Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns When Gun Control Freaks Go Wild:-)

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.

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

...
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.:-)

We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). We can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!
Carl Rowan, 1981 column (source: Wikiquote)

Here you go, Isso.

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000, Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said a hard drive crash had destroyed his data set, the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, David Gross, a Minnesota gun activist and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott. [4] Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[44] but Lott defends the surveys existence and accuracy.[45]

As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey, some critics suggested that Lott had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona.[44] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Some commentators accused Lott of transgressing normal practice, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[46][47] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[47]

"I probably shouldn't have done it -- I know I shouldn't have done it -- but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003

But, of course, our national situation would make it near impossible to remove enough guns to guarantee this result.

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.

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.

LOL! Excellent! I needed that laugh.

Up around Oatman, Arizona where McVeigh and company experimented with explosives, people of questionable intent often trot out to the deep desert to test massive guns and ordinance thinking that no one will know. People in Oatman (a little spit of dirt squat desert) have told me that the people of questionable intent think that no one will know what they are doing. Problem is, it is so damned quiet there everyone in Oatman can hear everything going on!

[quote] 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.