A world without guns ...

[spin]

A world without guns is a world without violence", cry the gun-control advocates.

What is the evidence? The world before the invention of guns was not without violence and those places where firearms are restricted are not without violence either.

Giving up guns today does not translate into a non-violent world and those guns removed or confiscated can be replaced in short time by theft from the state, illegal imports or even home made. It is obvious that inanimate objects do not induce anyone to commit violence and removing one (assuming it could actually be done) simply means there are literally hundreds of other objects to take its place.

What will not have been removed are the factors causing crime and violence in the first place. In fact, a great deal of time, effort and money will have been wasted on removing guns and absolutely nothing will have been done about the social problems that are the root cause of crime and violence that the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens was promised to cure. Money and effort that could have been expended on the actual causes of crime that at least has a chance of working to reduce crime is being wasted with the only result possible of decreased citizens safety.

Britain, Jamaica, Brazil, Canada and Australia, recent attempts by governments to reduce crime and illegal use of guns by criminals and the deranged by confiscation or restriction have produced what can be expected - an imbalance of power between citizens and criminals. An imbalance that criminals are most grateful for and very keen to exploit by acquiring guns to induce fear and compliance in their victims and protect their profits from crime. There is little risk in crime when victims come with a government-backed guarantee of being unarmed and defenceless. Unfortunately, Government has chosen to ignore crime and instead put needed money and huge effort into ensuring law-abiding citizens who neither aid nor commit crime as the focus of attention.

There are many problems with gun control. Perhaps the foremost of these is the simple fact that, to achieve an objective by control, there must be a relationship between the two. Yet, nobody has shown or demonstrated a causal relationship between levels of gun ownership and crime. Guns do not cause crime. Therefore, law abiding firearm owners present no danger to the public and in fact reduce crime by being an unidentified hard target and risk to criminals.

****snip***

A world without guns will never be a world without crime or violence because guns cause neither.

Criminals by their own choice are predators who will feast on easy prey such as defenceless victims and low risk of punishment. It would be incredibly naive to suggest that making the criminal's workplace safer by giving criminals a government backed guarantee that victims are not armed will reduce crime and violence or that criminals would not take advantage of unarmed victims. Believing that criminals will be deprived of guns obtained from a single source flies in the face of all common sense and evidence that even complete bans are useless. Suggesting that criminals will reciprocate and throw their guns away is simply foolish beyond belief. Yet, this is exactly what government and the SAPS are claiming, promoting and enforcing instead of investigating crime, arresting criminals and ensuring criminals face swift certain punishment. emphasis added
http://www.therichmarksentinel.com/rs_articles_contributors.asp?conid=13&recid=1138

[Craftsman]

1. A world without gun will be a huge boon to the sword making industry.

[Euromutt]

72. And Chinese machete manufacturers (see Rwanda)

The primary weapon used to carry out the Rwandan genocide of 1994 (estimated death toll 800,000) was the machete; made in China, and purchased in large quantities by the leaders of Interahamwe. Not all that great for resisting the (Tutsi) Rwandan Patriotic Front (who had guns) but just the ticket for slaughtering large numbers of unarmed civilians.

[midnight]

2. Perhaps guns are the tool used as a precursor to death and violence...

[Euromutt]

44. What does that even *mean*?

Interpersonal violence predates the invention of firearms. Historical evidence indicates that the homicide rate in London and the English Home Counties in the first half of the 14th century was a multiple of the US homicide rate today, and that was before firearms had even been introduced to Europe.

Or are you mocking the oft-expressed notion that firearms have magical powers of behavior modification, turning previously peaceful individuals into short-fused homicidal rage machines?

[old mark]

3. Yes, the old guns cause trouble theory. A world without guns would still have

millions of violent people in it who would quite happily kill you with a rock, bare hands or a piece of broken glass. I am so tired of these idiotic ideas and the people who espouse them.
If you really hate guns you are free to not own any.


mark

[Jamastiene]

6. +1

[TheWraith]

9. "So, you'll put down your rock, and I'll put down my sword..."

"... and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?"

One word for the people who think guns are the source of violence. "Crusades."

[Taitertots]

49. Can I steal that line?

A world without guns still has millions of violent people.

[old mark]

61. Send $5 to my PM box.......nt

[jobycom]

4. Couldn't read beneath the opening straw man line.

No one I know who supports any form of gun control thinks it will end violence.

[rusty_rebar]

7. No one thinks it will end violence?

Then what is the point?

Really. I am serious here. If the gun-control proponents do not think it will end violence, and we have seen from other countries that violence is greater now then before the bans. Then what is the point of gun control?

[jgraz]

13. The point is to reduce the number of people getting shot

and shooting themselves and shooting their family members. And to reduce the number of handguns available for criminal purposes.

Only radical gun advocates think gun control is aimed at ending violence.

[TPaine7]

17. Gun control is useless unless it reduces the number of people

getting KILLED AND VICTIMIZED.

Eliminating guns would eliminate gun deaths--I concede that truism. Eliminating doctors would also eliminate malpractice deaths. But doctors serve a positive role in society, as do armed, sane, law-abiding adults.

[jgraz]

19. Gun control is not and should not be aimed at reducing crime

Any more than the RKBA should be aimed at reducing crime. You might as well task gun control with reducing unemployment or eliminating the heartbreak of psoriasis.

The root causes of crime are not based on the possession of firearms. Reducing poverty and increasing opportunities for the poor --as well as overhauling our ridiculous drug policies -- will go much further toward reducing crime. This will also go a long way toward reducing the number of people who feel they need to own firearms for protection, thus reducing the number of domestic shootings and gun suicides (which are both directly correlated to gun ownership).

[TPaine7]

24. "Gun control is not and should not be aimed at reducing crime"

Thank you for being honest. You want to get rid of guns, not to save lives or prevent rapes or stop kidnappings or ensure public safety, but because you don't like them.

You seem to be confused, however, justifying gun control by citing the supposed reduction in domestic shootings. You are aware, aren't you, that domestic shootings are crimes?

It's hard to be sure, but there is a way to make your statements logically consistent. Domestic violence and domestic murders would not change in this scenario, but domestic SHOOTINGS would decline. This insinuates that the gun control agenda couldn't care less whether the woman dies or gets beaten, so long as no guns are involved.

I despise you position and much of your reasoning, but I do respect the truth when I see it. I say that in all sincerity, without a hint of sarcasm or irony.

Any more than the RKBA should be aimed at reducing crime. You might as well task gun control with reducing unemployment or eliminating the heartbreak of psoriasis.

You are so confused. The right to keep and bear arms needs no justification. No right needs justification. Rights are axiomatic--it is self evident that we should have rights. The only thing that needs to be justified is restrictions on rights. Gun control is the restriction of a right, the right to keep and bear arms. Do the math.

[jgraz]

26. Could you possibly try to be a bit less hysterical?

This insinuates that the gun control agenda couldn't care less whether the woman dies or gets beaten, so long as no guns are involved.

Seriously, if you're only interested in posting inflammatory nonsense, you should probably start your own blog.


My point is a subtle one, so I'm not surprised that you have trouble comprehending it. I'll try to make it clearer: the burdening of gun control with the task of ending all crime and violence is a tactic of gun advocates. It has little to do with the real goals of reducing gun violence.

Only an idiot would suggest that someone is more likely to die from being punched than from being shot. Likewise, only an idiot would suggest that a suicidal person is equally likely to die from an overdose of pills as from a bullet in the brain.

The goal of gun control advocates is not to reduce all violence, but to reduce the disastrous consequences that often result when violent situations are accompanied by easy access to firearms.


If that was still too subtle for you to grasp, just let me know. I'm happy to help you out.

[TPaine7]

27. Your point is not subtle, jgraz,

it's utter BS--goal shifting and incoherent babbling.

Goal shifting

TPaine7, post 17:

Gun control is useless unless it reduces the number of people

getting KILLED AND VICTIMIZED.


jgraz, post 19:

Gun control is not and should not be aimed at reducing crime


jgraz, post 26:

the burdening of gun control with the task of ending all crime and violence is a tactic of gun advocates.

If someone told you that gun control should end all crime and violence, talk to them directly. The "tactic of gun advocates" you complain of is not a part of our exchange--except as it comes out of your mouth.


Incoherent babbling

The goal of gun control advocates is not to reduce all violence, but to reduce the disastrous consequences that often result when violent situations are accompanied by easy access to firearms.

No one can understand that, jgraz, it doesn't make sense. It's not subtle, it's incoherent.

You are so confused. If you reduce gun deaths and gun violence and other deaths and violence do not go up to compensate, you have reduced total deaths and violence. Can you actually not understand that? Wow, the distortion field has you wrapped around its aeriest wisp.

If you reduce the number of accidents involving red cars and the number of accidents involving cars of other colors do not increase to compensate, you have reduced total car accidents.

(I bet you could follow the car statement--it didn't involve guns.)

I believe that without the factor of armed citizens, the weak, the old and the small would be preyed on with impunity by the young, the strong and the big. Now they have to think. If you guarantee them that 99.99% of the apparently defenseless are actually defenseless, gun deaths and violence would go down, but total deaths (at least of the innocent) and violent attacks would go up.

I do not think that gun control purports to be the solution to all murders and violence; MOST gun control advocates aren't quite THAT stupid. Brady propaganda, on the other hand, strongly implies that there would be peace on earth if they got their political wish list.

[rd_kent]

29. **SMACKDOWN!!!!!*****

Thats gonna leave a mark!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

32. So you actually did read post 27?

Might you have anything on point to say? I know calling names and avoiding the points I made is such fun...

I thought for sure you had pressing business elsewhere. Perhaps you've seen post 25 too?...

[rd_kent]

34. Awww. Poor wittle baby get his feewings hurt? Dont bother to respond to the post though, mkay?

[jgraz]

47. Now playground taunts. My estimates of your emotional age drop with every post.

[rd_kent]

57. Hahaha! pot, meet kettle.

That is YOUR MO, don't like it so much when your on the receiving end?

[apocalypsehow]

67. Have you stopped defending the use of "Blackface" as a satirical tool yet? Your avatar says "no."

[jgraz]

31. Well, you answered my question. You aren't able to be less hysterical

Let's try this. I wrote:

Only an idiot would suggest that someone is more likely to die from being punched than from being shot. Likewise, only an idiot would suggest that a suicidal person is equally likely to die from an overdose of pills as from a bullet in the brain.

And you wrote:

If you reduce the number of accidents involving red cars and the number of accidents involving cars of other colors do not increase to compensate, you have reduced total car accidents.

Thus proving my point. You really lack the cognitive skills to tell the difference between being punched (red car) and being shot (blue car). Don't you?

Think about it this way: Requiring seat belts in cars did not reduce the number of car accidents, but it reduced the number of fatal car accidents. See the connection? I'm guessing not.

[TPaine7]

35. Nice dodge.

Semi-clever.

One small problem, Junior Sophist. You said that "{g}un control is not and should not be aimed at reducing crime." Look up "crime" in any dictionary. It does not imply fatality. I said "{g}un control is useless unless it reduces the number of people getting KILLED AND VICTIMIZED."

Neither one of us was talking about crimes resulting in fatalities in isolation from all other violent crime.

Until now.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taitertots]

53. If it doesn't reduce the number of people being victimized then what is the point?

Ideological purity?

Why should we do this if even its advocates don't even think it will reduce the number of people being victimized?

Why stop gun suicides if the total number of suicides isn't going to decrease?
Why stop domestic shootings if the number of people murdered isn't going to change?

[Euromutt]

56. Then what's the point?

If the only thing gun control achieves is to reduce the amount of violent crimes and intentional self-harm committed using firearms, but does not actually alter the amount of violent crime and intentional self-harm, then what good does it do? How does it improve public safety?

This will also go a long way toward reducing the number of people who feel they need to own firearms for protection, thus reducing the number of domestic shootings and gun suicides (which are both directly correlated to gun ownership).

First off, it bears reiterating that correlation does not imply causation. If, as you assert (and I concur), "the root causes of crime are not based on possession of firearms," it follows that the inclination to commit domestic homicide (which, as TPaine7 notes, is also a crime) or intentional self-harm is at worst facilitated, but not caused by possession of firearms. So suppose you (general "you") manage to reduce gun ownership, and there is a commensurate drop in domestic shootings and firearm suicides, but the number of spouses and children stabbed or beaten to death and the number of suicides by hanging increases by such a number that the casualty figures end up being more or less the same, then what has gun control achieved?

[burrfoot]

58. uh...

"...the number of domestic shootings and gun suicides (which are both directly correlated to gun ownership)."

No shit? You mean people who own guns are more likely to commit suicide with them? Holy Balls! And people who commit domestic SHOOTINGS use guns too? Far out!

Kidding aside, this is actually the first post you've ever put up there that I completely agree with. I think that there are alternatives out there which will achieve the same effects without eliminating/ further restricting gun ownership, but it's always nice to see a break from the usual tit-for-tat battles around here.

:toast:


p.s. I take it back. As I continued to read down the page I see the saaame old....saaaame old situaa-aa-ation.

:evilfrown:

[Hoopla Phil]

55. Wow, what a great way to make that point!

[TPaine7]

75. Thanks. N/T

[spin]

22. Nope, the point is to stop "those people" from owning guns ...

Take New York City for example. It's an outstanding example of draconian gun control in action.

It's a major headache for the average person to obtain a license to have a handgun or firearm in their home. Yet the rich, famous and powerful often have carry permits.

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but typically takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.<59> Examples of current and past New York City permit holders are Charles Schumer, Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Ronald Lauder, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Donald Trump, Harvey Keitel, Joan Rivers, Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Sulzberger, Bill Cosby, and Anthony Cumia.<60>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Mayor Bloomberg's buddies can get a CCW. And that's the way it should be in a feudal society or a dictatorship or possibly even in Great Britain or other European countries who have a history of distrusting their citizens. But the United States is unique in the fact that the founding founding fathers trusted citizens to have a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right for citizens to own weapons.

For years, gun laws forbid slaves and minorities from owning guns and allow them to be terrorized by organizations such as the KKK. Firearms helped the civil rights movement to achieve the equal rights all minorities should have in a "free" country.

In his 2004 book, The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, Tulane University history professor Lance Hill tells their story. Hill writes of how a group of southern working class black men advanced civil rights through direct action to protect members of local communities against harassment at schools and polling places, and to thwart the terror inflicted by the Ku Klux Klan. He argues that without the Deacons’ activities the civil rights movement may have come to a crashing halt.

…Following a KKK night ride in Jonesboro, the Deacons approached the police chief who had led the parade and informed him that they were armed and unafraid of self-defense. The Klan never rode through Jonesboro again. Local cross burnings ceased when warning shots were fired as a Klansmen’s torch met a cross planted in front of a black minister’s home. The initial desegregation of Jonesboro High School was threatened by firemen who aimed hoses at black students attempting to enter the building. When four Deacons arrived and loaded their shotguns, the firemen left and the students entered unscathed. It was this series of efforts by the Deacons that caused the Klan to leave Jonesboro for good.

Similar work in Bogalusa, Louisiana drove the KKK out of that town as well, and led to a turning point in the civil rights movement. Acting as private citizens in lawful employment of their constitutional rights, the Deacons demonstrated the real social impact of the freedoms our nation’s founders held dear.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/02/09/blacks-used-gun-ownership-to-fight-the-kkk/

[jgraz]

23. And the point of the gun lobby has been to protect "law abiding citizens" from "those people"

"Law and Order" has historically been the code for "control of black people". The gun lobby has played on this from the beginning. Here's just one example of their race-baiting: http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/4185020-1.html

[rd_kent]

33. Weak sauce, my friend. Weak sauce, indeed.

[Taitertots]

51. While I'm not history buff

I've heard the NRA associated itself with the civil rights movement defending the rights of blacks to own guns for self protection.


The gun control movement was started to keep minorities from being able to own firearms.

[spin]

65. For example ...

Today, using the Heller decision as the basis for the challenge, the Citizens Committee, in partnership with the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed a civil rights lawsuit to confirm that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as well.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court against the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Housing Authority to invalidate the City's ordinance (Police Code section 617) and lease provision that bans the possession of firearms in public housing

***snip***

"As with the advancement of any civil right throughout history, subsequent litigation is essential in order to establish both the parameters of the Second Amendment's protections, and initially to establish that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on your right to self-defense," said Chuck Michel, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.

"Just because someone lives in public housing does not mean that person must surrender his or her civil rights, or their right of self-defense," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "This lawsuit seeks to restore the rights of those living in public housing to choose to own a gun for sport or to defend their families."
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-suits-claims/11389274-1.html

Question: Who lives in public housing? The rich and famous and the influential or the disadvantaged members of our society of all races?

Who does the Brady Campaign support? The rich and famous and the influential or the disadvantaged members of our society of all races?

Why should gun ownership be limited to the upper echelons of our society while the common or lower class citizens are denied the right to own firearms for self defense or other legal uses through expensive registration schemes or the fact that they live in public housing?

Take for example New York City. Who can get a permit to carry in NYC, the average Joe Blow or the rich, the famous and the influential?

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but typically takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.<59> Examples of current and past New York City permit holders are Charles Schumer, Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Ronald Lauder, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Donald Trump, Harvey Keitel, Joan Rivers, Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Sulzberger, Bill Cosby, and Anthony Cumia.<60>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

There is absolutely no doubt that gun control is based on racism and all too often today in our country, gun control is based on keeping "those people" from owning firearms.

[Taitertots]

50. How much does that help if other forms of victimization offset any gains

That is happening, and makes gun control an exercise in futility.

[OttavaKarhu]

76. I am interested in your statistics/sources...

...on "the number of people getting shot and shooting themselves and shooting their family members."

All the statistics I know of--including out of CDC--show that more people are dying from their family bathtubs, swimming pools, automobiles, matches, and gravity, by many orders of magnitude, than by firearms.

But I have an open mind. Let's see the numbers please.

[spin]

14. Welcome to DU. I am in favor of some gun control..

For example, the NICS background check system. It's far from perfect and needs to incorporate more records, especially records that identify those who have severe mental problems.

But still, firearms can be bought on the street without any check. The system is far from a total success.

I would like to see the NICS system opened up to private sellers. To be honest, I have a selfish motive. If I sell a firearm, I would like to be sure that I sell it to a responsible person. Currently, I limit any sales to people I know personally and who have a concealed carry permit.

The "shall issue" concealed carry license program existing in many states is also a form of gun control that I favor. True, it allows the government to collect a list of people who own firearms, but fortunately it is not a gun registration scheme in the state where I live.

Gun control has, from the beginning, been a racist scheme to keep "those people" from owning weapons. That's the bottom line.

[jgraz]

16. "Gun control has, from the beginning, been a racist scheme"

Really, this kind of disgusting slander has got to stop. It's just as valid to say that the RKBA has, from the beginning, been a racist scheme to allow southern states to put down local slave revolts.

The fact is that the US has a long history of racism, and just about any social policy can be tied to some racist agenda. Your claim serves no purpose other than to imply that your fellow DUers are racist for advocating stricter gun laws. If you want to call me or other people racist, have the courage to do it directly.

[TPaine7]

20. "It's just as valid to say that the RKBA has, from the beginning, been a racist scheme ...

...to allow southern states to put down local slave revolts."

Only in your fevered imagination.

Gun rights were enjoyed by people in the North who didn't have slaves, as implied by your self-refuting post. Founding era thinking is well represented by the arms policy authority Jefferson copied into his personal book of quotations. Cesare Beccaria--an Italian philosopher--was not concerned with putting down Southern slave revolts.

This kind of disgusting revisionist BS has got to stop.

[jgraz]

21. As usual, reading is fundamental

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol31/Issue2/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf

You've seen this before. You know it, I know it, the rest of the group knows it. You only pretend to not know it because it interferes with your obsessive desire to play the race card at every opportunity.

You want to discuss gun policy, have at it. But these cowardly attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racist have got to stop.

[TPaine7]

25. Reading is fundamental

Get some one to read my post to you and point out to them the part where you think I attempted to paint anyone as racist. Get them to clarify it for you.

The problem with your citation of an article that you don't understand is that it doesn't answer the points I made. The philosophical roots of the American right to arms HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SUPPRESSING SLAVE REVOLTS IN THE SOUTH.

On the other hand, the first gun control law in the American colonies (in the 1600's, IIRC, was addressed directly to black people).

[spin]

36. No, I would say that you are deceived by the propaganda pushed

by the press and the anti-gun organizations some of which are racist.

It's hard to deny history. History shows that the roots of gun control is racist. As you suggest racism still exists in or country but is cleverly disguised.

Conventional wisdom identifies “gun control” as a “liberal” issue, and “gun rights” as a “conservative” one. But such stereotyped thinking not only substitutes the policy goals of elites for the opinions and experiences of everyday people (and excludes consideration of the views of people of color), it also obscures the political assumptions shared by the two so-called opposing camps.

As with so much in American politics, the current debates find their origins in our history of racist inequality and violence. Truth is, there has always been gun control in America. Starting in the colonial period and continuing after the American Revolution, laws excluded specific people from gun ownership — slaves, free blacks, Indians, poor whites, non-Protestants and even some heterodox Protestant sects.

***snip***

White supremacy has refined its presentation since the civil rights period, relying increasingly on nominally colorblind laws. Yet many gun regulations — bans on guns in housing projects and laws that take the cheapest pistols off the market, for example — have continued to disproportionately affect people of color.

***snip***

As presently construed, both the gun-control and the gun-rights arguments — that is, both the liberal and the conservative positions — represent the defense of white supremacy. 
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3857/talking_about_guns_fighting_about_race/

The history of gun control in the United States has been one of discrimination, oppression, and arbitrary enforcement. Although the purported legislative intent behind gun control statutes was to decrease crime and violence and thereby ensure public safety, the primary purpose was to keep blacks, immigrants, and native Americans in check. If, as the white establishment believed, blacks and other minorities generally could not be trusted, they certainly could not be trusted with arms and ammunition. Those in power wielded gun control laws in efforts to preserve their monopoly on the instruments of force.

To argue against gun control, such as discriminatory permit schemes, is not to assert that every man and woman should arm themselves before leaving for work in the morning. However, if citizens decide to purchase a gun for whatever reasons and continue to be subjected to permit laws, they have the right to be treated in a nondiscriminatory manner.

By prohibiting the possession of firearms, the state discriminates against minority and poor citizens. In the final analysis, citizens must protect themselves and their families and homes. The need for self-defense is far more critical in the poor and minority neighborhoods ravaged by crime and without adequate police protection. Enforcing gun prohibitions, furthermore, will only lead to vast increases in civil liberties violations, including illegal searches and seizures. Unfortunately, the tenants of the Richmond and Chicago housing projects have become second class citizens; their rights to defend themselves and to be free from warrantless searches have been circumscribed. These excesses and other policies and statutes which unduly infringe upon second and fourth amendment rights should not be tolerated by courts or a free citizenry.
http://www.lizmichael.com/tahmasse.htm

Those American "gun control" laws worked: they disarmed most blackpeople. The Ku Klux Klan and others could freely terrorize black families without fear. Unarmed victims couldn't shoot back. Lynch law ruled, andclaimed at least 3,446 lives up through the end of the Civil Rights movement.

Gun registration. Licensing. Judicial permit. Police approval. High taxes on guns and ammunition. Selective gun bans. Total gun bans. Police"gun sweeps" of private homes. Sound familiar?

The "gun control" lobby advocates all of these policies today. These policies historically worked in the past to disarm a targeted people. These policies will have the same effect now.

Although the gun prohibitionists have dropped the race hate rhetoric,they use the tried-and-true methods of the slave owners and Klansmen. The same means must achieve the same end: control of the unarmed people.

The slave owners feared that armed slaves would not long tolerate their condition. Modern politicians act like they have the same fear. Are we peaceful American citizens the modern day slaves who must be kept in our place?
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert13.htm

Another point to consider is that in the American legal system, certain classifications of governmental discrimination are considered constitutionally suspect, and these "suspect classifications" (usually considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong presumption of invalidity. The reason for these "suspect classifications" is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on these classifications, and because these classifications often impinge on fundamental rights. <38>

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Seriously, do some research on gun control and racism. You may not be racist but you might find that you are unknowingly supporting a racist cause.

If nothing else read this and explain to me why an honest citizen in New York City faces such a challenge to get permission to own a firearm while the rich, influential and powerful can easily get a concealed carry permit.

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but typically takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.<59> Examples of current and past New York City permit holders are Charles Schumer, Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Ronald Lauder, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Donald Trump, Harvey Keitel, Joan Rivers, Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Sulzberger, Bill Cosby, and Anthony Cumia.<60>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_Uni...

Are "certain people" more responisble or better citizens than the average citizen in NYC? If not, why should they have a privilege that the average person can't obtain? Is this not an example of modern racism?

[OttavaKarhu]

77. Your assertions are racist, anyway

I've posted separately the extensive evidence it appears you choose to ignore.

[Jamastiene]

5. ...Would suck.

That's just my $0.02 worth.

[sharesunited]

8. Make guns as unfashionable as cigarettes. A great advance in healtier living.

[SteveM]

10. Naked PETA ladies! Guns = breaking wind in public!

I should point out that when I use my guns, my health does not suffer, only the health of legal game animal. The same cannot be said about smoking.

Hopefully, your proposals would not include laws to enforce. We will see in the future how the ALL-NEW! cigarette prohibition will create a new underground smuggling system (or augment the ones formed by the drug cartels), more expense for LEOs, more prisons, violence over sales territories, etc. -- very much like current drug-prohibition. PR and education works better than prohibitionist laws, as you should know.

[taurus145]

11. Fashion has nothing to do with it.

If the idea of being unfashionable works, why do we still have millions of mullets in the world.

(Yes. A flip answer to an asinine post.)

[Katya Mullethov]

18. So many mullets

So little time .

[TPaine7]

28. LMAO!!! n/t

[taurus145]

54. Kiss my ass!

I'm tired of spewing coffee on my keyboard.

[PavePusher]

60. I suggest a large shower cap... 8>P n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Your side is losing on that front too.

The number and type of shooting organizations is rapidly increasing. One of the fastest growing is "Pink Pistols", which supports arming gays to defend themselves.

Another fast growing group are the Cowboy Action Meets. In those the participants dress and assume personas of the mythic Old West. (Not the real one which was much, much tamer.) And they have organized shooting matches and shooting events.

It many parts of the country, it is assumed that everyone owns a gun.

[spin]

15. The area of northern Florida where I live is an example of an area...

where it is assumed everyone owns a gun, or two or three or more.

Hunting is a big sport here.

[sharesunited]

38. How do you like the lifestyle hole hide?

[spin]

45. Deer and wild boar taste great...

if properly prepared.

The people are friendly but basically a little too fundie Christian compared to those I knew in the Tampa Bay area. The area does elect a number of Democrats who openly advertise that they support RKBA and get high ratings from the NRA.

[sharesunited]

37. Why do you entertain such kill clubanistas as Pink Pistols?

Are you trying to bring in the most virulent as mainstream? I won't let you do it.

[X_Digger]

39. Sure you don't want to add some "points"?

Since armed GLBT folk are most often faced with bashers using hands, feet, knives, etc, doesn't that fall into your 'plus' 'points' category?

*snort*

[PavePusher]

41. Could you be any more bigotted? n/t

[rrneck]

42. You won't? LOL

You need to be on this planet to get much done. I still haven't figured out how you post from outer space.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Most virulent? They have CCWs. Statistics have proven that ...

the CCW people, gay or straight or flip-flopping, are the most peaceful of citizens.

[taurus145]

66. Are you delusional?

I founded a Pink Pistols chapter locally. I'm straight. (Obviously Pink Pistols aren't as narrow-minded and bigoted as your post leads us to believe about you.) It's all about 2A and personal protection with a healthy dose of socializing, target shooting and plain old fun thrown in for the bulk of our time.

[spin]

69. I'm impressed. Good for you...

All to often gun owners are portrayed as being racists and against gays. True, some are but they are a minority of the gun owners I've known.

Shooters normally welcome all people interested in shooting to the sport and the lifestyle. Race, gender and sexual orientation are irrelevant.

That's how it should be!

[taurus145]

70. Thank you n/t

[burrfoot]

59. When did cigarettes become unfashionable? Shit! n/t

[slackmaster]

40. We tried that once

It was called the Dark Ages. Life was difficult, painful, violent, and short for most people.

[spin]

46. True, but the rich and powerful did rather well ...

and they were armed and often opposed the lower class having access to arms.

[Taitertots]

52. A world without guns is a fantasy

At least a MODERN world without guns is impossible.

I could make a basic black powder zip gun in around a day, with the most basic tools.

I could build an AR-15 from the ground up in about a month. That is including all the internals and ammo.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. In a world without guns, warriors ruled. N/T

[Euromutt]

71. Quite so, and what's really remarkable is how long it lasted

As the line goes, guns are the Great Equalizer: they allow a peasant or townsperson--someone who has to do something productive for a living--with a modicum of training to blast a professional warrior in his expensive armor, with his expensive weapons and expensive training, right off his expensive warhorse (all expensive items financed by the warrior's boss taxing the people who actually do productive stuff).

Even then, it really took cartridge weapons to drive the point home once and for all. The Satsuma rebellion finally did for the samurai class in 1877, in which the imperial armed forces (armed with Snider rifles and Gatling guns), over the course of six months, whittled 20,000 rebel samurai down to 40 survivors. In Europe, the point was conclusively driven home in the Battle of the Silver Helmets (http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/haelen.htm) in 1914, when the German army's cavalry corps (five regiments of horse, supported by two regiments of Jaeger and a regiment of field artillery) carried out the first and last cavalry charge on the Western Front, only to be cut to pieces by massed rifle fire from the Belgians.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. Yep, sure blows the romance

out of a Rhine river cruise for an American tourist when you explain all the castles are in ruins because they were FORTRESSES. The Graf (Baron) protected his peasants from the predations of the knights of the other Baron in the next castle over.

Another big cultural divide is that Europeans think a 100 miles is a long way, while Americans think 100 years is a long time.

[tburnsten]

63. Skewered by barbarians?

I think I'd rather have guns

[Katya Mullethov]

64. I rather liked the phrase

"Cloven shoulder to breastbone ". Robert E Howard used it on occasion

[SteveM]

68. Sounds like a Peter & Gordon lyric (nt)

[east texas lib]

74. Humans have killed each each other since we started walking this earth and probably before that.

This will no doubt continue until there are no more humans. The capacity for this behaviour is part of our DNA. A bubble wrapped "safe" existence has never been possible and never will be. Accepting and dealing with this simple reality will go a long way towards insuring the longest lifespan possible. Firearms are simply a stage of evolution in weaponry that has been going on since the first humans realized that they could grasp a tree limb or stone. Same as it ever was.

[depakid]

78. What a laughable crock of shit

Tick tock on your next mass shooting- family murder- child tragedy- workplace massacre- cop killing, etc., etc.

[oneshooter]

79. Mean while in OZ

You lose more rights to expanded police power. Random police searches of people without a warrent.

Weapons blitz in wake of Nitin Garg killing yields results

The trial search-and-seize blitz, dubbed operation Omni, has been made possible by a beefing up of police powers and is expected to be expanded to other suburbs.

Police have the power to search individuals at random for knives and other weapons in designated areas without a search warrant.

People were scanned with a metal detector wand, then frisked and body searched if required


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/weapons-blitz-in-wake-of-nitin-garg-killing-yields-results/story-e6frf7jo-1225817117378

Yes, once you giveup one right, the others are sure to follow. All in the name of protection.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[eqfan592]

80. And, of course, the many more defensive gun uses....

...than any of those other incidents combined. Sorry, depa, but rationality wins out over your fear-mongering.