment I linked to here. But now I'm assuming that you are making the argument that statistics are not facts.

Odd, the people usually "brandishing a gun" are usually criminals.

Odd the static's I've shown you show that armed citizens are far more likely to use a gun in defense than a criminal is in a crime. (2.5 million to 500,000 is a 5:1 ratio in my book I don't know what it is in yours?) Where are your statistics proving your argument? You want facts to back up my argument and I do my best to provide them. So where are yours? You make theses sweeping generalizations and yet never back them up. Instead changing your argument every time to cover up the issue that you can't prove one thing you've said!

Drawing a gun on them will probably make them shoot you. So you having a gun escalates the crime, instead of preventing it.

Ok so lets play a numbers game and giving you a major benefit of the doubt I'll get my numbers from the Brady Campaign which state that from 79 to 97 there were 651,697 firearm related deaths in this country. 334,870 of those were suicides, which is 51.38% of the deaths. Here is the breakdown by year:

1979 32,689
1980 33,477
1981 33,778
1982 32,682
1983 30,842
1984 31,078
1985 31,324
1986 33,126
1987 32,638
1988 33,757
1989 34,471
1990 36,866
1991 38,077
1992 37,474
1993 39,358
1994 38,187
1995 35,957
1996 33,750
1997 32,166

for the total of 651,697. The average number killed per year was 32,586 (651,697/19 years).
now if we remove the 51% of the suicides we get 16,743 (32,586 x .5138). Now if I once again give you the benefit of the doubt and say that all of those people were armed and attempted to use there weapon to protect themselves, which you and I know didn't happen in every case, we have 2.5 million people using a weapon to defend themselves and only 16,743 of them being killed. That's a ratio 1:149, which is to say that 1 out of 149 times you pull the weapon to defend yourself you'll be killed, the other 148 times you'll save your ass.

And this does not take into account that the statistics show that 90% of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to deter the crime. And also I did not remove deaths from unintentional shootings. So you see the numbers simply don't back you up. Being armed when a crime is being committed against you will save your life!

So logical reasoning of human behavior will not change your mind. The fact that the founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselves from threats, foreign and domestic, does not change your mind. And numbers that show being armed while a crime is being committed will save your life, doesn't change your mind... What would? I'm guessing nothing, because you have fooled yourself into believing that guns will kill someone all on its own... its just going to jump up and shoot someone all on its own.

So you go ahead and hide in your basement from this sniper. And the next one! I'll be the guy out there living my life, making this country work. Because this is the land of the free and home of the brave, and because its impossible to have one without the other!

I noticed two things about this:
1) "except in public areas" - basically so our police state can do what we aren't allowed to. Yet Another case of "Do What We Say, Not What We Do!"
2) Do something in violation of the first ammendment and say it's to "Protect the Children"
Next thing you know, they'll be telling me we can't own guns because we have to protect the children. And we can't save a woman who's unborn child will cause her death, because we have to Protect the Children. And, if, while in high school, you play a practical joke on someone by "pants-ing" them (sneaking up behind them and yanking their pants down by the belt-loops) you get labeled a "sex offender" and now - for the rest of your life, you have no right to privacy and must introduce yourself to your neighbors like so: "Hi, my name's joe - and I'm a sex offender. Just had to say that so the Gestapo doesn't come out and shoot me in the face..." -- All to Protect the GODDAMN children!
(Damn - that last link really freakin hurts - I look at the mindless soccer moms I see when I go to a school function with my 11 y/o son, and I wonder - "How good would she be at psychological profiling?" - damn! shivers!)

Maybe there is something we REALLY should protect the children from?.....Uhmmm..... Yeah - probably

If 1500 accidental deaths per year is an acceptable amount, then your opinion differs from mine. My point was that having stricter gun laws doesn't only stop the good guys from defending themselves, as you said. It's very complicated, and it's not black and white. Again, you don't see any leeway.

I could find other statistics to compare with what you've said (like "In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady, the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than the violent crime rate ever since." or "More telling is this continuing trend where crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that do not allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws."), it's just who puts the right slant on the information.

I'm not even for treating computer viruses like biological viruses, it's just important to think about both sides of the issue. And I thought it was an interesting approach. I don't think it's just something to totally discard without even considering it on any level whatsoever.

mark