Based on the Violence Policy Centers numbers, Concealed Carry Citizens are safer than the Police!!!!

[Logical]

After doing some research, it is clear that all police officers in the USA should be disarmed!

The Violence Police Center has a section called dramatically "Concealed Carry Killers" (link below). This lists all of the murders and suicides caused by holders of Concealed Carry Licenses. Why they list suicides in these stats is beyond me as citizens do not need a CCW license to kill themselves in their own home. I guess the VPC needs the numbers to try to make Concealed Carry holders look bad.

So the VPC site lists 309 deaths caused by CC citizens in four years. This is 77 per year. There are 6 million concealed carry license holders in the USA, this is not counting the states that do not require a license. So this works out to be 1.3 deaths per 100,000 Concealed Carry License holders. An EXTREMELY low number.

Now for the reason Police Officers should be disarmed. The suicide rate for police officers in 2008 and 2009 was about 17 per 100,000. So that means police officers are 13 times more dangerous than CCW license holders. This clearly means, based on the VPC arguments and the anti-gun people here, that Police Officers should be disarmed.

And there are plenty of Police Officer Wife murder/suicide stories every year that are not in these numbers.

Obviously something must be done to disarm police officers in this country! Write the VPC and ask them to address this issue!!

Sources:

http://www.jimstonjournal.com/id151.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&newsId=239386&link=239386
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26141702/detail.html
http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/134091-Texas-officer-wife-found-dead-in-murder-suicide/

[ileus]

1. ...guns and ammo in the governments hands is a bad thing.

[sharesunited]

4. The comparison is not the public as opposed to the government.

Guns in the hands of the public is a very broad spectrum, and is a bad thing.

[Logical]

6. How are you going to stop criminals from getting guns. Details please! n-t

[sharesunited]

8. By manufacturing more guns and ammo, and making them more accessible to the public?

No. By doing the opposite of that.

[Logical]

10. And how will you pass laws to stop citizens from buying guns......

and please list 10 democratic senators willing to outlaw gun sales as a good start.

[sharesunited]

11. There was a time when no political will existed to do away with separate drinking fountains.

Eventually, consciousness was raised.

Alas, in the case of guns and ammo, a lot of innocent people will need to die at the whim of homicidal individuals for consciousness to be sufficiently raised.

And to overcome the kneejerk reaction to such outrageous horror that still more guns and ammo are somehow the answer.

They are not.

[Logical]

12. The antis use slavery/racism as an example all the time......

We went from an evil thing (slavery,racism) to a great thing (no slavery, no racism). And now we have went from unreasonable gun control and police controlling who could own guns and laws in place to stop blacks from owning guns to allowing citizens to own and carry guns as easily as the police can. See, we went from blocking a civil right to allowing a civil right. There is no going back to preventing honest citizens right to carry a gun. The police no longer have the right to make judgement calls based on biases. So your example is opposite, it would be like going back to racism. The USA went from racism to people realizing it was wrong and then wanted racism stopped. Just like the people went from the government and police controlling guns to the citizens having a right to own and carry them. Your argument is actually helping the gun cause.

[sharesunited]

13. The prevalence of gun crime in the AA community puts the lie to your point.

How are the people in the inner city who are taking bullets in their hides more "free" in your version of a freer America?

You're about 140-150 years behind the times.

[lawodevolution]

15. That's interesting. The African American community is the community with the lowest gun possession

rate while the rural community where there are many times more guns than people has almost no violent crime. These trends occur between nations if you look at murder rates between all nations vs gun possession rates the least violent half on the list of all nations has a 3 times higher average civilian gun possession rate than the most violent nations.

[sharesunited]

27. You want me to post rural gun crime stories just so you can call them "anecdotal?"

Your statistics are dazzling!

[gejohnston]

38. want me to post gun saving victim from rape or murder stories just so you can call them bullshit?

I can play that game too.

[sharesunited]

40. I wouldn't do that. I never do. Post as many as you can find!

But if the crime is commenced with a gun, you'll definitely hear me point that out.

[dmallind]

92. Stories ARE, definitionally, anecdotal.

The only argument an individual narrative can refute is one that claims, in this case, "there is NO rural gun crime". Since the claim was for a lower but non-zero rate, the fact that you would ever think of using stories to refute it is sad. The obvious imputation that you know why this is stupid, by pre-empting very sound responses that you fully expect to get when trying to use stories to refute data claims, is profoundly telling.

The only response a sane rational person has to the original claim (one, frankly, with which I am unfaimiliar) is: "really - never seen stats on rural vs. non-rural gun crime and ownership. Did it correct for other known correlations with crime such as population density, income and racial makeup?". To think that posting stories says anything st all about a relative incidence claim? Oh deary deary me...

[lawodevolution]

94. In SU's world the facts don't matter, just anecdotal stories.

[rl6214]

30. How about the fact that the most repressive gun control

is in the inner cities yet they have the highest murder rates and can do nothing to protect themselves from it because they have been disarmed.

[sharesunited]

45. Leakage from surrounding lax jurisdictions.

Which is why we need a uniform ban from sea to shining sea.

Chicago borders on Indiana, where guns and fireworks abound. Need to shut that down.

[rl6214]

51. What other large inner cities are gun free?

like NY or Chitcago but that's just not the case. What other major cities are gun free?

Miami
Boston
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
Dallas
Philadelphi

ETC
ETC
ETC

None of the above so your your leakage arguement holds no water.

[sharesunited]

57. Maybe I misunderstood you.

I thought you were asking why big cities are so unsuccessful at limiting the scourge of gun violence by trying to limit the presence of guns whatsoever within the boundaries they control.

The answer is, because guns are brought in from outside.

Which is why federal policy must address the issue. So the ability to obtain guns and ammo is uniformly difficult everywhere.

Make 'em scarce.

[rl6214]

68. And it's been pointed out to you over and over and over

how that will never happen.

The feds cannot shut down an entire industry and the ATFs mandate does not include shutting down production. Try working on crime instead.

[sharesunited]

70. Crime prevention. As in making the means of committing guns crimes less available?

Yes!

[rl6214]

72. I said work on crime

Are you saying gun owners are all criminals or criminals just waiting to happen? Because you want to ban guns which would take guns out of the hands of many, many, many law abiding citizens.

[sharesunited]

76. The guns in the hands of criminals came from somewhere.

Where did they come from?

Did they leave the assembly line destined for the dark side?

No, they came from the only place they can come from.

From the law abiding.

Leakage again. Making 'em scarce is the only way to go.

[57_TomCat]

90. Why is it then that those cities that ...

ban or severely restrict the ownership of handguns and complain of guns brought in from outside, have higher rates of gun violence than the places where the guns originally come from?

[gejohnston]

52. so why do those lax jurisdictions have less violent crime rate.

[sharesunited]

79. If dead rural Alabamians could speak, would they speak favorably of your statistics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_County_massacre

[gejohnston]

89. Would 14 year old Jessica Carpenter speak favorably of your views?

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_in_merced.htm

[TheWraith]

84. Funny, Mexico has a near total gun ban. Doesn't seem to help.

You, of course, blame weapons coming in from the US. Problem is, if the US banned guns, you'll always have someplace a little further to move the goalposts. First it's getting cities to ban guns, then when that's a failure you blame the suburbs. If you can get statewide laws in place, then you blame the next state over when they fail. New York has had pistol registration for a century, and it hasn't done a damn thing about crime.

So, if you ever achieved a Mexico-style nationwide ban (which you won't, since it's unconstitutional), when it was proven a total failure, you'd start blaming the lax gun laws in Canada, and insisting they're to blame, or maybe it's Brazil.

The fact that you can't dis-invent gunpowder will never occur to you, nor the fact that laws only matter to the law-abiding.

[one-eyed fat man]

100. Chicago is a festering boil of crime.

It has been since before Al Capone threw the mayor down the steps of City Hall. There is no more reliable voting bloc in the nation than Daley's dead Democrats.

How much money is being squandered fighting the McDonald case and the subsequent refusal to implement the law? How much many times more will a Federal judge rule on another flimsy attempt at evasion by telling the city they were trying to be "...too cute by half."

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf

All the while Chicago politicians carve out for themselves an exemption to the ban on concealed weapons in Illinois. Their exalted position places them above the mere subjects under their dominion.

[reACTIONary]

18. You asked a good question and got a good answer....

...you wanted to know how it would be practical for gun strict gun laws to pass if people are dead-set against them. Good question. The answer is that there are numerous examples of folks changing their minds and coming to a new realization and a new consensus on how we should live together. Maybe civil rights and slavery are not on point as perfect analogies for gun ownership, but they do point out that transformation in our attitudes do occur.

And our attitudes towards guns certainly don't require radical change. Guns are not as embedded in our culture as you seem to think. We do heavily regulate guns and this is not controversial outside of the hard core "gun lover" culture. As you mention, guns are generally owned by the less populous and dwindling rural population. The more populous, growing urban environments tend not to own guns and tend not to care if they are regulated.

Over time, your stance is probably on the way out.

[sharesunited]

23. If your post gets deleted, it is because of your use of the term "gun nut."

You need to go inflammatory light around here.

[reACTIONary]

43. How About Gun Lover...

...and I corrected a spelling error also.

[gejohnston]

48. how about gun geek like anything else geek?

[sharesunited]

49. They bristle at that too. The one neutral approach seems to be to say "pro."

We call them pro and they call us anti.

Or they call us authoritarian.

Or they call us prohibitionist.

Feel free to experiment with vocabulary which conveys your contempt for how wrong you think they are without assaulting their personal dignity. Remember, they have guns.

[rl6214]

56. "contempt"

You're all about contempt aren't you?

[sharesunited]

61. Why should I hold how wrong you are in any higher esteem?

The most personal I can make it is that you are part of the problem.

That's where the concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin comes from.

Does one's conversion need to wait until one is mortally wounded by gunfire? I truly wonder how precious one's imaginary gun rights seem in those final moments.

[rl6214]

69. And the same can be said about YOU

The fact that 48 states now have some sort of concealed carry shows the majority of Americans think how wrong YOU are and that YOU are part of the problem.

How are gun rights imaginary? It's been pointed out to you time and time again that they are as President Obama said, settled law.

The most personal I can make it is that only one of my guns has ever killed anything living and that was my deer rifle and it has killed deer. So how am i part of the problem?

You want to demonize every single gun owner and if it takes sending every anti gun politician back home then that's what will happen.

[sharesunited]

75. Come on, now. A majority of Americans think gay people shouldn't marry or adopt.

A majority probably don't think whites and blacks should marry either.

(Loving v. Virginia disposed of that latter American populist preference.)

The President also said he thinks Americans cling to their guns. Not a ringing endorsement of their emotional maturity.

Gun rights are imaginary because the very concept leaves us unable to uphold any of our genuine rights.

If we can be so conveniently snuffed out at the whim of another, then the power to snuff us out literally preempts everything else we think we have.

It is therefore just a world of the fastest to draw and pull the trigger. (I might also include the most accurate to aim, but with enough bullets barreling out, who really cares?)

Does that seem like a constitutional democracy to you?

[Straw Man]

73. Several misconceptions here.

The most personal I can make it is that you are part of the problem.

That's where the concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin comes from.

Owning a gun is not a "sin." Misusing it is a sin. Interesting enough, every "sin" committed with a gun can be committed without a gun. You like to argue that the gun's efficacy as a weapon is the qualifying characteristic of its evil, yet somehow that evil nature disappears when the person with the gun wears a uniform and a badge. Suddenly, that same efficacy becomes good. Are uniformed agents of the State uniquely good and ordinary citizens uniquely evil? That would be the only explanation for this magical transformation. Please tell me you don't believe that.

Does one's conversion need to wait until one is mortally wounded by gunfire? I truly wonder how precious one's imaginary gun rights seem in those final moments.

Are you arguing that my owning a gun makes it more likely that I will be a shooting victim? I'm aware of some studies making that claim, but they failed to control for criminal lifestyles. I think that my gun ownership makes it less likely that I will be "mortally wounded by gunfire." Of course it still could happen, but it is less likely. And if it did happen, I can guarantee you that my final thought woud not be "Damn, I wish guns did not exist!" It would be something more along the lines of "Damn, that fucker shot me!"

[sharesunited]

80. Uniformed agents of the State are delegated. And a fraction of a percent of the population.

How does this justify the other 99+% of America having access to guns and ammo?

Especially when the main reason the cops need them is because of an armed public?

So when you are bleeding out the larger point will still be lost on you?

At least when I am bleeding out I can be comforted by the knowledge that I was right about guns and ammo not being allowed. It will be "Damn that fucker, and Damn the NRA!"

[Straw Man]

82. Neither of which is relevant.

How does this justify the other 99+% of America having access to guns and ammo?

Because they are free citizens and have inalienable rights, including the right of self-defense. One should not have to be a uniformed agent of the State to be armed for one's own defense.

Especially when the main reason the cops need them is because of an armed public?

Fallacious premise. Cops need them for protection against all sorts of weapons, including weapons of opportunity, like rocks, chairs, and kitchen knives. The same applies to citizens.

So when you are bleeding out the larger point will still be lost on you?

"When" I'm bleeding out? I see this as extremely unlikely, given my lifestyle. And what is "the larger point"? That if guns did not exist, no one could be shot? As has been pointed out before, this is a meaningless tautology. It's not "lost" -- it never existed.

At least when I am bleeding out I can be comforted by the knowledge that I was right about guns and ammo not being allowed. It will be "Damn that fucker, and Damn the NRA!"

I missed the part in the NRA literature where they espouse criminal violence. If the NRA disappeared overnight, guns would still exist and criminals would still have them. Blaming them for gun violence makes about as much sense as blaming AAA for car accidents.

[PavePusher]

86. I'm STILL waiting for the police to show up. Where the fuck are they? n/t

[gejohnston]

88. no if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time and

get shot by some gangster on a drive by, I am not going to say "Damn the NRA" I am going to say "Damn that pot and coke head who put the gun in his hand" and damn the war on drugs that make it profitable to buy the gun.

[Euromutt]

102. Hell, I've very nearly been in that wrong place at the wrong time, but it was in the Netherlands

Given the tram I was on, it must have been somewhere between 1996 and 1999. Going home from a friend's house, I took a late-night tram, and if I'd been on the next one, fifteen minutes later, it'd have rattled through a particular intersection in one of the seamier parts of town just as two petty drug dealers were settling a dispute regarding who controlled which particular corner, using some illegally possessed handguns. It's not for want of regulation that they were packing heat: the Netherlands has extremely stringent firearms laws, and I'm fairly certain there are various laws that make it illegal to exchange gunfire in built-up areas. But then, there are laws against smuggling, distributing and selling illegal drugs, and these two weren't obeying those either.

[X_Digger]

103. Oh noes!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217350



I'd wondered where the idiotic schtick went to..

[Straw Man]

60. Never mind. (nt)

[sharesunited]

64. Yes, that was humor. And any deletions mean I am done for the night, because I have gone too far.

[Straw Man]

66. OK.

I would retract my alert, but I don't think that can be done.

[sharesunited]

67. Sort of like un-firing a bullet, isn't it?

[Straw Man]

74. Not really -- alerts aren't lethal.

Very little moral liability and no legal liability involved.

[sharesunited]

77. I applaud you for the admission that bullets are. The gravity of that difference is key.

[Straw Man]

83. Merely stating the glaringly obvious.

On the other hand, an alert wouldn't be much help against a violent assault. Bullets would be a better choice there.

[rl6214]

55. Actually "gun lover" is as bad as your "gun Nut"

[eqfan592]

26. Unlikely.

If only because your side pretty much blew all it's credibility with the majority of the population over the last decade and a half, and only continues to do so as time goes on. It may be a smaller majority, but it is still a majority.

Indeed attitudes can and do change, but they appear to be changing in OUR direction, given the expansion of firearm rights and loosening of regulations we've seen over the last decade or so. And being an urban gun owner myself I'm doing my part and getting others who were not previously interested in firearms out shooting and having fun while promoting firearm safety, as well as pointing out the myriad of logical fallacies promoted by organizations like the Brady Campaign. Several have gone on to purchase firearms of their own now. And I'm far from the only one doing this.

So yeah, good luck, cuz you're gonna need it. ;)

[rl6214]

34. "Over time, your stance is probably on the way out."

Doesn't seem that way since there are only two states without some sort of concealed carry, WI which will probably changed within a month and IL which will take a few years longer, if that.

[gejohnston]

42. Even more recent loss of credibility

is the hysteria of the Al Qaida guy claiming that you can legally buy a machine gun at a gun show with no background check. Fully automatic or automatic weapon means machine gun. A two second search for "federal gun control laws" will come up that has not been the case since 1934 in the US and 1952 in Canada. That makes the gun control movement look really stupid or more dishonest than usual.

Rachel Maddow knows that but decided to be dishonest.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. re: ...your stance is probably on the way out.

What endures is truth:
"Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer."


I always try to listen. It's difficult sometimes when rhetoric is offered rather than reason, but I still listen.
There will always be challenges in the respecting rights.

A question I've had for those favoring a ban is that, if the US firearm murder rate was roughly equivalent to that of the UK, would you still favor a ban?

[reACTIONary]

14. I suspect you mean "without preventing ME from getting hold of them."

I suspect you mean "without preventing ME from getting hold of them." If that isn't a concern, you do it the same way that you stop criminals from getting dynamite, hand grenades, surface-to-air ballistic missiles, and all sorts of other nasty harmful no-good stuff. You license and regulate manufacturing and distribution and you vigorously enforce the laws and regulations. It wouldn't work perfectly, but it would work well enough.

Would you be inconvenienced? Yep. Would you be denied your right to bear arms? Sure. But you would not have to worry as much about your kid being shot up by some nut case at school.

Oh, and you would not have to worry as much about cops shooting innocent people either, because the cops would not feel as threatened and defensive in a confrontation as they do with the prevalence of firearms.

[Logical]

17. Wow, not this argument again.....

There are not 300 million surface-to-air missiles legally possessed by citizens in the USA. Or any of the other stuff you made up.

Guns are 100% legal to own and possess and manufacture. So how do you plan on banning that?

So can we use your magic method to prevent cocaine and heroin from being possessed by criminals also? I am sure you think the war on drugs has been successful also.

Many SCOTUS rulings have gun possession as a right. As do most citizens and senators. How are you going to change that? Please give details.

And also let me know how you are going door to door removing 300 million guns from home owners. That should not cause any concern.

Try again. I will be waiting.

[reACTIONary]

19. Simple. By changing the law and enforcing it

Your arguments are applicable to any law enforcement situation. All law enforcement takes effort. All law enforcement is less than 100% effective. All law enforcement requires the consent and cooperation of the citizenry. But law enforcement is NOT impossible, and guns do not present any particular problem that would prevent them from being made unavailable to the general public.

[gejohnston]

28. and the social value would be what?

and simply listing the usual cherry picked countries does not cut it. Canada can't enforce their long gun scheme since 1995 at great cost. It has not benefited Canadian society, law enforcement or anyone else other than Honeywell stock holders. Most of the provinces don't even bother to enforce it and told the feds that. If the Calgary city police catch you, they won't care. If the OPP catches you, they won't care. If the RCMP catches you, they care. Their handgun compliance since 1934 maybe higher, but it was not to reduce crime just keep immigrants from having pistols. Registering machine guns in the 1950s worked because few Canadians owned them until the 1977 ban.
If that is Canada, how well do you think it will work here?

That is before you get to the gun bans in UK or Jamaica. One with a high violent crime rate other than homicide, and the other makes us look like Norway and Japan.

[reACTIONary]

39. Your claim was that it could not be enforced...

...which I answered. Since you are now changing the subject to whether it SHOULD be enforced or not, I assume that you concede that gun laws CAN be, to a reasonable degree, enforced.

Agreed?

[gejohnston]

47. on the people who are not the problem

and can not enforce it on gangsters who are the problem. This kind of argument convinced me a long time ago that the gun control movement care nothing about lowering crime, saving lives, or making a less violent society.
Taking guns away from law abiding Brits may prevent the rare school shooting. They always rarely had gun crimes. The few that there are, they use machine guns than here. It does not change the fact that UK has more violent crime.

In short, I am saying that it has no social value.

[Logical]

29. Do you know anything about SCOTUS rulings and the 2nd Amendment?

"guns do not present any particular problem that would prevent them from being made unavailable to the general public"

Apparently not.

There is zero chance of revoking the 2nd amendment which at a minimum allows citizens to own guns for personal protection in the home. So you think the states will ratify and remove the 2nd?

No law maker or state will allow you to prevent citizens from owning guns. Do you realize this?

[reACTIONary]

41. For All Practical Purposes, You Still Can't Own a Gun in Washington DC

or Chicago, which are the only two jurisdictions that came under review. Since it was Justice Original Intent who wrote much of this ruling, I'm betting the freedom to own guns only applies to flint lock black powder long guns. Try "concealed carry" with one of those.

[gejohnston]

44. Ummmmmm no

not exactly. All nine justices affirmed that it was an individual right. Specifically the handgun ban is 5-4. There was nothing radical nor did it overturn any precedent. If DC government refused to obey the law or wishes of the people says more about its legitimacy than your cause.

[reACTIONary]

54. Actually, I live close to DC, and for all PRACTICAL purposes

...it is not possible to legally own a gun in DC. The restrictions, while purportedly complaint with the SCOTUS ruling make it very, very, very hard to actually follow through and own one. And even if you went through all the hoops and jumped the hurdles, the fact is that there isn't a gun store in DC, so you couldn't buy one! And you can't bring one in from outside. So there really isn't legal gun ownership in DC.

Principally, that's because the vast, overwhelming majority of DC residents DO NOT WANT guns in their neighborhoods. The wishes of the people of DC are being upheld. And that's actually the trend. Urban populations don't really want them.

[gejohnston]

59. but guns are there

What your side fails to understand is that the issue is not how many guns, but who has them.

[beevul]

87. Uh huh.

"for all PRACTICAL purposes it is not possible to legally own a gun in DC"


Well, We aren't done with D.C. yet, either.

The conditions you speak of - wont last.

We'll see to that.

"the vast, overwhelming majority of DC residents DO NOT WANT guns in their neighborhoods. The wishes of the people of DC are being upheld. And that's actually the trend. Urban populations don't really want them."

Just as disgusting as if they did not want freedom of speech on the part of others, is what that is.


Do you agree with the current situation in D.C.? Simply because it has to do with guns?

Can we rest assured knowing that you'd be in agreement if it was speech instead of guns that the overwhelming majority of DC residents DID NOT WANT guns in their neighborhoods, if that were the case?

Or are you just another anti-gun hypocrite hiding behind the "will of the people" only in cases where you agree with it?

[reACTIONary]

95. Just as disgusting....

Just as disgusting as if they did not want freedom of speech on the part of others, is what that is.

Nope. Not at all. There is no comparison between the freedom of conscience and the "right" to own dangerous, destructive devices. So TALK about guns all you want. I won't stop you.

The reason that I mentioned that the law in DC is overwhelmingly supported by the people of DC is because the above mentioned the "wishes of the people". In DC, and in most urban areas, the wishes of the people are clearly against promiscuous gun ownership... and even any gun ownership at all. And that's for good reason.

[X_Digger]

96. Both are rights enumerated as protected in the bill of rights.

You might wish it were not so, but it is.

[beevul]

98. There are none so blind, as those unwilling to see.

"Nope. Not at all. There is no comparison between the freedom of conscience and the "right" to own dangerous, destructive devices."


I believe we were comparing freedom of speech - one right protected by the bill of rights - with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms - another right protected by the bill of rights.

Try and keep up wont you?


Based on the the simple fact that both are constitutionally protected fundamental civil rights, yes virginia, there IS room for comparison - and plenty of it in fact.

I know it hurts, I know it makes you out to be hypocritical as most antis (anti-gun, anti-drug, anti-porn etc) are. And thats precisely why I did it. And precisely why you tried to argue the way you so failingly did.

If your going to DO it, expect to be called on it every single time. And don't be expecting an easy out.


"In DC, and in most urban areas, the wishes of the people are clearly against promiscuous gun ownership... and even any gun ownership at all. And that's for good reason."

I don't care what the reason. Thats right - I do not care. The bill of rights quite plainly shields the right to keep and bear arms from the wishes of the wishes of the people of DC (see "tyranny of the majority).

Too bad if you don't like it.

Like I said, if it was speech that " wishes of the people" of DC were against, you'd be singing a different tune. You know. I know it. Everyone here that reads this will know it.

And that means this word applies:

Hypocrite.


Like I said above:

If your going to DO it, expect to be called on it every single time. And don't be expecting an easy out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. VA or MD?

I worked there several times. What town?

[rl6214]

36. You're gonna have to start by amending the 2A

Good luck with that.

[rrneck]

53. How difficult is it

for law enforcement to jump through a rip in the fabric of time?

[pipoman]

71. One of many problems with your plan,

current laws aren't being enforced. Current laws encompass far fewer people, and are numerous orders of magnitude less controversial. Don't you think many, if not most, firearms related issues could be solved by simply enforcing current laws? How about we try that first.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. Not so simple.

You seem to be discounting the issue that laws are based upon principled and moral standards.

The fact that self defense IS a right can't be legislated away. The fact that the individual RKBA has been recognized unanimously by SCOTUS is a testament to its immutability.

[reACTIONary]

24. 300 million guns. 300 million SAMs

You tell us that there are 300 million legally owned SAMs in America. And you tell us that there are 300 million guns that would need to be confiscated. Are you maintaining that there are as many legal SAMs as there are guns? Hummmmm....

[Logical]

31. When did I say there are 300 million sams? n-t

[eqfan592]

35. I don't believe you did.

In fact, you said exactly the opposite. Not entirely sure what this persons problem is. Seems like Shares twin. :P

[reACTIONary]

46. You didn't say

...say that. You said there were not. I misread your post.

[rl6214]

58. This is what came up on my browser:

"There are not 300 million surface-to-air missiles legally possessed by citizens in the USA"

[gejohnston]

65. why does it always go off on absurd things like tanks, SAMs, and

atomic bombs? Since no one has a place to put one and you need Koch or Walton kind of disposable income to buy or maintain one, it really does not matter if they are legal or not.

[reACTIONary]

33. Sorry, SAMs are illegal

Sorry - illegal.


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332g

§ 2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—
(1) In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—
(i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;
(B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
(C) any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Nonweapon.— Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.
(3) Excluded conduct.— This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.
(b) Jurisdiction.— Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—
(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;
(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or
(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.
(c) Criminal Penalties.—
(1) In general.— Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.
(2) Other circumstances.— Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life.
(3) Special circumstances.— If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.
(d) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “aircraft” has the definition set forth in section 40102 (a)(6) of title 49, United States Code.

Go here (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html), search for "missile"

[gejohnston]

20. In your first paragraph

money, or lack of it, keeps criminals from getting hand grenades, rocket launchers etc. Just look at the drug cartels in Mexico. They have all of that stuff and then some. They are not buying it at the local sporting goods store. Firearms industry is heavily regulated.
You realize that even though gun crimes are less common in Europe than here, but sub machine guns are used in UK and Europe in crimes than here.

[reACTIONary]

21. OK - So Lets Make Guns More Expensive

Since hand grenades are restricted and thus expensive to obtain illegally, let's restrict guns and make them more expensive to obtain.

You seem to be arguing for the impossibility of enforcing the law. The law is not impossible to enforce.

[eqfan592]

32. Not going to happen.

You have to convince people that this is a worthy cause, and given that you have utterly failed to convince people that there is a causal link between firearms and crime (mainly because you have not produced sufficient evidence) it is not likely to happen. People just aren't as stupid as you'd need them to be to fall for your scheme.

The political capital you feel we should spend on this would be better served going after the root causes of crime, one of which is not firearms. End of story.

[gejohnston]

37. only pointing out that you are talking about disarming

the wrong demographic. That is to say, removing my target pistol will do anything. It will have nothing to do with violent crime in general. Any criminologist will tell you that. Like I said in other posts, the average bong owner is more responsible for gun and gang violence than almost all US and Canadian gun owners combined.

[Straw Man]

62. So only the "right kind of people" can afford to own them?

How very progressive!

[spin]

78. If you make guns more expensive, only the rich could buy them ...

The rich and powerful who live in gated communities with security guards will love your idea, the poor in crime ridden areas not so much.

Criminals will always be able to obtain firearms and if you made firearms too expensive, the drug gangs would simply smuggle firearms made in other countries in our nation. If you can smuggle tons and tons of marijuana into this nation, firearms would be no challenge.

You might well end up with a nation much like Mexico. The average honest citizen has a hard time obtaining a legal firearm in Mexico but the drug cartels have fully automatic assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers etc, etc.

Since you mentioned how hard it is to get hand grenades I should point this interesting article out.

Mexican drug cartels' newest weapon: Cold War-era grenades made in U.S.
Saturday, July 17, 2010

Federal police respond to an attack Thursday on the main avenue of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, across the border from El Paso. (Jesus Alcazar/agence France-presse Via Getty Images)

MEXICO CITY -- Grenades made in the United States and sent to Central America during the Cold War have resurfaced as terrifying new weapons in almost weekly attacks by Mexican drug cartels.

***snip***

Grenades have killed a relatively small number of the 25,000 people who have died since Calderón launched his U.S.-backed offensive against the cartels. But the grenades pack a far greater psychological punch than the ubiquitous AK-47s and AR-15 rifles -- they can overwhelm and intimidate outgunned soldiers and police while reminding ordinary Mexicans that the country is literally at war.

There have been more than 72 grenade attacks in Mexico in the last year, including spectacular assaults on police convoys and public officials. Mexican forces have seized more than 5,800 live grenades since 2007, a small fraction of a vast armory maintained by the drug cartels, officials said.

According to the Mexican attorney general's office, there have been 101 grenade attacks against government buildings in the past 3 1/2 years, information now made public for the first time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606252.html?sid=ST2010072106244

[slackmaster]

85. That's a very regressive attitude you have there, reACTIONary

Price poor people out of the market.

[gejohnston]

50. one problem, and that is one for one cancellation

Criminologists that have seriously studied this issue found that at best you will get a one for one cancellation. Same number but different people. The rare nut case at school may be stopped. But the price is about 219 rapes, violent assaults etc that will take place that would have been prevented because the would be victim would scare them with a gun. That is not NRA propaganda, that is peer reviewed research by criminologists.

[TPaine7]

7. Guns in the hands of government have caused many more innocent deaths. That is an unquestionable

fact of history.

The fact that you evade that reality indicates that your concern is not the preservation of innocent life but the advancement of your ideology.

[reACTIONary]

16. And under unarmed governments how many innocents have died?

More? Less? Oh wait, we don't have any unarmed governments! Hummm... I wonder why?

[Straw Man]

63. Not now, not ever in history.

More? Less? Oh wait, we don't have any unarmed governments! Hummm... I wonder why?

Because guns exist. You weren't going to suggest that governments had to arm themselves because the people were armed, were you? Governments have always been the first and best clients of the weapons-makers.

[TPaine7]

81. Because 100% of governments belIeve they should have the best tools to exert appropriate

deadly force.

Many of those nations, being hypocritical, backwards, or both, believe that the people from whom they derive all their legitimate power should not have those tools. To them, it is preferable that "the little people" be helpless in the face of crime than that they be armed. Accommodations are always made for the protection of the very rich, the politiacally connected and other "more equal" people--proving that these nations (and US states and cities) do not believe in the equality of human beings, no matter what they say.

[rl6214]

25. Are CCHs not "the public" ? We also hear that there should

not be guns out in the hands of "the public" while they are out in public yet this information shows CCHs to be safer than the police while out in public so any arguement against it should be null and void.

[safeinOhio]

2. But, there were even fewer gun crimes

by 96 year old women/100,000.

[TPaine7]

3. Cite please. n/t

[TPaine7]

5. K&R

Excellent OP, Logical!

I predict that, for the most part at least, the anti-rights people will studiously ignore this challenge to their worldview. Seriously and honestly examining challenges to anti-gun propaganda and "logic" would force any intelligent person to switch sides. It did in my case.

[Logical]

9. Thanks! It did in my case also.....

I was not a fan of CC or guns in general five years ago. Then after much much reading I saw how few issues honest citizens with CC licenses have caused and how many defensive gun uses prevent crime every year. The antis do not realize that honest citizens deserve guns as much as the criminals do. And they never have a solution to preventing criminals from getting guns.

They honestly seem more worried about preventing honest citizens from being armed they they do criminals from being armed.

[rl6214]

22. Good research information and well, very Logical

[Logical]

99. Shameless bump to counter another VPC post.

[drpepper67]

101. There is no shame in telling the truth.

[Cool Logic]

104. Concealed Carry Citizens engage criminals prior to becoming victims...

Police engage them after they have victimized.