Slashdot Mirror

I'm now convinced that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with some construct of your imagination. I already agreed with you that the right of self defense does not mean people can murder without punishment. I'm trying to make it clear to you that gun control in the USA has gone one step too far with these recent blocking of sharing 3D printer files. That's not 2nd Amendment territory any more, this is infringement on the 1st Amendment.

Here's another thing, I'd like to see where you get this idea of an overwhelming dislike of the NRA. I saw a recent fundraiser for a march against the NRA. Go have a look on how much money they raised for the protest.
https://www.gofundme.com/natio...

A whole $70 on a national fundraiser. The NRA likely makes more money on a single order of overpriced t-shirts and "tactical" pants on their website.

I don't care what you say, the National Rifle Association is not the bad guy here. Perhaps you could start understanding this by reading some of the things that the NRA has written. This might be a good place to start:
https://www.nraila.org/article...

Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRAâ(TM)s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.

The NRA supports laws barring people from producing undetectable firearms. It's already illegal to make an undetectable firearm. It's illegal for felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens, and others law breakers like them, to possess any firearm. It's illegal to murder people. It's illegal to threaten people with a firearm. It's illegal to carry a firearm into a school. I don't know what you want because it seems that what so many claim we need in laws restricting gun ownership and use already exists. What I don't want to see is a law barring the posting of drawings on the internet, that's simply a step too far.

"they are now talking about banning kitchen knives with pointed ends."

I assume you are one of those American gun nuts who says things like "pillows can suffocate people, so if you ban guns, you should also ban pillows".

If you RTFA, you find it's just one judge who said that in his retirement speech. It has no chance in hell of anyone taking it seriously, yet you use it to snidely imply that any gun control inevitably leads to absurdities like that. All because of one remark by one judge-- not on the bench, in his private capacity.

Of course, this BS is already an NRA talking point:
https://www.nraila.org/article...

If you choose to commit a felony in Florida, you know that you risk losing your liberty for the duration of your prison sentence, and permanently losing the trust of your fellow voters. Just like you permanently lose that state's willingness to endorse your purchase of a gun.

The NRA has been lobbying legislatures to restore gun rights for felons, but not voting rights.

https://www.nraila.org/article...

"who the fuck brings a rifle to a rock concert though?"

50 years ago, people were almost constantly armed if they wanted to be, and it was a common sight to see trucks driving around with a rifle rack. It wasn't an issue of bringing a gun. If you drove somewhere, you were armed, if you could make it back to your truck (or hell any active or retired military would have broken a window and pulled out that rifle to use against the shooter) and that was the contrast I posited in my original post.

    "I also note you've smoothly moved from "hunters" to "retired military" with no acknowledgement after I pointed out that returning fire is very much different from hitting a target. Your dishonesty has been noted."

I simply added them to the list because there were dozens at that concert (I watched TV interviews with some of them after the shooting). I stand by my original statement. I will stack my experienced hunter returning fire 90 seconds after the shooting started over your 15 minute police response any day of the week. Whether you are a trained soldier or just a marksman, you are going to be very scared either way, but you have to set it aside and focus on what needs to be done. A patriot is a patriot. The guy who stopped the Texas church shooter was just an armed citizen.

"Can't aim for shit" is a technical military term proudly passed down through the generations. I learned it along with marksmanship, gun safety and hunting from my father and grandfather. My grandfather was an army ranger sniper in WW2 in Europe who first taught advanced marksmanship and then shipped out on D-day. The reason he was such a good shot? He grew up hunting... Most hunters who practice and hunt regularly are better shots with their long gun than the police and at least on par with your average enlisted man (excluding snipers/special forces/etc). To a large degree it is experience putting rounds on the target and shooting under different conditions and relative elevations that makes you a better shot.

Feel free to read up on some actual facts about gun control, and actual crime statistics trends.
https://www.nraila.org/issues/...
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

Look, if you are going to be a pompous ass, at least be right. I said Europe, not the UK. Unless the rest of the continent phased into another dimension, there are a lot more countries in Europe than just the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Filter by region and look through EUROPE...

And the African American murder rate is a tragedy, and a fact. It has nothing to do with race or racism, it has everything to do with a violent, defective sub culture that rejects upstanding citizenship in favor of the gangster life. To claim it is racist is stupid bullshit that no one will tolerate anymore. State your argument or shut up and let the grown ups talk.

If you remove that sub culture and avoid the liberal inner cities, your risk of homicide is ~2.5 per 100k, which is comparable to many and lower than some countries in Europe. If you are interested in actual facts, feel free to read up and un-brainwash yourself...

https://www.nraila.org/issues/...
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

On the contrary, a landmine is an indiscriminate weapon, rifles, shotguns, and handguns are not even if they can be used indiscriminately.

More Guns, Less Crime

People who use guns to defend against robbery and aggravated assault are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of self-defense.

A survey of felons for the federal government found that 40 percent had not committed one or more crimes because they feared that their prospective victims were armed. Thirty-four percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.

“Hot burglaries,” in which criminals invade homes while home dwellers are present, are much less common in the United States, where many people have guns, than in England, where most people don’t have guns.

Incorrect. https://www.nraila.org/article...

The 1994-2004 so called "Assault Weapons Ban" and several similar current state laws define "Assault Weapons" by a number of means including in some cases "certain specific features". That is not the same and should not be conflated with an Assault Rifle, which the US Army and other military organizations have a strict functional definition of:

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

Armalite.

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

I guess that's why you're an AC

"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...

You should stop while you're way behind

The worst is when, in the case of some people I've known, NICS decides to deny even someone with a clean background but make it as difficult as possible to appeal if you even can at all.

https://www.nraila.org/article... Just look up Hillary gun control executive order.

BS. They lobby for enforcing existing firearm laws all the time. But hey, when you have high-profile anti-gun Democrats running guns, maybe they don't WANT to reduce gun crimes and enforce existing laws... There's money and power to be made by letting CRIMINALS (yes, committing fraud on a 4473 is a felony) stay on the street.

The NRA pushes to enforce existing laws; what good is accomplished by passing new laws if you choose to not enforce existing ones? You had 43,000 CONVICTED FELONS trying to ILLEGALLY PURCHASE firearms, and the Federal Government just ingored it. Slam-dunk convictions - signed statements of fraud, documented. You know where they live. And yet - don't enforce. Why not? What good will new laws do?

Enforce the existing laws first (or repeal them if you're not going to enforce them) and then we can talk...

Hate to burst your little bubble, but the NRA supports prosecution of fraudulently filling out a 4473. They strongly argue that such criminals should be locked up. They would rally behind President Obama if he pushed to enforce that law. But - that would lower gun crime and eliminate the foundation to push for further encroachment on the 2nd Amendment.

On the other hand, the stuff is already supposed to be illegal.

It's illegal to commercially import ivory. But if you already have it here, you can still sell it. A full ban was proposed a few years ago but ran into opposition.

If you are going to make a point with stats, please post your source. People with a gun-control agenda seem to love throwing around misinformation to convince people guns are evil. I suspect you are one of those people.

You claim 40,000 per year are killed or wounded by gun violence. The most recent FBI stats I could find showed homicides by firearm to be at 8454 for 2013 (source). The most recent stats I could find from the Justice Department for non-fatal firearm violence shows 46,000 total for 2007 though 2011 which comes out to approximately 9200 per year (source pg 10). That comes to approximately 17,600 which is less than 45% of the number you provided. That also assumes stats dating back to 2007 despite the fact that gun violence has decreased since then (you can check out the same sources above to see that trend).

As for the "approximately zero saved by good guys" - that is also 100% incorrect. While the mainstream media do not report it, there are tons of these incidents. Lucky for us, I have a source for this data as well. While those 600+ pages of articles is compiled by the "evil" NRA, they all have independent source articles linked.

If one decides to kill themselves, a gun is not required. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US does and guns are virtually unavailable to private citizens in Japan. As well, self defense has nothing to do with suicide (except, of course, that it could be considered suicidal to not have an effective means of defending yourself if attacked). The 60% of gun deaths in the US that are suicides are not relevant to the question of if guns are effective for self defense.

Many, perhaps most, self defense uses of firearms never result in a shot being fired let alone the death of anyone -- the criminal often either retreats or is apprehended without incident when faced with a defensive threat. An effective self defense does not require killing or even injuring the attacker. When comparing whatever numbers you have about "less likely to survive an attack", one must include cases where no physical attack occurred because the potential victim was armed.

It is obviously not the case that one having a gun "automatically escalates ANY encounter with a criminal to lethal force" (display of a gun is not, in common usage, "lethal force" - when a police officer pulls his gun but never even puts his finger inside the trigger guard, it is not considered a use of "lethal force"). Surely, even in your cocoon you have heard of at least ONE case where a gun was used to deter a threat and NO one was killed or the gun even fired? If not, here is a sampling (links to the underlying media reports are included) of self defense uses of firearms that often never result in a shot being fired. Note, of course, that this list is by necessity incomplete. It only includes cases that are actually reported to the police, then reported in the media, then noticed by someone and reported to the list maintainer, and that the list maintainer decides to include in the list. Note that many such instances wouldn't be reported on in the media in an urban area in part because they are not very unique and, hence, sensational enough to be newsworthy -- just as shoplifting violations are rarely reported in the media except maybe in "police blotter" listings that provide insufficient detail to make the list above.

Since many defensive uses of a firearm are not reported to police if no one is injured just as many thefts are not reported to the police, it's not possible to come up with an accurate number of defensive uses of firearms for self defense. Although if you want to play "dueling estimates", many are available (ranging, as I recall, from around 100,000 per year to around 3,500,000 per year - both ends of which I'm sceptical of).

Your statement of "It's simply a scientific fact that having a gun does not help you defend yourself, it mostly helps criminals kill you - and it also ensures they WILL kill you." can only true if there is a nationwide conspiracy with people reporting defensive uses of firearms to police (by your logic anyone who actually used a gun for self defense would be dead since you state that as an absolute outcome of such an encounter). To support this conspiracy some people actually are voluntarily shot (and sometimes die at the scene they are so devoted to the grand conspiracy). Some allow themselves to be arrested and put in prison for years for the crime that never happened but they agreed to allow themselves to be imprisoned for. I find this far fetched -- but of course I also believe that we landed on the moon and that man may have an impact on the climate and perhaps you don't.

Although you don't cite any references so I can't find out where your data comes from, the way you phrase and use the data suggests that you are not understanding the full picture. It appears you have jumped to "scientific fact" a bit too early.

The NRA also assisted Otis McDonald (a Black American) in his lawsuit against the City of Chicago and their unconstitutional handgun ordinance which infringed an individual's Second Amendment rights.

• McDonald v. City of Chicago
• A Freedom Fighter to Never Forget: Otis McDonald (1933-2014)

Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source

I was interested too and I found it with DuckDuckGo. You can read the quote on an NRA website and in the Washington Post.

Ignoring the hypothetical scenarios, the question boils down to this: what do we actually gain from all the added complexity that this tech will add to the gun? Is the perceived increase in safety only nominal or is it substantial? Does DRM for a gun make the gun more or less useful? I'd say that that DRM for a gun always makes it less useful, EVEN if it stops a perp from stealing a gun and using it against the owner.

Perhaps we should just start calling a spade a spade here. It's not "smart gun technology", it's DRM for your gun.

Leave us not forget the "gun lobby", in the form of the NRA, won't even permit addition of taggants to gunpowder or other explosives, to allow identification. https://www.nraila.org/article...
Leave us not forget the "gun lobby", in the form of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the NRA's less reasonable sibling, based most ironically in Newtown, CT) won't even permit microstamping technology to be mandated, wherein the brass casing gets imprinted with the serial number of the gun when fired, to enable tracing after a crime has been committed. Hard to figure exactly how that would make it harder for lawful people to acquire firearms, lead to government confiscating your guns, make using the gun in non-criminal situations more problematic, or even add much to the cost. The guy who has the patent has said anyone could use it free. Apparently it's just way beyond the bounds of current technology. Who knew? http://www.sfgate.com/news/art... Even though it turns out Tasers leave their IDs behind when they're used. (Who knew?) https://news.vice.com/article/... Even though it's been demonstrated. http://microstamp.blogspot.com...

Also the NRA since he wants to protect constitutional rights and the ACLU has a few embarrassing gaps in that regard.

"Melinda Herman shot the intruder five times, hitting him in the face and neck. Chapman said she told the man if he moved she would shoot him again, although she had run out of bullets." http://abcnews.go.com/US/georg...

(To be technical here, she was a "good girl". But I think you'll accept that gender isn't a factor here.)

"Mark Vaughan, the company’s founder, chief operating officer and a reserve sheriff’s deputy, was on site at the time and shot Nolen, stopping the attack before police arrived, Lewis said." http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

(Mark Vaughan may have been a reserve sheriff's deputy, but he was off duty, which meant he was a regular citizen "good guy"

Oh heck, I'll let the NRA show you. Note: There are 660 pages of these in their files.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-law...

So, the NJ State Senate Majority Leader admits that New Jersey's law, which would make smart guns mandatory within three years of the first commercially-available smart gun being sold anywhere in the United States, can be reversed... if only the NRA will agree to stop obstructing the sale of smart guns within the United States, which they do specifically because of the New Jersey law?

I don't see the problem. The NRA is obstructing a law that goes against their stated interests, and New Jersey is promising to reverse that law if only the NRA will stop obstructing what that law regulates?

For the NRA's stated position, see here. Particularly:

NRA does not oppose new technological developments in firearms; however, we are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as rigging a firearm so that it could not fire unless it received an electronic signal from an electronic bracelet worn by the firearm's lawful owner (as was brought up in Holder's recent testimony).

That's their stated policy, right there.

Seriously? For the most part, someone who is not a convicted felon or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness can buy a gun in a gun shop. The others can (illegally, but apparently with some ease) buy a gun at a gun fair.

Here's an NRA guide by state

You don't hear about someone successfully defending themselves or their home with firearms because the so-called press in the US refuses to publish such stories. Yet they are out there. Read Armed Citizen

Really sad that the links have few details, and more than 1.5 hours later, no one's posted anything more.

The decision text is available here. The decision is by Judge Edmond Chang, appointed in 2010 by Obama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case name is Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago (formerly known as Benson v. City of Chicago).

This link says that the lawsuit challenges five aspects of Chicago's law:

1. the ban on any form of carriage
2. the ban on gun stores
3. the ban on firing ranges
4. the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards
5. the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state

That's .03% of the total population of the us. Only 11,493 of those are homicides (down to .00353025 now). Twice as many people die from falling unintentionally as die from guns every year. Unintentional poisoning kills 3x as many Alcohol abuse kills almost 10x as many. Guns are low on the list of killers.

You're correct that there are other causes of mortality that are worse than gun homicides. Things like heart disease and cancer have a much higher mortality rate. But another way to look at it is we have ~four 9/11's every year from gun homicides.

I thought we were going for real world statistics not made up numbers? estimate is another word for made up.

Here is the study abstract, and how the numbers were collected:

STUDY OBJECTIVE: I test the hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for adults to be killed (homicide) or to commit suicide.

METHODS: Two case-control analyses were based on national samples of subjects 18 years of age or older. Homicide and suicide case subjects were drawn from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Living control subjects were drawn from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.

RESULTS: The homicide sample consisted of 1,720 case subjects and 8,084 control subjects. Compared with adults in homes with no guns, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for homicide was 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.65) for adults with a gun at home and was particularly high among women (adjusted OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.90) compared with men (adjusted OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49) and among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56). Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was a risk factor for homicide by firearm means (adjusted OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12) but not by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11). The suicide sample consisted of 1,959 case subjects and 13,535 control subjects. The adjusted OR for suicide was 3.44 (95% CI 3.06 to 3.86) for persons with a gun at home. However, further analysis revealed that having a firearm in the home was a risk factor for suicide by firearm (adjusted OR 16.89; 95% CI 13.26 to 21.52) but was inversely associated with suicide by other means (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84).

CONCLUSION: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm. Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership.

That study was intentionally biased (even the author admits it) and excludes instances where criminals were not killed or injurred, ie if the criminal ran away after seeing the gun it's not counted in the study, thus skewing the numbers in favor of the point he wanted to make http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2001/22-times-less-safebranti-gun-lobby's-f.aspx

I'd finish out the rest of your list but I'm alas out of time. But the core point is guns just don't kill as many people are you'd like to claim and banning them won't do any better, the violent crime rate in the uk where guns are banned is 4x that of the us, worse yet gun crime has doubled since they banned guns.

Intentionally Biased Huh? Much like that website you linked to? I'll give you this: Certainly more study and better data is needed. Unfortunately federal funding for unbiased studies seems to have vanished.

Some (Sad) Real World Statistics:

• - In the United States, every year, more than 100,000 people are shot or killed with a gun. (Source bradycampaign.org)

That's .03% of the total population of the us. Only 11,493 of those are homicides (down to .00353025 now). Twice as many people die from falling unintentionally as die from guns every year. Unintentional poisoning kills 3x as many Alcohol abuse kills almost 10x as many. Guns are low on the list of killers.

- An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.)

I thought we were going for real world statistics not made up numbers? estimate is another word for made up.

- A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 45(2) (1998): 263-267)

That study was intentionally biased (even the author admits it) and excludes instances where criminals were not killed or injurred, ie if the criminal ran away after seeing the gun it's not counted in the study, thus skewing the numbers in favor of the point he wanted to make http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2001/22-times-less-safebranti-gun-lobby's-f.aspx

I'd finish out the rest of your list but I'm alas out of time. But the core point is guns just don't kill as many people are you'd like to claim and banning them won't do any better, the violent crime rate in the uk where guns are banned is 4x that of the us, worse yet gun crime has doubled since they banned guns.

That's why we need the research. I'm certain that you can't make any weapon that can't kill or seriously injure, but surely weapons can be made that are both more effective and less lethal than current technology, for a price similar to a handgun.

Gun accident rates were at 0.2 per 100,000 population in the U.S. (according to this article, based on 2006 data). If we can arm 10 times as many people while pushing the accidental death rate farther down, I call that a win for the good guys (people who aren't gunning down people in schools and theaters and the workplace and religious institutions).

The USA banned automatic rifles in 1934, and they have been illegal ever since.

It would be more accurate to say that the federal government put very tight restrictions on the ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

The SPECIFIC definition used by the Founders, with supporting documentation, is not the definition used by those who form their own "militias" or the Renocrats who define groups as "militias".

The Constitutional definition is what matters.

http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2008/highlights-from-the-heller-decision.aspx

"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."

He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx [nraila.org]

The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.

Totally agree, and yes, I was aware of that bill Chucky & friends (fiends?) are pushing that you linked to, but thanks. Proud gun owner and NRA lifetime member here.

The more people that know the kind of freedom-destroying POS that Schumer is, the better. That's a large part of the reason for my posting that he should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of holding a position of power.

Death to tyrants. Sic semper tyrannis.

Strat

"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."

He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx

The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.

In case you haven't heard one of Obama's admins was selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico, and then when those U.S. guns turned-up in southern border states, justified passage of anti-gun laws to limit them.

What onerous anti-gun laws were you referring to, exactly? The only thing I could turn up was that when a gun dealer sells more than 1 assault rifle in a state bordering Mexico, they have to report it (the NRA's take). It's not illegal to sell a bunch of AK-47s to somebody, it's just that in 4 states you have to fill out a form that says "Hey, this guy came into my store and bought a bunch of AK-47s".

Yes, there's a tradeoff: Downside of having to explain to an ATF agent why you just bought 35 assault rifles. Upside of "Hey, this guy is crossing the border here, stopping by each of the gun stores within this 300-square-mile area here here and here, and crossing the border again." Additional upside: "Hey, this guy is collecting a lot of AK-47s, and doesn't have any sort of legal use for those guns, and after further investigation seems to have this idea about starting a revolt against the US government. Maybe we should watch him a bit more closely."

I am still astounded by the fact that despite the vast amount of studies and statistics published during the last fifty years, some americans are totally unable to understand this basic fact.

between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent.

...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents." -- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime

These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.[19] "

The now-famous 1995 Tennessee Law Review article entitled "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?", written by Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer, George B. Murray, and Edwin H. Cassem, powerfully discredits the myth that "gun violence" is an epidemic that only "gun control" can cure. This 1995 article shows how much of the statistical evidence the gun prohibitionists use is skewed, falsified, or massaged. When all of the statistics are accounted, however, they tend to show that the public health argument is a sham.

I don't suppose you have any citations.

Oh really? What about this?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=432&issue=007

(Carry permit holder and NRA member)

Oh really? What about this?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=432&issue=007

(Carry permit holder and NRA member)

NRA magazines have a section called "The Armed Citizen" every month that talks about these situations. http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/

NO.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010

"Is there or is there not a clear correlation between gun ownership and intentional deaths by means of guns? There is. You seem to conveniently ignore that in your argument."

No, I don't ignore it. I've already covered it and I'm not going back over it. Read my previous posts again if you're having trouble.

"In theory, those people will be schooled, monitored and need to keep tabs on every single bullet they fire. This is more, or less, true depending on where you live."

None of which cannot be accomplished by people who don't wear uniforms. Take the uniform off them and they're just as naked as the rest of us.

"Finally, the thing is _you are not protecting yourself_! You are raising the stakes for both sides"

This is incorrect. Criminals choose their victims on the basis of fairly rational criteria (those who don't, don't last long, criminal activity is ruthlessly darwinian), preferring those who are both unprepared to meet violence with violence and/or who are unable to counter the amount of force that the criminal is able to apply. This means that females, the young, small males as well as those who are obviously insufficiently self confident to resist acts of violence are far more likely to be victims of violent crime... so long as they are unable to arm themselves such that even the smallest person can resist the violence of the largest thug. Gun control, or, worse, gun removal would reduce any confrontation between a citizen and a criminal to a question of brute force. A contest the criminal will always win because the criminal gets to choose opponents who will not be able to resist effectively. What actually happens when the citizenry is permitted to arm themselves is that criminals choose not to compete on this level playing field and commit crimes against property rather than crimes against persons or, alternatively, they target people who they know will not be armed (people leaving an airport are a particular favorite: they are likely to be carrying cash and almost certainly not carrying a weapon). This shift of focus on the part of criminals has been demonstrated many times in the US when various states have loosened their gun control laws to permit citizens to protect themselves.

It has also been demonstrated in the opposite direction by Washington DCs illegal 3 decade handgun ban, "During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower"

Also, the criminals do not need to protect themselves from overzealous home-owners

Someone protecting their home, their family and their possessions in their own home, no less, should never be described as "overzealous". Someone who busts into anothers home with malicious intent has no business whining about a few grams of lead passing through their chest.

The proper response would be for the clerk to draw faster, shoot him in the face, then call the police to clean up the trash. Another positive outcome for the Armed Citizen column to cite, and the permanent "rehabilitation" of the malefactor by someone in _legitimate_ fear of their life.

OP is a good reason for the rest of us to be armed.

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/Default.aspx

Gun laws aren't even as restrictive as some Americans make out. Very few countries ban guns out right. Even the NRA has stated that, for instance, 10% of Austrians own hand guns compared to 16% of Americans. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

Indeed, some European nations have national service, such as Greece and Sweden. This means that a large majority of the society has access to arms and the knowledge of how to use them, I don't know if this is true or not but I'm told most Swede's have an SLR in their home. Of course Sweden and Greece are diametric opposites when it comes to safety and violence, which is indicative of what myself and many have said before, the biggest problem with gun violence in the US isn't the guns as much as the gun culture.

You can pretend the US is some how leagues above everyone else in freedom but it doesn't make it true. You're less likely to see women walking on the beach topless in the US, you're more likely to get sued (in fact lawsuits the subjects of numerous TV shows), you're more likely to be attacked for holding different religious beliefs, especially if you believe in no god.

And here are some examples of Europeans freedom of speech:

Pat Condell http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Nigel Farage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

Nick Griffin http://bnp.org.uk/

Sure Europe has twats, like Nick Griffin, crying about their rights being trampled on but the mere fact he can hang out with the David Duke, hasn't been stopped for his comments on Muslims and has been allowed to even participate in politics says to me that European free speech is doing fine.

Gun laws aren't even as restrictive as some Americans make out. Very few countries ban guns out right. Even the NRA has stated that, for instance, 10% of Austrians own hand guns compared to 16% of Americans. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them) but I understand why the laws exist and in a free society if vast majority do agree with the laws then where is the issue with the law? Some people value things differently. The Japanese may think the US is odd for not having public baths but that doesn't necessarily make the US wrong (or right).

There are some limits to freedom of speech just as there are some limits in the US and every other country. Europe is by no means perfect but the US certainly isn't either and it isn't

Seriously? Common sense doesn't tell you this?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=83&issue=010

"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.

Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns.

You'd have to go a LONG way toward showing otherwise...

Thanks. I asked because the NRA gives the strong impression that there is simply no process in Illinois for non-LEOs (and some on-duty security guards) to lawfully carry.

That isn't amazing at all.

Your statement implies that there is no difference between weapons in the hands of good people and those in the hands of criminals who would attack them.

That's very revealing, but there are many examples of effective, lawful self-defense using firearm. Many didn't involve firing them:

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/

ANYONE that knows anything about firearms already knows that you store unloaded, with a trigger lock or in a locked box and with the safety on.

Unless you're the NRA.

In an emergency, a trigger lock can handicap a person who needs a gun for protection.
While firearms kept only for hunting, target shooting or as collector`s items should be stored unloaded, firearms kept for personal protection may be better stored ready for use. Some trigger lock manufacturers recommend that their products not be used on loaded firearms.

"Rights" in the Constitution are of the People, not the government. The term "militia" was not ambiguous when the Constitution, nor was the distinction between the "People" and government.

"Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened."

Keyword above is "feel". They can "feel" their warm, soft shit and make sculptures thereof if they like, but the Second Amendment was not written with reference to what the wilfully ignorant "feel" and/or their corrupted definition of the term "militia". It is explicit because the long-haired revolutionaries who wrote it had direct experience that the only free man is one who can defend himself.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

"As Patrick Henry put it, the "great object is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," which was lacking in other countries, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," authored the Second Amendment. It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.....Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." and Albert Gallatin, later to serve as Jefferson`s Treasury Secretary, said "lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

I hear ya.

I mean, I don't have to have a license to own a handgun, nor do I have to register one with my state or federal govt....why should I need a license to just access the internet?

"Here we go, the whining and complaining from people who are too cheap or too poor to buy a Congressman."

The people can afford political power if they work together and support effective lobbyists such as the National Rifle Organization.

As the slogan goes, "I'm the NRA and I vote!".

http://www.nraila.org/