Third, the Supremes have sindicated that, considering the purpose of the amendment, it protects only the right to bear arms commonly used in militia-related activies (i.e., war). Thus, you have the right to a sword, but not a shotgun. (I personally find this point ludicrous, but I'm throwin it out there!)
Do we have a right to "Assault Weapons"? As someone earlier mentioned, we have the right to Assault Rifles. Will the "Assault Weapons Ban" be enacted again after it sunsets in 2004? That will be an interesting political position for candidates to take. The law sunsets on Sept. 13th, 2004. Will Congress pass a new law to take its place prior to that date? If so, the people we elect later this year will be the ones voting. The President (GW) may also have to make a decision if a bill is passed. Do I sign this or veto it. This could have a major implication on the political careers for some of our Washington elites. If nothing is done, or the Senate and House cannot agree on a bill, the Assault Weapons Ban goes away. It is dead. I am sure that is what GW would like. He doesn't even have to get involved in what could be a political fire storm from both the left and the right.
I was momentarily confused when I went to the Pioneer Press and found the watercooler missing. I am glad someone left a cyber map to get over here. What the heck happened over at the PP? Anyone have any guesses?
Glad to be back with some good folks. Cheers all.
Muskwa, David Yeagley has a great editorial again in Front Page magazine. I even wrote him an email telling him how much I respect him.
In case anyone is curious, that is an F18 breaking the sound barrier over the ocean at low altitude. I am not sure of the physics behind it, but for some reason as the plane breaks the sound barrier, a pressure cone develops and the moisture in the atmosphere condenses where the disturbance is the greatest. You can see a smaller cone on the cockpit if you look closely. I have a larger sized picture. If anyone wants a copy I would be happy to email it to you. I also have an MPEG of the same plane actually doing this as it passes a ship of observers.
Could it be that Rep. Nita M. Lowey of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, outspoken leader of gun-control legislation and frequent critic of the National Rifle Association, is hosting a pheasant shoot?
"Please join us for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairmen's Council Pheasant Shoot with the Honorable John D. Dingell at Whistling Hill, Boonsboro, Md., Monday March 11," reads the invitation bearing Lowey's name. "Dogs, guides and 12- and 20-gauge shells will be provided. All participants are expected to provide their own shotguns."
But wait, what about Democratic Party faithful who don't own shotguns?
Not to worry, says Lowey; the DCCC's Nicole Mizirl is making arrangements to arm the gunless Democrats. Just be sure to "please bring your $2,000 registration fee to the event or have it sent to the DCCC no later than March 8th."
Is this legal?
"It is imperative that you obtain a hunting license," says the DCCC chairman, "purchased at any sporting-goods store, including Dick's Sporting Goods or Wal-Mart." What Lowey failed to mention in the invitation, I'm told, is that Maryland requires all hunters to complete a state-certified hunter-safety education course.
Unfortunately for the Democratic hunters, very few hunter-safety courses are given this time of year in Maryland.
DEMS WITH GUNS
Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals view the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, as outdated - not even the dean of House Democrats, every liberal's liberal, Rep. John D. Dingell.
"Like Martin Luther, who said he didn't think the devil ought to have all the good music, I say that criminals ought not to have all the guns," the senior Michigan Democrat once observed.
In fact, when a Republican of all people - Rep. Henry J. Hyde of Illinois - tried in 1999 to impose a 72-hour criminal background check at gun shows, it was Dingell who cried fowl, er, foul.
The Democrat not only argued that 24 hours was sufficient time to sniff out a criminal, he enlisted other leading Democratic congressmen - Robert E. "Bud" Cramer of Alabama, Charles W. Stenholm of Texas, Chris John of Louisiana, James L. Oberstar of Minnesota and John Tanner of Tennessee - to sign a letter stating that the three-day waiting period proposed by the Republican violated law-abiding citizens' "Second Amendment Rights."
It so happened that toward the end of President Clinton's second term, Dingell had almost single-handedly killed whatever chances Clinton and his own Democratic Party had at passing broader gun control. That came as no surprise to Clinton.
After all, it was a bitterly cold morning in 1993, shortly after arriving in Washington from Arkansas, that two Democrats handed Clinton a hunting license, earplugs and a semiautomatic shotgun and took him duck hunting on Maryland's Slaughter Creek. One was Rep. Bill Brewster of Oklahoma, who after leaving Congress became a NRA board member. The other was Dingell.
Politics and public opinion may have turned against the anti-gun lobby, but their burning hatred for guns and gun owners hasn't cooled. Laws passed during the anti-gun witch hunts of the 1990s provide them with a satisfying way to take punitive action against harmless gun owners.
For the most part yes, but they are trying to erode the right away a little at a time. Politicians learned from prohibition. If you out right outlaw something people will noticeand rebel. If you take it away a little at a time, people are less apt to notice and become more complaisant. Look at the articles sited in the article. These people had their guns rights and guns taken away over MISDEMENORS. That is NOT right.
Interesting Question Regarding the Democratic Party and Gun Control.
I have read several articles lately regarding how the Democratic party is trying to reshape their image on gun control. A lot of the Democrats in the "RED" areas of the US are frustrated that the Democrat leadership seems to be representing the "BLUE" areas as it relates go gun control. There seems to be a push to localize rather than nationalize the gun control positions of Democrats.
Related to this however, is the fact that the gun control organizations have also stated that they would like to start pushing more gun control at the local level, as gun control is not resonating to their satisfaction at the national level. Handgun Control Inc. even changed their name to the Brady Center for the Prevention Gun Violence (I think that is the new name, my apologies if I got it slightly wrong). Was this an effort to get the word "Control" out of their title? Spceulation was that Gore got beat in several "pro Democrat states" that would have voted for him if not for his stance on gun control. These states would have made Florida a non factor.
It seems the focus is now going to center on hunters and sportsmen/sportswomen. The Democrats are convinced that these voting groups are worried that Democrats want their guns too, and have been voting against the Democrats. So the new message/focus will be, "Hey Sportspeople and Hunters, we are not going to take your guns, so feel free to vote for Democrats".
I think this was started way back when President Clinton, who is the most pro gun control president the US has had, decided to go duck hunting to reassure the hunters and sportsmen that he was not targeting them, pardon the pun.
I am not sure this really worked, but the Democrats seem to believe it can still work, maybe more focused at the local level.
The problem I see is that a lot of gun owners believe that the Second Amendment means more than just hunting and sports. It is all about individual responsibility and defense of our families, friends and society in general. In addition, while Democrats push this new mantra of being for hunters and sportspeople, the environmentalists, the anti hunters, and the animal rights people tend to heavily vote for democrats, even though Ralph Nadar managed to siphon away some of their votes in the last presidential election. I see a mixed message here, which the Democrats seem to be missing.
I guess it remains to be seen how this will play out. And don't get me wrong. There are plenty of Republicans who favor stricter gun control, especially the Northeast and California Republicans. I have no love for those folks. I just don't see the Republican Party on a national level pushing gun control like the Democratic Party does. Some Republicans still want to push the US down the slippery slope, just not as fast as some Democrats do.
The problem I see is that a lot of gun owners believe that the Second Amendment means more than just hunting and sports. It is all about individual responsibility and defense of our families, friends and society in general. In addition, while Democrats push this new mantra of being for hunters and sports people, the environmentalists, the anti hunters, and the animal rights people tend to heavily vote for democrats, even though Ralph Nadar managed to siphon away some of their votes in the last presidential election. I see a mixed message here, which the Democrats seem to be missing.
It is still my opinion that Bill Clinton was the most pro gun control president that we have had so far. That is based upon the bills which he is on record as supporting, plus his own public references to his stance on controlling firearms, closing the so called gun show loophole, registration and licensing of handguns, etc.
People who want to, still have their guns and their little militias and can still go play soldier on weekends, or even go hunting, like I do.
I don't think this is necessarily true in some areas like New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, California, and maybe a few other places. This statement also seems a little condescending. Just because people like to own firearms why do you say that they need to form little militias, and play soldier on weekends? Is that the view you have of gunowners, even though you claim to be one? California has banned "assault weapons" as has New Jersey and New York (city and state). Washington DC and Chicago have bans on handguns.
So what you are saying is that people can still have the guns that you think are OK. You cannot say that no guns have been banned or confiscated, and be truthful.
More U.S. Children Die Where Guns Are Common-Study
BOSTON - Children are much more likely to be murdered, commit suicide or die accidentally because of guns in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, according to a new study by Harvard researchers.
The study, published in The Journal of Trauma, is significant because it shows that the mere presence of firearms leads to more violent death among children aged 5-14, said Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author.
"When most people buy a gun, they do so with the presumption that guns make them safer," Miller said in an interview. "Our results suggest strongly that this presumption is not warranted and that the children that parents seek to protect with guns are instead being killed by guns."
While other studies have shown links between teen suicide and guns, this is the first national study to examine the connection between firearm ownership and violent death among younger children, said Miller, associate director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center.
The study looked at data from all 50 states from 1988 to 1997. In that period, 6,817 children between 5 and 14 years old died from firearms: 3,447 from homicides, 1,782 from accidental shootings and 1,588 from suicide.
The study showed that the five states with the highest gun ownership levels had many more firearm-related deaths among children than the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership.
The two groups of states had almost the same number of children, but in the high gun-ownership states there were 253 accidental firearm deaths compared to just 15 in the low gun-ownership states.
There were 153 firearm suicides in the high gun-ownership states compared to 22 in the low-ownership states and there were 298 firearm murders in the high gun-ownership states compared to 86 in the low- ownership states.
Meanwhile, the rates of non firearm-related suicides and murders in the two groups of states were much closer, leading Miller to conclude the increase in deaths was attributable to the higher number of firearm- related deaths.
"The large difference in gun-related deaths compared with the low level of difference in non-firearm deaths allows us to say that guns are playing some role," Miller said.
The difference remains even when the data is controlled for poverty, education and urbanization, the study found.
"Although no conclusions about cause and effect can be made, this study provides compelling evidence that states with high firearm availability are states with high childhood firearm death rates," Dr. Therese Richmond of the University of Pennsylvania's Firearm Injury Center wrote in an editorial.
The five states with the highest rates of gun ownership are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia. The five with the lowest are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.
God bless all those thoughful Americans with the sense and sensibility to realize that if our society were suddenly flooded with a massive increase of handguns -- carried in public under a propagandized paranoia that there are certain fellow citizens we'd have a hair-trigger expectation of being "criminals" (in a thoroughly demonized way that clearly entails an implicit racist component) -- that the essence of enlightened civilization would be irrevocably lost.
And that deaths and injuries from accidents of various kinds would almost certainly more than compensate for any potential, diminished loss of life resulting from "reduced crime", for which there is NO proof concealed-carry has actually or chiefly caused, as opposed to other factors, such as an improved economy during the years when statistics were gathered, more and better policing, or the fact that the Brady Law has definitely succeeded in weeding out so many would-be criminals, and the unstable.
God bless the peace makers, not the piece carriers...
I think, in the articles I've seen about the number of crimes that were deterred by guns, that a large percentage were because the potential victim simply brandished a gun without shooting it.
If you don't hit the burglar or rapist with the first shot, you probably won't get another chance.
Excellent point. A gun will do you no good whatsoever if you don't know how to use it.
As Muskwa points out above, many times brandishing is enough, after that usually in your house it would be at close range. Also most people if they do keep a weapon in the house it is a semi auto, or should be. Black powder rifles are not advisable. The other (better in my opinion) option of course is a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. At close range it's very hard to miss. Also is the very distinct and intimidating sound when the first shell is jacked in. Personally I think if you are going to do so you should have some training for your own benefit. Again if they don't know how to use it and are killed or injured with their own weapon then that was their choice to do so without training. Again, it comes down to their personal choice.
The other (better in my opinion) option of course is a 12 gauge.........
Make it a pump. Just about every criminal will know what that sound is when you pump a shell into the chamber. If they don't.........too stupid to live.
Just remember when he enters the house and you are forced to fire, PLEASE REMEMBER TO EMPTY THE CLIP ON HIM! If you shoot him and he lives, he sues. Make sure he doesn't live, dead people don't sue!
P.S. It is, however, your responsibility to call for an ambulance (coroner) after you put 14 rounds from your Browning through his skull. It's the law!
unfortunately, the relatives of dead people can sue. i don't know how far they typically get though. of course i'm of the mindset that the simple way around this is to put signs on all your windows and doors stating that anyone entering the premises expressly consents to being shot. that way when they sue, you can point to the warning they were given.
P.S. It is, however, your responsibility to call for an ambulance (coroner) after you put 14 rounds from your Browning through his skull. It's the law!
lmao! my brother's theory is that in order to ensure that the right to defend your home from intruders is responsibly handled, there should be a 500 dollar per body charge.
but you are quite right when you say to kill intruders and not merely wound. When these cases come up in court, the issue = was the homeowner protecting persons? or merely property? If you can show that you were defending persons then you are home free but if only preventing burgulars from making off with your goods then you are up the creek without a paddle. Be sure to entice the burgular to a position where he/she could gain access to your, presumably sleeping, family and then shoot him. The hallway or stairway leading to the bedrooms is the best place for his/her demise.
A double (I prefer a side by side)shotgun loaded with solids is best but even a gold club, sword, or polo mallet (short stick) will work and can be positioned for immediate access without inviting adverse comments.
Well, yes it is. Unless you just impale them and leave the sword in which makes the process very tidy. Remember that a sword is around about 36 inches of blade with another 4 to 6 for the hilt so you aren't actually getting all that close to him. You could throw it if you were strong enough, I suppose. hmmmmm
Do we have a right to "Assault Weapons"? As someone earlier mentioned, we have the right to Assault Rifles. Will the "Assault Weapons Ban" be enacted again after it sunsets in 2004? That will be an interesting political position for candidates to take. The law sunsets on Sept. 13th, 2004. Will Congress pass a new law to take its place prior to that date? If so, the people we elect later this year will be the ones voting. The President (GW) may also have to make a decision if a bill is passed. Do I sign this or veto it. This could have a major implication on the political careers for some of our Washington elites. If nothing is done, or the Senate and House cannot agree on a bill, the Assault Weapons Ban goes away. It is dead. I am sure that is what GW would like. He doesn't even have to get involved in what could be a political fire storm from both the left and the right.
Hey Joel! Glad to see you made it here.
JOEL!!!
Happy to see the calm voice of reason has found his way here.
Hello Everyone.
I was momentarily confused when I went to the Pioneer Press and found the watercooler missing. I am glad someone left a cyber map to get over here. What the heck happened over at the PP? Anyone have any guesses?
Glad to be back with some good folks. Cheers all.
Muskwa, David Yeagley has a great editorial again in Front Page magazine. I even wrote him an email telling him how much I respect him.
Joel, they've been talking about switching the old PP for awhile.
My assumption is, Knight Ridder wanted to standardize their forums. What they have now is it I guess.
I wouldn't mind it but, it's just so darn slow.
I'll miss it but, it drove me nuts browsing the new format.
HI JOEL!!
Thanks, Joel! We've had some work done on our PC and in the process I lost all my bookmarks, and I was wondering how to get him back.
I like your picture.
In case anyone is curious, that is an F18 breaking the sound barrier over the ocean at low altitude. I am not sure of the physics behind it, but for some reason as the plane breaks the sound barrier, a pressure cone develops and the moisture in the atmosphere condenses where the disturbance is the greatest. You can see a smaller cone on the cockpit if you look closely. I have a larger sized picture. If anyone wants a copy I would be happy to email it to you. I also have an MPEG of the same plane actually doing this as it passes a ship of observers.
Hey Joel, you can upload attachments in this forum.
LOL!
Funny to hear you say that, Lance.
I've seen the full blown version so I knew what it was.
you whatlance?
I heard it failed again, or was going to fail.
I heard it in passing on the radio so I don't know any more than that. I am interested to hear more.
Bummer!
http://www.mnccrn.org/
big bummer.
I wish I knew more. I can't remember what I heard exactly but, it didn't sound good for CCW.
Place your bets, boys.
Which will happen first?
Jesus returns.
The Chinese communists take over and make us all craven coolies.
Can't be sure?
Then prepare for either prospect.
Carry a pistol in a hollowed-out Bible.
ARMING DEMOCRATS
Could it be that Rep. Nita M. Lowey of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, outspoken leader of gun-control legislation and frequent critic of the National Rifle Association, is hosting a pheasant shoot?
"Please join us for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairmen's Council Pheasant Shoot with the Honorable John D. Dingell at Whistling Hill, Boonsboro, Md., Monday March 11," reads the invitation bearing Lowey's name. "Dogs, guides and 12- and 20-gauge shells will be provided. All participants are expected to provide their own shotguns."
But wait, what about Democratic Party faithful who don't own shotguns?
Not to worry, says Lowey; the DCCC's Nicole Mizirl is making arrangements to arm the gunless Democrats. Just be sure to "please bring your $2,000 registration fee to the event or have it sent to the DCCC no later than March 8th."
Is this legal?
"It is imperative that you obtain a hunting license," says the DCCC chairman, "purchased at any sporting-goods store, including Dick's Sporting Goods or Wal-Mart." What Lowey failed to mention in the invitation, I'm told, is that Maryland requires all hunters to complete a state-certified hunter-safety education course.
Unfortunately for the Democratic hunters, very few hunter-safety courses are given this time of year in Maryland.
DEMS WITH GUNS
Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals view the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, as outdated - not even the dean of House Democrats, every liberal's liberal, Rep. John D. Dingell.
"Like Martin Luther, who said he didn't think the devil ought to have all the good music, I say that criminals ought not to have all the guns," the senior Michigan Democrat once observed.
In fact, when a Republican of all people - Rep. Henry J. Hyde of Illinois - tried in 1999 to impose a 72-hour criminal background check at gun shows, it was Dingell who cried fowl, er, foul.
The Democrat not only argued that 24 hours was sufficient time to sniff out a criminal, he enlisted other leading Democratic congressmen - Robert E. "Bud" Cramer of Alabama, Charles W. Stenholm of Texas, Chris John of Louisiana, James L. Oberstar of Minnesota and John Tanner of Tennessee - to sign a letter stating that the three-day waiting period proposed by the Republican violated law-abiding citizens' "Second Amendment Rights."
It so happened that toward the end of President Clinton's second term, Dingell had almost single-handedly killed whatever chances Clinton and his own Democratic Party had at passing broader gun control. That came as no surprise to Clinton.
After all, it was a bitterly cold morning in 1993, shortly after arriving in Washington from Arkansas, that two Democrats handed Clinton a hunting license, earplugs and a semiautomatic shotgun and took him duck hunting on Maryland's Slaughter Creek. One was Rep. Bill Brewster of Oklahoma, who after leaving Congress became a NRA board member. The other was Dingell.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20020215.shtml
I agree with you, Bill.
You'll see Minnesotans with frozen lutefisk tucked in their pants before they'll shove handguns down there!
Revenge of the Gun Haters
Politics and public opinion may have turned against the anti-gun lobby, but their burning hatred for guns and gun owners hasn't cooled. Laws passed during the anti-gun witch hunts of the 1990s
provide them with a satisfying way to take punitive action against harmless gun owners.
For the most part yes, but they are trying to erode the right away a little at a time. Politicians learned from prohibition. If you out right outlaw something people will noticeand rebel. If you take it away a little at a time, people are less apt to notice and become more complaisant. Look at the articles sited in the article. These people had their guns rights and guns taken away over MISDEMENORS. That is NOT right.
Interesting Question Regarding the Democratic Party and Gun Control.
I have read several articles lately regarding how the Democratic party is trying to reshape their image on gun control. A lot of the Democrats in the "RED" areas of the US are frustrated that the Democrat leadership seems to be representing the "BLUE" areas as it relates go gun control. There seems to be a push to localize rather than nationalize the gun control positions of Democrats.
Related to this however, is the fact that the gun control organizations have also stated that they would like to start pushing more gun control at the local level, as gun control is not resonating to their satisfaction at the national level. Handgun Control Inc. even changed their name to the Brady Center for the Prevention Gun Violence (I think that is the new name, my apologies if I got it slightly wrong). Was this an effort to get the word "Control" out of their title? Spceulation was that Gore got beat in several "pro Democrat states" that would have voted for him if not for his stance on gun control. These states would have made Florida a non factor.
It seems the focus is now going to center on hunters and sportsmen/sportswomen. The Democrats are convinced that these voting groups are worried that Democrats want their guns too, and have been voting against the Democrats. So the new message/focus will be, "Hey Sportspeople and Hunters, we are not going to take your guns, so feel free to vote for Democrats".
I think this was started way back when President Clinton, who is the most pro gun control president the US has had, decided to go duck hunting to reassure the hunters and sportsmen that he was not targeting them, pardon the pun.
I am not sure this really worked, but the Democrats seem to believe it can still work, maybe more focused at the local level.
The problem I see is that a lot of gun owners believe that the Second Amendment means more than just hunting and sports. It is all about individual responsibility and defense of our families, friends and society in general. In addition, while Democrats push this new mantra of being for hunters and sportspeople, the environmentalists, the anti hunters, and the animal rights people tend to heavily vote for democrats, even though Ralph Nadar managed to siphon away some of their votes in the last presidential election. I see a mixed message here, which the Democrats seem to be missing.
I guess it remains to be seen how this will play out. And don't get me wrong. There are plenty of Republicans who favor stricter gun control, especially the Northeast and California Republicans. I have no love for those folks. I just don't see the Republican Party on a national level pushing gun control like the Democratic Party does. Some Republicans still want to push the US down the slippery slope, just not as fast as some Democrats do.
Exactly!
Are you saying your part of a militia Bill? =P
LOL!
I Agree, the morning radio guy here said "so long Dennis Miller, you jackass!"
It is still my opinion that Bill Clinton was the most pro gun control president that we have had so far. That is based upon the bills which he is on record as supporting, plus his own public references to his stance on controlling firearms, closing the so called gun show loophole, registration and licensing of handguns, etc.
I don't think this is necessarily true in some areas like New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, California, and maybe a few other places. This statement also seems a little condescending. Just because people like to own firearms why do you say that they need to form little militias, and play soldier on weekends? Is that the view you have of gunowners, even though you claim to be one? California has banned "assault weapons" as has New Jersey and New York (city and state). Washington DC and Chicago have bans on handguns.
So what you are saying is that people can still have the guns that you think are OK. You cannot say that no guns have been banned or confiscated, and be truthful.
More U.S. Children Die Where Guns Are Common-Study
BOSTON - Children are much more likely to be murdered, commit suicide or die accidentally because of guns in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, according to a new study by Harvard researchers.
The study, published in The Journal of Trauma, is significant because it shows that the mere presence of firearms leads to more violent death among children aged 5-14, said Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author.
"When most people buy a gun, they do so with the presumption that guns make them safer," Miller said in an interview. "Our results suggest strongly that this presumption is not warranted and that the children that parents seek to protect with guns are instead being killed by guns."
While other studies have shown links between teen suicide and guns, this is the first national study to examine the connection between firearm ownership and violent death among younger children, said Miller, associate director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center.
The study looked at data from all 50 states from 1988 to 1997. In that period, 6,817 children between 5 and 14 years old died from firearms: 3,447 from homicides, 1,782 from accidental shootings and 1,588 from suicide.
The study showed that the five states with the highest gun ownership levels had many more firearm-related deaths among children than the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership.
The two groups of states had almost the same number of children, but in the high gun-ownership states there were 253 accidental firearm deaths compared to just 15 in the low gun-ownership states.
There were 153 firearm suicides in the high gun-ownership states compared to 22 in the low-ownership states and there were 298 firearm murders in the high gun-ownership states compared to 86 in the low- ownership states.
Meanwhile, the rates of non firearm-related suicides and murders in the two groups of states were much closer, leading Miller to conclude the increase in deaths was attributable to the higher number of firearm- related deaths.
"The large difference in gun-related deaths compared with the low level of difference in non-firearm deaths allows us to say that guns are playing some role," Miller said.
The difference remains even when the data is controlled for poverty, education and urbanization, the study found.
"Although no conclusions about cause and effect can be made, this study provides compelling evidence that states with high firearm availability are states with high childhood firearm death rates," Dr. Therese Richmond of the University of Pennsylvania's Firearm Injury Center wrote in an editorial.
The five states with the highest rates of gun ownership are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia. The five with the lowest are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.
--Reuters
The five states with the highest rates of gun ownership are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia.
Is it me or is it obvious just from this list of states that it might be something other than gun ownership that is the problem?
The study looked at data from all 50 states from 1988 to 1997. In that period, 6,817 children between 5 and 14 years old died from firearms.
How many died in that same period from falling off their bicycles? Choking on toys? Drowning in pools? Riding in cars with their parents?
<
<Is it me or is it obvious just from this list of states that it might be something other than gun ownership that is the problem?>>
Whatdja have in mind, J.T.?
<
<Although no conclusions about cause and effect can be made>>
Good. Stop right there.
God bless Sarah Brady.
And the Million Mom movement.
God bless all those thoughful Americans with the sense and sensibility to realize that if our society were suddenly flooded with a massive increase of handguns -- carried in public under a propagandized paranoia that there are certain fellow citizens we'd have a hair-trigger expectation of being "criminals" (in a thoroughly demonized way that clearly entails an implicit racist component) -- that the essence of enlightened civilization would be irrevocably lost.
And that deaths and injuries from accidents of various kinds would almost certainly more than compensate for any potential, diminished loss of life resulting from "reduced crime", for which there is NO proof concealed-carry has actually or chiefly caused, as opposed to other factors, such as an improved economy during the years when statistics were gathered, more and better policing, or the fact that the Brady Law has definitely succeeded in weeding out so many would-be criminals, and the unstable.
God bless the peace makers, not the piece carriers...
If you don't hit the burglar or rapist with the first shot, you probably won't get another chance.
Excellent point. A gun will do you no good whatsoever if you don't know how to use it.
I think, in the articles I've seen about the number of crimes that were deterred by guns, that a large percentage were because the potential victim simply brandished a gun without shooting it.
As Muskwa points out above, many times brandishing is enough, after that usually in your house it would be at close range. Also most people if they do keep a weapon in the house it is a semi auto, or should be. Black powder rifles are not advisable. The other (better in my opinion) option of course is a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. At close range it's very hard to miss. Also is the very distinct and intimidating sound when the first shell is jacked in. Personally I think if you are going to do so you should have some training for your own benefit. Again if they don't know how to use it and are killed or injured with their own weapon then that was their choice to do so without training. Again, it comes down to their personal choice.
Black powder rifles are not advisable.
Why?
LOL!
The other (better in my opinion) option of course is a 12 gauge.........
Make it a pump. Just about every criminal will know what that sound is when you pump a shell into the chamber. If they don't.........too stupid to live.
Just remember when he enters the house and you are forced to fire, PLEASE REMEMBER TO EMPTY THE CLIP ON HIM! If you shoot him and he lives, he sues. Make sure he doesn't live, dead people don't sue!
P.S. It is, however, your responsibility to call for an ambulance (coroner) after you put 14 rounds from your Browning through his skull. It's the law!
unfortunately, the relatives of dead people can sue. i don't know how far they typically get though. of course i'm of the mindset that the simple way around this is to put signs on all your windows and doors stating that anyone entering the premises expressly consents to being shot. that way when they sue, you can point to the warning they were given.
P.S. It is, however, your responsibility to call for an ambulance (coroner) after you put 14 rounds from your Browning through his skull. It's the law!
lmao! my brother's theory is that in order to ensure that the right to defend your home from intruders is responsibly handled, there should be a 500 dollar per body charge.
A lets-be-careful-with-those-guns joe!
It is unfortunate
but you are quite right when you say to kill intruders and not merely wound. When these cases come up in court, the issue = was the homeowner protecting persons? or merely property? If you can show that you were defending persons then you are home free but if only preventing burgulars from making off with your goods then you are up the creek without a paddle. Be sure to entice the burgular to a position where he/she could gain access to your, presumably sleeping, family and then shoot him. The hallway or stairway leading to the bedrooms is the best place for his/her demise.
A double (I prefer a side by side)shotgun loaded with solids is best but even a gold club, sword, or polo mallet (short stick) will work and can be positioned for immediate access without inviting adverse comments.
I prefer not getting too close to the guy.
hmmm. a sword. i like it, but isn't that a bit messy, kit?
i was just thinking messy as in terms of head removal, which would guarantee death.
Kit,
You have put way too much thought into that :>)
Ares,
Yes but then you run the risk of having the attacker say........Tis a fleshwound, I've had worse.
if i removed the attacker's head, and it said "tis a fleshwound i've had worse", i'd have worse problems than the bloody mess to clean up. :)
Yes you would Sir Knight !
No, you'd have performed a medical miracle and make lots of money.