Enterprise Software

Take your gun to work day?

A new Texas law gives gun owners a new right to store a weapon (any lawfully owned firearm, not just those owned under a Concealed Handgun License) in their vehicle while at work.

Those wacky Texans are at it again. On September 1, a Texas law known as the "guns-at-work" or "parking lot" bill will go into effect. The law gives gun owners a new right to store a weapon (any lawfully owned firearm, not just those owned under a Concealed Handgun License) in their vehicle while at work.

Of course, I have to admit that I didn't know it was previously illegal to have a gun in your vehicle. How would one enforce that policy? Do a glove compartment inspection each morning?

There are a few exceptions to the new law: school districts, private schools, certain oil and gas facilities, and employees driving company-owned vehicles.

Workforce Management, a site that covers HR matters related to the workplace recommends that Texas employers (and any other states that pass a law like this) take the following practical steps:

  • Identify company-owned facilities that fall under an exception in the statute.
  • Create a protocol if an employee travels between facilities and is unsure whether he or she can bring a lawfully stored weapon into a particular parking lot.
  • Work with property management to assess applicable rules for employee parking lots owned by third parties.
  • Conduct an audit of all workplace violence programs to ensure a comprehensive approach is in place for responding to jokes, threats, or a disgruntled worker.
  • Require that employees identify themselves to the human resources department if they will be keeping a gun in a vehicle parked on a company lot.

Above all, and this is just my suggestion, please make your parking lots big enough so there is no scuffling over spaces.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

336 comments
Slayer_
Slayer_

Cause what red neck doesn't have a rifle or shotgun hanging from the back window of their truck? /Sarcasm Hand guns should be flat out illegal to own, manufacture, or even handle. They serve very little purpose other than to kill people. Tasers are a viable alternative. Excuses like, you only get one shot, work for hand guns as well, as you are likely to only get one shot off before the bad guy shoots you. An entire citizenry walking around armed is a frighting thought. Only a small portion of people can responsibly own a gun. If banning guns outright is not an answer, why not make police or military training a requirement to own and operate a hand gun (or maybe any gun). That way, we can be sure that a good majority of gun owners, have at least some training in the proper use of the weapon and the discipline when to use and more importantly, when not to use the weapon.

sparker
sparker

Kind of a harsh stand for someone with the alias "SinisterSlay", don't ya think? Handguns are no more dangerous than knives, baseball bats, or automobiles; it's what you do with them that counts. We don't outlaw cars just because people run each other over with them. Here in Texas, the process for obtaining a concealed carry permit is pretty stringent; I can't recall any incidence of a legal carrier using his (or her) concealed weapon to commit a crime, but there are plent of occaisions of a legal owner using their weapon to STOP a crime. Not only should we have the right to keep our weapons in our vehicles, we should be allowed to carry anywhere it is otherwise legal to carry. I park my vehicle 20 miles away and take public transportation (doing my part for the environment) so a handgun in my car won't do me a lot of good as I walk around downtown, especially late at night. Please stop blaming us safe, secure, LEGAL gun owners for what the bad guys do with their guns, or baseball bats, or cars, or etc...

scottmac019
scottmac019

You are an idiot. If there were no handguns people who want to hurt or kill others will do it by some other means. Those of us who are legal handgun owners are sick of close minded morons like yourself who want to push YOUR agenda on us. If you don't like guns don't buy one, but keep your liberal ideals off mine. When will you liberals understand, that gun laws and "bans" only hurt those who actually follow laws and do things the right way. Gang Bangers and other criminals will ALWAYS have firearms. The idiocy of you people boggles my mind...CARS Kill more people than firearms...maybe they should be illegal to own, manufacture or even handle....

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

SC law requires the use of a hand gun or 'bang stick' during the limited alligator hunting season. The possession of a rifle while hunting alligators is prohibited. See pages 13-15: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/alligator/pdf/gatorhuntguide.pdf Just so you know. The animal must be restrained prior to being shot at close range. I suspect this is to ensure a clean kill, but I don't hunt so I don't know for sure. That said, I could live happily if the 2nd Amendment had never been written.

jjs75
jjs75

Mine may have saved my life way back in '82. The would-be muggers I showed it to ran away (fast!!). It was not fired or even pointed directly at them, no one was killed, no crime was committed. Back into my pocket it went with no one the wiser. But it did indeed serve its purpose, which was not to kill but to protect. Still illegal to kill people, you say? You speak from ignorance, because it never was. Check your state law concerning DPF (deadly physical force). These laws are remarkably uniform across the 50 states, and they all say that to prevent murder, kidnapping, etc, a person MAY use DPF on another. These laws have not substantially changed in a century or more in some cases. Sinister, you ought to call Oscar Mayer and arrange for a baloney pickup - and tell 'em to send the semi because your load of baloney won't fit in the little truck!! best j

phillibe
phillibe

Wow, so my .44 handgun is inappropriate for hunting? Yet it does a wonderful job during deer season. What about that handy .22 that I use for some enjoyable target shooting? I'm sure a .22 can kill a person, but the chances of anyone using a .22 for the purpose is almost laughable. Handguns serve more than one purpose, but ultimately my personal favorite is the .40 that stays with me most of the time because it serves one purpose: to save my or my families life from someone posing an imminent and potentially lethal threat, including those many criminals who use a gun for malicious purposes. If you make it illegal to own, manufacture, or handle, then criminals will be the only ones with guns. Personally I like my chances better on an even playing field.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

as they serve no purpose other than to stab and kill people... Note - Is the downvoting because you don't grok satire?

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

And states don't check to see if you can recite and understand Newton's third law of motion before issuing a permit to drive!

interpoI
interpoI

You are correct in every way possible This is in response to: really?? By: Scottmac019@...

fartracer
fartracer

... while guns next to useless. It's true that you can be killed by means other than shooting, but shooting is an awful lot easier than any other method. How many people do you think a nutter could kill if he walked into a building and tried to beat everyone to death with a baseball bat? The situation in the US is difficult. It would take a LONG time to reduce the number of guns in circulation. But I guarantee that if you lived for a while in a country where almost no-one has guns (criminals included), you'd see the sense in trying.

PC Ferret
PC Ferret

...that "Barrett .50", and "light" belong in the same sentence.... (Have you ever picked one up? I did once at a gun show....)

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

a Bofors 40mm antiaircraft cannon? :D After all, gator skin is out of fashion.

captain linger
captain linger

You'd probably be living (happily or not) in a country that wasn't America, since the private ownership of firearms allowed the American revolution to happen. Not to mention the fact that the event that tipped events into the action of the Revolution was the British confiscation of private firearms (technically the powder required to make them work). Which, of course, meant that the people could not hunt OR defend themselves. As far as I am concerned, owning and knowing how to properly and safely use firearms should be a vital, and is a historically relevant, part of being an American. It has a bit to do with self defense, a bit to do with sporting, and a lot to do with civil liberty and the history of personal responsibility and self sufficiency that made this country what it is. Sadly most people in the last few generations seem happier to cede more and more responsibility to the government and career politicians, including their own personal safety. Also, netflix Swamp People to see how the gator hunting works! Your suspicion is correct..

mike
mike

You cannot be sincere that you only want the government to own the guns. Dictators love that kind of law. And because of tyrants and dictators, we have the 2nd Amendment. You can opt out, but don't take away my rights because you don't care for them.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

trying to force what is seen to be "gator-huntin rednecks" to first wrastle the animal, then sit on its neck and shoot it in the brains. Apparently to ensure Darwinistic effects on the gene pool.

Who Am I Really
Who Am I Really

before you go off on him in Canada you have [b]"ABSOLUTELY 0, ZERO, "[/b] Self defense rights - you are not allowed to use anymore force than that which is already being used on you if you do you're the one who gets arrested and charged while the assailant walks away free - you can't shoot someone until you have first been shot by them (and that's actually shot not just shot at, if they shoot at you and miss you can't shoot them until you've been shot) - you can't shoot anyone who waves a knife in yer face, (the most you can do in that situation is wave a knife in their face, and you can't stick em one until you've first been stabbed) - you can't shoot someone who stabs you, you can only stab them back - you can't stab someone who's just laying a beating on you etc. edit: OK this is fun, now I can't find the post this was a reply to, Prev, and Next doesn't keep the context it was in reference to the post about SS calling "Oscar Mayer and arrange for a baloney pickup"

n.smutz
n.smutz

Where does Switzerland tank on violent crime? Since the army is, basically, everybody, overt crime is suicide. Out in the sticks where everybody's dad taught them to shoot and shave, guns are respected as dangerous, but they aren't a symbol of evil. Back when one-in-a-million crazies were commiting mass murder at educational institutions, why didn't some agg major put the creep down? Because very well meaning people, in the name of safety, disempowered the reaponsible and created vulnerable environments.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

I'm not so certain that the state codes are as uniform as you think. I've passed police handgun/shotgun FAT as well as "concealed carry" in VA and invariably hindsight is 20-20 and hard to judge in the heat of the moment. I do know TX law is very different than VA law with regards to the justified use of lethal force. Even if you get a pass on the criminal side, it doesn't keep their family from bringing a civil case. That being said I do agree with your sentiment that remaining hale, hearty and alive figure prominently in how I view the use of weapons or any defensive training.

Slayer_
Slayer_

School shootings are practically a ritual in the states. And its legal because one kid brought a gun, so everyone can, and since they are all threats, it is legal to shoot them all. Oh what a safe world you live in. Or did I over extend your argument?

teeeceee
teeeceee

There have probably been more people murdered with a .22 handgun (Saturday night special - throw down piece) than any other calber pistol. One in the back of the head with a .22 hollowpoint will do the trick. Great on snakes and squirrels too.

mdearing
mdearing

Well put. I feel like we're wasting our breath trying to convince some people that there is a legitimate reason for gun ownership. These people that preach gun bans and disarming American citizens are either too ignorant to reach (until they pee their pants when they are robbed in their own homes and watch their loved ones get beaten and raped) or they are part of the crowd that wants to lead us down the same path Hitler and his crowd did in the 1930's. Disarm the citizenry and the government can do whatever it wants to them. And I fear the government more than I do criminals these days. When the country moves from a government "from the people by the people and for the people" to one of "from the government to the people for the governors in power", it's scarey.

SElizDav
SElizDav

All one has to do is check out the crime statistics in Britain since they outlawed gun ownership. I believe that someone already commented that the UK has turned into a country of victims. The only ones who have the guns are the criminals.

Slayer_
Slayer_

I do wonder if mentalities like yours are the cause. But hey, who am I to judge, around here, everyone has a gun, not much gun violence though, we have plenty of stabbings, but shootings... those are rare. Maybe we just teach our kids better about gun safety?

teeeceee
teeeceee

Haven't seen that one, hilarious!

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

I'd hate to see your table manners in a steak house.

oterrya
oterrya

I have carried a knife in my pocket for mst of my life -- probablly had one in my pocket for something over 20,000 days now. None of them have ever stabbed anyone. They have carved apples, peeled oranges and grapefruit, helped cut wood for a cooking fire when camping, enabled emergency repairs and carved meat. (What would you do in a restaurant if you could not get a steak knife to cut your steak?) It has been said (I am not sure if the numbers are accurate but I believe in the principle) that one of the major factors the US has never been invaded is the thought of 20,000,000 people here that are armed with guns and might be able to shoot back. Think about that when you push for gun control. (With gun control, only the criminals have guns.)

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

(I get the satire but thought I'd put in my two cents here) Don't get me wrong. I love's me an afternoon at the range punching holes in paper hung out of arms reach. My competitive results demonstrate that I'm pretty darn good with a rifle too. A firewarm can be a gorgeous bit of engineering beauty if you overlook the purpose of the machine. Handguns though, where created and designed as a tool to enable homicide. They intent of the tool is to make other people dead. It wasn't invented so one could hunt to avoid starvation (rifle). It wasn't invented so one could cut materials for food, clothing, shelter and so on (knife). While knives can be horrific tools to cause harm by the hands of someone with minimal skill, the majority of uses are socially constructive.

markp24
markp24

A knife to me is a tool not a weapon (unless its a dagger or some sorta of tactical knife) A pocket knife was desigend as a tool not a weapon.

mwilhite
mwilhite

Thinking peiople don't make such rash and thoughtless statements. This sounds more like a liberal gut reaction than linear rational thought.

oterrya
oterrya

The downvoting is because I treated it as a straight comment and disagree. I have carried a small knife in my pocket for over 65 years and recently (10years or so) find that it is no longer acceptable in many forums. I do not know what the ultimate answer might be but hate the change.

brucebanderson
brucebanderson

I have a Swiss Army knife I use every for something but I do not stab or kill people.

AntonSigma
AntonSigma

Come on!! More people are killed or seriously injured by drunk drivers and idiots who think they can talk on a phone and drive then by guns and knives. People kill people! If a person uses a knife, gun or whatever form of ???weapon??? it is still and individual who makes the decision to kill.

Professor8
Professor8

"Cockrum v State (1859) recognized that even the dreaded Bowie knife was a constitutionally protected arm." --- Clayton E. Cramer 1994 _For the Defense of Themselves & the State_ pp 269-270 " The bowie-knife differs from these in its device & design; it is the instrument of almost certain death. He who carries such a weapon, for lawful defence, as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the rights of others, considering the frailties of human nature, than if he carried a less dangerous weapon..." --- Roberts & the TX supremes 1859 Cockrum v TX 24 TX 394 (quoted in Clayton E. Cramer 1994 _For the Defense of Themselves & the State_ pp 91-92)

ekeller
ekeller

Really? Q: You want a real good reason for keeping a tactical folder on your person? A: Cutting your seat-belt off in the event that the seat-belt release is not working or not reachable after a car accident. I sense a Darwin award coming your way. You should be honored.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Knives have had almost limitless uses since the start of time.

JCitizen
JCitizen

if you are going to go by number of folks getting killed, then the automobile is the top abused tool in the world. To argue against that, just shows that some kind of religion must be involved in the agenda; and I don't mean Christianity either. Automobiles are way far and away more abused as a PRIVELEGE and is not even a right for Christ's sake! The only reason nuts use guns is for symbolism - even terrorists know that airplanes, trucks, trains, and bombs are more effective killers.

tob
tob

its seems nutters still prefer the automatic weapon when you really want to get the body count up though.

mariah10
mariah10

government. I think I fear Hitler more than the criminals! Hell, he'd hire them for his flunkies. And, no, not talking just about Obama, but ANY President who got into power with a narcissistic nature....yes, Obama is one.

apotheon
apotheon

I've lived in countries where private ownership of guns is pretty much universally illegal. I did not feel safer there.

callupchuck
callupchuck

The last guns to go, if at all, would be the ones in the possession of the criminals. Do you really think you would be safe at that point?

spdragoo
spdragoo

a Barrett is positvely lightweight...

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

if someone is trying to build a case for controlling something, it will usually be in the interests of that case to first remove what control of the thing is already in place. So if they were mean they'd try to rule all the unofficial common-sense controls already in place unconstitutional. Of course, it would backfire if it turns out to help things - Maybe congressmen would feel more obliged to make bipartisan agreements if they all have a rifle strapped to their backs :p On the other hand, a slew of friends of the accused showing up to follow court hearings with AT-4s on their backs might be bad.

JCitizen
JCitizen

There have been powerful lobby's that did try to subvert the 2nd Amendment through court action. They had limited success in the lower courts of districts where the citizens are properly brain washed by the media. However, they always lose in the higher courts. Most of the time the courts simply refuse to hear their tripe.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

If they really wanted to swing someone on controlling arms, they should remove the ALL the stops first. Get some powerful people worried about their own safety. I guess they're not mean people like me.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Thank you, "J", for that refreshing bit of historical perspective.

JCitizen
JCitizen

At one time firearms were permitted everywhere. I've seen very old pictures of congressmen literally standing in the house chamber proudly displaying their rifles! I think the govt. building bans started during the civil war for obvious reasons, and as a gentlemen agreement, we've never taken it to the Supreme Court. All other bans have fallen under previous and recent Court decisions. For instance; because of the success of the right to carry legislation, the city of Wichita just increased the type and number of government buildings that concealed carry permits were allowed. I'm a citizen BTW - a "J" Citizen - HA! :p

spdragoo
spdragoo

Nice light tank the US Army had. They designed it for anti-aircraft work (same turret as the WW2-era M19, dual M2A1 US versions of the Bofors 40mm L/60 gun), but found that it demolished unarmored vehicles quite handily during the Vietnam War. Come to think of it, the Swedes have a newer IFV/light tank out that uses the updated L/70 40mm cannon with "smart-fuzed" shells in an anti-armor capacity. Not bad for a gun designed to shoot down aircraft...

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

The germans developed an 88mm anti-aircraft gun during WWII... however, when someone at an AA position felt threatened enough to turn that sucker at an oncoming tank, it turned out to be so effective that pretty soon they put that same cannon on their tanks as well - in fact they put in everywhere they could. Just like the A10 Warthog uses a 30mm rotary cannon (like a gatling gun, but with huge explosive shells) for tank-killing, very similar to the ones used as anti-missile point defense batteries on aircraft carriers. So, you think an anti-aircraft gun can somehow magically shoot only upwards? :p I mentioned it as an anti-aircraft gun because that's what it's sold as. What you use it for is up to your imagination, which means your mileage may vary - especially seeing as how you didn't catch on to how the gator skin being out of fashion was a joke - along with the rest of my post.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I can't check it from here, and I'm no citizen, either :) But hey, you can check for me! Let me know what happens, but don't get yourself killed, you hear?

JCitizen
JCitizen

but it helps if it is pre '86 registered, otherwise you have to go through the messy CLEO procedures.

JCitizen
JCitizen

If you want an example of what is guaranteed under the Constitution, tune into the Discovery Channel's "Sons of Guns"; a story about the Red Jacket firearms company. I've been dealing with them for a few years - they could use some technical knowledge, but they are making it. The only things prohibited are major complete systems like battleships fully armed, jet strike fighters fully armed, submarines, and nuclear weapons, under the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act. Even though it would seem silly for a criminal to gain that much attention to himself by owning a battleship. You can get around those rules by owning a museum - however - but forget the nukes! HA!

santeewelding
santeewelding

Begin with, say, the Magna Carta, and work your way from there. Shouldn't take but the rest of your life.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

but I wouldn't want neighbour to have one... I guess that means I have some spiritual growing to do :D

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I've been wondering about the unbounded wording of the 2nd amendment, and haven't gotten a straight answer yet: If i the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, does that mean it's unconstitutional to prevent citizens from bearing arms into, say, government offices, the capitol, the white house, the US supreme court, etc.? I mean, it MUST NOT be infringed...

apotheon
apotheon

I believe the limit is 37mm, maybe 38mm (I don't recall exactly) -- the size of some common civilian flare guns.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

So it's ownership is not protected under the second amendment. You see, that's a very important point. Your "right to keep and bear arms" is predicated on the bearing part. if you can't carry it, you don't have the right to have one. And yes, there is a backpack nuke. But you'd be hard pressed to find a single writing by a founding father that considered blowing yourself up (using a keg of black powder in that case, not a nuke) with the bad guys as a legitimate form of self defense, or a viable arm. Hand grenades are a different matter though...

gcdimarketing
gcdimarketing

Talk about ignorant people. Walk into any western wear store in Texas and you'll also find that gator skin is still in fashion as well.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

But I'm not going to wait until the unlikely need arises to run out and buy one. Owning one is not a problem for me, being sure I can use it is not a problem. Forfeiting my right to own or possess one definitely would be a problem. It's true that the FF's Second Amendment language is clear as mud to some. I'm sure that there was opposition to it even then. Perhaps that is the reason for the "militia" phrase, to help all to understand the need. Perhaps in those days the application of grammar was different and it was more easily understood. But the most logical interpretation is to provide for the Citizens a means to control the militia.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

The tyranny lives on, regardless. And I said that independence struggles are a thing apart, because the soldiers on the other side are not your own folks. Enlighten me, how the escape from tyranny coming along in Iraq? In Afghanistan? Somalia? Tyrants may change, but tyranny remains until the root cause is removed, and that never happens at gunpoint.

Rick Lowe
Rick Lowe

So then... firearms were only partially effective in the American Revolution? You really believe tyranny is more effectively battled with nonviolence than with weapons? Of course, it's safe to say that when you're not the one being asked to do a Tianamen Square trip. But tell us, how's it going in Libya where they're using weapons, compared to Syria where they're trying mostly peaceful protest? Enlighten us on which tyrant is out and which tyrant is still in. Of course... the lame will argue "well, but the tyranny was only replaced by another tyranny"... the only real way they have to avoid facing the reality that most tyranny's are overthrown with weapons, not none violence.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

If you'd need to overthrow your government, history shows guns to be only partially effective. One thing is an independence struggle, another is tyranny. Tyranny has been more effectively battled with courageous nonviolence than with weapons. Otherwise both Palestinians and Chechnyans would have a lot more to show for all their struggling.

captain linger
captain linger

Indeed you are correct about the timeline - I believe that the attitude and world view that resulted in the amendment was the same that made the revolution possible, and was making an implicit correlation there.

apotheon
apotheon

The Second Amendment says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- not that the militia's "right" shall not be infringed. The meaning is clear, but the existence of the term "militia" in that Amendment's text has given politicians a way to twist words to their own purposes, muddying the waters. The meaning would have been the same if the militia clause was never included in the Amendment, but there would have been significantly less politician-created confusion over the issue. Of course, the reason the militia clause was included in the first place was simply that the founders felt that an armed populace was one of the best defenses against the rise of tyranny. It was, after all, citizen-organized militias that provided the foundation of the American Revolution.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

the American Revolution predated the 2nd Amendment by several years. Whether it was eventually written or not would have had no impact on the actions during the Revolution. You have a valid point regarding the confiscation of powder as a factor in driving the colonies' anger. It's a trade-off. I think there are events more likely to occur than my needing to defend myself with a firearm. I regard such an event as not worth being prepared for, and see absolutely no chance I will need a firearm to defend myself against government tyranny or overthrow same. Others feel they are more apt to find themselves in such a situations. I have minimal objections to their possessing a firearm and will probably take no action to deny that ownership, but I wish the FFs had been clearer regarding the tie, if any, between militias and firearm ownership.

dokutman
dokutman

shame our forefathers didn't put something in the constitution requiring all citizens to become proficient with the use of firearms by their 21st b'day. Maybe then all the people that think we shouldn't be allowed to have them would have a different outlook if they weren't afraid of them. I work in Baltimore City, and last year we had a shootout right in front of my building with police! If the criminals aren't afraid to shoot cops, they sure won't blink twice about shooting a civilian. I for one think I have a right to carry a firearm at all times for protection, but alas, I live in a state run by liberal idiots who think they know what is best for everyone, and getting a concealed carry permit is near impossible. This is also why our state has such a high crime rate. Jeez, I cant wait to move away from maryland, it has become a tax laden, crime ridden dump over the last 20 years. Thanks democrats, for making my state a haven for homeless, welfare dependents, and illegal aliens. I love having gangs in my home state that aren't afraid to attack police with machete's, and threaten their families with the same violence (sarcasm here). But as a tax paying working citizen, I am not allowed to carry a weapon to defend myself from these dangers.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Some don't realize that our right to bear arms is largely considered necessary in order to maintain a "well regulated militia", in other words, We the people should maintain ultimate control *OF* that militia. It bothers me that so many want it the other way around.

JJFitz
JJFitz

Didn't more than 80% of the participants of the Constitutional Convention end up becoming elected or appointed officials of the government?

mike
mike

I fear those who use the establishment of government to gain power and control over our freedom. And I fear that many turn a blind eye to their actions, believing that "it can't happen here". The people are charged with controlling the government, ultimately. Without government, we are left with anarchy. And in that state of society, you'll wish you have your gun nearby always.

JCitizen
JCitizen

The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. This is the area where only "rights" are delineated. Governments can't have rights, only people do. What part of the Kings English do you not understand about that?!

apotheon
apotheon

That was the Constitutional Convention. That's not "government".

tob
tob

Sounds like the government isn't as bad as you gun lovers think - you quote their handy work every second breath! ;-)

apotheon
apotheon

It's not capitalized in the Second Amendment. Are you really trying to suggest it is, or did I misunderstand you somehow?

e_caroline
e_caroline

The recent Sup Ct decision has made it abundantly clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. This was obvious for the entire history of this nation until the recent few decades when some dissembling clods decided to engage in Orwellian Newspeak as they squirmed mightily to twist the words to mean what they did not say.

Roc Riz
Roc Riz

About "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," and you presume that the word "people" is not capitalized. When the word is People, it means a group in society, when it is not, it means all individuals. I believe this is where many fail to see the TRUE meaning in said amendment.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

You can't do that with other segments of society. Certain liberal comedians seem to have a free hand with their network though, implying on a regular basis that hunters, country - dwellers and Southerners are all inbred mongrels who will make tourists disappear without their money and car, and of course install four syllables in the word "Yes".

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

before they even get to wetlands. Maybe it's to prevent alligators from suffering indigestion, then... Or maybe it's a ploy to attract Putin, after he's punched out a siberian tiger (to ear-tag it, of course) he's looking for more feats of manliness in order to make himself the official Chuck Norris of the slavic world. You mind my words, next year you'll see him in a gator-skin fitted-T with the print "I wrastled a Gator, and all I got was this chafy T-shirt" :D But I shouldn't make light, he's a fearsome judoka.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

The SC gator season is -very- short, there's a limited number of single-season licenses (200?), there's a limit of one gator per season, and this is only the third or fourth year we've allowed it. The state wildlife officials think that's enough to keep the state population of leftover dinosaurs, but it certainly isn't enough to have Darwinian effects on those hunting. Most rednecks die of "Hey, y'all watch this!" syndrome.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Don't you watch TV?!!! Man you got your head in the sand!

tob
tob

All these pro gun owners sound like they live a post-apocalyptic society. Come to London. 8million people and you don't have to live your life in fear! You can catch the trains late at night and not be murdered!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I call them like I see em. If the law says a big strong predator has to be hunted by holding it down and shooting it with a handgun, then I suspect someone must want more hunters killed by the gators. Or at the very least discourage hunting quite a lot.

apotheon
apotheon

I'm pretty sure AnsuGisalas is not a gun prohibitionist, but your response seems to suggest you think he is. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think so (obviously).

interpoI
interpoI

Have you ever heard of Los Angeles, Chicago, Detriot, Las Vegas, Ever heard of gangs or psychotic people? What about criminals on drugs? Do you think that they will stay away from a parking lot? What about on the way to work or the way home from work? What about when you get out of you car at home to find one of these types of people in your home? Please get real, please.

tob
tob

What kind country do you live in that going to your parked car at work is a "survival situation" ;-) Sure, after a zombie apocalypse I'll be buddying up will all my gun-tottin' red neck friends.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I'm not sure why members of the same left that likes to defend diversity and tolerance feel they have a blank check to belittle and demean the culture and heritage as well as implying genetic and intellectual deficiencies of a certain class of primarily white American when it suits their philosophical ideologies. If your comments were directed at ANY other ethnic and cultural minority in America, Ansu, the outrage here on the forums would be incredible - in fact, the moderators would pull the message instantly, I am sure. But it is acceptable to aim exactly the same kind of frankly - low-minded - ignorance and intolerance at "rednecks", "white-trash" and "country-bumpkins" and hardly anyone blinks an eye. You're not the first in this forum to do so, either. In a survival situation, I'm certain I'd rather be stuck with a no-nonsense "get-r'done redneck" with a handgun and some common sense than a pampered liberal who has spent his entire life depending on the nanny-state to protect them from all the frightening aspects of life and an ineffectual fear of anything remotely dangerous. And keep in mind, the description of a pampered liberal closely resembles myself - in such a situation, ironically. /End Conservative Rant before I go full Dennis Miller. And please note - I'm pretty moderate. But clearly hypocritical rhetorical behavior like this, especially when it is used to JUSTIFY a dearly held philosophy on either end of the political spectrum - is one of my bigger pet peeves.

Robert Treat Paine
Robert Treat Paine

Defence of Person Self-defence against unprovoked assault 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. Extent of justification (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. Defence of personal property 38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified (a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or (b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it, if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser. Assault by trespasser (2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation. R.S., c. C-34, s. 38. Defence with claim of right 39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary. Defence without claim of right (2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39. Defence of dwelling 40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority. R.S., c. C-34, s. 40. Defence of house or real property 41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary. NO MORE FORCE THAN IS NECESSARY!!!! Exactly what does that mean? Does it mean a man of 80 (or woman of 80) needs to determine what force is necessary at 3 o'clock in the morning? Bull crap.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Comments were numbered, but the number changed with every new comment. You couldn't depend on them. I've resigned myself to slogging through everything, again and again. Time-consuming, yes, but that way I am assured of uncovering gems. Gems, by the way, are still to be found.

apotheon
apotheon

Many of the design decisions made for TR seem tailor-made to discourage in-depth discussion. For instance, once you get above 200 comments, it starts getting really difficult to find a specific comment, or to follow the context where multiple comments reply to the same previous comment, because the most comments you get to see on one page is 100. For another example, the fact that comments can only nest a very limited number of levels makes continuing discussion in a particular subthread very difficult to follow after a while. Then, of course, there's the fact that the comment "tree" indication is nigh-invisible. I could go on, such as by pointing out that the only place you can go from a single-comment view is back to the first page of a multipage discussion, but really, I need to stop somewhere. The discussion interface is, in general, pretty awful. Sterling Camden and I (he started it, but I've been helping) have put together a Greasemonkey script for Firefox that improves the interface a fair bit, but there's only so much we can reasonably do; we've barely made it usable. I frankly don't know how so many people who aren't using the tr-rectify can stand to get so involved in discussion here.

SpiritualMadMan
SpiritualMadMan

I wish there were sequencial identification... Each comment assigned a serial file number. and a provision for directing your replies toward a certain individual or at least to insert at a specific point so as to reduce confusion as to what comment lead to what. Agreed... Many Blog response Systems have replies immediately under the post being responded to. However, once this system gets this old and you are replyin to the TR Alerts... You lose context... It would be nice to have these Alerts shown in Context...

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Each comment assigned a serial file number. and a provision for directing your replies toward a certain individual or at least to insert at a specific point so as to reduce confusion as to what comment lead to what.

Rick Lowe
Rick Lowe

... and you're making the same error Sinister has made. Some people need to read Canada's Criminal Code. Start about sec. 25 and read through to about sec. 34...

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

I could never understand this philosophy. It seems to turn legitimate survival into a game, may the more powerful man win, but he must always get the first blow. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And, you know, it really has little to do with firearms. I'm betting Parliament eventually will turn this law over, if the courts don't do it first.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Sounds like the perfect civilization! ;)

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Oh, I'm afraid your behavior just now was "stone crazy" and you're only licensed for "wacky" - you'll have to come downtown with us for some trancs and a cup of camomille tea.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.." revealing that no law yet written by the jurisdiction applies to provide what that jurisdiction might consider to be "justice". Lacking such, the court must rely on the laws which *are* on the books. This results in some rulings not understood by Joe Citizen. Joe would be well served to familiarize himself with the laws as written, and if a need is felt, a petition to his government that more suitable language be written and passed. This would not affect Supreme Court decisions already written, but should, if well written, provide the courts with the tools by which they may come to a more acceptable decision in a legally similar case.

apotheon
apotheon

The key is to remain alive long enough to get sued. I'd rather get taken to court for a "wrongful death" suit than have my family take my assailant to court for the same thing.

GuardianBob
GuardianBob

There you go a good example of hick mentality. Why do we still have such morons in 2011! Because there are still guns.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Not all traditions are weekly, and besides should there be a school shooting every week before something is done? It was weak, that's all.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

and none assassinated. Why do you ask?

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Actually, there are many popular and effective means of suicide available to us today. Try them all until you find what works for you!!!

phillibe
phillibe

So because someone has a gun they are a threat? No... I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from what he said. Go check your facts though... of the school shootings that happened, how many guns were legally purchased by the shooters? I think the VA Tech shooting may be the only example (and I can't recall if it was legally purchased). But let's also ignore that school shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. One of the better known incidents was also in Virginia, where two students retrieved firearms from their car to stop a gunman who managed to shoot six people before he was subdued.

Widmerpool
Widmerpool

A defence against guns would be something that stops the bullets - body armour, bullet-proof glass, staying outside the range... Killing or disabling someone who is attacking you isn't defence it's pre-emption.

JCitizen
JCitizen

He took us to where the pistol was kept, and told us "no matter what I'm doing, if you want to look at or handle this firearm, just tell me, and no matter what, I will quit what I'm doing and let you look at it, under adult supervision". I was 8 and my little brother 4. This took all the wind out of our sails as far as the mystic of handguns. We lost most of our interest in it after that. But we soon received careful instructions on how to shoot it, and all safety concerns. We never had an accident in the house, and the gun was ALWAYS loaded. What good is a gun for self defense if it is not loaded? It was the .45 cal he carried in WWII, and had about three safeties on it anyway. So you couldn't "accidentally" shoot it anyway.

JCitizen
JCitizen

You got that backards! Americans in the US proudly live without fear, because even though we tread through the valley of death, we fear no evil. Who is stupid enough to take on more than 45 million gun owners!

tob
tob

kinives of course can kill people but run into a corwded place and see how many people you can kill with a knife. Now try it with a gun, or for bonus point an automatic weapon. No wonder the Americans live every day in fear - thus justifying their need to arm themselves!

mariah10
mariah10

I have to verbalize the obvious and follow the rules....but I will tell you that there are 2 guns in my home that are kept loaded and accessible. I no longer have small children living in my home but even if I did these guns are not where they can get to them NOR do they know where they are. My 15 year old grandson does live with me, and he does know. But he also knows the penalty (from me) if he is ever caught touching those guns unless we are on the firing range. so, yes, you are right. For family protection the way we teach does not work. but I have to teach it that way. My fear is those that carry it to a ridiculous state, and I jump on them big time for this. I had one young child tell me his dad kept his .38 under his pillow. WHAT! how dumb is that! Both for the discomfort of his father, the danger it poses, and the mere fact that his CHILD KNEW where it was kept. So, I do not agree with you at all, but you do have some points.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Its all the mentality, kids need to be taught that guns are not safe, they are tools for killing, they are not toys.

mariah10
mariah10

what I said earlier. I teach my students do not aim toy guns or real guns at anything you do not intend to kill. Police officers cannot take the chance of saying.''''oh, gee, that gun might be a toy and we might be shooting an unarmed person'''

mariah10
mariah10

It's fairly simple as to why it is done this way. If you do it properly, NOT PROMOTING SUICIDE! it is a quick and painless way to go, unlike poison, car accident (where you may not die and live as a vegetable for 30 years), etc.

nustada
nustada

What would have happened if the young adults were allowed to legally carry guns at the school, or better yet required to, like when my grandpa was young. I'll tell you what, as soon as one of those took aim, without provocation, it would have been a massacre of one, instead of many. If you want to look into a culprit for school shootings, look into pharmalogical phycotropic drugs. There is a strong positive correlation there.

apotheon
apotheon

I suppose we should all carry real guns, then, to defend ourselves from the police. edit: Evidently, people don't get sarcasm 'round here.

apotheon
apotheon

Consider the Akihabara shopping center massacre, where a truck and a knife were the weapons of choice, at least seven dead and at least fourteen more seriously wounded. Consider the Osaka school massacre, where a knife was the weapon used, eight dead. Both cases occurred where the entire country is a victim disarmament zone, in each case involving a single assailant. Compare that to the infamous Columbine school massacre, where two assailants only managed to net six kills each. The highest death tolls in school massacres come from weapons other than guns, in fact ??? and not only are they higher: they dwarf most of the firearms death tolls. The Bath School Disaster in Bath, Michigan used explosives and resulted in 45 deaths, and is the single highest school massacre death toll in US history. Meanwhile, the very first school massacre in the US was committed primarily with tomahawks, before there really were any "gun control" laws to speak of in this country. The Cologne School Massacre in Germany is up there with the highest firearms death tolls in US school massacres, where the assailant killed eleven and injured another 22, primarily through the use of a homemade flamethrower jury-rigged from a pesticide sprayer. The Hanzhong School Massacre in China killed ten with a knife. The Shiguan School Massacre in China resulted in the deaths of twelve by the use of petroleum fuel (gasoline/petrol). China's recent history is chock full of mass stabbings at schools, by the way (plus at least one hammer attack). The biggest death toll that comes to mind at the moment is the Kyanguli School Massacre in Kenya, where fire was the only weapon used: 67 dead. Y'know where the highest firearm death toll for a lunatic school massacre happened prior to 2005? It happened in the UK, at the Dunblane Massacre, in a country where even the police mostly don't carry firearms. This is not all that abnormal; most of the highest death tolls for firearms related school massacres (upper teens for the number of dead) took place in Western European countries (I'm counting Germany, despite its east/west split before the '90s, here). Meanwhile, the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007 was stopped by private citizens with guns -- who had to run across campus to get their guns from their cars, because school policy prohibited them from carrying on campus despite their concealed carry permits -- before the police arrived (because the police were sitting on their hands). Too bad the Dunblane massacre wasn't similarly halted. note: Some of this comment of mine is reposted from another venue.

teeeceee
teeeceee

What if, the teachers at Columbine HS had been allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Do you think those two nut cases would have killed as many children as they did? I think not. SinisterSlay, get yourself a hand gun, take the courses and pay the taxes to acquire a concealed carry permit in your city - state, and stop worrying about it! Like I have.

dunfalach
dunfalach

A person in possession of a gun is not a threat in itself. A person who merely possesses a gun has not demonstrated intent to harm you. American history is full of people who possessed guns but never murdered anyone. And your argument ignores that such shootings took place in schools where it is illegal to carry weapons. Shouldn't the fact that it was illegal have prevented there from being a shooting there? Some of our Founding Fathers fought for independence with their own personal guns, then took part in crafting the Constitution and felt it important that there be enshrined an ability for their descendants to also possess guns in case the same situation arose after them. There were Founding Fathers who in fact owned cannon, the most destructive weaponry known to their day. And they felt it was important that their descendants keep the right to own weaponry in the Constitution they penned. Because they understood the danger of evil men, from petty thieves to tyrannical dictators, and felt that the average citizen needed to be equipped to protect himself from both.

stgcs(sw)
stgcs(sw)

"But get real. Guns don't protect anyone. It's an offensive weapon. Not defensive. Guns are only effective when fired. In a home environment, it's far more likely to be fired at a family member than a criminal." I would like to see your statistics that it is far more likely to be fired at a family member. Valid research debunked that so long ago I'm surprised you are still trying to use it. It was a made up 'fact' and backed up by flawed research which was proven wrong years ago. I have known many instances where law enforcement and legally armed citizens managed a potential lethal situation without firing a shot. Again, trying using legitimate arguments, yours don't hold water. For someone who is not against gun ownership you sure do argue against it like a died in the wool gun grabber. Even using the old "I'm ex military" which somehow is supposed to add legitimacy to your argument?

stgcs(sw)
stgcs(sw)

You blaming the gun or the suicidal person? Guns kill people and pencils misspell words.

interpoI
interpoI

If guns don't protect anyone, then why do Police Officer carry them? Is it so that they can commit crimes? Correct storage is being in a level II or III holster, on my belt and hidden under my shirt or jacket. It has NEVER gone off and has NEVER killed anyone and there are 100's of thousands of people just like me. Where are the stats you have on all criminals getting their weapons by stealing them from legitimate gun owners? Why is it that when a state approves concealed carry or opens a once locked down law about owning guns, that the crime rates and home invasions drop dramatically? How do you explain this? You have poor logic

david
david

Training in the safe handling is key. We trained our kids early and often. They are grown and have their own families now. All have guns (all loaded) and all are very safe. There are very very few injuries inflicted by trained users. Certainly not even close to the numbers of people shot intentionally by criminals.

tob
tob

Actually I bet they did. A lot of gun owners do kill themselves - ok, let me phrase that another way. Suicide by gun is immensely popular, so some gun owners in America probably kill today.

impcad
impcad

I strongly suggest you move there. Locks keep honest people honest; Guns keep honest people safe.

edmerc
edmerc

How many shootings are required before we can consider it a problem? I'm not against gun ownership. As ex military and someone who grew up around guns, I know what guns can do. But get real. Guns don't protect anyone. It's an offensive weapon. Not defensive. Guns are only effective when fired. In a home environment, it's far more likely to be fired at a family member than a criminal. I've heard all the arguments and they don't hold water. Correct storage of a weapn makes it difficult, if not impossible, to reach in an emergency. It has to be easily accesible to be effective. Incorrect, but easy to access, storage means that it's now a threat to your family, you, and the community on whole. Where do criminals get there guns? They steal them from legitamate gun owners. So have your guns. I don't care. But cut the B.S. about family protection. Your part of the problem. Not the solution.

mike
mike

Schools in the United States are gun-free zones.

Sensei Humor
Sensei Humor

Or quote Tolkien. "Those who don't have swords can still die on them." It shouldn't be too big a leap of logic, even for a gun grabber, to make the obvious upgrade.

sparker
sparker

What you fail to realize is that most of the major incidents that have occured in the recent past have been in areas labeled as "Gun Free Zones". The criminals are smart enough to know that when the law abiding gun owners are disarmed, everyone is a target. In the rare occaisions where there was an armed guard, the situation was resolved quickly. If you can quote Dogbert, I can quote SciFi author Robert Heinlein who wrote "An armed society is a polite society".

sissy sue
sissy sue

And 80 million gun owners in America did not kill anyone today. (stats from U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Too infrequent to count? Check again.

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

There have been maybe 44 school shootings in America over the last 20 years. This is ritual? A ritual like going to Church every Sunday? If there was a school shooting every week then you would have a valid argument but there isn't and you don't. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

am happy to say that my cheap-ass Raven .25 semiauto nickel plate consistently outshot my friend's two big$$$ COLT .25 semiauto even when we swapped guns. What's more over the several weeks of friendly competition, my Raven never once jammed.So the Raven, though a better performer, was classed as a "Saturday night Special" while the Colt was sold as "A Gentleman's Vest Pocket Gun". Shooting SJHPs, there were no survivors at fifty feet. (This, of course was a no pressure situation, taking careful aim and no distraction. Your mileage may vary).

apotheon
apotheon

There's no "explosion". It just deforms on impact, into a mushroom-like shape. This causes it to dump energy more efficiently into the target. This does not greatly increase direct tissue damage (though people often think that's the reason for a hollowpoint). What it does do, however, is increase the hydrostatic shock delivered to the target, causing additional cellular-level damage much as the shockwave of an explosion does. This tends to make people fall down, and may cause organ failure. Stopping an assailant as quickly as possible is the reason for that design, and it's a definite benefit to someone using a handgun defensively. You don't want a bullet to go through the target and come out the other side. You want it to stop inside, for at least two reasons: 1. If the bullet goes through, it might hit someone or something else you don't want to hit. 2. If it stops inside, that means it dumped all its energy into the target, maximizing the probability of dropping an assailant in his tracks so he will no longer be a threat to you. The truth of the matter is that a more important reason for the hollowpoints I use to load my semi-auto handguns (and the softpoints for my revolver) than doing any additional damage to someone breaking in and threatening me or loved ones is the fact that hollowpoints are less likely to go through the wall and hurt a bystander. The chances of that are incredibly slim in any case, especially because I know how to handle a firearm safely and check my background before firing, but anything that further reduces that chance is still a good thing. I have no doubt that a full metal jacket round would be about as effective at stopping an intruder as my hollowpoints, but it's more likely to keep going after hitting an assailant -- and I don't want that.

mariah10
mariah10

I wondered too, but it's my understanding that hollowpoints were developed for their explosion capacity hence why many were outlawed in the past. Lots of internal damage. I do not pretent to know what kind of damage a .22 hollowpoint can do, but I don't often see any that are NOT hollowpoint.

mariah10
mariah10

But I had a Saturday night special one time. It was NOT a .22, it was .25 and you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn unless you were at point blank range....but then that's what their purpose was - for close range. Accuracy not relevant. But you are right about the .22's....they have killed lots of people, but they aren't Saturday Night Specials. Plus the description fo a SNS is an off brand, poorly made handgun. Actually, a BB or pellet in the right spot at the right distance can kill - eye, neck, etc.

apotheon
apotheon

I've never understood why so much of the .22 LR ammunition in the world -- including the cheapest stuff I can get at Wal-Mart -- is hollowpoint. It's a .22; the hollowpoint does essentially nothing of any use. Oh, maybe it stops the round from going through a plywood target backing sometimes, but that's about it. You need velocity and mass for a hollowpoint to do much when it hits something. A .22 LR projectile has neither. Even the hollowpoints in my .32 ACP are of dubious value.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

It seemed like an excessive comparison given the point the person was trying to make. But admittedly, I've learned not to become very emotionally invested this particularily volatile topic.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

exclude history, however trite it may seem. Hitler's Nazi Party is an inevitable reference, perhaps the world standard of popular oppression against which all modern political debate must eventually refer.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

The "government" did *not* write even the Constitution itself, let alone anything in the Bill of Rights. It was written by independently elected or appointed representatives of their respective states to the Constitutional Convention. I don't believe that *any* government in history (including ours) has written any document so restrictive of their own powers. The whole idea is to insure that our government *remains* a democracy by the will *and power* of the people. We will "smoke any government which attempts to usurp *our* authority over them. Here, government has no rights, and cannot give them to the people. Our rights are inalienable. Some believe our rights are God-given. No one on earth has the authority to give or take our rights. You have them, too. All you have to do is to *assert them*. You don't have to respect or fear any despot. But history has shown that governments will do all they can to prevent you from asserting your rights. They will imprison you, they will take your property, they will take your family, they will kill you. You must be willing to fight, even die, for your countrymen. That's what the second amendment is about, that's why we assert our rights to weapons. Don't assume it's so we can kill people we argue with, don't assume it's because we fear our neighbor, or for killing rattlesnakes. You think violence is because of guns. No. Violence is because of violent people who have no respect for anything but power. We choose to show them power.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Unsettling (similarities) between the Nazi act of 3/18/38 and our GCA of 10/22/68.

apotheon
apotheon

> say hello to Goodwin when you see him. I think you mean Godwin, not Goodwin. By the way, Godwin's Law, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1," does not necessarily indicate that a reference to Hitler or Nazis is inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that Nazi Germany is the most obvious example of a tyrannical regime prohibiting private ownership of firearms, which makes it a pretty appropriate example to use. Note that mdearing only referred to the notion that firearms prohibition is a tactic favored by tyrants such as the Nazi regime, and did not actually engage in an argumentum ad Hitlerium fallacy -- the real problem that prompted Godwin's formulation of his eponymous law. Consider this: if we "outlaw" the use of references to tyrants in online discussion, we lose the ability to make convincing arguments based on historical evidence against tyranny. Would you really want to overbroadly apply Godwin's law as a means of hamstringing arguments against tyrannical regimes? I would not. That is the main reason I try to be careful and sparing with my references to Godwin's Law. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone trying to use Godwin's law to shut down discussion approaches 1.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

think you might of over-extended your argument on that one

JCitizen
JCitizen

it is government by and for the people in the US. When our government gets sloppy, it is our fault! HA!

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

The people in the states insisted on adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, in order to protect the people from the government.

tob
tob

You fear the government, but *they* wrote your 2nd amendment! You must lead a terrifying life, petrified that democratic governments around the world might suddenly do bad to their citizens, because their citizens don't have guns?!?!? What on earth are you smoking?

mariah10
mariah10

obama has to go...ok, now, for those of you who read things into things....no, I'm not threatening him......just with losing the election. Prayers to God! Remember, his preacher preached chaos and separatism....is that what we want for America....or well, I should say....MORE OF IT! promoted by the powers that be?

fartracer
fartracer

You'll find that crime rates did not increase as a result of the tightening of gun laws in the late 90s. You'll also find that due to our history of regulating guns, gun ownership among criminals, and the gun crime rate, is much lower here than in the US.

apotheon
apotheon

Most firearms -- basically anything from the last few decades, in fact -- have mechanisms that prevent them from "going off" if the trigger isn't pulled. Still, it's best to keep the rifle or shotgun stored on a gun rack in your vehicle unloaded because it's always possible (if highly unlikely) that something might hit the trigger itself. Just dropping the firearm is not the danger here.

wordmaster1
wordmaster1

Nearly all modern firearms are designed so that a hit or fall cannot cause them to go off unintentionally. Also, if you have a revolver with 6 cylinders and leave an empty beneath the hammer, it cannot go off. If you have a rifle or shotgun and load the clip or the magazine and do not have a round in the chamber a fall cannot cause it to shoot. There is a huge difference between a "loaded" gun and a gun with a round in the chamber.

mariah10
mariah10

done the research yet, so just guessing. But that's probably the law in most states. NOW.....unless you commit a driving infraction that gets you stopped, no one will know. I don't know many hunters that leave it unloaded, although they should....not because it's the law but because it is a safety issue. If you hit a bump, the gun falls and goes off you could be dead. Not all weapons have a safety.

apotheon
apotheon

> Vermont has no gun control laws and it is one of the most crime free states in America. That's not entirely true. There's a law in VT requiring gun owners to ensure their rifles or shotguns are unloaded before transporting them in a vehicle gun rack.

stgcs(sw)
stgcs(sw)

In every country where gun ownership laws become more restrictive the firearms related crime rate goes up dramatically. For those who do not believe it, do some research. Look at what has happened in England and Australia since the enacted draconian gun control laws. In this country Washington DC is a very good example of the opposite case. The SCOTUS declared DC's gun control laws unconstitutional, firearms ownership has gone up and crime has gone down. In every state that allows concealed carry the crime rate goes down after the concealed carry law goes into effect. Vermont has no gun control laws and it is one of the most crime free states in America. If those of you who believe gun control laws reduce crime would stop listening to biased opinions and start doing your own research for a change you might get some factual information instead of basing your beliefs on half truths and lies. Then you wouldn't be spewing this non-sense that makes you appear to be ignorant of facts, and an easy target for every criminal with a gun or knife.

apotheon
apotheon

Are you for real? Don't answer that. My opinion of humanity is already low enough.

GuardianBob
GuardianBob

It would have been hilarious, I hope some hicks would have put in on YouTube showing the heads they've cut...their sister! Oh no, that one they would rape, the head would be the mother or the father.

apotheon
apotheon

Who cares about "gun crime"? "Gun crime" includes stuff like "accidentally entered a national part with a concealed firearm during the time they were banned there," or something equally ridiculous. What if "gun crime" went up 3% and violent crimes dropped 30%? Are you going to use that as "proof" that guns cause crimes? The bizarre focus people have on "gun crime" is mind-bogglingly stupid. It doesn't prove anything, in and of itself, other than that there are laws about guns.

apotheon
apotheon

Riots are not terribly common in the US. The closest we get lately is looting after natural disasters, as far as I recall.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Pop. 2,763,885, *murders 14* (first 1/2 of '09), median income >$50K. Washington DC Pop. >600K, *murders 243* (all of '09) median income >$85K.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

was the last riot you heard about in the US?

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Weren't the Columbine killings done by reasonably "well off" boys? These exceptions have been studied and studied, but there seems to be little understanding.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

The US gun violence nowhere near approaches that of a "war zone". Let's face it, you thoroughly HATE the US and all she stands for. You don't bother to *twist* the facts, you just make up your own. You would have been a great reporter for Pravda. In fact, you won't even read this because it doesn't support your hatred. You have no interest in learning the truth. You are a total waste of time.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Is that it? Sorry, but anyone who attacks me has forfeit his rights until I am safe from him. After that, the police and the courts can take care of things. "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six". A corpse has no defense. And as to taking your weapon to work, do so, and don't talk about it. I took mine to work for years. Being something of a "scaredy cat", I wouldn't have gone into some areas I had to go without protection. Often I would take it out of it's holster and would be placed on the console in plain sight. Certain characters who would try to accost me at a traffic light would change their mind when they saw it.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

I must be incredibly violent. I should be locked up.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Then show them some dead bodies, THEN the firearms safety, then how to hit your target.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I'm not arguing the FBI report, I'm quoting it verbatim. Most people in the media report the total homicide rate regardless of what method caused the death. I'm saying only 2200 or so of those reported deaths were caused from criminal firearms use. And that rate is now dropping, according to the FBI. I just don't see the need of ending a God given right just because 2200 out of 280 million plus citizens decide to abuse those rights. Taking away a right because of abuse is the silliest thing I can think of in a true free democratic republic. We lost more than a million casualties in our last civil war; it is not worth one life to end our Constitutional rights in the 2nd Amendment. Any encroachment upon that right, no matter how slight should be carefully weighed and critically debated. I have one friend who moved from the UK because of the rising crime rate, and two of my cousins who live in Germany admit to rising gun violations despite fairly heavy restrictions on firearms ownership. The news media whips up the frenzy in the supposed catatonic fear of guns; but reality is that in the home of the brave, we fear no one. And why would you when properly armed?

johncymru
johncymru

What does that remark about our relative sizes of country/population even mean if it shows that the more guns you have then the significantly more gun crimes you have as a percentage of your population, except of course to prove my point that the more guns you have the more gun crime you have and definitely not that you are safer by any means. Again, in 2009, the UK's TOTAL murder rate by ALL methods was less than the murder rate from HANDGUNS alone in Texas and Texas has only about 40% of the population of the UK. BTW, violent crime is still actually falling in the UK, as it also is in the US, though you wouldn't necessarily think so if you went by the MSM. Note, there is also a difference in the way that the UK collates and classifies violent crime compared to the US but as I don't have the links to hand I will have to leave that statement hanging. In the UK, and not that I am dismissing its seriousness for victims, gun crime is a relatively minor problem usually limited to certain locations. As to shootings during the riots, there were AIUI, a total of two confirmed incidents with a few other possibles and considering that many of those taking part in the riot were the ones most likely to go armed, that is not exactly a huge number. There was a murder by shooting at the same time as one of the riots but in all honestly it looks as if that was incidental to the riots or at east the riots were used as a cover for it. On the other hand, how many shootings does the average comparably sized US city have in the same time period? Again, if you look at the tables compiled by your own FBI in my previous post, the most openly armed states in the US are not necessarily the safest from gun crime or even from crime in general. Look, I get it, people like their guns, hell I am ex-military and have belonged to a few gun clubs myself in the past as well as helped gamekeeper friends cull herds and still have friends who do both. When I get the chance I still happily go along with any of them to let off a few rounds and still shoot expert once I have got my eye in and got the feel of the weapon after a few rounds. But please, give up the crap about how much safer you are in the US with guns than without as nearly every piece of proper research ever done shows the exact opposite. BTW, when did you last go to a soccer match in the UK. Not that I am denying that we do have our share of idiots who like to spoil it for others. But today, soccer hooliganism is largely a thing of the past with the odd very minor exception. Though admittedly it still is a problem in parts of Europe and S. America, ironically, some of those countries allowing the owning of firearms. You were saying :) As to the accuracy of the figures, argue with the FBI. Also, as guns have generally been illegal in the UK for quite some time, though it has tightened up to make it far more difficult for hobby and sport shooters and the like recently, which BTW I don't agree with, few have ever considered gun owning as a form of self defence. Especially as the rules governing how guns are kept in the home have for a long time meant that, at least if keeping within the law, you would never have time to retrieve your weapon and load it in time to prevent a home invasion, so it a rather moot point as a defensive measure. BTW, and purely out of curiosity, but why do so many US citizens appear frightened of their own shadow or imagine violence coming fro everywhere. I live on the edge of what is considered one of the roughest neighbourhoods in my city yet routinely walk around at any time of day or night without fear or hassle and totally unarmed. Note, personally I think, like for that percentage of the UK population who also have this over sensitive fear of their shadow, it is largely down to the MSM. BTW, I am not saying that there isn't a place for a healthy awareness of risks in ones environment, wherever that is, but that is totally different to seeing or perceiving threats behind every bush. Its that over active pattern seeking behaviour again. Can't appear to reply to your last post, must be too deeply nested or something. Anyway, I have to laugh at your parting shot of the home of the brave where you fear no one. Doesn't look like that when compared to the attacks on civil liberties you have allowed your government to get away with since 9/11 and many of your politicos still using fear as their favourite tactic to get their way. BTW, the same happens over here but then I don't arrogantly claim the UK to be the home of the brave, unless of course you were simply being facetious, as from outside it appears anything but. Lastly, whether those death by firearm figures were all crime related or accidents or a mixture, I'm sure the victims didn't care that much. And even if I ignore all other gun related deaths in the US and concentrate on those ~2000 (btw where do you get that figure, for in the chart in the link I gave you total firearm murders for the US in 2009 were 9146 (of which 6452 were handguns) and 67.07% of all murders caused by firearms) gun murders in the US, this is still about 50 times the UK gun murders (42) in 2009 while your population is between 5 or 6 times ours. So per capita, roughly 8 to 1 greater number of murders by guns in the US than in the UK in 2009.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Am I interfering with the Master Plan? ;)

dcolbert
dcolbert

We've got a HUGE population - a lot of poverty, challenges with education, and some cultural baggage that Europe (and Canada) simply don't have (or not to the same degree). But like everything else about our culture, we're busy exporting it, our culture of embracing ignorance and rejecting knowledge - so the UK is dealing with an explosion of Chavs and Glassings and radical Islam is being infiltrated by some sort of weird Muslim-hip-hop hybrid morality. Don't worry, just like fast-food, the rest of the world will catch up with the issues that currently affect America. Be patient - where ever you are, it'll get to you eventually.

fartracer
fartracer

"According to a number of reports, home invasions in Australia have risen from almost zero in the late 80???s to thousands." Anecdotal reports I suppose, as I can't find any official statistics (except for one covering two years only) and "home invasion" isn't even a defined crime in this country. If you are to believe the (Murdoch) press, crime rates are increasing, but that isn't always backed up by official figures. Even if they are increasing, the extreme rarity of guns and gun crime means that Australia's homicide rate is much lower than the US's. Very few Australians would be likely to be confronted by a crocodile (or any other large dangerous creature) in their yard, and even if they were, it would be illegal to shoot them as they're a protected species (and not very dangerous at all if you know they're there). Perhaps you would need to live here for a while to realise how little you need to worry about crime. While I lock the doors at night, I don't keep any sort of weapon inside. Of all the things that are likely to see me injured or killed, crime in my home is well down the list. Sure, there are some places I avoid in the city and suburbs, but even there, the risk of an attacker having a gun is quite low, and I'd rather be mugged by someone with a knife or an iron bar than someone with a gun. Sure, some criminals here have guns, but even for criminals, guns are much harder to find, and much rarer, here than in the US. And if anyone's going to invoke God, I'm going to invoke Jesus. Because for the one quote you can find from him that MIGHT support the use of weapons, I can find a whole lot more that clearly indicate that he would not have wanted a gun. In God we trust? Ha! In guns we trust, more likely.

spdragoo
spdragoo

Per 2010 census, the most populous state is California (37,253,956), followed by Texas (25,145,561), New York (19,378,102), Florida (18,801,310), & Illinois (12,830,632) for our Top 5. Although, if you take California & Texas combined, it *is* slightly higher than Great Britain's population (62.4 vs. 62.3 million). Now, on the other hand, we do have 7 states with individual populations that are more than the non-England nations of Great Britain combined -- the Top 5 above, plus Pennsylvania (12,702,379) & Ohio (11,536,504). I suppose he could have meant to refer to land area -- we have 11 states with more land area than the United Kingdom. And because some states are *really* big, the US has just over 40 times the land area of the United Kingdom... although that would mean you have us beat on population density (255.6 vs. 33.7 per sq.km., or just over 7.5 times as dense).

pete
pete

I understand your intent, but just to be clear: The "Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:30-37) helped AFTER the attack of robbers, not before or during.

Widmerpool
Widmerpool

"Don't compare the UK to America statistically because the whole country is smaller than most of our states. " The UK - a union of four nations - has a total population of 62.3 million. England alone has a population of 51.4 million. How many US States are more populous than that? I'm guessing from your comment that you think the answer is "at least 26". That would mean that the United States must be at least 26 times as big as the UK. The United States' population is five times bigger than the UK's.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Whether people are armed or not, bad stuff does happen. Throwing out-of-context examples around don't really help anything, except maybe garnering some + votes. But that goes for both sides. What worries me is that you guys seem to have outrageous crime. Now, I am not trying to say that's because of the guns. But why isn't the crime problem being fixed?

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

So I think it's likely that "Hey, dude, whatever!" shall be the whole of the law.

Widmerpool
Widmerpool

I live in a state that has very strict gun laws and our murder rates are lower than Vermont's. And we have ten times the population density that you have. And our daughters/sisters/mothers seem to go about quite freely and without fear. Not entirely without fear, of course, nowhere is perfect. But the US averages 312 forcible rapes per million population; the England and Wales equivalent is 221. I can't find separate figures for Vermont - perhaps you know of some? http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_16.html http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf

JCitizen
JCitizen

where only the criminals and "government" own firearms. Personal ownership has been illegal down there since the '70s.

JCitizen
JCitizen

You have to intend to kill to violate the Judeo/Christian covenant. Self defense does not include that, as any non-violent person or soldier defending his or his own family, can attest too!

JCitizen
JCitizen

Your are comparing a small country where firearms are completely illegal now, to one that is way bigger where 45 million gun owners is the reality. I notice during your London riots, that the "revellers" were shooting at the police. Gun violence has been climbing in the UK every since the gun ban, and now criminals can simply invade your apartment with a knife or club, without fear of retaliation by the weaker victims. If the drug cartel can import a chrome plate mini-uzi 9mm illegally to Florida - what is going to stop them from doing same in the UK? I really think you guys are outside the realm of reality. How do we know your per capita physical violence index hasn't been rising as well? What is to stop the brutes of your civilization from NOT doing it now? You don't see soccer match thugs running riot around here like they do in the whole European union. Let alone the nutty anarchists. They disappeared in the last century here. Also you figures are wrong - actual crime by firearm carrying criminals was actually around 2200 for the last period of data.

johncymru
johncymru

which is from the FBI for 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data Note: While in both the UK and US all crime, including gun crime, is on the way down, in the UK there was around 'only' 600 murders in 2009 using all kinds of methods yet in the same year the US had over 13,000 with 9000 caused by firearms. The UK has a population around a sixth of the US so if all else was equal our murder rate by firearms should be 1500 or more a year yet our total murder rate by all methods is only 40% of that figure. It is also worth noting that at best, when it comes to all crimes where guns were involved, Texas is not the worst but neither is it anywhere near the best with it being in the top quarter on all except one count, firearm murders/100,000, where it is in the top twenty, top here meaning the worst end of the chart. It has a population that is approximately 40% of the UK's and yet has a handgun murder rate alone that is higher than all kinds of murder in the UK.

jonrosen
jonrosen

'and some commonsense'.. Something that is abjectly lacking these days worldwide. Not just U.S., not just First-World countries... (though perhaps more there from what I've seen of late)

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

We have 500,000 people and we had 8 murders last year. That doesn't count the 20 that were shot by the Police... Yeah, I know. In my town the Police are killing more people than anyone else. Funny how that happens?

apotheon
apotheon

> The city of Las Angeles has twice that amount in any given year, so does Chicago, New York and Miami. You just named three cities with extremely strict gun laws and one that is perhaps the single biggest port for the international drug trade in the US -- where the War on Some Drugs is probably the single biggest contributor to violent crime. > I live in a city of one million people and our murder rate is less than 20 per year, the only places that happens in the US is small towns with less than 5,000 inhabitants. False. I live in a city of 150,000 inhabitants with a murder rate of 2. That means your city has a murder rate of 2 per 1,000, and mine has a murder rate of 1.3 per 1,000. It seems to me my US city wins -- and it's a city where open carry is legal and the state issues concealed carry permits (I have one). (edit: typo) > The truly frightening fact is that 90% of guns used in crimes in Canada had their source in the US. Where did you find that statistic? Did you just make it up? > But that is true of crimes around the world, Poppycock. The most common firearm in the world, by far, is the AK-47. Part of the reason for it is that people in Afghanistan caves with hand tools can make AK-47s (and somehow people think it's reasonable to believe we can just "ban firearms").

Widmerpool
Widmerpool

Violent crime in England and Wales has been falling (not exponentially but linearly) since 1997. It has fallen from 4,000 incidents a year to 2,000 in 2008. There is no "unarmed victims zone", other than in the minds of the conspiracy theorists who read the Daily Mail. Between 2007 and 2009 the only crimes that showed a statistically significant increase were bicycle theft (up by 96,000 incidents per year) and theft from the person (which includes pickpockets and such like, and which rose by 144,000 incidents per year) [See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf, page 3, and http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap2.pdf, page 7.]

apotheon
apotheon

> How many women do you know that would be able to get the gun out of her purse and have the time to turn off the safety aim and shoot a would be assailant? Well . . . my Significant Other would be able to pull hers out in time, I'm sure. I've met a few women over the years who would. Basically, every woman I've known who had a concealed carry permit. > For that matter how many men do you know that would be able to pull a weapon from it's concealed location and do the same? Lots of 'em. In fact, firearms are pretty regularly used to dissuade would-be attackers in the United States, usually without a shot being fired. Concealed carry holsters are designed to make it possible to draw quickly. I suspect you are not aware of this because you have never seen one in person, and know nothing about them or the guns people carry in them. You certainly are not talking like someone who knows anything about the subject. > Have you ever been attacked? Yes. I've also been threatened. I have never had to pull a weapon to defend myself in such circumstances, but the opportunity was there if I did have to in each case. > the process is usually very short and unexpected. Where do you come by your expertise? > Also the statistics show that the average person who carries a concealed gun is more likely to have that weapon taken or to be hurt or killed with that weapon during an attack. False. That's a pernicious lie that some idiot made up years ago and people like you have repeated without ever providing any evidence of such "statistics" -- because those statistics do not exist. > If hand guns were totally banned, and that means zero manufactured, the death rate from criminal acts would definitely decrease. Poppycock. 1. Murders that would otherwise have been committed with handguns would instead be regularly committed with other weapons. 2. I have no idea how you imagine you can stop people from making handguns. An AK-47 can be machined and assembled with hand tools; only the rifling in the barrel requires prohibitively difficult work. Shotguns have no rifling. Handguns are easier and, while rifling helps (and is easier on a short-barreled handgun than a long-barreled rifle), it is certainly not necessary. Hell, I could probably assemble a single-shot firearm using under $20 worth of materials from Home Depot, and I'm no gunsmith. > I didn't say that the crime rate would decrease I said the death rate would decrease. Maybe on a per-crime basis -- maybe. On the other hand, the crime rate itself might increase, to the point that the overall number of deaths per capita would be higher -- because handguns are actually used to prevent more violent crimes per year than to commit them. > There is absolutley no need for handguns in the world that we live in. Tell that to a 110 pound woman facing a 250 pound ex-convict rapist.

bsauer
bsauer

How many women do you know that would be able to get the gun out of her purse and have the time to turn off the safety aim and shoot a would be assailant? For that matter how many men do you know that would be able to pull a weapon from it's concealed location and do the same? Have you ever been attacked? the process is usually very short and unexpected. For anyone who isn't accostomed to being surprised with a violent attack it takes more time then you think for your reactions to kick in and most of the time when they do it is already too late. Also the statistics show that the average person who carries a concealed gun is more likely to have that weapon taken or to be hurt or killed with that weapon during an attack. Look at how many "trained" individuals are killed or harmed with their own weapon every year. If hand guns were totally banned, and that means zero manufactured, the death rate from criminal acts would definitely decrease. I didn't say that the crime rate would decrease I said the death rate would decrease. There is absolutley no need for handguns in the world that we live in. The days of the wild west have long since passed.

Rndmacts
Rndmacts

You state there were 9,974 incidents involving firearms, and you can't compare to the states. Really what large city in the US had less involvements with firearms in anyone year. The city of Las Angeles has twice that amount in any given year, so does Chicago, New York and Miami. We outlaw guns in Canada and has a nation we number gun related incidents in the hundreds the rest of the homicides are caused by knives. I live in a city of one million people and our murder rate is less than 20 per year, the only places that happens in the US is small towns with less than 5,000 inhabitants. The truly frightening fact is that 90% of guns used in crimes in Canada had their source in the US. But that is true of crimes around the world, chances are the handgun was made in the US or sold there, you send your soldiers to war against opponents whose weapons were produced in the US. I doubt very much your founding fathers meant the second amendment to be used as it is.

spdragoo
spdragoo

If you'd read the posts higher up, you'd realize that VA Tech had a gun ban in place *before* the "nutter" killed the students & himself. Plus, even in many states that have concealed-carry laws, schools (or even any business that posts the appropriate sign) are allowed to prohibit guns from being taken onto school premises. Obviously, since his plan was to take the gun on campus & murder people with it -- an obvious crime, BTW -- he wasn't too worried about adding the additional crime of carrying a gun onto a campus that banned them, since breaking the ban was *so* much more serious of a crime than murder. /sarcasm

apotheon
apotheon

> In the gun loving US, nutters still manage to go to schools or virgina techs etc and kill loads of people. They certainly don't fear gun owners in cases like the VA Tech massacre, where nobody had any guns because it was a "gun free zone". Didn't you know that VA Tech prohibited firearms on campus? I can see that did a lot of good. The VA Tech murderer was ultimately stopped by private citizens who had to run to their homes and/or cars, where they were storing their concealed carry firearms because they were not allowed to bring them on campus, then came back with those guns to put a stop to his rampage. The police were waiting for him to give up, apparently, because they essentially did nothing. > These people are not criminals when they go an legally buy their gun, but having that gun enables them to kill more people quicker. Are you trying to tell me that having a gun makes someone go crazy and kill people? That's asinine. Perhaps you can tell me why, in three and a half decades, I haven't gone on any rampages. Perhaps you can tell me why, in the Akihabara shopping center massacre, the guy did it without access to guns (using a truck and a knife); there was no firearm to make him go crazy there. Here -- watch this instructional video.

apotheon
apotheon

I've been upvoting your commentary, too. I'm pleased to see your intelligent, well-reasoned, measured responses here.

Robiisan
Robiisan

I think you made OUR point! "...everyone has a gun, not much gun violence though..." Hmmm. Cause and effect? The ones with less-than-honourable intentions prefer unarmed victims, since those victims are unable to inflict damage, for the most part, on the perp. If the perps know there is a reasonable chance that they may suddenly find themselves downrange, they are less likely to act out their violent impulses. Good, bad, or indifferent, most everyone has a strong sense of self-preservation and are reluctant to make themselves a non-electric pop-up target for someone who might just be carrying and know well how to use it when they need to!

james
james

Sorry, can't agree with that part. That's like saying, "Put a couple guns in the room and somebody will become violent" (although I have been to some meetings like that). The violence is going to be a social issue, the tool of choice (in this discussion handguns) will be whatever the malcontent feels will empower them.

Rick Lowe
Rick Lowe

So... we have DoJ research studies and peer reviewed research published in refereed journals showing somewhere between 2.5 and 3 MILLION defensive uses of firearms each year in the US. And in less than 1% of those instances is even a warning shot fired, much less the assailant shot - the mere producing of a means of self defense is usually all that is required. So we contrast that 3 million defensive uses with the 30,000 firearms deaths in the US each year. It appears that if even just 1 in 100 of those defensive uses saves a life, it equals those firearms deaths - which incidentally includes in their numbers criminals killed by police and victims in self defense. Meanwhile, we have other research in refereed journals showing that 50% of incarcerated violent criminals say they have chosen to not commit a crime at least once in their violent careers because of their fears that their prospective victim may be armed. But SinisterSlay (nice moniker for someone railing about firearms violence) says that he believes firearms are not for preventing violence. Pretty much shows the depth of understanding right there, doesn't it? Kinda like the people who believe all IT workers are geeks with pocket protectors, horn rimmed glasses, without a personal life.

edray231
edray231

OK, just have add to this. The highest gun violence states are those with the strictest gun laws - hence Chicago's crime rate. In Texas, since the Concealed Handgun Law went into effect, gun violence is actually down because the bad guys don't know who might be standing beside them....

tob
tob

I live in London, and even during our "riots" I could walk around, catch the train home, knowing there was zero chance I would get hit by a stray bullet. Fact is, most of the looters were fools thinking they could get some free ipods and sneakers. There are 400 or so now in jail, so justice over here is fine.

tob
tob

People state Utah as having relaxed guns law compared to Washington, but the crimes appear to weighted the other way around. Look at Utah's number of underclass to Washinton's. People who have a decent job and a decent house don't generally feel like going out and commiting a crimes.

tob
tob

The ban on hand guns in the UK was the result of a nutter going to a school and killing children. These nutters do not care if they themselves are killed - they want to go down in a blaze of glory. In the gun loving US, nutters still manage to go to schools or virgina techs etc and kill loads of people. They do not fear the victims having guns. And they will always be able to pop more caps first before the armed. These people are not criminals when they go an legally buy their gun, but having that gun enables them to kill more people quicker. Sell them an automatic weapon and they will kill even more people quickly. You do the math!

mariah10
mariah10

on whether you are reading the old or new testament. Have you?

nustada
nustada

Or take them to a church that actually reads the bible and see the it is chock full of killing. Rather than harping out of context bits,

dcolbert
dcolbert

If I have to keep giving Apotheon +1s in this thread, I think my head is gonna explode. :)

bobp
bobp

You seem to be assuming that all people have good intentions ... very unrealistic! The U.S. has a lot of gun violence because criminals know that, in most areas, people are prohibited from owning guns. The criminals have less resistance and less chance of getting killed by their potential victim(s). Criminals tend to avoid likely danger to themselves.

nustada
nustada

There is a reason riots tend to occur in victim disarmament zones.

mariah10
mariah10

Seriously? I never lived in Australia, but maybe I better move there if you can live without fear. NOT! do you honestly believe criminals there don't have access to weapons? They are NOT going to buy them, they are going to do blackmarket, just like they do here. some of the crimes that have been shown to come from there, including serial killers (on Court TV - factual show - not fiction), did even USE a gun. Strangulation,asphysiation, beatings, etc. I'm not dissing Australia, it's a beautiful country, just the naivete' of your statement.

mariah10
mariah10

Are you kidding? They actually tell you to reason with criminals? OMG, what academy are you guys sending your police to? I want to hear them tell their own family members that!

mariah10
mariah10

Sorry, forgot to mention martial arts. some people, like my sensei, are literally considered lethal with their body parts. But, on the flip side of this, I recommend, especially to women, to learn martial arts, because even though you may carry a weapon, you may not always have it with you. You always have your body. It's not an end all, but it will help. Of course, my brother who is an expert in it, said the best way to stop a male is to hit them where it hurts, but that you'd better be a fast runner, because if they get up, you're dead, lol! Told me that since I was 11!

mariah10
mariah10

everything is a weapon. Granted guns can do 'long range' killing, anything can be used. Icepick, machete, ballbat, tire iron, boulder, CAR, a nice polite shove off a cliff, geewhiz - back to the hands thing, knife, MY KEY RING (ok, I carry enough to kill someone with, lol), throwing knives (if you are good). And let's not forget those not so noticable ones....poison, drowning. Point is that if you want to kill someone, you can and will. Court TV has done many stories on people who only got caught becaues they kept TRYING to kill someone! Bad people are bad people, only their methods of demise change, not the goal or the end result.

apotheon
apotheon

> wouldn't US bad dudes just get a gun and then burgle your house No. If the criminal predator thought the house he wanted to invade or burgle was inhabited by a gun owner, he would almost certainly decide it was not worth burgling, after all. Criminals who prey on the weak are fundamentally cowardly, in the general case, and care very much about their own physical safety. Surveys of criminals in prison (people one might think have a very good reason to fear the police -- they got caught) show that they fear the possibility of an armed "victim" far more than they fear the police. Use that to your advantage, or risk the very real possibility of becoming just another victim.

apotheon
apotheon

I seem to recall the term "home invasion" as a label for a particular type of crime was invented for the spike in such crimes that occurred in the years immediately following Australia's gun ban. As pointed out, individual assaults and robberies have increased in frequency there. The thing that most boggles my mind about a gun ban in Australia, though, is that I heard about it on the same day I read an article about a suburban family that was afraid to leave the house because a twenty foot crocodile had moved into their front yard and eaten their dog. They decided to ban guns in that place. Really . . . ?

mariah10
mariah10

shooting is a sport in America. don't know about where you are. Criminals are spineless weasels. they prey on unsuspecting, easy to attack people. They do not expect their prey to be able to defendd themselves. There have been numerous, numerous reports of criminals backing down when presented with a barrel in their face. Now the caveat to this, is no one should own a gun who is not willing to use it. I teach my students never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill. Meaning even toy guns should not be aimed directly at anyone because lots of toy guns look real. Many a petty thief has been killed because they presented a toy to a clerk with a weapon or a police officer who cannot take a chance. Bottom line....if you don't have the mental and moral strength to kill somone in a life and death situation, then do not carry one because that criminal who is an expert on prey will know this and take it away from you and kill you with it. As much as I am a pro-gun advocate...there are some people who should not carry one...but only THEY know if they fall into this category. We outsiders cannot make that determination.

teeeceee
teeeceee

The main reason emporer Hirohito denied the Japanese military the permission to invade mainland USA, was because he knew "there was a gun behind every blade of grass." That is part of the deterrence that rioters would face here in America, in cities that allow their citizens the right to bear arms and defend their property and homes. Thankfully there are a couple of more cities that can do that now, thanks to the US Supreme Court.

apotheon
apotheon

Don't let anyone point to the population of Kennesaw and tell you it's a "small town" that would have low crime rates anyway. I've been to Kennesaw. It's part of the Atlanta metropolitan area, not quite a suburb, with some of the trappings of "inner city" environment. There's a place there with excellent chicken wings (I forget the name) and a great hobby store (I also forgot the name of that, but it's a couple doors down from the wings place) where I bought an RPG book. It's an island of peace, regarding violent and property crimes, within the larger sea of the Atlanta metropolitan area. That was the state of affairs when I visited the place about fifteen years or so after Kennesaw passed its law requiring maintenance of a firearm for heads of households.

teeeceee
teeeceee

In GB you can be thrown in jail for beating the hell out of a burgler with a baseball bat. We cannot even include them in this discussion, other than the fact that when they weasled their way around to confiscating all of the citizens LEGALLY owned guns, crime went up.

mariah10
mariah10

and if you look at the stats, most of the gun violence is in states that DENY citizens the 2nd ammendment. Obama would have us lose that amendment (along with others that do not fit his plan).

teeeceee
teeeceee

Like take them to church (whatever flavor) where the teaching is "Thou shalt not kill." and teaching them gun safety and proper use of force for protection.

mariah10
mariah10

But that's why I teach shooting sports. When I first started I ran into parents (now, remember this is an option for the kids - not a requirement) that were terrified - never wanted their kids to handle a gun or go near one. After I explained to them that I was not teaching marksmanship, but safety and knowledge, that even though they don't want a gun, how would they feel if their uninformed child went next door to a friend's house who had an equually uninformed parent and they got a hold of that gun and killed themselves or someone else? it's about KNOWLEDGE and TRAINING. Most gun accidents (murder aside) can be prevented with knowledge, training, and some commensense.

coldbrew
coldbrew

For real, some of the arguments I hear on this board are baffling. Guns don't kill. It is the people behind them. Cars don't kill, it is the people driving them. Video games don't kill...it's the crazy kids that play Black Opps and then go nuts. People as a whole today do not accept accountability for their actions. I have 3 guns and do not hunt. I don't plan on killing anyone, I just like the big boom they make, the smell of black powder, and the skill of trying to group my shots. If anything should be made ilegal, it should be the crap they put on TV these days. It's all garbage.

GregGold
GregGold

Not gun violence, however according to your govt. statistics person-on-person crime has.

callupchuck
callupchuck

Then how do you explain the fact away that shows without a doubt, that states with less gun laws (and some that actually encourage gun ownership) have lower crime rates? There are no constricting gun laws here in Vermont and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Likewise, Kennesaw, Georgia actually requires gun ownership in households and they have a proven track record of very low crime rates. On the other hand, places like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. have the most stringent gun laws yet have the highest crime and murder rates in our country. Violent criminals and repeat offenders do not obey the law and will always be able to get their hands on guns. Until existing laws are enforced and criminals prosecuted to the fullest extent, there will never be a cure for the violence in America. Furthermore, if law-abiding citizens are prevented from owning/possessing/carrying guns, then we will all fall victim to these criminal elements. Before throwing a blanket over all handguns with your statement that they only promote violence, consider this. How would you propose that your daughter/sister/mother protect herself when out at a meeting, or school, or work late at night and is faced with an attacker meaning to do her harm? Would you still feel the same about handguns for self-defense when you have to visit her in the hospital, or worse yet, the morgue?

interpoI
interpoI

"At yet, the USA suffers from enough gun violence to call it a war zone" And you want to make sure it is a "One sided" war don't you. All the bad guys have them for all the wrong reasons, why shouldn't we have the right to have them for all the right reasons? i would bet that if you were confronted by an attacker, gang-banger, thug with a handgun or a knife, you would not turn down the help of a good Samaritan with a handgun would you.

David A. Pimentel
David A. Pimentel

That is, in part, the point of them. Alternatively, many common household chemicals/cleaners make it easier to kill as well. In fact, I am pretty sure that a finely-honed meat cleaver will kill more readily than a stick or a rock. The point is that weapons don't do the killing -- people do so. Weapons come in all forms, and if those that would instigate violence are the only ones that are most efficiently-armed, then they will be the only ones standing at the end of a scuffle. Choose your priorities carefully, because they may affect your very survival.

david
david

Yes, there is something to be said for the fear of equal or better strength in your proposed victim. By the way it is not just Texas.

david
david

According to a number of reports, home invasions in Australia have risen from almost zero in the late 80???s to thousands. I pray for Australia regularly and those that have fallen victim to thugs because they are not permitted by the misguided government to protect themselves. The personal weapon is the ultimate equalizer. Australia has become a rally cry to preserve our constitutional and GOD given rights here in the US. We will not leave our families and homes unprotected. Period.

GregGold
GregGold

As a Scotland Yard inspector that I'm acquainted with said "The ban was the dumbest, most person-on-person crime encouragement that we've ever done - the people who are going to rob, burgle, assault or rape are afraid of no one since the ban."

cybershooters
cybershooters

I beg to differ, what about the guy last year in Cumbria who shot all those people, and also the shooting in London by the Met recently of an armed individual, which then led to riots and another person was shot dead during them? It's nowhere near as bad as some parts of the US I'll grant you.

tob
tob

- how many innocent dead bodies? Sure some civic minded Texans would no doubt have issued a bit of street justice. Cool, some dead looters. But I reckon there would have been guns on both sides of "justice", so tell me honestly how the US would have fared better?

tob
tob

...so wouldn't US bad dudes just get a gun and then burgle your house, or stick you up at your parked car before you get in (with your own gun safe *inside*). Guns as a defensive weapon are fine, but if the bad guys are allowed them too (which presumably they are - unless there is a magic field that stops bad people buying guns legally/illegally??) then how safe are you?

Ternarybit
Ternarybit

Or stop living in an apologist mindset and realize that human beings can be intentionally violent and if you fail to protect yourself you're no less dead.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...defending yourself in any way would likely result in criminal prosecution more severe that that delivered upon the criminal, assuming the criminal is ever actually caught & tried.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I have relatives who live in Liverpool. They were terrorized recently over a series of break-ins where victims were bludgeoned to death using claw-hammers. If a crook is ever unfortunate enough to break into my house with a claw-hammer, he will find he has brought a hammer to a gun-fight, and he better be able to get the drop on me in a large and unfamiliar house that I know like the back of my hand.

fartracer
fartracer

... in Australia, where almost all weapons were also banned in the 90s. And I can live my life secure in the knowledge that I'm extremely unlikely to ever have a gun even pointed at me, let alone fired. Sure, someone might still want to kill me, but they'll have to want to a whole lot more... as guns make it just so easy.

mike
mike

So you've been encouraged to be violent since you were a child because of your father? How many people do you plan to assault today? Maybe we need to cut off your hands because they have the potential to become fists - although not a projectile, a deadly weapon in their own right.

jwarmath
jwarmath

I think it's safe to say that the majority of us with legal concealed carry licenses carry the guns not to instigate or encourage violence but to stop it from occuring to us or our families. They stay concealed until someone else threatens us with violence and only then do we bring ours out. So, in those cases who encouraged the violence>

sissy sue
sissy sue

My British husband was talking to someone from Manchester and kept hearing noises in the background. The fellow told him that it was gunfire, and that it happens all the time. But, in the UK, defending yourself from attack is called "taking the law into your own hands." The innocent have a right to protect themselves from the yobs. Reasoning with them, as some government authorities suggest with a straight face, simply doesn't work.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...but crime has grown exponentially since nearly all weapons were outlawed in the late '90s. Basically, the entire country has been transformed into an "unarmed victims" zone, where nearly all risks to criminal activity have been removed. Last month's riots should serve as a wake up call to those who think similar polices here are the way to reduce crime.

Slayer_
Slayer_

I mean, my father bought me a gun when I was a child, showed me how to shoot, taught me never to shoot something unless I intend to eat it. The majority of people here have these lessons, its obvious that guns are not for preventing violence, guns only encourage violence.

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

Most people are not allowed to own guns in the UK. People still do. Is there no gun violence in the UK? From the BBC: "There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year." So when you outlaw guns you get 27 gun related crimes per day? Don't compare the UK to America statistically because the whole country is smaller than most of our states. If you look at America on a state by state basis you will find that gun violence varies greatly state to state and is not dependant on gun laws but other social factors.

rciafardone@gmail.com
rciafardone@gmail.com

That Dogbert is an evil genius bind to conquer the World, with is kinda the argument FOR people having guns... with ammunition :D.

henning
henning

With the world in the state it has become, the Chinese building up their military while trying to destroy our economy along with North Korea, the Arabs who are desperate for revenge & even the countless number of desperate people who no longer have an income from loosing their jobs world wide it's a very good idea if everybody has a bunch of guns & ammunition. It seems like any time the world economy turns very bad the human race is pushed into war. It's only a matter of time. It won't be a good time to visit the local gun dealer when the enemy is landing on our beaches. You can't rely on the Government to warn you of an attack, look what happened with Perl Harbor? You've got to be prepared if you want to come out on top. People who hesitate usually lose. Any country with their population armed to the teeth makes looking else where for an easier target a lot more appealing.

apotheon
apotheon

Technically, "homicide" means "killing a human". So yeah -- not all killings are homicides. If you kill a mosquito or an elk, that's not homicide. I think you're confusing "homicide" with "murder", because not all homicides are murders. Killing a human being for any reason is technically homicide, but is not necessarily illegal or wrong.

dunfalach
dunfalach

Not all killings are homicides. The use of guns against persons in wartime, in police situations, and for self-protection are not defined as homicide. And while I do not have research materials to hand to point to a source, I would tend to say the origins of the handgun were military initially. Homicide is generally used to reference murder only in normal speaking context (though in legal terms, accidental killing can also be included under the terms depending on the laws in question). You're using a word for emotional impact rather than accurate information.

apotheon
apotheon

The purpose for which handguns were designed is defensive. For an offensive weapon, you're better off with a rifle or shotgun. Remember -- killing someone in self-defense is homicide, too.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

It's not a liberal thing, it's more of a Mythbuster thing. For example, imagine how to get food into bite-sized pieces. Remember what workes with a watermellon won't necessarily work on a cow. Also, explosives might leave an after taste.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

Thinking people read the commentary in context before responding... I don't know about liberal, but I carry a knife, and if the task at hand requires it a gun.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

let alone courtrooms. That means *any* knife. If you are on a service call and you keep and assortment of sharp objects in your toolkit, some security officers will require you to leave at their station until you need it (others aren't such a******s). Once I had to park six blocks away to walk to the Traffic Court building only then to learn about this new law. Of course when I got to the metal detector, I was denied entrance, and that they would not hold anything for me and no, there were no lockers. I was *extremely* pissed, (there's really more to this) walked outside and threw the Swiss Army Knife against the steps so hard that it shattered. The Guard out there just shook his head and looked away. Of course I had to pick up the "hazardous" parts and walk then back to my car anyway. Temper 1, me zero.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

Court! ( they don't allow us to carry cell phones in either...) There is a straight response for you :)

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

I've been out of school too long. Thanks for the reminder.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Churchill had many a pithy quote, but that wasn't one of them. FDR made that one.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

I could even take it to school. It was kind of expected that boys would carry pocket knives, not the weapon, but the tool for everything. Once in the fifth grade, I loaned mine to my teacher who was trying to open a stuck drawer on her desk. We were all in Cub/Boy Scouts, many of us bought our knives through them. Knife fights happened of course, in high school (back behind the hamburger joint) but these were the gangs - the "juvenile delinquents" - who got involved with this, and they didn't use pocket knives. Zip guns and bike chains were standard for that. My point is that a good knife is as much tool as weapon, but somehow our increasingly paranoid society believes that whoever carries one is a potential terrorist. Same with guns. Truth is, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Churchill might never have realized how broadly this statement could apply.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

As their only intended purpose is to distract their owners from day to day activities thereby resulting in death, destruction and mayhem...

landen99
landen99

I intended to remain one of the fittest and keep drawing breath. Fortunately, as my own boss with residence in the great state of Texas, I get to have this day 365 times a year. Edit: I would bet that (with very few exceptions) the only people who oppose firearms are either those who refuse to carry them, or those who intend to use them criminally.

apotheon
apotheon

My .357 is an SP101 as well -- but mine has the 3-1/16 inch barrel rather than the 2-1/4 inch. I wasn't buying it for concealed carry (I have other options for that), so I went for the slightly longer barrel. It's a beautiful piece of engineering. . . . and until I got it, I had not fired a .357 in years. It was a bit of a wake-up call. Yes, it's very manageable, where a .44 would be more than most would want to handle -- but it's still a roaring, flame-belching monster.

paladin2
paladin2

In the case of people a .357 is statistically deadlier than a .44 due to over penetration with the Dirty Harry piece. And that doesn't take into account the size-weight-recoil issues a .44 has. My Ruger SP101 with it's 2" barrel is also heavy enough that recoil is not a big issue, where I've never met a .44 that would be comfortable in anything other than a big holster and a firm two handed grip where the 101 is an inside the waistband tool for either city or country. And the trick with big bears is to not surprise or be surprised by them, which isn't too tall an order for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

apotheon
apotheon

BHM = Big Honking Musket . . . ?

oterrya
oterrya

Give me a Marlin .45-70. You let him get close enough to get with that little handgun, you might kill him but he might also just fall on you as he is going down -- with even a little 700 pound grizzly, you are toast. If it were a 1,600 pound Kodiak, you are flat toast. The bear might! be dead but you are in the hospital if you are lucky.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

BHM = Birmingham Al airport!

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

They can run faster than you. They can climb faster than you. They can swim faster than you. The only real defense is to bringa frend who can't run as fast.

whulse
whulse

I didn't know ****** was a censored word, but they reside in houses of ill repute.

whulse
whulse

Pathetic? Yes. "Educated" people are fast becoming the problem. The "Educational" system has been infiltrated by full bore aggressive Communists and radical Socialists. Therefore, "Educated" people, who have been "educated" by these micro-cephalic dimwits are "educated" in ways that are next to insane! FTA, and the whores they rode in on!! Clean out the House and Senate, and don't forget to fumigate the White House. Obama - The Robbing Hood of the 21st Century - needs to be snared and incarcerated for about 75 years, along with his Czars.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

When you're in Grizzly Country, there's usually no trees big enough, climbable enough, or near enough to escape. In fact, I can't recall any of the many attacks ever escaping by climbing a tree. Black bears are more forest critters than grizzlies, but they can climb trees far better.

sissy sue
sissy sue

Pathetic, isn't it? Especially coming from "educated" people.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

As a last ditch, touching distance weapon, a little 9mm or .38 doesn't cut it. .357 is just starting to get into the lethal range, preferably jacketed bullets for penetrating power. Me, I'd want a .45, also shooting jacketed bullets. Ears, eyes, or back of the throat shots; BHM is going down. By the way, I also have a 1st dan in Tae Kwon Do. First thing our instructor taught us in self defense is you have to accept the fact that you might be hurt, and hurt bad. The second thing was that you have to accept hurting or killing your attacker as the price of your life. It's amazing the number of people who don't consider themselves to be worth more than others. We call them VICTIMS. (Note: BHM = Big Hairy Monster)

JohnBeaman
JohnBeaman

Sure then only those that ignore the laws will have them, and the rest have no defense. The idea of government restrictions on guns only applies to the law abiding citizen, and has no effect on the criminals. How can all these people not think it thru? Oh, because they are coming for YOU when they get all these laws into place. And the other criminals with guns will help them. In other words, more gun laws do damage, they are another "feel good" act that actually can kill you. Wake up people.

Akilestar
Akilestar

In this words of Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2) "I'd love to leave my door unlocked at night, but this ain't Canada."

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Fired the 500 S&W? It almost scared him to death, and he nearl cracked his forehead with the recoil...

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

because it's impossible to find the same fragment in those works? The torah is not a version of the old testament, nor does the koran include such a version.

navyhatch
navyhatch

The bear doesn't care what you wave at it, it can't tell the difference between that and a pair of bloomers, except the bloomers might be a little bit more stained...

navyhatch
navyhatch

@who am i really....not your fault...but how come we never see the Koran or the Torah referenced when we refer to things biblical....??? Has no one else wondered that....

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Some football coach said that years ago, and I can't think of any more useful advice to apply off-the-gridiron as well. vfaris44, your placement of the word "defense" pretty well gives your position away. You seem to think it is of little importance. Given the choice of freezing or starving to death and being eaten or otherwise killed without a chance of defending myself, I'll take the former.

cinesport
cinesport

In 59 years, there has not been a situation that called for me to have carried a gun with me every day of my life. I am in Canada. It seems in the gun crazy US. the only need to carry a gun is to protect against the other gun carrying folk. So if no one carries guns then there will not be a need to protect oneself. Besides the animals in this world have a right to exist anyway. Even the rattlesnakes. You are smart. Learn how to stay away from them.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Everyone I know that has tried bear meat says it taste good. I assume that is because bears are omnivorous and eat a lot of plant life. Most dedicated meat eaters other than tuna, don't taste as good. Coyote is too sweet for me, I've ate almost everything else in the desert. Buffalo is best, followed by Elk, and Whitetail Deer tastes WAY better than beef! Sorry I interrupted your good discussion; I just couldn't help interjecting some back woods history.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Point was the knife is required for hacking it in the forest (or at least was a hundred years ago). The weapon is a convenience, the tool is not.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Chose the right handgun, one with a powerful charge, high-count clip, large projectile and particularly loud report. A grizzly WILL turn and run if frightened enough, and if he continues to charge (I'm assuming he's charging, If not, use a good camera instead) Continue to fire at critical organs. Keep your distance. When he drops, lose your gun and get out that camera. From now on, just avoid forest rangers.

Percy Sludge
Percy Sludge

Or at least out to get YOU! As well as a handgun, why don't you carry a few hand grenades? No Grizzley or hippopotamus is gonna overcome one of them! BTW, when was the last time a grizzly or hippopotamus attacked you? NO MATTER! Kill them all, just to be sure!

Percy Sludge
Percy Sludge

Unless you're toting a colt-44, better make sure you get him right between the eyes or in an eye, otherwise he's gonna be very angry! But you're right- we should ALL carry .44s. Never know when a grizzly, a hippopotamus or a 250lb thug will attack you! Gosh I've been attacked thousands of times! And fought them all off with my handgun.

JJFitz
JJFitz

from Texas hippos? :)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

No, he didn't explicitly state it, but there's no way I can read that sentence to make it NOT imply that not owning a handgun is choosing not to defend yourself unless I take it completely out of the context of his post.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

To us it may sound like a strange tool, but the jaw bones of large herbivores (just the one half, left or right lower jaw) have been used as clubs for hunting for eons. They have a nice gap where the teeth stop, makes for a good grip. God has a strange sense of humor, putting weapons in the mouths of herbivores ;)

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I was making the beside-the-point comment that a knife is damn useful, and that in the past losing one's knife was a damn sight more harmful than losing one's firearm. One means you can't make it in the wild. The other just means you have to be careful. See, I don't suggest that a knife is a better tool for killing grizzlies than a gun is. Only that while you may need the gun, you'll definitely need the knife. @J : This reply is for wututalkinbout :) I wonder what bear tastes like... they regularly sell it in the local store, but it's expensive, 100???/kg!

JCitizen
JCitizen

I can count on one hand the fellas that successfully "fet a grizzle" paw to hand with a knife. Daniel Boone was one of the few, and I'd bet he counted himself lucky. Plus he use a short sword that was issued by the government for the Indian Wars. But let's face it; he ate brown bears for lunch; he knew just where to stab'em and slab'em!

apotheon
apotheon

I didn't exactly forget to mention that there are places with open carry laws. In fact, I live in a state where open carry is (nominally) legal (though some towns have found ways around that in the attempt to restrict the rights of residents). I just didn't think that open carry laws was directly relevant to this particular subthread. It's true, though, that open carry tends to enhance safety. You made a good point, jck.

james
james

Isn't a bullet just a very small rock thrown very fast?

mcmurphy510
mcmurphy510

Spitfire_Sysop did not state (or even imply) that not owning a handgun was choosing not to defend yourself. His statement merely underscored the fact that defense is the handguns primary purpose.

james
james

Well it takes several shots, but the swiss cheese sometimes lines up just right too!

Widmerpool
Widmerpool

...you can't even spell psychology. But just on the off-chance that I'm being unfair to you: can you please cite the aforesaid paper? I am a specialist psychotherapist with a community mental health team, and what you're describing sounds fascinatingly implausible. Supplementary I note that I've had six votes against me...but still no reponse to my request for hard fact.

wututalkinbout
wututalkinbout

against a grizzly, you would rather use a knife than a gun? Please enlighten us as to how you would do that?

draco vulgaris
draco vulgaris

A head shot with a forty-four magnum pistol pretty much guarantees that the bear is completely dead.

nustada
nustada

So, if a 250lb mugger enters grandpas house, and he must defend himself with a baseball bat, you say he would be better matched, than if they both had guns? I don't think so, guns are more equal in the realm of self defence. However, the second ammendment clearly states, that the purpose of owning guns, is not for self defence alone, but to keep tyrants in check.

griehl
griehl

Should we, then, ban rocks???

jck
jck

there are towns with open carry laws. I think one is Vidor, Texas. Violent crime is practically zero, and armed robbery is too. Someone is a lot less likely to rob the bank or convenience store, when they know that 80%+ of the patrons have a gun to point back at them.

mariah10
mariah10

I'm shocked at your response. Happy but shocked. I usually get into some pretty strong word battles with my friends who are anti-gun. Most people are either for or against. Not many riding the fence. Glad you took a stand. and I will tell you the most fun you can have with your children (especially if you are at an indoor range where the targets come back to you and you don't have to worry about them not listening to your 'cease fire' commands, is taking small caliber weapons and just 'plink'. ARchery is fun, too! But 'cease fire' commands vital with archery, lol!

apotheon
apotheon

> it would be great (from a self-protection point of view) if guns had never been invented Firearms make it possible for the physically weak to stand on equal ground with the physically strong. Without a gun, a pretty girl who has never been to the gym is a target for a 250 pound muscle-bound rapist. With a gun, she is someone to avoid, because those who prey on the weak are fundamentally cowardly. Places that change the law to make firearms more ubiquitous (such as Kennesaw, GA or the entire state of Florida, both of which have made landmark strides toward greater proliferation of legally owned and carried firearms at various times) tend to see dramatic drops in their rates of violent crimes. The invention of the handgun, coupled with the ability to carry it legally, may be the most important enhancement of personal safety against criminals who prey on their fellow human beings.

mariah10
mariah10

YEP, 44's good choice. But mine is like carrying a long rifle! Got it at a gun show - call it Dirty Harry's gun on steroids. Total length 12" with scope. Not exactly one you carry in a holster, lol!

sat46
sat46

Guess you haven't shot the 500 S&W. Get a two inch barrel, don't shoot till he gets close. You may get some scratches but he's gonna be dead.

apotheon
apotheon

I wonder what "civilised" countries fartracer thinks are free of violence. Perhaps he means France, where a few years back rioters burned down McDonalds (and notably chunks of their own cities), attacking French citizens who worked there with bricks. Maybe he means England, where the rate of assaults with knives and blunt instruments in London has reached epic proportions. I suspect the only places in the world where it would not be trivial for me to find examples of really depraved acts of violence between residents of the area would be those where I can't find much news at all, because English language news sources on the Internet don't pay any attention to them. It's interesting that AlainKaz cites Virginia Tech as an example of how bad guns are. He is evidently unaware that VA Tech is one of the many examples of mass shootings that occurred in a place where firearms were prohibited. In fact, the gun ban at VA Tech had only been in effect for about two years. The fact there had never been a mass shooting at VA Tech until only a couple years after the campus gun ban was proposed does not mean that the ban -- disarming those who legally carry firearms while of course doing nothing to stop those who do so illegally -- actually led to the shooting. On the other hand, it certainly does show that the gun ban did nothing to protect the students of VA Tech, who were not allowed to carry the means of their own defense while the police locked down the school for a couple hours and just sat around waiting while the shooter killed dozens of people. (paragraph edited for subject/object agreement) As for the question AlainKatz asks about why anyone would want to carry a gun to work, that is pretty easy. I remember a time when I worked at a business located in a not-so-great neighborhood. At the time, I had a motorcycle, but not a car; my girlfriend had a car, though. I would ride my motorcycle to work when weather allowed, but would get a ride from my girlfriend otherwise. When I got done with work, I would walk for about fifteen minutes to a local fast food joint where I would hang out for forty five minutes waiting for my girlfriend to get off work and pick me up. I had a concealed carry permit, and I used it; I carried a firearm in case I might need it to defend myself (see above, re: bad neighborhood). I have known people who were driving rented panel vans full of their worldly possessions across the country and very nearly found themselves held up by highjackers on the highway, the sorts of people who try to force drivers to pull over, kill witnesses, and take their vehicles. I have known women who were raped and later bought a gun for self defense. I have read articles about people who were forced by local bar/restaurant laws to leave their guns in their cars, then got killed between a bar or restaurant and the car. The point is that people who carry guns legally do not want to bring guns to work because they want to use them at work; they want to carry guns at work because of the danger that sometimes lurks just outside the door. If the workplace forbids them to bring their guns inside, at least in Texas the workplace cannot prevent them from having an effective means of self defense as close as the car. As for SinisterSlay's statement that the purpose of guns has not evolved the way that of knives has -- no, it has not evolved to cutting bread. It has, however, evolved (a long time ago) to serve purposes other than killing people. Firearms are tools for sports; they offer a way to feed oneself, by hunting; they offer self defense against wild animals, as in the case of the .357 revolver I recently bought along with some snakeshot because I encountered a rattlesnake while hiking a while back, and would not like to find myself in the position of merely wishing I had a revolver loaded with snakeshot some day while a rattlesnake bites me (or a friend or loved one hiking with me). . . . and let's not forget the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Even when used to kill people, sometimes it is in service to a just cause. It is still true that laws against the means of self defense only disarm the law-abiding.

spdragoo
spdragoo

To teeeceee: September 1, 1939: Wermacht (German army) troops invade Poland, and the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein shells the Westerplatte base outside of Danzig, starting World War II in Europe.

teeeceee
teeeceee

Cain actually used the jaw bone of an ass (donkey)

smcdonough
smcdonough

Or it leaves the other hand free for the knife!

teeeceee
teeeceee

Those that beat their swords (or guns) into plowshares will plow for those that don't. To Randomtechie: What happened in Europe in 1939?

rickrouth
rickrouth

Does opening a can with a handgun count as "killing food?" Or would that be more in-line with "serving food?" If it's the latter, that gives the handgun one up on the knife/sword! In any case, the argument of guns or no guns is boring and fruitless. SinisterSlay is obviously not from Texas and thus his opinion is moot on this matter. I am from Texas (and I pushed for this law, even though I don't currently own a firearm).

stgcs(sw)
stgcs(sw)

Those limitless uses could be broken down into three categories, 1) cutting materials for shelter and clothing, 2) killing, cutting, and serving/eating food, and 3) killing or controlling other people (offensive/defensive). Use of firearms can be broken down into three basic categories, 1) killing food, 2) recreational shooting (practice and competition), and 3) killing or controlling other people (defense and offense).

callupchuck
callupchuck

Haven't shot many have you?!? I wouldn't think of walking into bear country without a sidearm as a backup. At close quarters my .44 Super Blackhawk would be my choice, since it would be difficult to point and fire a long rifle up close.

Slayer_
Slayer_

And probably never will. But no worries, at the rate the US is going, they will be bought out by China in a few more years. Maybe then they will learn Kung Fu and finally achieve some level of discipline. Or is that still illegal in China?

kylehutson
kylehutson

History is littered with weapons, from spears to Greek fire to the nuclear bomb. While it would be great (from a self-protection point of view) if guns had never been invented, reality is that they have. The history is irrelevant from the perspective of "what do we need to do now".

AlainKaz
AlainKaz

Haven't you learned anything from all the workplace and school shootings? Does VirginiaTech mean anything to you? yayaya, I know, schools are excluded... Point is : Why would anybody want to bring a gun at work? Are you planning on using it? THEN WHY BRING IT? You're affraid of getting attacked on your way back from work? He11, I'm more afraid of reckless and drunk driving than guns. More of those around. Leave the 2nd ammendment alone and start thinking your way out of situations. THAT'S the difference that separates us from the animal kingdom. P.S. They're not at war, just out shopping for food, in their own way... P.P.S. I've read another paper that talked about mental health (or lack thereoff) and over-aggressiveness

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

as to how lethal it is to a grizzly... But that is the point, a handgun is mostly a defensive weapon and waving a knife at a grizzly isn't nearly as effective as the handgun. They don't call handguns the "great equalizer" for nothing. Plus it leaves a hand free to scrabble up a tree. :)

fartracer
fartracer

Yes it's true that carnivores kill other animals and eat them, and sometimes kill members of their own species over territorial or mating rights. Despite our highly evolved brain, which should allow us to control our primeval urges, we have taken killing members of our own species to a new height. It doesn't have to be that way, and in most civilised countries of the world, it isn't. We have the power to shape society in the way we want. We just have to do it. Guns won't help.

ARandomPenguin
ARandomPenguin

suure. lets all act like animals. lets kill each other. pfft Americans and their guns. other countries survive perfectly fine without every citizen having a gun.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

How many woodsmen would survive long enough to see a grizzly, without a knife? On the other hand, I have trouble seeing a handgun being worth a damn against a grizzly, except as a flash-bang device to scare. Nothing more deadly than a grizzly that's not completely dead yet.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

If I had to kill someone, a rock would not be far down the list. Actually, the stick is the only weapon to rival it. Been that way since the dawn of time. Ok, so Cain used an axe, but at the time an axe was a rock tied to a stick :D

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Maybe I just don't understand psychology. But how does not owning a handgun equate to choosing not to defend yourself?

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

Get real. You live on a violent planet. Turn on the any nature program and see that the whole animal kingdom is constantly at war. From the ant to the dolphin there is violence. The hippopotamus is one of the few animals that hunt humans for sport. Where I come from a handgun owner is more likely to shoot a rattlesnake than another person. To willingly choose not to defend yourself is a sign of mental illness according to a psycology paper I read recently.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Was for cutting, not for killing. Sharp rocks were used as a simple way to cut meat from a bone. To actually use one of these as a weapon against a live animal would have been very dangerous. Most would not have been sharp enough to even pierce the muscle. Penetrating fur would have been difficult. As for using sharp rocks against other people, that's hard to know. Stonings have been a method of execution for a long time.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Unless someone is using their hand gun to cut bread.

Charles Bundy
Charles Bundy

were weapons long before there was "bread" to be had... See and I didn't even resort to name calling! BTW having a handgun was mandatory on Grizzly population counts in Alaska... Knives were not so useful :)

Editor's Picks