QUIZ:
What do Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer have in common -- other than hypocrisy, the Dem wing of the Party, an uncontrolled inner fascist, and being haters?:-)

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


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

Yours in mirth,
Issodhos

It's fairly easy to obtain a CCW in Arizona. You have to have a clean record, no history of mental illness, etc., take a licensed CCW course lasting usually two days, one day at the range. Arizona is gun friendly and it isn't all that uncommon to see people with sidearms in public. Often during the week commute into Phoenix I see the same guy on BMW motorcycle with a semi-auto strapped to his leg. There's no law against it as long as he isn't a criminal.

I'd like to live in a nation without guns, but that is not a choice in America. The bad guys most certainly have them and they are willing to use them to get what they want. The chances that the police will be present when you need to be defended against bad guys with guns is nil.

Two faced politicos like Feinstein are part of the problem. Their apparent attitude is that they are more important and more qualified to carry than everyone else.

I don't really disagree with the premise of hypocrisy, Issodhos, but I think your choice of title is misleading to non conservatives who don't think every consideration of gun control is freakishly anti American. The anti gun control issue is very much like the anti abortion "thingie". Common sense flies out the window, chests bow up and conservatives begin to strut about chanting constitutional mantras while sensible folks just roll their eyes and back away. We have in other places discussed powerful lobbies and their control over American lawmakers, most of us are in agreement that certain of these lobbies issue undue pressure and line the pockets of some politicians. The NRA is one of the most interesting of these and even publishes lists for its members to carry to the polls so they can vote by rote the wishes of the gun lobby. As your title states there really are a few "Gun Control Freaks" but I don't imagine you will find any of those carrying concealed(powder actuated projectile) weapons. I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of one of those little pepper gas doodads but after an accidental discharge of one and the unfortunate proximity of a fan I once received a small shot of that stuff in my face. Suffice to say that if I was a bad guy all thoughts robbery, rape, murder or otherwise violent crime would be the farthest thing from my mind as I was in incredible pain, blind and as helpless as a kitten. The range is short but if you need to shoot anyone from a distance you probably shouldn't be shooting at them. Anyway, as I stated above, Conservatives tend to go completely over the top about gun control, let me state clearly as I have on many occasions:
Democrats do not want to take away all of your Guns
There are a very few radical lefties who actually do but they are in such a minority as to be inconsequential. I imagine that if you found this article and published it here then hundreds of others found it and published it to Right Wingnut Websites and will hold it up as evidence that Democrats are anti constitutional weirdos and enemies to the state. There is no more sense in arguing against them than in trying to tell the anti abortion crowd that it's perfectly okay to rip living breathing babies from the wombs of their mothers and flush them down the toilet. Let me say it again if you have already forgotten: Democrats don't want to take your guns away.
They are simply more amenable to the consideration of laws that might in some small way prevent the accidental use of weapons and the ill considered use of weapons in some situations because they are not controlled and influenced by the Gun Lobby.

Well said, Greger.

I don't have a gun. Don't feel the need. When I lived in Miami, my then-husband collected old historic type black powder guns, and we would go shooting sometimes with the boys. I also had a gun for protection at the house, and I did pull it out once when some guys were hanging around the front yard yelling and generally misbehaving. I didn't shoot them, but threatened to, and they left.

I know people who have been shot by guns and two who were killed by guns. It isn't romantic and I don't want any part of it. I do feel bad that some people live in spaces and places where they feel the need to have them.

EmmaG

Apparent? Apparent? Good one, Slipped.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

And, I think that most of us agree that we do not want to prevent such people from making the choices the feel are appropriate for their lives and situations.

When I lived in St. Augustine I traveled to Miami about 3 times a month. I was there often. One Friday morning at the Omni Hotel on Brickell at 8.30 AM on the convention level of the hotel in the Men's bathroom I came within minutes of being jacked up by 3 street thugs. I was wearing a suit. I had stepped into the bathroom to comb my hair before giving a keynote presentation. The punks surrounded me in the bathroom and started chanting "Fight the power". The only weapon I had was a comb. Just a moment before it was about to become ugly a cop walked in and said, "Is there a problem?"

"Not now."

The cop walled the three punks "in the position" and told me to leave and inform another cop in the conference lobby to come to the bathroom. I did.

Later that morning I saw the cop who had come into the bathroom earlier and asked him, WTF? I mean, 8.30 AM on a Friday morning, on the convention level of a hotel one doesn't expect to be assaulted by street pukes. He said, "It's Miami, it happens more than people think." Then he asked me how often I was in Miami and asked why I didn't have a CCW. I returned home and signed up for the class in Jacksonville and carried whenever I was in South Florida, Orlando and Tampa.

Even in the bathroom situation I would not have pulled the weapon until I had been hit and then only if it looked as if the situation was going to become worse. Only under the gravest of circumstances should you ever pull a gun and when you do you must already have made the decision to pull the trigger. Never should you use a weapon as a threat. You must determine that you are in grave danger of severe bodily harm AND that there is no reasonable means of egress. Owning and/or carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility. Nor, I should add, is it a comfortable responsibility.

The overwhelming evidence is that even though there are more privately owned firearms in America than in most any other country in the world, the chances that a privately owned gun will successfully and appropriately defend you against bad guys is also nil.

For that reason I totally disagree with Sen. Feinstein's stated reason for carrying a concealed weapon, just as I disagree with anyone else who puts forth the same argument. I subscribe to the notion that the Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms has nothing whatsoever to do with defending oneself against one's fellow citizens, and that that is exactly the way it should be. It is utter folly IMHO to suggest that the citizenry should arm itself with deadly weapons with the intention of preventing or interrupting the commission of a crime by shooting the perpetrator.

Actually Greger, I think my choice of title is spot on. It is directed at two specific gun control Pols and it is a raspberry at those who refer to owners of a firearm or firearms as being "gun nuts" or worse. It is mild compared to the title of a Reader Rant thread directed at gun owners for the killings at Virginia Tech ("Are Gun Nuts Accessories to Murder?").

I will also point out that I did not make any reference to these two pols as being anti-American (though I guess a case could easily be made for it, but then that could be applied to most pols in Washington). I also did not direct my comments at all Democrats or even Democrats in general (a number of whom actually vote in support of gun ownership when that right is attacked by the nefarious nabobs of negativism (tip of the hat to corrupt Maryland pol (but that is redundent, isn't it)and V.P. Agnew. I was listing a few commonalities between the two pols and being a Democrat was one of them. I do understand how that may have been misconstrued as meaning I was referring to all members of the Dem wing of the Party. My apologies for my lack of clarity in that regard.

Note also that I did not say anything about Dems taking guns away. I used the phrase "Gun control", something you apparently lacked in your confrontation with your fan (I assume you mean the kind that circulates wind, and not an admirer:-)). But spare me the pretense that much of what is pushed under the guise of "gun control" does not involve defacto banning through severe restriction and outright banning of some types of firearms. As long as there are organizations that seek to reduce the Right to gunownership or use of firearms by lawful citizens, and pols to pander to them, any claptrap about "sensible" and the clammy "lets be reasonable" whine will be seen as a red flag identifying those who do indeed seek to take away the right to the private ownership and use of firearms. As to "sensible" gun laws, they are already on the books.

Oh, and in case you have forgotten? No one will be taking our right to the private ownership and use of firearms away.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Feinstein and Schumer are hypocrites and do consider themselves to be more equal than the rest of the animals on the farm. It is a gun control freak kind of thingie.:-)

Opinion? Or will you produce a source?

Yes, Mick. I think a reasonably logical conclusion, based on the following observations:

• Whenever a privately owned gun does successfully and appropriately defend someone against bad guys, it immediately becomes a national news item
• Such news items come along once every few weeks
• People are assaulted by bad guys hundreds of times every day

You do the math.

So its opinion, then. A few problems here, stereoman. With your first opinion, it does not seem to take into account those times when the mere presence of a firearm deters a "bad guy", the type of thing that would not beome "national news", and surely happens more often than any actual use of a firearm - i mean based on mathematical probability.

As to the hundreds of folks you say are assaulted everyday, are these hundreds of folks armed? Are most of them armed? Or are most of them actually without a firearm? That would be important to note if it is to support your argument.

I think a professor from Maryland University name of John Lott may have done a study on guns in society and their defensive usage. If I find a link to his work I'll post it.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

What math, Stereo? I can't do the math of your opinion, my friend. I don't know that "whenever a privately owned gun does successfully and appropriately defend someone against bad guys, it immediately becomes a national news item". That too is an opinion unless you have sources you'd like to cite for that statement.

Here you go, Isso.

There be a whoooole lot o dat hypo-critterin' goin' 'round!

This is the same Carl Rowan who, on 14 June 1988, shot and wounded a young man who was trespassing at his WDC home. The gun was not legally registered, and Rowan changed his story several times about how he had obtained the gun and why it did not need to be registered. He was tried on the charge, but the jury hung and there was no retrial. Interviewed later on a national news show, Rowan defended his anti-gun stance but coceded his hypocrisy.

[/s][/quote]

We know of course that an person with inherent bias can easily manipulate data... either consciously or not. So it would be interesting to see some confirmational studies. I am not aware of any. Beyond that, there is at least some point in trying to find other markers for the person to evaluate his reliability.

So.... a rather long wikipedia article reports that there is controversy as to whether he did the study at all


More over, it was later discovered that Lott created a false identity and used that identity to post favorable reviews of his book saying that he was his "favorite professor"


Further, it not an article Lott wrote in spring 2008 claiming that reports of a recession were primarily driven by hysterical media bias.

link

And here is a rather long article in Mother Jones that covers review of Lott's work link

Some of the points made in the article include that---
Lott's research relies on extremely complicated statistical analysis... that is inherently difficult to check... and which analysis can easily be through off be any minor oversight. And, in fact when one broadens the time range of statistics. then the proposed relationships entirely disappear. And, there appears to be yet additional evidence that Lott selectively manipulates his analysis in order to maintain his conclusion in the face of errors that have been identified in his original work.

Over all, based upon my reading, there is not strong evidence to prove that absence or presence of gun laws have a clear impact on gun related crime. Although it also stands to reason that if one essentially eliminates public gun ownership... criminals could not use guns to committ crimes. But, of course, our national situation would make it near impossible to remove enough guns to guarantee this result.

Probably not "near impossible". Just impossible.

On the other hand, it would be entirely possible (and rather easy) to have an excise tax of say $1000 per bullet for pistol rounds. There could be a tax exemption for any bullet purchased and then fired at a firing range, so legitimate users could become proficient.

This would be like the Swiss militia system: Everybody has a machine gun in their home, but it is kept under stout lock and key. And God help you if any of your issued ammo is missing.

You're right, that's an opinion too. It's based on the observation that the NRA and its minions have a strong vested interest in demonstrating that there is a causative connection between gun ownership and personal safety, and that organizations that have powerful lobbies, lots of money, and a membership that is obsessive about their special interest - like the NRA - get lots of attention from the media. Hardly any lobby is strong than the gun lobby, and those that are similarly inundate the media with news items that would be judged utterly non-newsworthy if not for the strength of the lobby.

It's based on an inference from the stories that I do hear about firearms being used to successfully foil a crime (unlike the case mentioned above, where a trespasser was shot and wounded, and the shooter is the one who ended up on trial). The success stories I hear involve crimes that are commonplace, crimes that would normally elicit barely a mention on the local news, let alone national notoriety. From which I infer the power of media manipulation described in my previous paragraph.

So the assumption I make is that every time a crime is successfully foiled by a firearm, it becomes a news item, just as every time a rocket is fired from the Occupied Territories into Israel, we hear about it, or every time a nativity scene is prohibited on public property.

I am unmoved by anecdotes that attempt to substitute for, or even dispel, sound statistical data. That's what these kind of stories are. When I hear that someone, especially a public figure, justifies carrying a concealed weapon because it will enable them to "take someone out if they try to take me out", big red flags go up in my mind. Where did this person get the idea that there is even a remote possibility of doing so successfully?

Wait. I think I know the answer.

*Laughs* Is that true, Pondering? If it is it's pretty hilarious. I honestly don't have any problem with anybody owning any sort of gun they want. Up to and including weaponry that must be towed behind a truck. I also have no problem with those weapons being registered and their sales monitored. It's still fun to mention gun control now and again just to watch the conservatives get excited. Conservatives are the ones whose odd paranoia keep this argument rolling. Under this heading there are only four threads, two started by Issodhos and two by Lone Hawk. Neither are bastions of liberal solidarity. If we could look deeper into our history I suspect you would find this trend to be near 100%. A lot of pointing fingers and jumping up and down. For What? We have a Constitutional guarantee that we will always be able to bear arms. In this case a matter of hypocrisy is the topic. Are there no hypocritical Conservative politicians? Were there no hypocrites among the founders and framers of the constitution? Jefferson comes to mind....have no anti abortionists had abortions? In my mind and as Steve states above this is largely an issue created by the gun lobby and the NRA, the torch picked up and carried by easily manipulated country folk who fear their government wants to take away their guns. As illustrated above they will even fabricate evidence to prove that this straw man exists and is a danger to our Republic. If you feel safer carrying a weapon by all means carry one, just don't get all excited that others don't feel the same need. The gun lobby does not exist to protect your freedom, the constitution already does that, the gun lobby exists to sell guns and increase the profits of its corporate sponsors.

Here's my perspective and it is similar to my argument against the Patriot Acts. People who support the Patriot Acts often claim that "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear when the government collects information." Same, same with tighten gun control laws - it depends on who is enforcing the laws and for what reasons. Same laws different administration everything can change. It's no different than the Patriot Act.

It is the same with requiring a national ID. The government can assure you to hell and back that they will never use the national ID for anything other than making certain citizens are legal citizens. No one buys that horsesh!t.

I am not for giving the damned government any more power than it has. I'd like it to have a lot less power. I'm a huge supporter of states rights. If you want to own guns and carry a gun change your state law or move to a more favorable state. If you want two wives and to be told twice as often to put the seat down in the bathroom move to Utah. I have no problem with it. I DO have a problem with increased federal power over damn near all aspects of existence. Experience tells me - and should be obvious to any reasonable person - that the federal government does NOT return power to the people. Once power is given to the federal government it will be abused.

Mick what makes you think the federal government is going to ask you for the power it takes? I think George Bush pretty much proved that whatever power the President and Congress might choose to take is totally out of the peoples hands. There was a lot of talk about whether the President would find some way to declare Martial Law and remain in power, fortunately for us the job sucks so bad even on it's best days that nobody wants it for more than eight years.
He managed to piss off enough folks along the way though that the Republican Wing of The Party got itself removed from power.
A certain amount "power" was thus returned to the people.

Let me pose a question: What do you think the Founders had in mind when they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment after the first? Was it so sportsmen could shoot skeet? Or for hunters? I think it was so we would have a method to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, in the event the first amendment failed. Don't dare say that there is no way we could fight the US Army. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. These people managed to fight the US military to a standstill, despite our vaunted technological superiority. I understand AG Holder has argued before the Supreme Court that no one has the right to own firearms, just the police and military. Rahm Immanuel(sp?) has said the same thing. I will never give up my guns. I'll die in a hail of gunfire first. Recall that the Nazis disarmed the civilian populace. So did the Soviets. The biggest threat to any would be dictator(Democrat or Republican) is an armed populace. Once the populace is disarmed, it's over. I hope this never happens, but I fully expect to not see old age because we keep electing the same crop of people to office. It doesn't matter what party they belong to, they are the same. The only difference is the rhetoric they use to keep the various sheeple happy. Dems have there sheeple and Repubs have theirs. Both groups keep voting against there own best interests, and expecting a different result each time. I have a feeling the second amendment is going to be major issue in the next few years. I'm not alone, since gun and ammo sales have skyrocketed in the last six months and show few signs of slowing down. Wonder what that means,huh?

No kidding, really?

Source please. Anyone. That's amazing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4831751.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507

Why would this be so hard to believe?

Here is Lou Dobbs, a mainstream news anchor

I've been that afraid before.
I'm not going to do that anymore.
That meaning I may die in a hail of gunfire. I may be raped or otherwise brutalized.
So be it. I will protect myself and my family with all my might but usually circumstances don't dictate time to make really good decisions. You know?
Once I woke up to the sound of breaking glass in my little condominium. I jerked up and ran to the depth of my closet and grabbed a baseball bat. I ran downstairs to find my back door broken into and the perpetrator ran off when he saw me.
Y'all have your guns.
I won't lobby to take them away from you. Frankly I'm not sure whether you have the right to have them or not.
I'm too stupid to understand what the original writers wanted/thought was good (I think all that is outdated anyway)

So what will you do, then, if you find ourselves under the bootheel of a tyrant? Just get along as best you can and hope the polizei don't kill you? Or do you want to live in a dictatorship? Excuse me, an "enlightend dictatorship". I guess I'm just "outdated" for wanting my liberty. This is more than just having a shotgun for skeet, or hunting. Or even defending yourself from some punk. This is about being able to throw off the yoke of an oppressor, even if that oppressor is your own government. Especially your own government. The Founders were traitors to the Crown after all. Hope it never has to come to that, but I have this sick feeling that it will. And a lot of folks are stockpiling, it seems, with guns and ammo being backordered. Maybe, getting ready for a fight.

Allen, I don't see armed resistance as a solution to America's fascist leaning. It's not workable and Afghanistan is not a comparable example of armed resistance. We must use the system to change the system. Frankly the idea is preposterous.

I'll join Emma and Olyve on this one and go gunless...just as I have all my life. Which includes plenty of walking alone to the subways/trains at night in NYC. Interesting that, at least on this thread, the women will take their chances, while most of the men seem to need the protection of a gun.

Count me as one of the men who isn't most of the men.

Yours, gunlessly,

So we must work with the system to change the system? Just like what we did during the American Revolution? Oh wait....

Please explain how Afghanistan is not a comparable example of armed resistance and why is the idea preposterous?

Suppose the system will not respond to our changing it? Suppose the system simply doesn't work anymore?

And why does everyone think that having a gun always assume that it's only about defending yourdelf from some puke with a switchblade and not having our government fear us? Clearly they do, otherwise they would not try and disarm the civilian populace.

I guess the whole American Revolution was preposterous and unworkable. My bad. Ol' Jefferson and crew should have worked with King George to get what they wanted.

The threat of an armed populace is really the only thing that prevents absolutism. You can go on and on about how we have a democratic form of government and how it can't happen here, but really, all that has to be backed up with the threat of shooting the bums out if they get out of control.

LOL@Naomi. Sometimes it starts sounding a little...ridiculous.

I have a cousin who has six children. He moved the bunch of them away from town. They stockpile food and God knows what else. The children are terrified of everything. He spends a lot of time talking about guns and helicopters and being ready to fight the government.

Primarily, Allen, because your sources do not support your assertion, that's why. Just a reminder of your claim:

Now your sources:
Is there any way you could be equating an effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban with arguing before the Supreme Court that no one has the right to own firearms? Because that's sure what it seems like here. You may believe that if you like, but good luck convincing anyone else of it.

As for worldnetdaily, well, the source speaks for itself. On this board you may as well cite Walt Disney. Notwithstanding that, the article indicates its source is an editorial opinion written by a gun advocate, not a news source.

Show me a news source that quotes AG Holder as saying "no one has the right to own firearms", as you initially claimed to have "understood". Or else, I advise you to reassess your understanding.

Please refer back to the opening comment on the thread, Allen. It's not what "everyone thinks". It's what the thread is about.

Yeah, I know!! Crazy talk! Our government would never do anything bad to anybody! They are all benevolent angels, dont'cha know they know what's best for everybody? Hopefully, we will never have to fight another revolution. It would be tragic, but I don't want to have the ability to fight taken from me. Sometimes, working within the system won't work. It was tried before. The colonies tried to appeal to King George and parliament, but the system failed them. So they had to fight. I want to be clear, armed resistance should be the LAST resort. But we should have access to that if it comes to it. I think simply the people having the ability to resist is enough.

Here is a good blog post regarding the MIAC report:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/03/that-miac-report-on-militias-background.html

I guess what Lou Dobbs reported on didn't phase you at all. Did you read the entire worldnetdaily article? About midway through, it mentions AG Holder opining before the Supreme Court that no-one has a right to own a funtioning firearm.

I suspect no matter what source I refer to, it will be dismissed out of hand. So many people were sick of the GOP and what it did for the last 8 years, that Pres. Obama and crew will be seen as our saviours. Which means we can't be critical. Just like no-one was allowed to be critical of the last crowd of crooks to occupy the white house. Only this time, it's the other side that cries foul. Funny. Too funny.

What do you have against Walt Disney?

This is the same Carl Rowan who, on 14 June 1988, shot and wounded a young man who was trespassing at his WDC home. The gun was not legally registered, and Rowan changed his story several times about how he had obtained the gun and why it did not need to be registered. He was tried on the charge, but the jury hung and there was no retrial. Interviewed later on a national news show, Rowan defended his anti-gun stance but coceded his hypocrisy. [/quote]

Yes, indeed, Ron. He too was a major gun control freak hypocrite who was unable to control his inner fascist (as though any of them can). And, if I recall correctly, Rowen gunned down a white teenager who had been swimming in his pool. Well, okay, he didn't gun him down, he hit him in the wrist, but I thought I would -- oh whimsically -- use some typical gun control freak language.:-)
SOURCE:
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Fun to get back to the threads main focus, wot?;-)

As I remember it, that amendment disusses the need for gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia. It describes why a well regulated militia is deemed important. And the rationale discussed seems to have something to do with national defense.

My read on the bill of rights is that the founders were concerned about the implications of having a large standing army and felt that one way of avoiding those potential problems was to rely upon a well regulated militia.

In my reading of the constitution, I find no mention of boot heels nor of tyrants.

Yes, but do you really want to support a return to racist Jim Crow legislation, Pondering_it_all?
Yours,
Issodhos

Faulty logic, stereoman. As I posted earlier, "So its opinion, then. A few problems here, stereoman. With your first opinion, it does not seem to take into account those times when the mere presence of a firearm deters a "bad guy", the type of thing that would not beome "national news", and surely happens more often than any actual use of a firearm - i mean based on mathematical probability.

As to the hundreds of folks you say are assaulted everyday, are these hundreds of folks armed? Are most of them armed? Or are most of them actually without a firearm? That would be important to note if it is to support your argument.

I think a professor from Maryland University name of John Lott may have done a study on guns in society and their defensive usage. If I find a link to his work I'll post it.:-)"
Yours,
Issodhos

Iss...
follows is the link you reference, along with a discussion of the reliability of Mr. Lott


[/quote]

We know of course that a person with an inherent bias can easily manipulate data... either consciously or not. So it would be interesting to see some confirmational studies. I am not aware of any. Beyond that, there is at least some point in trying to find other markers for the person to evaluate his reliability.

So.... a rather long wikipedia article reports that there is controversy as to whether he did the study at all


More over, it was later discovered that Lott created a false identity and used that identity to post favorable reviews of his book saying that he was his "favorite professor"


Further, it not an article Lott wrote in spring 2008 claiming that reports of a recession were primarily driven by hysterical media bias.

link

And here is a rather long article in Mother Jones that covers review of Lott's work link

Some of the points made in the article include that---
Lott's research relies on extremely complicated statistical analysis... that is inherently difficult to check... and which analysis can easily be through off be any minor oversight. And, in fact when one broadens the time range of statistics. then the proposed relationships entirely disappear. And, there appears to be yet additional evidence that Lott selectively manipulates his analysis in order to maintain his conclusion in the face of errors that have been identified in his original work.

Over all, based upon my reading, there is not strong evidence to prove that absence or presence of gun laws have a clear impact on gun related crime. Although it also stands to reason that if one essentially eliminates public gun ownership... criminals could not use guns to committ crimes. But, of course, our national situation would make it near impossible to remove enough guns to guarantee this result.

Isso, I posted Lott's site on post #104658.

The other hole in Stereo's assumption is that he is aware of every act of self defense in which a gun is and is not used and knowing those numbers is able to determine which are reported and unreported.

As a side note I would add that statistics do tell us that gun owners with a CCW are a very law abiding group of citizens. Very few people with CCW permits have them revoked for any reason.

Almost Naomi, this thread was supposed to be about the hypocrisy of pols who are opposed to or seek to severely limit the right to the private ownership and use of firearms. It was not about guns used in defense. Those seeking to ban private gun ownership like to reduce firearms ownership to this false argument because they can then avoid the principled, moral, political, and philosophical argument in support of the right to the private ownership and use of firearms, and instead "debate" the effectiveness of guns as defense ad infinitum.

You will note that no one has suggested that anyone else should carry, own, or use a firearm if they do not wish to do so. The argument from those who oppose having an individual right taken from them is that you should be free to exercise your right to own and use a private firearm if you wish to do so.

So, was the sexist, cheap shot in your last sentence necessary?
Yours,
Issodhos

If I recall correctly, when he produced his study he was not a gun owner and had little interest in being one. So, how biased he was at the time, who can say? Bear in mind that I was going to provide stereoman with a link to Lott's work because he might be interested in it relative to the claims of logic stereoman made in a post regarding defensive use of handguns.

As to Lott having critics, well, that is hardly surprising. He also has supporters.
SOURCE:

As to the 2003 article by MotherJones? Puh_lese. MotherJones? John Lott is still at work in 2008.

I have no reason to think that because he has critics, it means his work is substantially flawed.
Yours,
Issodhos

That is also what I have read, Slipped (and does that ever upset the gunowner-hating crowd:-). And thanks for the link.
Yours,
Issodhos

Who is that crowd that hates gun owners?

It's an opinion piece, Allen. Find a primary source that shows what Holder "opined before the Supreme Court" and then we can discuss the credibility of worldnet's second-hand report of someone else's opinion.

No, it wouldn't be important. My argument is related to the statement by Rep. Pelosi in the opening post that she would prevent harm to her person by "taking out" an assailant. Such an action requires the actual use of a firearm, not its mere presence.

Please provide evidence that anyone involved in this discussion, or the national level discussion, "seeks to ban private gun ownership".

Perhaps you missed this citation from Yale Law School, or this one from the Journal of Legal Studies, or this one from the National Academy of Science?

Mother Jones does a heck of a lot better investigative reporting than world nut daily!

Does it? Can you provide any evidence that anyone involved in this discussion or any significant interest group in the discussion at the national level is a "gunowner-hating crowd"?

We just did that, Allen. The last 8 years. My owning a little hand gun or even a big 357magnum wouldn't have changed that.
Or even something Greger referred to that could be dragged from the back of my car.

I got a citation recently inches from my front door for not dragging my seat belt on quick enough. I always wear my seat belt(since I tried to eat a steering wheel more that 20 years ago) I just hadn't got it clicked on yet. I was incensed.
Should I have blown his brains out?
I just drove through parts of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. I don't know what's going on but the police presence was unbelievable in all three states. Blue lights everywhere. Look out everybody. I think states are trying to make some money.
God, I hate it. The atmosphere is terrible.
But I can't change that with a gun or an arsenal.

I know what you're saying Allen. Truly I do. It's why I vote third party and believe so much in trying to change the system.
That and my choices come from living with a gun toting paranoid man for many years early in my life.
And he was somebody to be frightened of.
No, I'll take my chances now.

I've got relatives like that too, Emma.

Yes Feinstein and Schumer are hypocrites.

The existence of critics does not itself invalidate his work. The points made by his critics certainly raises legitimate questions about that work.

Even without those questions, one would want some dgree of addidional studies that confirm his results. After all, what might YOU say if all the evidence for Global CLimate change rested upon one single study? Wouldn't you ask for supporting research?

If the single study on Global climate change came from a researcher who created an imaginary student to praise his own work... wouldn't you judge the researcher as questionable?

I was just having some fun with modern 'lib' speak, EmmaG. Referring to others as "haters" is popular with some modern 'libs' who use it against those who hold a political or social position contrary to theirs. To be more precise, I could have written, "and does it ever upset those who are intolerant and contemptuous of the lawful conduct of their neighbors, and wish to use the violence of the state to force them to conform to their will". Or I could have written, "and does it ever upset those who have a bigoted view of those persons who elect to exercise their right to the private ownership and use of firearms. But, I didn't.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Here's something for everyone to consider:

If you don't believe that the simple fact that someone might be armed is indeed a deterrent and if you'd never own a gun then I suggest you encourage others to do the same by doing the following:

Wear a shirt or a pin that says something to the effect that you do not support gun ownership and that you are not armed.

Place a sticker on you car window saying that the occupants do not support gun ownership and are not armed.

Place a sign in your window at home saying that you do not support gun ownership and that there are no guns in the house.

Would you do it? I damned sure wouldn't. I doubt anyone here would. I doubt anyone here will respond and admit that they wouldn't dare do it. The simple fact is that you could be armed is a deterrent. Everyone here knows that, whether you want to admit it or not.

It may be "related" in the same way a third cousin twice removed by marriage is "related", but that quickly fell away when you made general claims concerning the defensive use of firearms, stereoman.
Yours,
Issodhos

I'm impressed. You selected some sources that are critical of another prof's work. It would maybe be relevant if I were defending John Lott's work in this thread, or if I was using it to support an argument I was making, but i am not. But, it does make a good red herring.;-)

As to WND vs MotherJones, neither is a favorite of mine.
Yours,
Issodhos

Anyone advocating a prohibitive tax on ammunition that would result in only the wealthy few being able to use a firearm, are engaged in supporting a defacto ban of firearms, stereoman. I believe you have advocated that in this forum, as well a others. The recently overturned ban on private handgun usage and ownership by the District of Columbia was a gun ban for the vast majority of DC residents, so that was a concrete example not requiring a reliance on a "national level discussion". Chicago still has a handgun ban in effect. But, of course, we will not artificially restrict the conversation to an ill-defined "national level discussion". You can also do a google search if you wish to find organizations that support gun bans.
Yours,
Issodhos

I would be happy to have more studies confirm his findings, Ardy. I would also be happy to have other studies that would correct any inacurracies that may be in his work. In short, I prefer studies that are correct in their findings.
Yours,
Issodhos

*Laughs* Is that true, Pondering? [/quote]

Answering for him, no, it is not true.:-)


Was there a purpose to you making this false claim, Greger?
Yours,
Issodhos

Oh. I should have realized that you would create your own definition, since no generally accepted definition would fit. My bad.

Handguns are suddenly the only type of firearm?

So you brought up Lott's study as a red herring. Ah, good. Glad to have that out of the way.

It may be much more closely related, but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. Nor do I expect you to actually respond to the arguments I raise. No one is required to do that on this board. They stand as offered.

Sometimes reality intrudes.;-)



I said I would try to find a link to his work for you to look over. I did not use him in support of an argument. You expanded it into a red herring. I simply pointed it out.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Oh I do believe that someone who is armed is a deterrent.
I just can't abide by that philosophy of being afraid and looking.

NO!
I wouldn't wear a statement like that on my t shirt or sticker on my car.
Crikey, although I agree most gun owners are nice
there are gun owner nuts out there who would definitely react to my 'activism' by advertising that I don't particularly like guns or think them helpful in my life.

One wonders if there is any potential middle ground between being absolutely opposed to any gun ownership at any time by any citizen at any time ever..... and the position that any regulation of any sort that impacts gun ownership and sales in any way is the fatal first step on the slippery slope to the absolute and universal abolition of all gun ownership.

It occurs to me that many businesses now have decals on their doors indicating that firearms are not welcome there.

I wonder if anyone has studied data on crimes committed in such businesses, compared to the norm.

A similar question could be posed in regards to alcoholic beverages.

The states and the Fed have laws on the books now that restrict the right to the private ownership and use of firearms. The current goal of anti-gunowner organizations is to put more laws on the books restricting the right to the private ownership and use of firearms.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

It would be interesting to see. At the same time I'd like to know if any store owners have signs saying "No Guns Allowed" followed by "The Owner and Employees of this store are not armed" and see what the data would be on such businesses.

Announcing that guns are not permitted and announcing that a person is unarmed, or that a vehicle, residence or a place of business is not protected by firearms are two entirely different things.

If a tweaking meth freak decides he's going to rob a dry cleaner or a bowling alley or a gas station or a sandwich shop does anyone seriously think that meth freak is going to honor the "no guns allowed" signs? Oh, hey'll no!!!!

How many gun owners with a CCW have committed gun crimes anywhere? Damned few. So a gun owner who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon carrying legally in a store is statistically no threat to anyone in the store or to the business itself and may in fact be a deterrent, while people intent on breaking the law while in possession of a firearm don't give a damn about "no guns allowed" signs.

What person however would put up signs saying "I am not armed", "there are no guns in this house", "there are no guns in this vehicle", "there are no guns in this business"? The answer of course is that no one would be so completely stupid as to do that.

No gun allowed signs are nothing more than a talisman, a modern day mojo to ward off the evil spirits. No gun signs in essence keep good guns out and let bad guns in. I'll have to check but I doubt guns were allowed on campus at Virginia Tech when students were massacred.


In Miami after Hurricane whatever, I get my hurricanes mixed up, parts of the city were wiped out. Homestead, just south of Miami was a disaster. Looters were going crazy. Police couldn't even begin to protect everyone. I was there. I saw a few houses or parts of houses with signs saying "You Loot, We Shoot." No where did I see a sign saying "This business is not protected by guns". I wonder why that was?

I would think that there is no crime (at least no crime involving a gun) in such businesses because no one would take a gun into an establishment that has prohibited such an action.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Is that in fact true? If a business establishment prohibits firearms on the premises, are the employees exempt?

There's a lot of truth in that. Similarly, a sign on the door stating that this establishment is insured my Smith and Wesson is not likely to be a deterrent either.

Not sure I follow your logic here. If the weapon is concealed, how can it be a deterrent?

No doubt there were no guns allowed at Columbine High School either. But we need to have a basis of comparison in order to draw a conclusion as to cause and effect - for example, the comparative rate of violent crime on college campuses where guns are prohibited versus college campuses where guns are not prohibited.

Perhaps it signifies the relationship between reliance on violence and the catastrophic breakdown of civilization.

This gun thing baffles me.

Am I correct to interpret the position of those who oppose regulation of guns to the effect that if citizens are allowed to have whatever guns they wish it will either have no effect on the rate of crime or will suppress it?

If the latter, is that because more criminals will be killed by law abiding citizens or because criminals will be less likely to commit crimes because they don't know who is loaded and who not?

Any factual backup for any position?

Probably would not be much of a sampling, because, if memory serves, it has been reported that the only two colleges that allow handguns (or is it firearms in general?) on campus are Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia and Brigham Young University in Utah.
Yours,
Issodhos

Which anti-gunowner organizations are you referring to?

Oh, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March organization, Violence Policy Cener, International Voice Against Gun Violence, etc.

If you wish, a quick google here turned up these, as well.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. You ain't referrin' to me spoofin' the "haters" by gratuitously using the term "anti-gunowners" air ya, Ardy?;-)

Iss
Thx for the link. I went there looking for anti gun owner organizations.... and found the following


I could be wrong, but they seem not at all anti gun owner.

Actually, they seem to be mostly concerned about things like gun violence, etc.

It may. Given the choice I'd love to live in a firearm free world and I'd settle for a firearm free country. That, unfortunately, is not an option for Americans. We cannot undo our history. America was founded by hard nosed survivalists, fighters and individualists. We come from warrior stock by and large. I'm not making a value judgement. It just is.

I couldn't say that they speak in concert, Ardy. In fact, some are fairly radical to my way of thinking.

If I am going camping in the wilderness or desert for a week (not sleeping in campgrounds) I'm taking a firearm. Wouldn't you? Would all the above organizations support my doing that?

A woman here in Arizona who worked for the state divorced her husband because he beat the living hell out her. After she got out of the hospital she got out of the house and the marriage. Her husband was arrested and posted bond, then he disappeared. He couldn't call her at home or on her cell because she changed her cell phone and she lived with people unknown to her husband. Suddenly he began calling her at work and threatening her. She saw him standing across the parking lot looking at her one day when she left work.

The woman was reported to have a well established job. She was essentially homeless while waiting for the divorce to be settled. She needed the job. Police did escort her to and from her car to her office. Once she left the office parking lot she was on her own.

The woman got a CCW and bought a semi-auto. The state would not permit her to carry the weapon on state property - even in her car. She couldn't park in the state parking lot. If she parked far enough away on a public street she couldn't be assured of a parking space and the police couldn't escort her.

In the newspaper article I read about her she was quoted as saying that she should never have asked for an exception from the state. She said, given the outcome she would have carried and just kept her mouth shut. I have to say that I don't know what position the above organizations would take. Can you tell me?

Wow, no kidding! Hmm. Well then, college campuses would make for a great example of what happens to violent crime when guns are banned, wouldn't they? Shall we compare the incidence of violent crime on college campuses to the incidence of violent crime among the general urban populations?

OMG! Slipped Mickey is anti-gun!!!

Just kidding. I mean, I understand where you're coming from - you've made it clear all along, and I think your position is shared by many gun owners. Although I believe someone earlier on (iss?) made the assertion that the whole "I'm carrying heat to protect myself from bad guys who carry heat" is a canard. Which I agreed with. That was, actually, the claim made by the two hypocrites in the opening post, remember?

I have no doubt that you would be loathe to use deadly force against anyone for any reason, and would not draw a firearm unless you felt certain there was no other alternative. I might do the same if I were in the same position and carrying. Which is one more reason why I would never carry.

Here's where we need to be looking at actual data. But remember, your original example was about a meth freak on a rampage, not about a criminal enterprise carefully planning a heist. That's what I was responding to.

Why would I care about such a comparison, stereoman? I have not made an arguement for or against firearms on campus.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Ah hah. So it was my spoofing the "haters" with the term "anti-gunowner". How prescient of me.;-)
Yours in a laid-back, easygoing, live and let live frame o' mind,
Issodhos

Yes, you are widely regarded as a person of many talents.
Yours in appreciation ;-)
Ardy

Mic,
I do not claim to be an expert on any of those organizations. But, just based upon what they SAY about the issues that concern them... I see no reason whey any of those organizations should be concerned about you being in the wilderness with a fire arm?

Also, I think there is a bit of a difference between an organization actively supporting your decision to have a fire arm in the wilderness, vs. trying to create impediments for that particular decision.

And while it may likely be true that some of the listed organizations might be radical in your way of thinking... that characterization does not seem applicable to the bulk of the organizations... and in that sense maybe we can agree that "some" people and organizations favor changes in gun regulations that you feel is radical... while many others do not. And most people who have opinions about this topic are not members of any of these organizations... and therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that most people who favor stronger gun regulations are not inherently radical in their opinions on this subject. Just as I would say that there are a lot of people who really like guns and their rights to own guns... without necessarily being radical about their opinions either.

I was going to reply comparing members of Congress to meth freaks, but then I realized one could easily compare Congress to a criminal enterprise as well. Nonetheless, I would agree that from what I understand about tweakers signs on the door of any sort are probably ignored.

OK. Perhaps someone else involved in the discussion would be interested. It wasn't a demand, just a suggestion for the curious of mind.

Oh wait a minute. That's not off topic at all!!!

-

Perhaps what is needed is a mammoth public and governmental effort to civilize Americans so that, among other things, they might become as responsible as Switzers in handling firearms.

Free tickets to symphony orchestras for everyone!

Proper etiquette taught in all public schools!

Ban all movies except European cinema!

-

No more generally laughing for the hell of it, grab assing, screwing off or having spontaneous fun. Oh, and we'd have to be punctual, which would be a real problem for Mick. Come to think of it no more laughing, grab assing, screwing off or having spontaneous fun would be a real problem for Mick. And we'd all have to sit on top of mountains and blow those long cough drop horns! Ehhhhh, I don't know. Might not be worth it.

But then there'd be great chocolate and also fondue. I'm not a fondue kinda guy and I can live without chocolate.

I'm down for banning everything but European cinema. That would my vote straight away. If I never see a teen movie, a sport team overcoming impossible odds movie, a couple who love each other but can't work it out but after time do movie, a Brat Pitt and/or Angela Jolie movie again it will be too soon.

That'll get ya shot in Switzerland.

Oh hail, no! We've just about been externally 'civilized' now to the point of devolving back down to the level of Eastern Civilization in general and the near dead culture of China in particular.;-)
Yours in protest,
Issodhos

I think that those who took a little trouble to study the "near dead culture of China" would discover it has produced some of the highest peaks of human achievement that have yet appeared on this sorry old planet.

I highly recommend the impressive studies of Joseph Needham and his associates: Science and Civilisation in China.

Science and Civilisation in China

When I ponder the (distant) relationship between Americans and civilization, I am reminded of the saying:

It takes patience to appreciate civilization; volatile spirits prefer unhappiness.

-

Well, I'll give them a tip of the hat for reportedly inventing gun powder, but relatively speaking, Chinese culture in particular and Eastern Civilization in general dropped the ball when it came to laying the foundations for raising the peasantry up from its abysmal status.

When I ponder the relationship between Chinese and civilization, I would say:

It takes stultifying conformity to cling to a stagnant near-dead culture; creative spirits prefer liberty and uncertainty.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

- [/quote]

If you look at the facts of history, you will find that Chinese peasants, in general, had a higher status and a better life than the slaves and serfs of the West, for more than two thousand years. Social mobility, in particular, was incomparably more advanced in China than in Rome or in the frozen, militaristic, feudal culture of Europe. The West only began to pull ahead in the 18th century; before that, it was the West that could be more aptly described as a "stagnant near-dead culture."

-

Varied though it may well be, I prefer the centuries of dynamic and enlightened change to the centuries of the East's despotism and dry rot. But then, Mass Man, in the end might well win out whether East or West, mightn't he?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Historically speaking you seem to be correct.... over history the human species has moved from family groups, to bands, to tribes to states to mega states. What ever one' ideological persuasion, the odds favor larger groups defeating smaller groups.

Well, then, you should prefer China's millennia of dynamic and enlightened change to the West's long history of brutality, obscurantism, despotism and dry rot.

The West's technological and social advances are very recent (and, apparently, very temporary), dating from the beginning of the 18th century: a few, paltry decades compared to the great sweep of world history. Until about 1700 more books had been published in China than in the entire history of the rest of the world.

The technological advances of the Western ancient world were scanty in the extreme: the screw, the crankshaft, a handful of others. Soap, apparently, was the only invention of the Germanic barbarians; how ironic that they used it so seldom for more than a thousand years!

This backwardness of the West probably arose from the brutal slave and serf culture of our ancestors. When you use human beings as machines, what need for inventiveness in real machines? The disdain for manual labor on the part of the ancient and feudal ruling classes also set them apart from the more advanced culture of China.

Three Chinese inventions were absolutely essential to creating the Western world as we know it: the moldboard plow, the horsecollar and stirrups.

Have you ever noticed that you never see a horse drawing a wagon in a properly done movie about Rome? The primitive harnesses which the Greeks and Romans used choked a horse and made it ineffective as a draft animal. The heavy soils of northern Europe could not be opened up with the crude plows of the Mediterranean region. That is why Rome did not conquer Germany, not from a lack of military prowess.

Why were there no effective mounted cavalry in Europe until after the time of Charlemagne? The stirrup had not yet reached the West from China. The medieval knight with his lance would have been swept off his horse by the shock of impact before the introduction of the stirrup. It is not too much to say that feudal society as we know it would have been impossible without the stirrup. On such small matters do great historical epochs sometimes hang.

Some people might think that it is impossible that Westerners could have been so dumb as not to invent such simple and basic things. Well, they were that dumb. Until very recently, Western peoples were astoundingly uninventive.

Here is a site that demonstrates the progressive nature of traditional Chinese civilization:

Chinese Inventions and Discoveries

-

-

Here is a reference for social mobility in traditional China:

Scholar-officials

Primogeniture was not practiced by the Chinese. The fortunes of the rich were generally quickly dispersed after a few generations. The social cycle was that a peasant family would produce an educated offspring who became a scholar-official by passing a competitive examination which was open to all. He would enable the family to become wealthy. Wealth was split up in each generation, and soon the family would be peasants again.

Moreover, the peasants were the second-highest class in traditional China, just below the scholar-officials. They ranked ahead of the artisans, and well ahead of the despised merchants and soldiers. How unlike the militaristic manias which afflicted and still afflict Western society!

I have always liked the old Chinese saying:

"You do not use good iron to make nails, nor do good men become soldiers"

-

"Primogeniture" - Holy smokes! I had to look that word up. Nice word, Numan. Me being a first born, I mighta, shoulda known what it meant.

Yes,they managed to make a few gadgets for farming and for becoming more efficient at killing for the master, buy they did not seem to be able to improve much on what they stumbled across. Unfortunate. They may have made something more of their sad selves instead of receeding into the dustbin of history. But, give them credit, they do make some dandy fireworks.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, it's the age old game, isn't it, numan? Get into government, work the skinny, and collect the moolah. Serve Master and get rewarded. Probably best for a stalled, even regressing pack of huminoids, wot.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Actually, I was referring to Jose Ortega y Gasset's "Mass Man", but, in the end he to will probably be the victor. Bummer.
Yours,
Issodhos

I think that you must not have looked at the links which I provided; how else could you be so confident in your contempt for Chinese civilization?

The long history of China has been outstandingly progressive, and is marked by great superiority in most of the accomplishments which are generally regarded as being the mark of civilization.

However, I will grant you that in recent centuries China has receded from its traditional high levels of superiority to the West.

And what was responsible for this decline? Well, it was the fault of Western "civilization"! though, unusually, in this case the evil was quite unintentional.

European exploration of the New World led to the discovery of many new and important foodstuffs. These were soon introduced to China. Maize, potatoes, sweet potatoes, beans, chilis and many more food plants led to an explosive rise in population in China. In 1500 the population of China was about 100 million, not much more than it had been for the previous thousand years. By 1700 the population had almost doubled, and by 1800 it had doubled again.

Apart from the misery and economic dislocation which too rapid a rise in population usually provokes, it also led to the situation which sinologists call the "high equilibrium trap." At a certain point, it becomes cheaper to employ super-abundant human labor than go to the expense of building expensive machines and creating further technical innovation. China ceased to maintain its technical superiority to the rest of the world, stagnated, and became vulnerable to brutal exploitation by the West.

And now it appears the shoe may be moving to the other foot.
What goes around comes around, eh?
Will the day come when Americans work in sweatshops making gizmos to ship overseas to Chinese superconsumers?
What has all this got to do with Gun Control Freaks? It's far more interesting so, please, remain off topic if you wish.

I have been feeling a bit of bad conscience at my excursus into things Chinese on this thread, but have consoled myself that it was simply a longish preamble to some relevant remarks about gun control.

There have been many analogues to the "high equilibrium trap" in human history and current affairs. People start out doing things in utter ignorance of the consequences of their actions, and the demonic force of "unintended consequences" makes a mockery of their deepest values.

That is why one of my strongest principles is to do nothing, whenever possible. I am deeply aware that "the devil makes work for idle hands," so I eschew the devil and all his works, and try valiantly to keep my hands as idle as possible.

Consider the titans of industry in the nineteenth century: imagine the horror of such vigorous, independent capitalists if they could have known what so-called "capitalism" turned into little more than a century after their time. How their skins would have crawled at the sight of the hidebound, inefficent, bureaucratic multi-national monopolies which spread havoc and terror all over the world! Not only did they not foresee the monstrous results of their labors, but these horrible results would have been utterly inconceivable to them!

But the evils of unintended consequences are not the end of the story. Every system of corruption acquires an army of supporters who depend upon it for sustenance.

Thus the unintended consequence of the Second World War was to saddle the United States with the narcotic addiction of military spending, and with far-from-the-battlefront armies of war profiteers feeding like vampires on the blood of the American people: a people which such a short time ago had traditionally detested war and foreign entanglements, and had been almost as anti-militaristic as the Chinese themselves!

And in this newly born militaristic, totalitarian, war-spending-addicted America arose cheerleaders of the gun culture, the National Rifle Association and their ilk, the noisy penumbra of militarism.

Such people revere the embalmed remains of the Second Amendment (which often seems to be the only part of the Constitution they really care about), and they are full of never-ending praise for the Founding Fathers and their semi-divine insight into protecting the rights of their distant progeny to blast holes into bullseyes, and, occasionally, into their own progeny.

In fact, the Founding Fathers were scoundrels and traitors, but they were 18th century gentlemen, reasonably educated, and not without some fundamental good sense.

Eighteenth century gentlemen, almost without exception, detested disorder, especially among the lower classes. There is no doubt in my mind that if they had been able to foresee Uzis and AK-47's broadcast hither-and-yon over this country, with little or no control by a "well-regulated militia," available to irresponsible, untrained oafs, then they would have been sick to their stomachs at the results of their ill-considered nation-building, and heartily ashamed of their Second Amendment.

Numan, you speak my mind so very well and so much better than I could myself.

Well, when faced with the superiority of Western Civilization, the also-rans would, like most children, point their fingers in childish blame. It is a given for a transcendent civilization.:-)

And if Chinese society had not stagnated centuries ago at such a low level of economic creativity, and instead had it developed to a point where their society could prosper through economic specialization, it would not have remained tied to an agrarian baby-maker society that relied on children as field workers and retirement security.

Even so, Chinese culture and Eastern Civilization in general do have a few bits that rise above the level of curio and attain the status of interesting.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The issue seems to boil down to this: Do you trust the government or don't you? Gun control proponents(liberals, I guess) seem to have a rather naive trust in goverment when demicans are in control and rail against the "man" when the republicrats are in control. Government is at best, laughably inept(this includes the military. I know this for a fact, I was in the army for a time) and therefore, should not be allowed to do much of anything, lest they break it, and at worst, a horrible regime that should be destroyed utterly, one way or another. I prefer the kind that can't do much and therefore stays out of my way and leaves me alone. And has a low tax burden. I have been told that the notion of armed resistance against a tyrannical regime is preposterous, so I don't know what to make of the Revolutionary war...or the Vietnam war...or the Afghan's uncanny ability to defeat empire after empire that tries to subjugate them...or the Scots in the 13th-14th century.

I'm not proposing we all arm ourslves and invade DC, I just want to have the means at my disposal. It seems to make the government types nervous,all those armed folk out there who may one day,after being treated like serfs for far too long, rise up, and, well, kill them.

There are about 52 million households with at least one gun. SOURCE I don't know how accurate that is. I googled a search term, saw that, and grabbed it.

I have no idea how many of them are the "hardcore" types who won't give up their guns no matter what. Probably a large number. So any attempts to actually consficate guns would be futile, and probably bloody. I can't imagine people living in say ,West (by God) Virginia giving them up without a fight.

I don't trust the government, and it doesn't matter to me what wing of the same bird is in control. They are all the same,and until people come to realize it, we will be doing this dance again. Only then it will be with the republicrats ,and then conservatives(I guess) will have the naive trust in government and will accuse us of being unpatriotic if we don't go for their hairbrained schemes.

I am sick of this whole left/right, liberal/conservative bullcrap. This stupid, insane dualistic mentality that everyone else seems unable or unwilling to divest themselves of. I have seen this country slide deeper and deeper into some kind of Orwellian nightmare since at least 2001 and it's just getting worse and worse. The Department of Homeland Security. "Homeland"!!?? WTF? Whiffs of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Warrentless wiretapping? WTF? Torture? Good God, why? Didn't we hang men at Nuremburg for such as that? Real ID? Great, I am going to have some uniformed thug demand my papers at random? And I dont see the Obama administration doing anything different. Especially since they seem reluctant to, you know, prosecute the people responsible for all this crap. The reason? Maybe they intend to do the same thing.

It's this "Big Government" bull that makes me want to leave the US, but it seems to be everywhere. I have nowhere to go.

We seem to be losing more and more freedom, and we have a portion of the citizenry who seem willing to give up what might, at the very end, be the only thing we have to take back the country. "We the People" are the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Everyone. If you are an adult law abiding citizen of this country, then you are the "well-regulated militia". That, I think, was the intent. Not the police or the National Guard. Yes, it's preposterous...

Then again, it's entirely possible that all this "gun control hysteria" is a bunch of hooey, designed to drive up gun sales. I'd love to be a gun dealer right now. They are making a killing(no pun intended).

IMO the idea of a successful armed revolt in this country is .... well, poppycock.

In the first place, it would require quire a few people agreeing upon the need for this armed revolt all at the same time. And I do not see that sort of unified opinion on any particular issue or combination of issues.

Alan cited several example that I think are not applicable. In most cases, the armed resistance of the people was to throw out an invader... which would not be the case here.

Beyond that, there are more than a few difficulties.... for example the fact that the US army would have tanks, missiles, aircraft, and predator drones to oppose people with hunting rifles.

Also, we have a highly technological nation. The simple fact is that not many people would be able to self support on the land as a guerrilla army. And I think that not many people would be willing to under go the privation and struggle that is/was accepted by afghans, or Viet Cong for instance.

Also consider the evolution of the situation in Iraq. This was certainly a text book case of a nation headed for an uncontrolled citizen revolt culminating in a horrible conflagration. It did not work out that way. Why not? oh for any number of reasons... including the fact that the US Army co-opted many of the groups that formerly opposed them. And, my argument is that if that strategy could be applied successfully in Iraq, it would be even more likely to be successful in the good ol' USofA. In other words, with out some extremely strong idea or personality to unify resistance, it would be easily fragmented and defeated.

All in all, I cannot imagine that anyone in Washington DC gives a moment of thought to the possibility of armed rebels crossing the Potomac and killing our political class.

For me, the issue boils down to "Who do I trust more.... you and your armed militia... or the sytem of guberment we have now?

No offense intended Allen... but I am just not so very sure that I want you and your unelected friends with guns running the country. Actually, I am pretty sure that is something I do NOT want.

Nobody ever thinks about what would happen AFTER the hypothetical overthrow of the "tyranical government" by the armed militia members. Once they were in control, how would we ever vote them out of office? (Considering that we didn't vote them into office, but rather they took control by arms.) Does anybody actually believe they would just form a new Constitutional Convention and then go home in peace? Or would America devolve into a barbarian wasteland, ruled by brutal warlords?

The same problem goes for the "Armed Compound" mentality folks: Sure you can build a fortified base and stock it with enough weapons and followers to stand off an equal-sized invading force of Deputy Sheriffs. But why would the government just send an equal-sized and equally-armed force? Hold out long enough and they will start firing in mortar rounds and employing snipers who can castrate a housefly from 1000 yards. Then come the tanks. In a few moments, your mighty compound is a pile of pea gravel and you are being led off in your boxer shorts and tie-strap bracelets.

Pondering It All, without saying it, has demonstrated that
Uncontrolled Gun Proponents (conservatives I guess) seem to have a rather naive attitude that they can defeat the entire United States Government with their secret stash of weapons and survival training. I can picture it now, Pickup truck loads of rednecks storming the capital to defeat the Black Menace which they didn't elect and so must be destroyed...........Led from behind by Rush Limbaugh.
I don't have any particular trust for my government, naive or otherwise. But I don't think my rusty old shotgun is gonna make them more trustworthy.

I don't see where you get that from, Allen. Has someone in this discussion, other than you, suggested that Second Amendment rights are interpreted on the basis of how much trust one puts in the government? Many other discussions we have here at the Rant are very much about "trusting the government", but no one else connects "trusting" with Second Amendment rights - except you.

Your comment about the "naivety" of "liberals" is insulting and disrespectful, especially since it is based on an argument that no one except yourself has put forth.

Does it? Where's your evidence? Are you suggesting that our nation would be better off being governed by extortion than by bribery? I'm not sure I like either of those options.

Seems Allen Owen made the same point re conservatives, Steve..

He goes on to say:

Well yeah, but I wasn't insulted by the reference to conservatives.

-

I think that people who imagine that a bunch of armed vigilantes can defeat a modern totalitarian state have been watching too many old movies and need to study political science and economics.

Change will come through the collapse of failed institutions (as we are seeing now); it will be directed by those who understand the nuts-and-bolts of political organization and electoral procedure.

However, I admit that it might be useful to learn how to hack computers, just in case.

-

Sadly, as we have seen over the last 2 weeks Americans are flipping out and taking the lives of other Americans with them. Often the crazies don't know the people they are trying to kill. Sometimes they kill their own families before they kill themselves. Now maybe they are killing cops because in their twisted minds cops are against them and cops represent the will of the government; somehow, to them, it is the police who are at fault.

As the economy becomes worse - and only the very rich and the very ignorant would believe otherwise - we will likely see more and more public violence.

If victims and others present at the immigration center in Binghamtom, NY had been carrying concealed weapons how many people would have died? We don't know. If people working at the nursing home in North Carolina would have been carrying concealed how many people would have died.? We don't know. I would assume fewer people would have died in both situations.

Expecting things to become worse in America and knowing that there are certainly more crazies out there and more senseless violence will occur, probably more often, what - if anything - are you planning to do differently?

I am saddened that we may reached the point that it may be prudent to alter our daily lives even if it just means being vigilant or planning ahead as to how you would act or react to different scenarios.

The media tell us the increase in gun purchases is all about fear of Obama banning firearms. That may be a contributing factor, but I suspect that more and more people see an increasing need for personal safety.

Recently, I read, that somewhere last Saturday a woman pulled up the the drive-thru at a McDonalds and became upset because at that time of the morning McDonalds was only serving breakfast. When the woman pulled her car around to the drive-thru window a man got out of the car she was driving and fired a shotgun several times at the drive thru window. Fortunately no one was hurt. As far as I know they still have not caught the woman and the man.

I don't know if there was another car in line behind the shooter's car. It doesn't sound as if there was. What if? What might have happened if there was another car in line and no way for the people in the second or third or more cars to get away from the situation? How prepared would you be in that situation?

Welcome to the Excited States of Hysteria.

We may all be murdered on the streets, but at least we will have protected the sacred Second Amendment.

Perhaps the Constitution is a suicide pact.

-

With all the stories of this type, there seems more than a little irony in having a topic about "Gun Control Freaks Go(ing) Wild"

When was the last time anyone was injured... let alone killed... by a Gun Control Freak Gone Wild?

If gun control is the problem.... then perhaps we should require each postal clerk to have a loaded gun behind the counter... that would make us all feel safer when we visit the post office.


Given the cited news item, it may be a good idea to arm all fast food emplyees too.

Heck, why stop there... lets arm all day care workers... and all nursing home workers... and for that matter all nursing home
residents... and perhaps even all day care children.

We could stop checking for guns at Federal buildings and instead offer a gun rental program for anyone entering a Federal Facility

THERE is the recipe for a safe society

-

Hmmm.... I guess it would depend on how many people have died because they were denied an adequate means of defense. Might be even more interesting to figure out how many females have been raped because Gun control freaks helped to deny them an adequate means of defense. But then, I guess their responsibility stops at the edge of feelsgoodville. hyuk Hyuk.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Yes, I agree, those statistics would be interesting.

A couple of other interesting statistics might be....

How large a percentage of people who are killed actually owned guns and for what ever reason could not prevent their own death. As for example, lots of gang members own guns... and yet they are also often shot and killed.

Of those people who were killed, and did not have guns.... which percent of those people actually expressed a desire to own a gun in order to protect themselves... which desire was thwarted by gun laws.

Another interesting and probably unavailable statistic would be how many lives have been saved because people who were very angry did not have immediate access to a gun. After all, if recent events have proved anything, they have proved that people who get extremely angry and who have access to guns sometimes use those guns in a state of emotion.


Another interesting statistic would be how many gun related casualties occur in the context of an emotional outburst.

Wow!

As Mickey pointed out, give everyone guns and they just might use them. Picture what could happen if someone shoots into a crowd of gun-carriers.

What about women who are raped at gunpoint?

Or date rape? Even if she has a gun, it doesn't mean the weapon's accessible. And to wear a concealed weapon on a date just seems silly. (Pepper spray or mace maybe...)

A rapist won't say, "Hello, I'm here to rape you. Let me give you a minute to get your gun out." I'm guessing most women are immobilized before they even know what hit them. And if the attacker finds the gun when all is said and done, he can use it on her or his next victim.

(Yes, I would have felt more secure with a gun. Not during the rape, but after being dumped from the car in Trenton's underbelly. But having lived through fear didn't make me live in fear. I'd still rather trust the world than not. If I'd shot and killed the two guys, I'd have carried that guilt forever. As it is, I see it as their problem, not mine.)

Another interesting number might be how many gun owners have lost friends and loved ones due to the accidental discharge of a firearm.

How many gun owners have shot and killed an innocent person, in the mistaken belief that they were protecting themselves....

How many children have shot other children and said "I didn't know it was loaded"

And how many is too many?

Don't know about the first three, but the answer to the last question would be one.

My point is simply that with rights come responsibilities. If gun owners wont accept those responsibilities then legislation may be needed to help them. I wouldn't for one minute dream of denying someone, anyone, who feels a need to protect themselves, from owning a firearm. As far as I know, no gun laws exist that would do this. A lot more gun laws could be enacted before this ever happened. The notion that Obama or any other president is going to take away your firearms is a ridiculous and paranoid notion. Unfortunately the rumor has been started by ridiculous paranoid people, the very people who are most likely to accidentally discharge weapons, to kill an innocent person by mistake(or intentionally) and whose children probably have the easiest access to weapons.

A couple of interesting factoids...

The majority of gun deaths in this country result from suicide (I make no judgement here)

Also I found this....
link

One assumes that these children would not be among those who theoretically would have successfully have defended their lives "if only" they were carrying a gun.... although, who knows, maybe indeed there is a feeling that even children should be armed for self defense purposes.... or, what ever comes up...

An interesting concept, that.... children not old enough to vote or sign a contract, children not old enough to join a "well regulated militia"... but old enough, never the less, to carry around a gun for self defense.

Those would be some interesting statistics, Ardy.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

No one is saying give everyone guns, Almost Naomi. I note though that in your adopted state, anyone can carry a concealed gun without any type of paperwork being done. Is the Vermont slaughter continuing unabated?;-)

As to defending yourself against attack and or rape, to each their own preference. [/quote]
Yours,
Issodhos

I think the tottler cut-off age should be extended from the 19 year old thug to the 28 year old thug, don't you, Ardy? Statistics. Doncha love 'em? They're so .. so .. well, so flexible, aren't they?:-))
Yours,
Issodhos

Lets see... the headline said "child, teen deaths"....

I guess where I come from no one would confuse a teen and a todler... and very few people have asserted as you apparently do that it is an inappropirate flexibility of statistics to consider a 19 year old person to be a teen

Also, you seem to be rather unique in your assertion that a 19 year old is functionally equivalent to a 28 year old.

But I surmise that you would agree the we would all be safer if everyone did have guns... with out us having to give those guns to them.

That may prove to be the most provocative thought I have ever seen on CHB. Particularly when read in full context.

I hear you, Naomi and admire you very much.

I just wanted to acknowledge what you wrote.
I would add I would hope that I would feel that same way too.
I think it's empowering.

Me too...

For what it is worth.... I have been robbed once at gun point, and physically assaulted and robbed another time. In both circumstances I could never have protected myself if I had carried a gun. And, I would say that in both circumstances I had lingering feelings of violation... and would not even want to try imagining my feelings if it had been a rape.

Oh come now, Ardy. You are as aware as I am that when this statistic is thrown around (and it is a very old chestnut) by the media, or by various gun-control organizations and other freaks, they used to purposefully leave off the "teen" thing. The fact that the usual suspects have begun to edge slightly more toward the truth after having been called on it over and over does not alter how it was meant to be perceived. I mean, really, Ardy.;-)
Yours in good humor,
Issodhos

You would surmise incorrectly, Ardy. Though, I suspect, we would all be a lot more polite toward each other.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, Ardy, that is where a thing called "choice" comes into play. Feel free to not defend yourself or others while allowing others to make a different choice.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

meaning scared of each other

It was a joke, olyve.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Okay, after 15 pages it's time for me to speak up - or should I say "go wild?"

I would have no problem whatsoever with a law that made all privately-owed firearms illegal. I would also be fine with a law that allowed single-shot rifles - or, for that matter, black powder - for hunting purposes.

It's only my personal opinion, but I thought one of us NRA-defamin, wild leftie anti-freedom anti gun nuts ought to go wild somewhere in this thread.

Here's how I see it:
While it's entirely possible that I might need to take arms against my government, the truth is that damage to me, personally, by firearm is much, much more likely, and it's not going to come from the government - it's most likely to come from a ticked-off coworker or ex-coworker, or an enraged spouse, ex-spouse, or date. Or a pissed-off kid in a shopping mall.

Sorry. But I've paid enough attention to know where my real danger lies. I'm in a lot less danger from the government people are so anxious to have arms to bear against, than I am from the people who have the arms. Especially if they haven't locked up their guns, or if they've had too much to drink, or if they have a violent temper.

And yes, I know that none of the gun owners on this thread fit those categories. I congratulate you. And frankly, I don't give much of a sh*t. I just don't. Widespread gun ownership endangers me, and I don't like it. And I'm already aware that gunowners don't give much of a rat's ass for my opinion, which is why I usually don't state it in these threads.

Too many people die in this country. Maybe there will always be violence, but the good thing about a lunatic with a knife is that it's harder to knife a bunch of people to death before someone stops you.

Am I going to hit the road and wave placards and, pardon me, go ballistic? Nope. I'm not even going to work hard for anti-gun laws -- although if one of my representatives ever grows a pair and suggests restrictive laws, I'll vote for them.

I just don't have any hope of this country coming to its senses where guns are concerned. And so far as I'm concern, it's not worth riling up the gun owners, because they have a tendency to be really pissy about the subject.

There. Hell of a threat, huh?

Now, don't go getting all pissy, Mellowicious.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Mellow...Thanks for shooting off...so to speak.


Kind of
Iss...Yes, Vermont has lenient gun laws. It's about as easy to get a gun here as it is to get a Big Mac at a drive-through window. But it's also one of the safest states. Not because everyone's out there with their guns fending off attackers, but because VT has a small (approx. 650,000) and relatively peaceful population: farmers, old Hippies, artists and so on. Lots of hunters, too, but all they care about shooting is deer.

But would it be a good move to give New York or New Jersey the same easy-access laws?

She's not packing, Isso.

Thanks, Mellow.
I couldn't agree more.

To what Naomi said.
As in Vermont, I understand per capita Canada is armed even more heavily than US but gun deaths aren't nearly as prevalent.
I'm not sure gun control/regulations would even be an issue if it was that peaceful in the rest of the country.
We're suffering from severely bad attitudes.

Mellow!
Well said!!!

So far no one here has admitted to be willing to wear a t-shirt, pin or button or placing a sticker on their car, mailbox or front door saying the wearer/occupant is never armed.

Got one? I'll wear it. I can't imagine anyone in the world looking at me and thinking "Oh, yeah, she's packing, for sure..."

Of course I'd wear it.

:lol:

(late edit: this is a great example of a complete disconnect between views of the world. I can't think of a time I've looked at people and wondered who was armed and who wasn't. I don't think about guns; they are not part of my world unless my brother-in-law says he's going hunting or there's a shooting in the news. I generally assume that the people around me are not armed unless they are law enforcement officers.

I don't believe I want that outlook to change.)

The response that would get around here would be a quizzical shake of the head and..."What does that mean?"

(The leading state-wide news story tonight was the gov's veto of same-sex marriage. The next was about a grade school discontinuing its String Class [violin lessons] for lack of funds. Followed by the swearing in of the mayor of Burlington.)

Which demonstrates that access to firearms is not the issue?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

I would think that those most interested in whether someone is carrying concealed would be cops and goblins -- the former for force protection reasons and the latter for seeking prey. I know that it is not something I ponder.

And if one wishes to carry a handgun on her person, carrying concealed is the way to go out of simple consideration for others -- as well as for weapon retention purposes.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Look
I have no stickers on my car other than a parking sticker
I do not make it a practice to wear pins or t-shirts advertising my political views.

That said, I have no objection to what you have proposed.
I am wondering, are there people driving around looking for cars that seem as thought the occupants may be unarmed?

And, where I live, in the summer it would be pretty obvious if someone was or was not packing a gun.... no t-shirt or pin required. But, I do try to imagine some reprobate cruising through town looking for the target of opportunity that advertises not having a gun.

I am not sure what sort of criminals that you run into, but the sort I am familiar with will sneak up on you and stick a gun in your ribs... at which point any gun you carry simply becomes another item to steal

I can see how some people may wish to have a gun in their house... although I really prefer to live somewhere were I feel OK leaving my doors unlocked.

If it will help you to put the risk in proportion, Mellowicious, you are a much greater danger to yourself then than you are from a gun owner -- Goblin or good guy.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Used to be in Florida that when people would fly into Miami and rent a car they would often be followed and robbed. That's fact. It happened because of the license plate on cars at that time identifying them as rental cars. Mark yourself as easy prey and you are more likely to be preyed upon than someone who may be a more difficult target. It is also why you never see a maniac walk into a police station armed to the teeth looking to take out dozens of people.

If you know anything about defense, personal or otherwise, you know that the primary rule is - Never make yourself an easy target. Somewhere in the top three is - Never bring attention to yourself.

The State of Florida mandated a change in rental license plates and preying on tourists coming out of the airports in rental cars greatly decreased.

I believe it was a particularly nasty killing of a German tourist couple that finally got them to not mark the cars as rentals. And yes, goblins tend to look for easy prey.

I have always held to the adage that if one is looking for trouble, one is going to find trouble. So, the first thing one does to avoid trouble is to not look for trouble, and preferably, if it can be avoided, don't go where trouble may find you. Also, regardless of where you go, do not look like a victim waiting to happen. Thirdly, be aware of your surroundings. This applies whether one is "carrying" or not, and whether one is a man or a women.
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos - having risk in proportion is what led me to the position I hold. I have no intention of arming against myself. That would be, well, silly. And if I won't arm myself against the greater danger I present to myself, I certainly won't arm myself against a lesser, external one. But I appreciate your concern.

As for those who are concerned about what might happen if I wear a t-shirt or button proclaiming myself to be unarmed - mottoed t-shirts are fairly common in this country, and such a statement might well be taken with the same grain of salt as the statement that I am "with Stupid."

You do know that I was referring to suicide, don't you, Mellowicious? By any means.
Yours,
Issodhos

Better, perhaps, than you know. Be careful what you presume about my knowledge or experience, Iss - in some places, there be dragons.

Perhaps you have data to offer? I'm sure it's out there.

Now we have three things we agree on, Iss: The above, Adam Lambert and Janis Joplin. Makes me wonder if the sky is falling!

Not presuming anything, Mellowicious. Simply seeking and offering clarification. As to the data, if I recall correctly suicides as a cause of death nationally were roughly twice as high as homicides. I do not remember the year, but I do not think it was more than a few years ago.
Yours,
Issodhos

I agree with you, Issodhos.

Where we differ is that I regard using a gun, carrying a gun, and owning a gun to be looking for trouble.

I have never owned a gun, and I have always avoided trouble (for instance, I have never visited Texas). It has worked out well for me.

I did remove a pistol from the home of my aged mother and dispose of it. In her old age, she became subject to sudden and irrational rages, usually directed against her neighbors. I didn't want to take any chances. I could imagine newpaper headlines: "Octogenarian goes on deadly rampage: kills neighboring family of four." Not all dangers of gun violence come only from young people.

You may think that I was over-reacting, but she came after me once with a baseball bat. I was surprised at how strong her swing was when she was in one of her rages.


I quite agree with you, Ardy. I live on "a stone, set in the silver sea, which serves it as a moat...against the envy of less happier lands."

Americans have never been noted for their self-control, but in my lifetime I have seen an alarming increase of mental instability among those people whom I deliberately avoid.

An obsession with firearms, I regard as a primary indicator of dangerous mental deficiency. At the least, it is an indicator of the unhealthy individualism that has been so prominent a part of American society.

When they feel threatened, why is their immediate reaction to get a gun, in order to protect themselves alone, as if they were isolated in a rock fort under attack by a horde of savages? I prefer to "risk" isolated and improbable assault, and bend my efforts to living in a peaceful, orderly and caring society, surrounded by a variety of social networks, and playing my part in them.

If Americans put more effort into caring for each other, and moderated their hypertrophied individualism, then they would not need guns.

-

Hear! Hear!

Isso is correct. There are in this case exceptions to every rule. It happens that people who are aware and who do take precautions and do not venture into places and things that might put them in harms way are set upon by criminals, but those people are the exceptions.

One only need to look at animal kingdom to see weak ones culled from the heard. Always? No. Sometimes even the weak ones get away. Sometimes even the strong ones are caught, but most of the time the weak ones are targeted and taken by the killers. Lions don't generally hunt and kill other lions or jaguars or leopards because they know that those animals are similarly "armed'. Even in a herd of giraffe lions are going to go after the one that is perceived to be weak, or alone or preferably both. And even then lions will attack in groups, to lessen the risk.

Study a bit of criminology and you'll quickly find that dirt bags who prey on other people say time and time and time again that the reason they chose a particular person or place was because the person or place presented an opportunity that was perceived as a lesser risk than other choices.

As Isso says - You don't want to be seen. You want to be damn near invisible to criminals. Wear a t-shirt with anything written on it increases your visibility. Wear a shirt with "I hate guns and I am not armed" is more than foolish and greatly increases your visibility.

Ask a cop about protecting your home from bad guys. He'll tell you that no home is burglar proof, but you can do things that will greatly reduce the risk of having your home broken into. Go back to - 'You don't want to be seen". Where you live and how it appears that you live can bring attention to your home or can make you damn near invisible. If your home has an alarm system and a sign saying so, if you have lights on in appropriate places, if bushes near windows do not obstruct view from the street, all those things you know or should already know when practiced reduce your risk of being a victim. Add yapping dogs, radio or tv noise and a varied routine and the bad guy is more likely to pick an easier target. Put a sign on the door that says "I hate guns and there are no guns in this house" and you may very well increase your risk of being burgled.

Like it or not firearms are a deterrent. You don't have to own one, but in America you benefit from the fact that other law abiding citizens do own firearms.

I have no problems with what you say Mickey. On the other hand, I do not think it is necessary to have zero restrictions on fire arms in order to achieve that objective.

That may be true, but that statement is a non-sequitor from the rest of your post, and I would really love to see some factual backup for the claim you make.

Your recollection is incomplete as it relates to this discussion. Suicide by firearm is in large part restricted to men. It's not a preferred choice for most female suicides.

So - I am not a greater risk to myself from firearms (which was the original point of the discussion) than I am from others wielding guns. As a non-gun person, it's highly unlikely I will ever harm myself with a gun, as I generally refuse to handle them.

And it is as easily true that someone who is looking to steal guns would leave me alone.

This is all very much up-in-the-air, and it's doubtful that any of us truly think like criminals - for one thing, I have a strong suspicion that we're brighter than the average criminal.

It's just that I get tired of the "gun control freaks run wild" label. Just as I would never label my gun-owning friends at RR as "gun-toting, trigger happy lunatics," it would be nice to get an acknowledgment that not all people who dislike guns are out to strip everyone of their Constitutional Rights. It's also true that we're not out skipping through the park thinking life's a bowl of cherries.

It's just that we choose to live our lives without arms. Oh, yes - and we vehemently wish that others would, as well.

And (at least in my case) we favor the sorts of fire arms regulations that would be consonant with the phrase "a well regulated militia." In other words, rights to own and sell guns accompanied by responsiblities.

Yes, isn't it interesting how much those in the gun lobby insist upon their "rights," and how seldom they talk about their responsibilities.

-

Bingo! Give that gal a C-gar! I was not restricting my comment to firearms related suicides or homicides, Mellowicious. That is why I wrote "by any means". But, you are partially correct. Females are less likely then males to commit suicide using any method, and far less likely to do so using a firearm. There for you are even safer than you thought. One of the bothersome things about how statistics are often used is that they are quite general in nature and address at best a collectivist view of society. In other words, x number of people are affected by something so action is taken on behalf of the herd whether it applies to the entire herd or not. You, however, in pointing out that you have differing demographics, characteristics, and preferences, have shown that you are not as threatened or in danger of death from a firearm as you are from other things. In other words, you spoke and acted from the point of view of an individualist and have claimed your right to choose whether to exercise your right to privately own and use a firearm.

Hopefully you will not selfishly deny others the right to choice whether or not to exercise a right.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Nothing wrong with "differing, numan. Nothing wrong with you emigrating from a place with which you are unhappy. Nothing wrong with you not owning a firearm. It is good that you are willing to make choices that you have a right to make. I respect your right to not exercise your right to own and use a firearm.

Hopefully, you are willing to allow me the same right to choose. Seems fair.:-)
Yours in full control of my inner fascist,
Issodhos

Assuming for the moment that free choice is not an illusion foisted upon you by your inner fascist.

"Gun control freaks" has only been used once, and it is basically a spoof on the use of derogatory terms used against those who choose to privately own and use firearms. I thought it was time to "give back" round about the time a thread went up in this forum entitled "Gun nuts accessories to murder?" when the killings at Virginia Tech took place. None of you had any problem with that thread title. Add to that the routine attempts to marginalize a gun owner by saying that he is compensating for sexual inadequacies, seeking an "extention", 'looking for trouble" and other things the "haters" (sorry, couldn't help myself:-)) in the forum and elsewhere write, I will forgive myself for the "gun-control freaks" spoof.:-)

Once again, I happy to support your right to not exercise the right to privately own and use firearms. Try to not deny me that choice.
Yours in hopes of getting along,
Issodhos

Could you provide an illustration of "derogatory terms used against those who choose to privately own and use firearms." To my understanding there are more elements than that required before those terms have been applied.

issodhos, whether a phrase is used once or a hundred times, if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate. In my case, it's inaccurate and I spoke up.

As for the use of "gun nut" - I am not in the habit of using derogatory remarks about gun users, but in my view the man at Virginia Tech was a disturbed armed man, which is not all that far from "gun nut," impolite as it may be. The same is true of the shooter at the Omaha mall, and those at Columbine and Red Lake and DeKalb and École Polytechnique and Erfurt and, yes, the man in Pittsburgh. I'll stop here, although I could easily go further.

However, should I at any time use that phrase in reference to responsible gun owners, particularly my friends on this site, you would be right to correct me. Catching me may be a problem.

As for allowing you your rights - we interpret the 2nd Amendment differently and always will. My voting for stricter gun control is, in my view, not an infringement of your rights. You will of course disagree. That discussion is for another time and place.

Oh, I am not apologizing for its usage, Mellowicious. And I am not interested in any post-parsing and fine tuning of terms previously used in other threads over the past few years.

But, I do promise you that I will continue to support your rights, whether they are freedom of expression, due process, privacy, or the right to privately own and use firearms.

By the way, the 2nd amendment is merely a restriction against the federal government infringing on a pre-existing right. I certainly do not rely on it as a basis for the right to privately own and use firearms.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

There is a search function going back at least a year, Ardy. Avail yourself of it if you wish.
Yours,
Issodhos

Onus is on you, iss. You brought it up, you provide the evidence. Otherwise, it's just an empty claim.

In Isshodos's defence i do remember that thread title. was it the title of an article?

however, making fun in general of gun enthusiasts really is the exception here, as far as i can recall.

one swallow does not make a blo.. erm summer

but i could indeed be wrong.

Actual gun nuts are fair game, as are all crazies.

oh, Schlack, c'mon - you got something against non-violent crazies?

Gosh, I did not think it would be such a problem for you to find an example of an circumstance so pervasive as you seem to imply.

Breaking news, Los Angeles Times

link

saw a rather graphic video last night, I dont want particularly to post the link.

it was of a mother and son at a shooting range, rented weapons BTW, for no apparent reason the mother calmly shot the son in the back of the head and then put the gun in here own mouth.

-

I have no problem with you, in your individualistic isolation, owning and using a firearm --- provided you are as careful and responsible as the stereotypical Switzer.

However, when your owning of a firearm is part of a system of gun ownership that causes more harm than good to other people, then I think that your "rights" become more problematical.

-

That is a rather long-winded "no", numan.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

If it is that important to you, Ardy, here is a quick example:

From “Gun Freaks – Subhumans or Humans”
"Only so may the gun freaks be chained to the mountains of evil which they have created. May vultures gnaw out their livers every day for the rest of their lives!*

It would be a boon to get as many of these degenerates out of decent society as possible.

I will also point out that those who defied alcohol Prohibition were a large percentage of the populataion. The gun freaks are a very small minority.


If I were such a person, I would rightly be considered subhuman filth."

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4294#Post4294
Yours,
Issodhos

Gosh - that's the one I found last night - the only one I could find. There were at least two protests to the title, which was rude but within the guidelines. Oh, and the person who started that thread hasn't been around since then - two years ago.

I would also note that the thread in question was immediately after the Virginia Tech shootings, and emotions were running very high.

Thanks for the details, Julia. I had reached the same conclusion.

What, Issodhos! Are you a state prosecutor, who demands only "yes" and "no" answers from those whom he interrogates?

It would be a pretty dull forum if that were the case.

You have the "freedom" to express your views at some length; please grant me the same "freedom."

Nor do I think my response constitutes a rejection of your right to own firearms --- unless you think gun owners must necessarily cause more harm than good to other human beings.

Excuses noted.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Perhaps we have misunderstood you.... I had got the impression that you thought that the sort of posting you have linked to is common among gun control freaks. And of course, in order for your "humor" to be pointed, one would expect such comment to be common on this forum.

Perhaps we can agree that such comments are not common among people who are currently posting on this forum and who also favor gun control.

By the way, about the only person I recognized in the thread was Scout girl who stood up to oppose the tone and sentiment expresses in the thread.

Also, there was John Bloodgood... a former frequent poster on the topic of fire arms... who described the posting as an obvious troll.

All that said, your supplied link has given me a new appreciation for your sense of humor.

Sharing the effable mirth
Ardy

Oh, no, issodhos. You must have misunderstood. As I said - I found the title - and attitude - of that thread, or at least its originator, to be rude, and I would make no excuses for that.

I did not restrict my comment to only people in this forum, Ardy. Have another.:-)



http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=11426&fpart=2
Yours,
Issodhos

It is unclear to me how most of the last few posts are related to the initial topic of this thread (CCW), but as Godwin's Law has apparently been invoked, perhaps it's time to close the thread.

SkyHawk
Administrator

Bu..bu..but I have plenty more examples if requested and I can name names!

Actually, the thread was supposed to be about the hypocrisy of Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer, both of home are anti-gun pols but both also have permits to carry concealed handguns. Apparently, that topic was not a preferred comfort zone.
Yours,
Issodhos

Favoring rational gun control laws is NOT anti-gun and favoring rational gun control laws is not antithetical to ownership of guns consistent with such laws.

Not sure why you think your argument is so flawed that you have to overstate your objection to the positions of those who disagree with you.

I can't/won't speak for Issodhos, but I would say, logan, that the term in question is "rational". For an example I don't think banning guns from businesses, placing identifiers on casings, banning non-assault rifles by declaring them "assault rifes" is rational. You might very well agree with me, but others do not. I certainly don't agree with the Brady bunch and they consider themselves "rational'.

As I stated long ago on this thread or on a similar one the basic problem I have is that I do not trust the government. The Patriot Act was to be temporary, then it wasn't. Then there was Patriot II and on and on and on. The point being that once government gets its grips in the rights of citizens it rarely lets go.

Mick, I do understand what you're saying, and I do respect it. But in my opinion, it is more rational to worry about the problems that are already occurring on a regular basis, than to worry about a problem that may never happen.

In short - the government may turn on us, but our fellow citizens already have.

We are looking, I think, from different sides of a telescope, and I don't expect that ever to change. I do feel fortunate that we can discuss it here, as there are many other places (on and off the web) where I won't even approach the subject; it gets too angry and irrational far too quickly.

I'm not sure Americans will ever resolve this issue (another reason I'm careful about discussion.)

Which raises a question that I will post on a new thread: Why does this topic generate such strong opinions?

Mellow,

Just as a point of clarification, I don't believe that guns will or can protect us from the government. That cow left the barn many decades ago. If we don't agree with the system we must use the system to beat the system. That day may come and there may be a voter revolution at the ballot box.

People who believe that they must own guns to protect themselves from the government are fantasizing at best.

Mick

You mean, when the Army rolls down my street in tanks and APC's my glock and uzi aren't going to stop them?

Mick, thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand what you meant by not trusting the government.

But, now that I know what you didn't mean, I realize I'm not sure how/why your distrust of the government affects your view of guns/gun laws.

"Rational" is like "reasonable" to the anti-gunowner crowd, Slipped. If one fails to bend over and kiss their collective arse, one is failing to be "rational" or "reasonable".
Yours in understanding,
Issodhos

that statement, issodhos, is inaccurate and offensive. There may be something wrong with your thinking on this subject given that you cannot comprehend that other's opinions would simply differ with yours.

Opinions are fine, Phil. It is the weaselly use of the words "rational" and "reasonable" when the only reasonableness is supposed to come from gun owners that is bullchit. And it ain't like it ain't obvious. Sort of like the big-snouted camel who already has is nose in the tent, saying, "Be reasonable, it's just my nose -- for now.":-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Yep, first speed limits, then drivers licenses, then license plates, they'll be taking our cars away soon.........

Given that I am honestly trying to learn something here (although I'm sure some won't believe that) - I do have a question.

Without assuming that I know what Mick's response will be to the question I posed a few posts back - I would like to pose another, more general question.

As I believe I understand it, one of the problems with any form of gun control is the "slippery slope" argument - that once the government knows where the guns are, "they" will come and get them.

I could be very wrong about that, but it's what I think I've heard.

My question is this: is there anything else we register with the government that raises the same level of concern about confiscation?

I mean, the government knows, most of them time, when and where children are born. Native Americans in the Dakotas and Four Corners suffered from this because, indeed, their children were removed to "white" boarding schools - but that's the only situation I can think of when Americans reasonably feared that their children would be taken from them. (Slaves feared their children would be taken from them, but not by the government.)

The deeds to our land are registered and, until the last few years, there wasn't a lot of worry about the government coming for our land (again, with the very large exception of the Native American Nations.)

Is there a parallel to the idea that if we tell the government about firearms, they will be taken from us? If so, what is it? (I know April 15th is coming; shall we take taxes as read?)

Mellow,

I would say one answer to your question would be personal privacy. The government via registration at many levels (public and private) has been marching steadily toward taking ALL your personal privacy from bank accounts, library records, grocery store purchases, club memberships, the amount of your bar tabs, to private correspondence, to telephone conversations, to drug prescriptions, to medical records (including mental health counseling), to confidential court records to the point that you might soon have no privacy whatsoever, none.

I'll grant you that's a valid concern, although I was thinking more of a tangible "taking."

I do see one major difference in that we don't have to tell the government that we have privacy. So no one is saying "I refuse to tell the government I have privacy; if they know I have it, they can pass a law to take it away." They already know.

With firearms the worry seems to be that if the government knows who has firearms, even though they are legal, those firearms may eventually be taken away/outlawed. Is there anything else we can (legally) own, that we think the government will eventually take away if they find out we have it?

Since when are cars useful in any kind of defence situation? What you call "reasonable gun control" I call a prelude to gun confiscation. That's how it begins. I don't trust my government at all and after the last 8 years, you'd think folks will have learned not to trust the government, too. Regardless of what wing of the same party is in charge. We are already so close to a police state now, thanks to the Bush administration, I think the only reason it is not extremly blatant, is because the 2nd amendment has not been revoked or otherwise compromised. If someone doesn't want to own them, fine and dandy. But don't interfere with my right. I only own one rifle, a M1 Garand. I will probably get an AR-15 if any move is made to ban such rifles. Just in case Not as good as my trusty M1, but a hell of a lot better than a "rusty shotgun". Oh, the answer to dealing with tanks and APCs?: IEDs and molotov cocktails. Not that it matters, 99% of the population is too used to reality tv, air conditioning and sunday night football to do anything anyway, except bleat like the sheeple they have become.

I really hope I'm wrong, and Obama is everything his supporters say he is...I like my air conditioning too. I really don't wanna live in the woods trying to evade capure by the Federales because I refused to hand over my M1, or any other weapon. But I will, alone if I have to.

And just to clarify, I don't live in fear all the time. I don't live a secluded "compound". I live in the 'burbs. I am not, nor have I ever been, a "good ole boy" or a "redneck". I will be offended at any implications that I am such. I am a Southerner, but I was raised to have class. I just have a healthy disdain for government. A lot of folks on this board did once too. During the Bush years. Now, not so much. Funny how that happens.

Thou dost protest too much, methinks.

Next you are going to try to tell us that Duke really is a Southern university and that Bear Bryant could quote Wilde and Yeats line and verse.

C'mon now, bubba, we know your grandmama dipped Tube Rose and when ain't nobody looking you sneak a helping of collards at the VFW Sunday buffet. We know that you know the difference between a trace chain and a ground slide.

I woke up this morning with an answer to my own question. The parallel to gun registration is media registration - specifically the FCC. I think many of us would agree that radio and tv have gone to the dogs, but I would tend to attribute that more to corporate greed and reduced competition than to FCC licensing of the airwaves.

So - why isn't there an NRA where "R" stands for radio, with the same lobbying power as the other one?

Bear Bryant was probably lucky to construct a sentence, much less quote Yeats or Wilde. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. He died when I was in 3rd grade. I hate collard greens. What the **** is Tube Rose? What is a ground slide or a trace chain? Never heard of them.

I'm worried about you Allen. You must be part of the "New South" I read about in northern magazines. Please tell me you don't listen to Kenny Chesney.

If you ever cropped tobacco you'd know what a ground slide was. Tube Rose is snuff. Nasty sh!t. Used to be popular with older ones before the 1970s. You might still be able to buy it. I don't know.

-

Surprisingly, The Swedes (male and female) have gotten into snuff (snus) and it is growing in popularity. So, the next time you see a commercial showing the Swedish Women's Ski Team, don't be surprised if you see a bit of irregular staining on their teeth.:-))
Yours,
Issodhos

So, you think it is not mere access to a gun, but demographics that result in violence (guns or other weapons). How do the demographics differ between Vermont and NJ or NY?
Yours,
Issodhos

slip in with a little ot here...

Mick, that's about the umpfteen time you've mentioned your scorn for Kenny Chesney. He doesn't do it for me either but man, you gotta let it go!


whatsa matta with you, Allen?

Hmmm.... Well, maybe a National Radio Association might spring up if the government began to entertain the notion of banning private radio ownership. Or if it was thinking of passing laws to require a background check on anyone seeking to purchase and privately own a radio to ensure she was not a subversive. Or, if it restricted radios to those who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the chief of police a true "need" for one. Or, if certain styles of radios were banned. Or, if radios were restricted to only so many pre-approved stations.:-))
Yours in solidarity,
Issodhos

Based on all the "ifs" in your response, however, it would appear that none of those things are currently in the government's mind. Besides, the FCC does not have power over reception, but broadcast originators ("broadcast" here intended to include broadcast, cable, etc.)

I truly can't come up with any possession, or class of possessions, that we are worried the government will take from us, besides firearms? So worried that we refuse any attempt to track them?

thus resulting in a false analogy.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Which is why I keep asking if anyone has a better one. Or, if not an analogy, a parallel, a similarity.

I repeat:

Ahh, that's nasty stuff. Chewing tobacco isn't nearly as nasty as dipping. Why in the world are Swedes into it?

Because they're Swedes?

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/sep/16/business/chi-sun_snusing_0916sep16
Yours,
Issodhos

-

Another gun nut brought low by his obsessions:

Spector faces life sentence for actress's murder

Actually, numan, I think it may well be the first chia pet to be convicted for murder.:-)



Yours,
Issodhos

I don't know, Numan. There are gun nuts and there are f*cking nuts. Spector is f*ckibg nuts and has gun. Look at the guy! What a sleazoid.

Money isn't good or bad, but too much of it can allow some nutjobs to go full time crazy. Spector is one of those guys. What a freak! Guns or no guns I wouldn't trust Spector around anything I own or love.

And what is a 39 year old woman doing even talking to this creep? Is there anything about Phil Spector that doesn't scream - STAY THE HELL AWAY!? I have never understood that whole celebrity fascination thing anyway. I guarantee you that if he looked the way he looks, dressed the way he dresses, acted the way he acted, but didn't have the celebrity and lived in somewhere like McBee (that's pronounced "MAC bee"), South Carolina, he'd have little blue marks all over him where people had been touching him with 10 foot poles. He damn sure wouldn't be able to kill anyone with a pistol 'cause wouldn't anybody get that close to the guy!

Now, I am sorry that lady is dead, I really am, but c'mon, Spector is major league slime. She couldn't look at him and figure that out?

Having access to guns certainly makes it more certain that these people will be more able to express their nuttiness and sleaziness.

But then, don't Americans take pride in their country being a place where people "can be all that they can be"?

-

Just two quick notes here: You know what fame means in this country. It overrides just about everything else.

And, second, "She couldn't look at him and figure that out?" comes awfully close to blaming her for being killed.

Yes, he was clearly a whacko. Some whackos are slime and others are brilliant and sometimes it's difficult to know which is which. Either way, this killing was his fault, not hers.

I am glad to know that it is now possible to know a person's moral character by his hairstyle and the way he dresses.

This must be a gift granted to Americans and denied to other mortals.

Mellow, I think you are reading more into my comments than was intended. Male, female, large rabbit, no one should have gotten close enough to Spector to get shot with a pistol. No, getting killed was not her fault - however, had she used better judgement she wouldn't have gone alone to his house at zero dark thirty.

On another thread or perhaps earlier in this one you yourself mentioned that part of your protection plan was to avoid bad places and situations.

No, that's the US Army.

I don't know that having guns more enables people to express their nuttiness and sleaziness. In my experience it is usually the opposite.

What is it with you recently and all the veiled shots at America and Americans?

No, Mick, not reading more into what you said, at least for myself; just commenting on how such things can (and often will) be interpreted.

Part of my protection plan is exactly as you said. But I also grew up in a time where there were strict limits on where I could go, when, and with whom - and if I wandered out of that path and something happened, well then, I'd have been "asking for it," right? (Added for clarification: meaning "stay within reasonable boundaries" begs the question of who sets the boundaries and whether I will like them. It makes me a little nervous just on GP. Cultural reaction; certainly not a personal reaction to what you wrote.)

Judgment is a very large factor in personal safety. But I can do something very stupid, and that doesn't give anyone permission to harm me.

This is a fine line, I know, and it may be a difficult one to see from the other side of the gender line. But I squirm under that "shouldn't have been there/done that"; it was used to restrict women for far too long. (And yes, I know it wasn't your intent to go down that road. I never thought it was.)

Also, forgetting the gender issue for a moment, your statement that
is a kind of funhouse-mirror reflection of the the truth - which is that Spector shouldn't have shot anyone.

It's been on my mind lately. We tend to be hard on people who are harmed as a result of bad judgment, when in reality, it is all - ALL - the fault of the harmer.

It is a wonderful world and there is so much to see. It would be grand if we didn't have to worry about the creeps on planet earth, but we do. We should all have the right to live without violence or the threat of violence, but we don't.

I have been more lucky than most and have walked away from situations I don't even want to think about now. Some of those situations were a result of my own choosing and some were not. I'd have to say that had harm come to me there were more than a few situations where my parents would have said, "What was he thinking? We raised him to have better sense than that."

You can go to zoo, climb over the fence and you can jump right in the area where they keep the hyenas. If/when they attack you and bite you in a thousand places will it not have been partly your fault? Or I suppose it could be said that you didn't know what a hyeana looked like or that you didn't know hyenas were aggressive or that the zoo shouldn't have made it so you could crawl over the tall fence into the area where hyeanas were kept. If you lived you could respond and say that you weren't at fault. You'd be wrong. There are more than a few werewolves in the big city and they don't all live in cages, but usually there are warning signs all over the place.

How many clues would most women need to know that hanging out with a 70 year old guy, who tried to look like he was 21 (and failed) at clubs in Hell-A and agreeing to go to his home and hang out late at night was plain stupid right after "Nice to meet you"?

Some places and situations you shouldn't venture into, and there are some people you shouldn't be around people or alone with or alone with, at their home, late at night. That goes for all of us. Even men. And yes, men can reasonably assume to be somewhat safer in many places and around some people than women. No, it isn't fair, that's why they call it "life".

Mick, I'm not arguing with anything you say. I'm saying that the fault lies with the attacker, always. ALWAYS. I don't give a damn where I am, if I am attacked the fault lies with the attacker.

The zoo example doesn't work, sorry, because so far as we know animals don't have our sense of ethics.

The fault lies with the attacker. Always.

Aha - I just (finally) saw the split I wanted to emphasize.

Slipped, you are talking about judgment, and for the most part I agree with you. But many people read bad judgment as fault and/or shared guilt - and that's the difference I wanted to magnify.

Bad judgment, in my opinion, does not mean the the victim shares guilt. Assuming she was not threatening his life at the time (and even then, as we know, there are differing views) -- she is not responsible for the harm he did.

Is this an idealistic view? Absolutely. But I think it's a more accurate view, one that places the responsibility squarely where it belongs - in this case on the shoulders of Phil Spector. Bad judgment is not guilt. (Please note - I'm not saying that you ever said it was; I'm saying some people read the two as the same.)

A single word indicative of doubt, that any thing, or every
thing, in that country is not the very best in the world,
produces an effect which must be seen and felt to be understood.
If the citizens of the United States were indeed the devoted
patriots they call themselves, they would surely not thus encrust
themselves in the hard, dry, stubborn persuasion, that they are
the first and best of the human race, that nothing is to be
learnt, but what they are able to teach, and that nothing is
worth having, which they do not possess.

The art of man could hardly discover a more effectual antidote to
improvement, than this persuasion; and yet I never listened to
any public oration, or read any work, professedly addressed to
the country, in which they did not labour to impress it on the
minds of the people.

To hint to the generality of Americans that the silent current of events may change their beloved government, is not the way to please them....
--- Frances Trollope, Domestic Manners of the Americans

-

Basically the US constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms. This is an unalienable right given to us by our founding forefathers and should not be infringed upon. I agree that there are some folks out there that should not have access to weapons but if guns are banned the only ones that will have them are criminals. This keeps a lot of home invasions at bay as the crooks do not know if the home owners have guns. Banning guns will make them bolder if not arrogant in this matter.

hologram5, welcome to RR. I look forward to your participation here.

You may want to be aware, however, that when you make claims like the ones above, you will probably be asked for facts and references to back them up -- unless, of course, they are your private opinion.

I'm guessing they are the latter.
Again, welcome to RR.

Hi, hologram5. Neither the Founding Daddies, nor our Constitution, nor government can "give" rights. The Second Amendment to the Constution is both a restriction placed on the federal government prohibiting it from not infringing on our right to keep and bear firearms, and a recognition of the pre-existance of that right.

I do agree with you that there are some goblins and wannabe goblins that are deterred from entering a home for fear of the owner being armed or having quick access to a weapon.
Yours,
Issodhos

My blue octagon ADT Alarm sign tells wanna-be crooks (...and goblins )that if they don't disarm the alarm in 45 seconds, the police will arrive as the alarm seizes the phone line and calls the police directly for me. Additionally, the alarm has one of those new ear-piercing sirens. Gawd awful on the ears, seriously, it'll give you a splitting headache.

Plus, the police are much better with a weapon than I am, anyway.

...and if/when the alarm does go off in-the-middle-of-the-night, it'll give me advanced warning to hide under-the-bed.

(Of course, I'd hope that my dog doesn't give me away that I'm hiding under-the-bed)

Rick, since I'm pretty hard of hearing that sireen won't bother me none at all. Alarms get tripped accidently all the time so the neighbors wont be much help. Is there a phone box on the side of your house? Does it trip the alarm if I snip the wire? Your alarm system is activated by little magnets on the tops of the doors or the hinge side, right? If I slip a magnetic business card between the door and the sensor it will never know when I open the door. Do you know how locks work? I do. A fair percentage of outswing doors can be easily opened with a utility knife. The guys who install the locks don't get paid much and tend to take shortcuts. If the deadbolt bore isn't deep enough the dead bolt isn't dead. I can walk in your house and say BOO before you can get under the bed. If you don't bother with the deadbolt and think the knob latch is secure I promise you I can be into any outswing door in a matter of seconds with my little magnet telling the alarm system that it's all OK. I'd never pull that crap though because I just assume you are in there and have a gun.

--Rick, people who do home invasions generally get in before the alarm even has a chance to go off and more often than not they've already cut the phone lines too.
Your dog will be shot on sight.
The police are minutes away, when seconds count.
Those TV commercials are a great fantasy, but I'm talking about the real thing...crazy psycho [censored] who do home invasions could care less if the alarm goes off and some don't even care if the po-po arrives.
The only thing an alarm is good for is to let you know someone got inside, and it's only good for that if it's armed for instant response.

The house was built in 2005. All wires are in the wall or underground.

You could fool the door sensor, but then you'd have to be careful not to trip the hidden motion detector.

...and before you'd climb up the stairs to say BOO!, my dog would bark his deep wolf-like Husky (...he's a red Husky) voice.

You're lucky, out here in the woods if you aren't home they just shoot the dog and take what they want. They have to be able to find the house though and mine is pretty well hidden, can't see it from the dirt road and the drive isn't real obvious either. I don't even own a key to my house anymore, it hasn't been locked in over 6 years. You sure there's no telephone box? Where the wire comes out of the ground and interfaces with the house. Anything beyond the box is your problem, anything before the box is the phone company. Should be right by your electric meter. Or do you guys still have those? If I was a really wicked thief I'd cut the little lock on the meter and yank it so you had no power.........

Like I said though I just assume that everybody has a gun.

Checkers that's not always true. Let's don't be scaring Rick.
More often that not they are crackhead losers, teenagers with no knowledge of the finer points of home invasion. I've built houses for 35 years and know every trick to get in them. The idiots that break windows and run in and grab something to pawn are not liable to have weapons since that means an extra ten years or so if they're caught. Still I like to know I can get my hands on the rusty old shotgun. It barks louder than the dog and has a really nasty bite.

Okay...okay.
Arguing this is indeed pointless.
Naturally I don't want to see anyone suffer a home invasion.
I installed phone and data for a good many years.
I know where the phone lines come in and I know what they look like, and I know that there's always a spot where they get cut.
This isn't meant to scare anybody, it's meant to shake them out of their complacency and denial.
The telephone is perhaps the easiest thing in the world to disable and besides that, you are NOT guaranteed a response if you call either the security company OR the police directly through 9-1-1.
Furthermore, the police are NOT legally REQUIRED to do anything. A rather well known lawsuit in the District of Columbia made that abundantly clear well over a decade ago.
People think that real life situations resemble the alarm commercials.
That's a tragedy waiting to happen.

That's all I am going to say on this particularly "alarming" issue.

Hi Greger!

Are you "familiar" with "these"?

Redneck fire alarm

LOL! I love it, Mama. I think some of my family has got some of those. The ones that live in Marietta.

Of course, Mama, I have one in every room! You can never be too safe! Here's my Redneck Alarm Clock

What about those that cannot afford ADT? Are they left in the cold? If you look a Chicago's crime rate, where handguns are banned, the violent crime rate of Chicago is over ten times that of Seattle, (where I live) the state of WA still has open carry laws. The stats speak for themselves.
Here is link to my research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Here is some statistics for you, Washington has open carry laws, the crime rate between Seattle and Chicago is astonomical. Chicago's rate is more than ten times the amount of violent crime. Chicago has banned handguns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

I agree with you checker, but if the police aren't legally required to do anything, why do we pay taxes for their dept then? If they don't do anything, they shouldn't get paid. That is how it works at my job, yours?

I think it is possible to have an alarm transmit via a cell phone. Anyway, this gun topic has been argued to death. The most unusual argument so far was on Boston Legal after Denny Crane (William Shatner) went to court. It came after he shot an armed mugger. Even if you've seen it, it is worth watching again HERE. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

He was carrying five pistols at the time (average for him) and didn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) so was put on trial.

The closing argument by his lawyer (with him when he was mugged) was a classic - it would take too long to describe it but suffice to say it is one I never heard before.

P.S. I was a reserve police officer for 20 years, have my CCW permit and one snub nosed .38 special revolver. I don't carry it all the time but there are occasions when I'm in high crime areas when I do.

It is also there in the unlikely event someone breaks in when we are home, but in fact most break-ins are done when people aren't home during the day or on vacation. However in Massachusetts the home owner just can't shoot someone bent on robbing them, they must have reasonable cause to believe they are in physical jeopardy and have no way to flee.

In Texas and other states you can just blow away anyone that enters your home if you can prove they were there to rob it. These laws differ state to state.

I have a hard time comparing Chicago with it's long ties to the mob and organized crime, to Seattle with it's long ties to excellent coffee shops. Maybe Seattle is a much tougher town than I imagine it to be and maybe that low crime rate is a direct result of a heavily armed population. I suspect that despite any laws that may be in place, the population of Chicago is as well armed as any city.

False causation

This is another version of the kind of suspect conclusions drawn by people who "just want to believe" which hologram is making on this thread about 911

- my goodness -

I thought Doug had pretty much laid that to rest and banned 9-11 conspiracy topics here. Some "debates" seem to go on and on and on with people preaching to their own particular choir and nobody else listening.

One thing I've always appreciated about RR is that the regular posters don't need an education in principles of right reason and logical thinking.

See Correlation does not imply causation..... (even if you really, really, really want it to....)

In Seattle you're more likely to have someone steal your ideas than your money.

Citizen backup and cleanup crew?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, obviously, the people in Chicago are ten times more evil than the people in Seattle!

-