Slashdot Mirror

Typically gun bullet marks are registered, so police can identify the gun. It doesn't work perfectly, but it helps a lot.

Yeah works great!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...

https://gunowners.org/fs0203.h...

Regarding Democrats blocking the collection of accurate statistics on defensive use of firearms, I am my own source. I watched and listened to it happen in the 90s during the first two years of the Clinton presidency when the AWB was passed.

Regarding the use of firearms to save lives: https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

Regarding police using firearms in the US, it is standard procedure to perform all felony arrests at gunpoint. You can use Google yourself if you are that interested.

Regarding the UK violence stat, sorry it didn't quite double, it went from 11% to 18%.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-K...

All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.

The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.

The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.

Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.

There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

Yet Martin Luther King Jr. almost always had people with guns around him for self-defense.

See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights.

There were several armed protesters in the group who didn't shoot anyone.

Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection.

Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone.

Yes, that worked well in Tienanmen Square.

If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun... You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.

Except when you do.

You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away.

It sounds as if you would like to take semi-automatic or full automatic guns away from people. Several entertainers recently have advocated for Australian Style gun control which was enforced by mass confiscation.

Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they on the streets?

https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

It might blow your mind as well to know that guns save FAR more lives than they take, only the media doesn't cover it, but the info is there, if you want to learn it...

By that logic the gang areas should be super safe because they're full of guns.

No, not at all... guns are hard to LEGALLY get in those gang areas...

Seriously, stop having opinions about shit you know nothing about...

https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

you're willing to sacrifice all the other lives lost to guns?

Guns save more lives than they take, at least the good ones...

Why do you want to kill good people? You're pretty sick...

Note: Read and learn the facts, instead of the bullshit you THINK you know...

https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

Read and learn...

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

Guns are good, criminals are bad... banning guns does not remove criminals, it simply makes victims out of good people.

That's a fact, no matter how much CNN doesn't want you to know it...

It isn't "entertainment", it is fact...

Thousands of people every week defend themselves with a gun, many of those people would not be here without it...

The media doesn't report on it that often, doesn't fit with their "message".

https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...

Read and learn...

If you don't think that folks defend themselves with guns daily, it is you who live on a different planet. https://www.gunowners.org/sk08... But I doubt whether truth and reality matter to you. And, (hint, hint) the NRA is a tremendous supporter of cops, the military, and a secure society. Your logic about A-B is also incorrect.

I have stated as fact that the fear of individuals possibly carrying firearms and defending themselves is not a significant factor in the criminal mind.

Okay, I misunderstood your point. Duly noted.

Studies have also shown that criminals are deterred if they think their victims might be armed. See the decline in violent crime after concealed carry of firearms became more common:

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Knives happen to have sharp edges, so trying to take one away is less of a winning proposition.

I'd really like some citations to go along with these claims you are making.

Hint, what you are saying here doesn't square with what my self-defense instructors have told me. The best single tool for self-defense is a firearm; a knife has a place in self-defense but it is definitely not the preferred tool.

We actively discourage vigilantism.

You keep phrasing things in weird ways, but if I'm not mistaken, you and I are in agreement on this point: society is currently telling people that they shouldn't do anything when violence occurs, just sit back and let the police handle it.

At which point you bring up a whole lot of inconsistent research that manage to conclude something with a 312.5% margin of error and with extremely poor experimental design, and from a biased source to boot.

Dunno where you get that margin of error. Professor Kleck's book about his research led to him being awarded the Hindelang Award by the American Society of Criminology. I guess they thought his research was okay.

Did you know global warming is bunk, too? Exxon-Mobil published a study. There is no pollution from coal at all.

Still waiting for you to offer any sort of citation to support your propositions. By the way, I hate coal.

You're a retard.

Huh. I think you are not worth my time and this will be my last comment to you.

Perhaps, however, you misunderstood my comment. If a guy with a gun goes into a school or whatever and starts shooting the place up, all the people in that school are his victims IMHO. The ones he shoots are the worst off, of course, but everyone else can be said to be the victims of assault at minimum.

You ascribed a particular motive to the people who don't attack a school shooter: "Nobody stands up to put a stop to it, because they might get shot a few seconds earlier."

So, did I misunderstand you again? Were you not saying that the people who failed to attack the shooter were motivated out of a willingness to watch others die rather than increase their own personal risk?

I explained the role of society in deterrence, and you claim victim-blaming. I specifically said the victim has NO POWER over the situation, and it's the fault of everyone else in the world.

It's possible for "victims" to take a more active role in their own self-defense, and I'm in favor of that. It's also possible for bystanders to take a more active role in the defense of others, and I'm in favor of that too.

I'm less interested in blaming the bystanders for not acting, than in changing society to make it more likely that bystanders will act.

You claim I'm blaming Sally for getting raped by complaining that Tim, Bob, George, Amanda, Mark, Joseph, and Bill all stood by and did nothing. Are Tim, Bob, George, Amanda, Mark, Joseph, and Bill the victim?

Depends on the circumstances. If they watch some brute assault Sally with his bare hands and they do nothing, they aren't any kind of victims, and IMHO they should do something. If, however, the rapist has a buddy who his pointing a gun at all of them to cow them into inaction, then they are victims as well. I would actually prefer that they do something, rather than standing around; obviously the worst victim is Sally in this horrific scenario.

I'll say it again: if some guy with a gun crashes into a school and starts walking around shoo

Considering gun owners are more likely to get shot by their own gun than shoot an intruder, I'd consider this a win.

Citation please... that is a myth. Can you back up your claim?

Here is my citation that what you claim is pure malarkey. http://gunowners.org/sk0701.ht...

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

It's not for nothing that the NRA is sometimes referred to as "Negotiate Rights Away". That's why years ago I chose to avoid the compromise-loving, surrender monkey NRA and joined GOA instead.

However, the NRA did a decent job helping to protect our rights after Newton, so perhaps they have finally grown a spine.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership-Low-In-Homicides
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

That said, why does anyone actually care about the NRA anymore? They are about as valid as AARP, nothing more than a self-interested lobby group that really doesn't care about their members being using them to fun what their masters want to force on everyone. That isn't a screed against gun ownership, or owners, my feelings toward the NRA is irrelevant towards my stance on guns. The NRA should die, and be replaced with a better group that actually represents their members, and minimizes their actual bigger impact to only things that protect their members rights.

Gun Owners of America.

Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.

That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.

While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Incorrect most illegal guns are bought at local gun shops, and most aren't illegally imported from overseas, all this is according the the ATF. Restructing the licensure and criteria for lawful sales of firearms, will do the most to restrict the unregulated supplies of guns. Some would argue that even the founding fathers had experience with gun violence, and wanted firearm possession to be solely for the use of a well regulated militia, and not even for two consenting adults who agree to duel each other.

The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.

And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?

The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.

If your willing to use a gun, then your more prone to violence, and more likely to act violently. Gun ownership rates are also positively correlated with crime rates. While you may think that your a sane person, you may end up being the next George Zimmerman instead.

I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.

I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.

I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.

During a traffic accident where a guy thought the other guy was at fault, on the rapid transit train during a feud over a woman, at a natural hotspring as a notion of bravado, at the same exact hot spring by drunk russians carrying rifles and gallons of carlow rossi, an old jewish man who got confronted because he was slandering 'towelheads' and pulled his gun after 'feeling threatened', a bozo neighbor who blocked the road and belligerently tried to lecture me (incorrectly) about right of way with my bike in a single lane double yellow lane, and donned his holstered gun and threatened me after I had his car towed for parking in my old neighbor ladies disabled spot.

all of these people wanted to "protect themeselves" from 'evil', 'crazy', 'dangerous' people, by either advertising that they shouldn't be fucked with, or directly threatening other people.

Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.

So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times

Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.

That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.

While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.

And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.

I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.

I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.

Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.

So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist than a woman who does not.
And that's according to FBI crime data.

People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.

Actually, where stats have been toted up, turns out there are considerably more violent acts prevented by guns than are committed with the aid of guns.

Here's an article with a lot of stats including U.S. vs various other countries; read the whole thing:

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

[I have personally saved my own or another's ass and/or property three times with the aid of a gun. Only one of those incidents was reported to police. I'd guess this is a reasonable approximation of how many preventive incidents go unreported.]

Lots of stats:

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Actually, studies and statistics show that most well-armed populations have extremely low rates of violence and murder. Conversely, look at the UK where illegal gun violence and murder rates are through the roof in many areas. http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Washington D.C. and its direct metropolitan portion of Prince George's County, Maryland is one of the worst cities in the US for violent crime. One of the very reasons for this is actually the strict gun control laws. The same goes for Chicago. What about Los Angeles? All these cities are supposed to be "safer", so say gun control advocates.

What people don't realize, or don't care to acknowledge, is that criminals don't care if they're breaking the law. Which is exactly why they're "Criminals". Why would a "Gun-free zone" make anyone any safer? The single best defense against violent crime is an informed and armed population. Criminals want to take the path of least resistance; they're not going to break into a house KNOWING that it could very well be their last, when easier undefended targets are nearby.

Why do I carry a gun? Because I can't carry a cop.

Join the NRA

The NRA should be dead to anybody who values rights after their support of the DISCLOSE Act. GOA would be a better option.

I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response. http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

As some others pointed out already: it is not illegal to own a gun. You have to go through an established process to get them because GUNS ARE DANGEROUS.

No, not at all. In fact, GUNS SAVE LIVES.

It's actually gun control that is dangerous, as history shows.

The job of the police is only to enforce the law after it has been broken, see Warren v DC. Also, since that site will probably make you cry: Try this one.

I live in Minneapolis. A few years ago we implemented a "conceal and carry" law which allows citizens to carry handguns on their person at all times. Since then the crime rate has risen steadily.

I'm not saying one caused the other, but I don't think there's much evidence for your statement.

I just posted this, but here it is again--documented evidence.

I wonder if after passing that law, Minneapolis then started banning guns everywhere. Obviously there are some places, such as where alcohol is sold. But often opponents of the change of gun laws try to make it so that while you can get a permit, you can't take it anywhere.

I've already seen a story where some politician is remarking about a "wild west" attitude. When they passed the concealed carry law in Texas there were plenty of critics predicting shootouts in the streets. However the violent crime rate went down. Rates have risen slightly, but not to the levels they were before the law was in place. One study also found that concealed carry gun owners are more law abiding than the average person.

In Texas, the concealed carry law was first brought up after a massacre at a cafeteria in 1991 in Killeen Texas. The killer systematically killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. Most could do little more than cower helplessly under the table. One woman had a gun, but had left it in car and so was unable to stop him from killing both her parents.

We do not need to fear the lawful people having guns...it's the unlawful who count on their victims being unable to defend themselves you need to fear. However, having a gun is not for everyone. If you don't believe you can draw your gun and shoot to kill, or you're not willing to safely learn how to use one, please DON'T buy a gun.

Although in the real world what is much more likely to happen is that the gun in your house will be used to kill an innocent person, be that a friend, relative, loved one, self, or someone mistaken for a criminal.

And that's an oft-quoted statement--and it's not true.

Please educate yourself*.
*Note that while, yes, this is obviously posted by a pro-gun web site, the statistics are footnoted very well so it's not simply their opinion.

"the murder rate in Washington DC is 55 percent higher than before the DC gun ban laws went into effect" - http://www.gunowners.org/sk0601.htm

Your suicide argument is a complete non-issue. If people want to kill themselves than that's their business. Guns don't make people kill themselves. By the way, here are some stats which show that guns are used more often in self defense than they are used to commit crimes:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

Seems like guns DO help to keep you safe. Seems pretty obvious that a person would be better off having a weapon to defend themselves than not. I think just about any reasonable person would think that way - that is, unless they thought of their fellow citizens not as competent adults but rather as stupid Gomer Pile's.

May take a while - a few months, a few years - but they can wait.

Once you've forgotten about this story, they'll go to work making it happen.

Support the EFF, ACLU, and GOA. :)

I had come across the 146% through some reading else where, so it might be over stated, but as for the increase in violent crimes by gun since further controls were started, they are on an up according to any search I've done.

The first three listing when searching google for 'australian gun ban':

http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Just about any study I've ever seen about the subject has seen an increase in gun related crimes right after further gun controls were enacted. There are some few places where such laws work, Iceland maybe?, but not most.

anti gun advocates always bring up this statistic. It is based on bad logic. The most famous study only said that people who own guns are more likely to be shot vs the population as a whole. It DID not specify that the owner was shot with his/her own gun. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm. In fact they did not even have to be shot in there own home to be counted as a gun owner being shot. The main flaws with this kind of study are : Guns DO NOT CAUSE SUICIDE. However anybody wanting to shoot him/herself will need to own a gun. Outlaw guns and people will just use rope. The majority of US gun deaths are suicide (from wikipedia) People who are in dangerous areas are more likely to get shot. Of course they are more likely to own guns. people with jobs that make them "targets" (jewelers, carry lots of cash, work late/alone) are more likely to own guns. People whom are targeted(have an actual person/s intent on harming them) are more likely to own guns. wiki has an interesting article that explains why studies like this are ofyen wrong headed read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy and find out

If you are in favor of strict gun control, vote for McCain:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

If you don't want the constitution swept under the table with your guns, then vote for someone else.

"But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive "

Quite so, the truth of the matter...many of the rights people are decrying being lost are not encountered by the majority of people. I've not found myself a victim of being detained without cause, search or had my possessions seized, etc.

The advantage of a complacent and armed population is that when things reach a point where complacency is NOT an option. A means to re-instate said rights exists via gun ownership.

"It is much easier to produce statistics on how many gun deaths occured, rather than on how many crimes were prevented by guns. This argument seems to be a cornerstone of people who support arming the population."

Not a cornerstone, just one of the many pillars.

"Unfortunately, your statement was more accurate than you intended, perhaps. I don't hear about how many crimes are prevented by guns. In order for me to consider your argument that guns prevent crime as a valid argument, I would need at least some indication that the number of crimes preveted is large."

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

(how about 2.5 million a year?)

"The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government...The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people...The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails."

Which is why you should actually instead be supporting the GOA.

Now, you're probably thinking what I'm thinking. Why in the world would Charlton Heston let an idiot like Michael Moore inside of his house to interview him and film part of the layout of his home? When asked this question, Bill Powers, a spokesman for Heston would say only: "I won't spend 30 seconds talking about Michael Moore."

Don't you realise why things like that happen more often in the USA than in Europe?

Don't be silly... http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

Which part of Europe?

England? Where guns are banned entirely...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

Or Switzerland? Where men are required to own weapons and women are encouraged to...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.st m

These make a pretty good case for arming everyone!

I'm not OK with idiot yokels carrying guns in public. It's not safe.

Vermont and Alaska allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it concealed in public. Do you consider those States more unsafe than other parts of the U.S.?

• "You read that rightthe Christian Coalition has joined everyone from Google to MoveOn to the Gun Owners of America in the fight for Internet freedom."

Not according to the statistics.

Paul Hager disagrees, quotes statistics
2nd Amendment Sisters say 97% of women who resist with a gun are successful
Dr. Robert J. Woolley's editorial shows up alot
Using a knife the worst choice of all? (40.3% injury rate, vs. 17.4% for a gun, 24.7 for 'did nothing')

It is amazing that switzerland apears to have a larger crime rate then the US.

It is well known Switzerland (like Sweden and other similar "socialists" countries) has a higher *reported* crime rate than the US. It is also well-known that this does not show a difference in actual crime rate, but in willingness to report crime.

Check out the stats for crimes which are (more or less) reliably estimated, such as homicides.

This site http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm apears to say that gun ownership has the oposite effect in crime

Well, coincidence, right in the middle of this page there is a big table that gives you precisely these statistics ! How convenient !

Annual homicides per 100K inhabitants :
Switzerland: 2.7
Denmark: 4.9
France: 1.1
Israel: 1.4
Japan: 0.6
U.S.: 7.4 (tadaam !)

So you might ask, how come that you can find such damning data on a site called "gunowner.org" ? And how can they use them to support the idea that gun control = higher crimes ? Easy: they conflate homicides with suicides ! When you add suicides to homicides, you find fewer victims in the US than in other countries ! Ergo, gun control kills people, QED !

The crackpots who put this page up also seem to think that Hitler and Stalin's genocides should be included in crime statistics. Apparently this brings homicide rates in Europe to about 400000/year (yup, 400K) over the last 70 years, which clearly indicates that European gun control laws kill people !

Thomas-
PS: Not that those stats should be taken as gospel or anything. If Denmark has 5 times as many homicides as France, I'm the Pope.

It is amazing that switzerland apears to have a larger crime rate then the US. This site http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm apears to say that gun ownership has the oposite effect in crime then what is popularly taunted too.

It's funny how ignorant you are. Your sources are highly biased and you even succeeded to counter your own assertions.

Switzerland and Finland have most guns per person in Europe. In Switzerland many of the guns people have are military grade. That's because militia personnel are required to keep their guns at home as part of their military obligations. So how do you explain that even though people in Switzerland have powerful guns at their homes, there's still according to your sources a higher crime rate than in US? Weren't the guns supposed to lower the crime rate?

In Finland guns are mostly hunting rifles. Virtually nobody in big cities owns a hand gun. I'm from Finland, and can guarantee you that the low crime rate is not because people in the country side own guns, it's mostly because Finland is a very socialistic country when compared to US or even Switzerland. We take care of our poor, so they don't have to steal from other people to make a living. We also give a decent education to our poor, so they have a chance to get a decent job.

This site seems to disagree with the differences in crime rates you stated. I followed some of the supportijng links and it also apears to be acurate. Well i guess interpool only wants you to know about the stats if you are a police angency. This site hereandhere seem to back it up. It is amazing that switzerland apears to have a larger crime rate then the US. This site http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm apears to say that gun ownership has the oposite effect in crime then what is popularly taunted too.

I've heard this misinterpretation about the crime rates in Europe compaired to america before. I'm not sure it is something like the chicken and egg concpet were some one thinks it should be logical to have that outcome so they just spout it or if the EU news agencies under report the crimes unlike in america were it is a guarentied ratings.

Of course, this ignores the fact that guns prevent a lot more crime than they cause. Why are you against actions that prevent women from getting raped?

right?

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

the NRA is certainly not overzealous, they're sellouts. just for example, the NRA was willing to extend the "assault" weapon ban to get industry immunity...until more principled gun-rights organizations started turning up the heat on the NRA.

the NRA has gone soft, and yet the socialists still screech "right wing extremists!" for real gun-rights orgs check out
www.KeepAndBearArms.com
www.GunOwners.org

#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.

You mean, just like the database of people submitting to a background check for purchase of a firearm was purged (search for "Texas"), as requred by law? Yeah, I trust my government to scrub the database like it says it will.

Say, did I hear something about a bridge for sale?

But anyway, see here, at footnote 4 near the bottom, referencing this bbc article...

When systems like this are intentionally exposed to public scrutiny, there will always be a mollifying language included in it. Their goal is to make the average person feel not certain enough that they're threatened to get off their couch and take action.

Once the spooks have gotten the consent they need from politicians, the political reality is that they can throw out the promises they made and they can even stretch their goals beyond considerably beyond what was agreed to.

The current fight over surveillance in public areas is huge. It is at least as big as DRM. They will retain the data forever. The first few times these systems are used, it will be to convict a dangerous criminal--maybe they'll mine the data to disprove a serial killer's alibi.

A few years later, they'll have real-time tracking of every car. This will be used to find unusual patterns such as the vehicles of multiple "persons of interest" (muslims, anti-globalization activists, etc), heading toward a particular site for a meeting. Then others who went to the same area will be flagged too. Pretty soon we may as well be living in North Korea.

I would caution against using Bowling for Columbine as a source of inspiration, or taking anything Michael Moore says as valid. He's not entirely honest. He's actually quite dishonest and he has no respect for his audience. You can be honest with yourself about it or not...all the same to me.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.gunowners.org/opmooretb.htm