Star Fleet Battles Open Community

I AGREE with you on gun control, but I kind of wonder if we shouldnt avoid topics such as this for the time being. This kind if discussion is what creates most of the contentiousness and results in the most deletions on the ADB site.

You know that picture of Picard with his face in his palm at the desk?...that's me right now after reading Marcus's post.

Tim,

You could look up the History of the Bonus Army. Patton was REAL reluctant to "clear out those bums" as he know they had rifles. Rifles in enclosed spaces rightly scare tank commanders. Once you make the tank button up, it isn't that hard to get a few gallons of gas into the air vents on the back deck and light it up...

I'm all for back ground checks, I'm all for limits on who can get a handgun.

The statistics for rifles and handguns look a LOT different.

'Cause I don't know what is good for me, I'm gonna throw this in here--most people who advocate for "gun control", really, just want the rest of the country to do what New York already does, which is require a license to own a hand gun. Yeah, there are always bits in there about restricting access of serious firepower to civilians (which certainly has something to recommend it, for my money) in all gun control legislation, but the basic end result that most sane gun control advocates want for this country is that all states just do what New York already does.

Yes. There are certainly people with an extreme viewpoint that want all guns round up and locked away in a bunker somewhere (just like there are certainly people with an extreme viewpoint that want all state and governmental workers armed with handguns and want all citizens to be required to own an assault rifle). But if we just go with what is sane and reasonable, and make all states work like New York (where you need to take a class and get a license to own a hand gun; rifles/shotguns/hunting arms are not so restricted), I fail to see how that could possibly be a bad thing.

Ken wrote:
>>Then the government does, in fact, know who to ransack the houses of first. Also, it's very easy to 'slowly ratchet up the standards' until they're effectively banned.>>

Sure. You can worry about this. Or you cannot. I choose to not. Gun control works just fine in all other civilized countries. Like nationalized health care :-)

>>Also - it won't really KEEP the handguns out of the hands of the people you don't want to have them.>>

No, but it will make it more difficult to get them. Currently, if someone in New York wants to buy a hand gun when they don't have a license, all they have to do is drive a few states in some direction and buy one from a grocery store. Or know someone else who did. If you needed to have a license in all states, there would be that many fewer easy to buy and distribute hand guns. There is always something to be said for making things harder to get for people who shouldn't have them in the first place. Will there still be illegal guns bought and sold? Sure. But if you can't just walk into the local K-Mart and buy a magnum without a license, that many fewer magnums will be out and about.

>>If we were talking about, say, personal cannon ownership - where the item in question can't be shoved into a pants pocket and smuggled easily, I'd agree that licensing made some sort of sense, maybe, provisionally.>>

And yet requiring licenses to own a hand gun in New York works just fine. The only problem is that all the other states don't do the same thing.

These guns that kill thousands of people a year in this country, where do they come from? Are they purchased legally by qualified buyers and sold to the inner city youth and drug gangs? Are they stolen en masse from somewhere? I think it's true that for every person like you Ken, there's a person looking to cap someone. Stricter gun control laws can't hurt. This coming from a pretty conservative guy.

Before I respond further, what is CCW?

I missed these before:
>>I've lived in some pretty strange parts of the country (Amarillo TX, being one of them). Nowhere can you buy a gun at a grocery store or convenience store.>>

I can buy a Remington 12 gauge pump action shotgun for $238 at the local gas station/grocery in the rural town where I teach. 2 miles from the school. And all the ammo I care to carry. And the local K-Mart has enough rifles/shotguns to outfit a militia. And that's *in* New York.

>>Guns get smuggled in because the criminals know that they're not likely to face firearms.>>

The criminals with the smuggled in illegal guns are using their smuggled in illegal guns against the other criminals with other smuggled in illegal guns.

Of the people I know who do CCW (two of whom are women.)

Four are regular IDPA (http://www.idpa.com/) competitors. One of those is a cop who discovered computer programming pays a LOT better, and (in his words) gave him more time to exercise and work out. One is an engineer, one's a farmer, and one's an aviation mechanic. Honestly, the IDPA crowd is a lot like the SFB crowd - they're a bunch of very knowledgeable geeks. If you didn't get the heebie jeebies that they might be armed, you'd probably click with 'em pretty well.

Four are SF authors. One of them female. Benedictine monks might have comparable needs for self defense. Might. :) All of the SF authors in the set grew up in the South or Midwest.

Two are ex-SOCOM.

One is an ex Marine and current Army reservist, married, does CCW, and is trying to get his wife to pick up the habit.

(Ex SOCOM and ex military are very very different.)

One is a martial arts instructor. His partner has said that the only way they're getting married in Iowa is if he gives up the CCW, so he may stop. This may tell you why he does CCW...

One's a general building contractor. No idea why he does CCW.

One works for the DNR in Alaska, and I have no idea if he CCWs when around town. (This was a family friend, and my mother threw a hell of a protest when he came out to visit, took off his jacket and had a shoulder holster. He politely took it off and put it into the locked glove box of his locked car to make her happy - this was the first person I'd ever met who had a CCW. He's probably 70 now.)

One is a homemaker with two children at home, aged 4 and 7, and an ex husband who has consistently violated restraining orders whenever he's been back in the country from overseas contracting gigs. Her opinion is that when a man who's about 8" taller than her and more than twice her weight shows up at her doorstep at 3 AM, she wants to be able to tell him to go home and have it stick, because it'll take 30 minutes for the cops to get there. Her reason for CCW (rather than a gun safe) is because he's already let himself into the house twice, and because she'd rather have the gun on her person than someplace where inquisitive children might find it. (She's someone I worry about.)

There is a difference in attitude and mindset here as well, that I see most often in proficient martial artists or guys just back from Iraq or Afghanistan. They tend to be very...aware... of their surroundings. Most of them philosophize that carrying a weapon is a sign that they are, in fact, responsible adults. (They don't hold that people who don't do this don't qualify as responsible adults - they know a lot of people, even shooters, who don't want the burden and are cool with that.)

To them, CCW isn't something you do for fun, it isn't something you do to feel more macho. It's something you do and train for, like CPR, so that if you ever need to do it, you're prepared.

Edit: I also happen to live in one of the two states that does not issue CCW permits.

I can buy a Remington 12 gauge pump action shotgun for $238 at the local gas station/grocery in the rural town where I teach. 2 miles from the school. And all the ammo I care to carry. And the local K-Mart has enough rifles/shotguns to outfit a militia. And that's *in* New York.

It appears you find this offensive, or bothersome, based on how you wrote this.

Do you consider this a failure in your gun control law? Is it the fact that K-Mart can outfit a small militia? Or that a shotgun is available for sale 2 miles from where you teach?

What would you change in the law?

I've never seen a gas station selling guns. I've seen them selling ammo, but never guns. Live and learn.

Most places where I've seen it, they've been sold as sporting goods (long arms) and in dedicated gun shops (pistols). In one very small town I visited in Arizona, there was an honest-to-God general store with some deer rifles that had price tags on them that were probably a decade old.

Hey, you wanted humor jerk!

Most of you don't know this, but I own a few guns myself. They are mostly shotguns as I used to be a waterfowl hunting kind of guy. My mom's side of the family are all from Kentucky and they are about the biggest gun enthusiasts you will ever meet. My cousins own and run the largest Sporting Clays range in Western Kentucky. My grandfather keeps a loaded .44 magnum next to his bed to this day. Damned thing would probably deafen him and sprain his wrist if he fired it in his home now. He has about 40 other guns in his home, many of them loaded. I got my first gun at 11. You read that correctly - 11. It was a 410 gauge single shot shotgun. I shot my first bird a year later. I gave hunting up in my early 20s for several reasons. My family had recently moved to New Jersey and there where not as many areas here to hunt. Ammo was becoming expensive. But the biggest reason was that I lost the will to shoot animals. I still have nothing against hunting, it's just no longer for me. Now all my guns are at my grandfather's house or with my brother-in-law who is also a hunter.

All that being said, it was remarkably easy for my family to get me guns. I'm sure it's more difficult now, but I know that in most states people can legally own guns before they are of age to vote, drive, and consume alcohol. I find that to be disturbing. Now I never did anything stupid with them and my family taught me to be super responsible with them. But I grew up with a few guys that probably would have done something stupid. I think a good starting point would be to make a national minimum age requirement for gun ownership. Let's say 15. And to take it a step further, I would ban handguns from public use unless you're a member of the military, police force, or something similar. Handguns are made to do one thing: Kill people. Nothing else. Some people use them for hunting, but I think that's retarded because there is nothing a handgun can do that a rifle or shotgun can't do better in the arena of hunting.

Happy with my non-funny reply?

So.... Do you object to NY gun laws AS THEY STAND or do you object that its a slippery slope?

If slippery slope....

On that basis I think we shall ban Christianity because SOMETIMES some people that self identify as Christians go out and shoot abortion doctors.

Reducto ad Absurdum.

I dunno... the argument against Law X "Because someday they might change it" leads instantly to the only thing we can pass is an extreme polar position because if we compromise in anyway, "someday they might change it".

I object to them on multiple levels:

1) Second Amendment very clearly puts this out as a personal right. The 14th Amendment states that the Federal laws do completely overrule State laws when they're in conflict.

2) What does this law accomplish? No, not what you think it will accomplish - what does it actually accomplish? What's the historical record for similar laws on other countries? When you do murder rate per hundred thousand and correct for population density and ethnicity (happens more to minorities than to whites), the UK and the US have comparable homicide rates. The difference in overall population is that the UK has A) fewer big cities and B) much much more concentrated minority populations. The UK's murders are mostly done with knives, which they're now trying to ban - and their crime rate has gone up, largely as their percentage of immigrants have gone up.

Yes, yes, that can be read as nativist bullshit.

3) Historical precedent. Every society that has implemented laws like this - every single one - has used it to slowly whittle away at firearms ownership rights. In Germany in the 1930s, in Romania in the 1950s, Iran now, the UK from 1965 onwards. Every year, it's as if another set of 'reasonable restrictions' is added on until the right becomes meaningless.

I am far far more comfortable with laws that forbid the government from doing something than laws that enable the government to do something. Which is where your reductio ad absurdem stops. You'd need to repeal the First Amendment (or parts of it) to get that one through. It also fails the 'reasonable person' standard.

My own reductio ad absurdum was conflating automobiles (which kill about 2.5x as many people as firearms do) with guns - and when you factor in deaths caused by legally owned cars and legally owned guns, it's about 100x as lethal. I'm legally blind - I don't drive. I'm smart enough to get around the eye test; I just don't feel my personal vanity is worth risking other people's lives on the road over.

So, try again, Larry. :)

I'm all for issueing a full auto weapon to every household... along with a manditory 2 year stint in the National Guard and a Draft. (you know... like that war mongering nation... switzerland)

I think we'd have a lot less people voting for war if they thought they might have to go.

Ken wrote:
>>It appears you find this offensive, or bothersome, based on how you wrote this.>>

Nope. I find it neither offensive or bothersome that I can buy a shotgun in the local convenience store. You said that you can't buy guns in supermarkets. I was pointing out that you can. In the state with some of most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

>>Do you consider this a failure in your gun control law? Is it the fact that K-Mart can outfit a small militia? Or that a shotgun is available for sale 2 miles from where you teach?>>

Nope. I consider it an example of "here is what kind of gun control people actually want to implement." The kind where you can buy a shotgun in a grocery store. And can go to K-mart for all your hunting and sporting needs. But you need a license for a handgun. So they are harder to get for everyone, and people who do have them know how to use them and store them safely.

Ummmm..... You do know the history of the 1900s right? Unrestricted free markets work about as well as unrestricted free anarchy. As in.... real great if R.A.H. is writing a story... not so hot in real life.

R.A.H. is writing a story
LOL I wonder if you and I are the only people that get that R.A.H. reference .... bravo :)

That being said you have a pretty good line on my world view if you are the same list as me with Jim Bell and Tim May ;)

I disagree on your comment about the 1900's ... the US hasn't had unrestricted free markets outside select years in select places in the west and ditto with early pre-colonial days. Also I don't agree with anarchy; after all a government will always rorm and you always need a government to handle things a government should handle, contract enforcement between private parties.

But I digress ... there hasn't been a free market in as long as I can tell .. the government has always been regulating them in some way shape or form whether it be taxes, tariffs, safety codes, bans, or zoning.

From people who sell them. Where do the people who sell them get them? Buying them from some place where they're available, whether they're legal or not.

Cocaine was legal in the '60s and early '70s in Colombia. (Hell, it was legal here in the US through the '50s, and was part of the formula for Coca Cola). When it was made illegal in Colombia in the '70s, it had no impact on how much came into the US.

If you want to reduce the number of gun related deaths and injuries, get rid of the felons, don't get rid of the guns. The only thing you'll do by restricting access is make it so that people who use them for self defense can't have them. You'll increase the price for a pistol obtained illegally.

To where a lot of those illegally obtained guns get made and sold, a good number of them are made in China and Eastern Europe; they get smuggled in through the ports along with other contraband. People who buy guns legally in this country tend to keep them; they don't go down to the inner city and try and sell them. (One consequence of this is that most inner city guns are made to crap standards.)

FYI, the same thing applies to guns in Mexico, most of which are smuggled up with cocaine shipments from Colombia, and where they're manufactured.

If you need a license to own a *hand* gun, you end up in a world where:

A) The people who own handguns for non criminal enterprises are much more likely to know how to handle and care for said handguns safely.

The people who own handguns for non-criminal enterprises are already VERY VERY safe. No, really. You do NOT spend $800 to $1200 on a pistol, put up with the background checks and wait five days or more without thinking it through carefully.

However, you've failed to answer the following:

What is to keep the people who license handguns from ratcheting up the licensing requirements?

After all, the purpose of requiring licenses (and background checks, and waiting periods) is that we don't want the wrong sorts of people having them. You know, criminal records, belongs to a Militia unit, is a member of a particular social club. Works around children. People who have no real need for a handgun and poses a hazard if they flip out. Or shouldn't have them because they believe in something we don't.

Like college professors.

Remember Virginia Tech? The shooter there had a history of mental issues. He tried to buy a handgun and failed a background check.

The professor who stepped INTO HIS PATH, hoping to talk him down, knowing he was probably going to die?

Holocaust survivor. CCW permit holder. Wasn't carrying his pistol because Virginia Tech has a firearms ban he was complying with.

Would he have been carrying that day if he could have? Nobody knows, but per his family, it's possible. They say that the majority of times when he left home and wasn't heading to campus, he carried.

If he had, and had shot the kid, he'd have been fired, turned into a case example of why crazy college professors shouldn't have guns (and why nobody else should either).

And 26 students would still be alive.

You're aware that the shooter had time to stop and change magazines three times? He knew he was going to be the only one on campus with a gun. Even the police on campus didn't carry. Because, you know, they might flip out and kill someone after having gone power mad with the lust that all authority brings.

Had the shooter been confronted with a gun, would he have opened fire? Maybe. Would he have gotten to stop and reload? Unlikely.

So - we've already got one historical case where a gun ban killed people. And we already have one case where trying to make guns harder to get did not deter the shooter.

In the end for legal owners, handguns are considered recreational and nonessential. Which means nobody is going to think twice about adding additional restrictions after the first one is put into place. It'll be "Hey, we're just adding a minor restriction, it won't be more than an inconvenience to you, and it keeps them out of the hands of the bad guys."

You know, like requiring a license after legal purchasers have already passed a background check on purchasing something that costs $800 to $1200 or so.

B) The people who want handguns for criminal enterprises have to spend considerably more effort to get said handguns.

The majority of illegal handguns on the streets come from Eastern Europe on the East Coast, and from China and Central America on the West Coast. They do not go and buy them from other handgun owners.

For what it's worth, buying a gun that's as crappy as a street-Glock .40 at a store used to be about $300 to $500. It's now about $300 more. I haven't priced one on the streets lately, and am very very glad that part of my life is in the past, but I suspect it's comparable.

The process of buying a legal handgun runs like this:

1) "Wow, those things are expensive." $800 to $1200.
2) Please submit to a background check.
3) Please come back in five days.

You want to add:

4) Please make sure you have a license for this handgun, so that we know who has them.

How does your process make this more expensive for illegal owners again? Why are they going to care about step 4) when step 2) will blow it for them anyway? They're going to buy them from someone else who 'found it' and is selling it for a 'good price' and where they don't have to answer questions.

The ONLY people this restriction hinders are the legal firearms owners.

Which leads to the second problem.

Why does the government need to know I own a handgun?

Governments can gather data to apportion voting districts and allocate benefits. Does knowing that there are licensed firearms in that area impact either of these purposes? I suppose it could be used to withhold benefits because I'm an evil handgun owner with no criminal record...

Seriously - why does the government need to know? Because I might kill someone with it? I also own a rapier that I can kill someone with, and have very rusty Krav Maga skills, and could probably kill someone with it. Lots of little leaguers own baseball bats, too.

C) Handguns that are purchased by license holding handgun buyers are easier to track when they *do* end up in criminal enterprise.

Tell me how this works, then.

There are three ways to tell if a gun was specifically used to commit a crime:

1) Ballistics tests. This is by far and away the easiest one. And all they can do is match the bullets to guns found on the scene.
2) Found on the scene with fingerprints and powder residue. They can match powder residues with lots of bullets purchased.
3) Found on the perp by a witness that survived.

At no point do they even try to track who the original, legal purchaser of the gun is. Mostly because, when it's a cheap Hungarian copy of a Glock, it's like trying to find the original purchaser of a Taiwanese stereo.

At no point in time do they look for a manufacturer's serial number on a gun (most guns don't even have them). The gun does not implant a license number on each bullet fired.

"then the government can have an easier time finding you to kick in your front door when the revolution comes" (which isn't an argument I really pay any attention to--if you are concerned about the government kicking in your front door when the revolution comes, having a couple unlicensed handguns isn't going to save you.

"First they came for the Gays, and I did not concern myself, for I was not gay."
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not concern myself, for I was not Catholic."
"Then they came for the Jews, and there was nobody there to turn to."

As I stated earlier, it is not my ability to hold off a soldier with my gun that I concern myself.

It is that historically, the fate of the vast majority of people who disarm themselves is that they get abused by those who do not - even if the differences in armament are overwhelming. See Larry's comment about the Bonus Army of the 1930s, where guys with hanguns and deer rifles kept order in a tent city on the banks of the Potomac and the US Army didn't want to go in, in spite of having machine guns, infantry support weapons and tanks.

Had the Bonus Army not been armed, they'd've been dispersed. As it was, Congress eventually paid them.

The Bonus Army demonstrates why we have a Second Amendment. An armed citizenry can make demands on governments, and so long as that threat is there, the government behaves differently in its interactions.

Contrast with Tiananmin Square, where after a week of protests, the Chinese got tanks and mech infantry into the square who were not from the same region and had no compunction about shooting them, nor any tactical reasons to even be worried.

Since writing pieces that take thought doesn't work - here's sound bite questions.

1) How do criminals get guns?
2) How does licensing stop criminals from getting guns?

Accidental firearms related injuries in the US: 0.28 per 100,000.
Deaths by firearms in the US: 16.1 per 100,000
Homicide by firearm in the US: 6.7 per 100,000
Suicide by firearms in the US: 9.4 per 100,000
Overall death rate: 884 per 100,000

Let's compare death and injury rates:

Deaths by automobile in the US: 22.4 per 100,000
Injuries by automobile in the US: 363 per 100,000

Not the same, because you 'need' a car to make a living?

Let's compare it to other sports:

Deaths for downhill skiing: 1.1 per 100,000
Injuries for downhill skiing: 4.4 per 100,000

Deaths from fencing: 0.9 per 100,000
Injuries from fencing: 1.1 per 100,000

Deaths from organized martial arts: 1.4 per 100,000
Injuries from organized martial arts: 4.6 per 100,000

Head injuries from baseball pitches: 0.84 per 100,000
Trauma injuries from baseball bats: 1.02 per 100,000

Let's compare to other usage of physical equipment:

Injury rates for Golf: 0.98 per 100,000
Injury rates for cordless drill operator: 0.91 per 100,000
Injury rates from Airsoft: 0.64 per 100,000

Injuries per year from lightning (aggregate US): 0.41 per 100,000

Yes, being struck by lightning is about 1.5x as likely as an accidental firearms injury.

Legal firearms ownership is remarkably safe. Your licensing requirement isn't likely to make it appreciably safer than the shooting community (and high barrier to entry) already do. Your licensing requirement won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Why is this necessary again?

Ken wrote:
>>What is to keep the people who license handguns from ratcheting up the licensing requirements?>>

That same thing that keeps them from kicking in your front door and confiscating your guns in the first place. There are enough gun rights advocates in the country (and government) who staunchly refuse to give even an inch on the most rational gun control legislation. The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really hold water. Any more than the "the government is going to confiscate all our guns" argument does, in regards to the kind of completely rational handgun licensing that I advocate.

>>After all, the purpose of requiring licenses (and background checks, and waiting periods) is that we don't want the wrong sorts of people having them.>>

No it isn't. Well, not completely. It is to make sure that people who buy hand guns know how to safely use and store handguns. And so that people who live in states that do require licenses can't end up with guns bought in other states that don't require licenses.

>>Remember Virginia Tech? >>

Yes. And I'm unconvinced that this is evidence that civilians should wander around packing heat. I don't *want* random honest civilians wandering around with guns. That doesn't make me feel safer. I don't think that if random honest civilians at Virginia Tech were carrying concealed firearms in class that the shooting would have been any less tragic.

>>So - we've already got one historical case where a gun ban killed people.>>

That is a completely hyperbolic statement. There not being handguns in the possession of random honest civilians on a college campus is not the reason that said shooting resulted in dead people. I'd gander that *most* if not *all* college campuses don't let random honest civilians carry concealed firearms. And yet the vast, vast majority of the time, people don't end up dead due to a lack of firearms.

>>In the end for legal owners, handguns are considered recreational and nonessential. Which means nobody is going to think twice about adding additional restrictions after the first one is put into place.>>

And yet New York is filled with people with legally owned handguns. And no slippery slope of people being denied the right to purchase them.

>>Tell me how this works, then.>>

You have a gun used in a crime. It has a serial number. You know who bought it in the first place. Perhaps this is something that isn't done currently, but that is 'cause there isn't a way to track who originally purchased the gun. If there was national licensing, there would be. Sure. Sometimes, that would be a fruitless search due to guns being smuggled in from overseas. But sometimes it wouldn't.

>>It is that historically, the fate of the vast majority of people who disarm themselves is that they get abused by those who do not>>

And where, prey-tell, am I suggesting that people disarm themselves? I'm advocating national licensing to purchase and own *hand* guns. Not rifles. Or shotguns. *Hand* guns. The argument of "but if people don't have guns, the tyrannical government will round them up and shoot them in ditches, 'cause that is what happened in..." is an irrelevant argument in the face of "Well, go buy all the rifles you want. Just have a license for a handgun."

So some kid finds his parent's gun and kills himself will be stopped by a parent being trained how to use the gun?

I am assuming you believe it means those parent's will better store the guns in some kind of locked container. That is a pretty big assumption. Do you have any numbers to prove this isn't happening now? That the guns kids are findning and killing themselves/others are not found in a locked box?

Just out of curiousity Andy, when was the last time you priced a handgun? Anybody who spends that kind of money and currently doesn't lock it up isn't going to lock it up after a licensing requirement is passed.

Also to Pete Bajika

Why do you believe it is easier to accidentally shoot someone with a handgun over a rifle? They are just as easy to fire. Point an pull trigger. If the guy at VATech hadn't had access to an hand gun but could have bought a shotgun or rifle, do you think he wouldn't have gone one his shooting spree? Is it it more likely that he just would have done it with a rifle instead?

Well first off, I would think the people who store their hand guns that way are just genetically stupid and would do the same thing with training.

However, let's take your premise of FEWER accidential deaths. How many fewer deaths? The numbers Ken provided say accidential deaths account for .28 in 100,000 without licensing. If that number is reduced to .20, is it worth the cost of implementing a licensing procedure?

>>Why do you believe it is easier to accidentally shoot someone with a handgun over a rifle?>>

(Archduke--who are you?)

I don't think it is easier to accidentally shoot someone with a handgun over a rifle. But handguns are the guns most often used inappropriately (i.e. in crimes) due to being small and easy to conceal. Consequently, it makes sense (to me) to make the bar to own a handgun higher. Requiring a license to own a handgun (assuming said license also requires safety training) raises the bar and makes sure that the people who do own them aren't likely leaving them loaded in a bedside table when they have kids in the house, 'cause it never occurred to them that it was a bad idea . And making licenses a national thing means that the states that *do* have licenses don't have to fight people bringing in guns from other states that *don't* have licenses.

>> They are just as easy to fire. Point an pull trigger. If the guy at VATech hadn't had access to an hand gun but could have bought a shotgun or rifle, do you think he wouldn't have gone one his shooting spree? Is it it more likely that he just would have done it with a rifle instead?>>

Sure. He would have gone on a killing spree with a rifle. Which is bigger and harder to conceal. And someone might have noticed it before the shooting started.

The shooting at Virginia Tech was a catastrophe. But that gun proponents cling to it as an example of "But if people on campus were all allowed to carry pistols, none of it would ever have happened!" is absurd. Horrible mass shooting happen once and a while. And they are horrible. But having random honest civilians wandering the streets packing heat isn't going to stop or prevent such things.

Moose wrote:
>>I highly recommend "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns" by John Lott.>>

Well, to be fair, John Lott's research is considered, say, questionable, at the very least, even by other conservatives.

No offense is meant in this Andy, but I find that unbelievable naive. If there is a 30% reduction in accidential deaths, which I doubt would happen from a licensing requirement, there lobbying efforts would just be moved into another aspect of getting guns banned.

You said you know people who keep loaded handguns in side table drawers. My questions is have you asked if they know how dangerous that is? Honestly, if they say no, then they are idiots. It sounds more like they have made a decision to act in an unsafe manner. That wouldn't change if they went through a training class that tells them its unsafe.

The subject line is optional. Just don't type anything into it unless you want to.

>>My name is Russell Manning. I am on the other boards as well.>>

Oh, ok. Hi Russell!

>>Same response as a posted to Andy. If somebody is keeping a loaded handgun in an unlocked drawer and doesn't realize how unsafe it is, they are an idiot, and a training class isn't going to change that.>>

Yeah, see, but maybe it will. You can't base legislation on "Well, if people are stupid, then people are stupid." Lots of things in the world seem like common sense, yet people still don't think about them until someone points it out. It strikes me as patently insane to, say, text while driving. Yet people do it all the time. Until someone makes a law that says "Texting while driving is illegal. 'Cause it is ridiculously dangerous." Are some people going to keep texting while driving? Sure. But a lot of people will stop. 'Cause someone pointed out that it was ridiculously dangerous. And against the law.

If people are forced to take gun safety classes to get a handgun license, will *all* of them not keep loaded guns in their drawer when there are kids in the house? Probably not. But if, as Andy pointed out, part of said license was mandatory safe storage of guns, if someone *doesn't* store their gun safely and someone gets accidentally shot, they can be punished accordingly. Which further encourages people, even stupid people, to store guns safely.

>>I mean do you really think anybody in this day doesn't know how dangerous a gun can be?>>

It isn't a matter of not knowing how dangerous a gun can be. Someone buys a handgun for self defense. They figure "If I have a gun to protect my family, it won't do me any good if it is unloaded with a trigger lock", and keep it loaded in a drawer. Until their kid finds it and accidentally shoots someone. If this person was instructed about how it is *really* a bad idea, even for personal defense, to leave a loaded handgun in a drawer when there are kids in the house, maybe they do something else.

Extra mandatory training in gun safety for everyone can't possibly hurt. But *not* having extra mandatory training in gun safety can, and regularly does, hurt.

>>And considering nobody on campus, even the University police, was armed, it just means the shooting would have started earlier. When you consider many, if not most, rifles carry more shots then pistols, he would have been able to shoot more people.>>

Maybe, maybe not. Again, pointing to Virginia Tech as an example of "If more people had guns, that wouldn't have happened" is just not a viable argument. Yes. People got killed by a wackjob with a gun. But most, if not all, college campuses are places where students, staff, and even public safety don't carry guns. And the instances of people *not* being shot at a college by a wackjob with a gun outweigh the instances where people do, like, a billion to one. And if you expand this from "colleges" to "countries where people don't carry guns, 'cause it is illegal", the instances of "people getting killed by a wackjob with a gun" outweigh "people not getting killed by a wackjob with a gun" by an even more gigantic margin.

If someone in one of those classrooms was packing heat, would fewer people have been killed? Maybe, maybe not. There is no way to know. But claiming that "fewer people would have been killed if someone *did* have a gun" is questionable, at best.

Yes,
That is what it will do. But you don't have to enter anything. The field is not mandatory.

Nope. Didn't work. I left the subject field blank, and still got "ok, so the answer..." as a subject field automatically. And didn't have the option to erase the subject line. So I guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

What I am saying is that you don't need to type anything there. Sure, that won't make the "title" of your reply blank, but you don't have to waste your time typing in a title unless you want one.

They are something I can live with. It's very similar to what we see on the ADB site where the first few words of the post are repeated. And we have the added option of artistic license with these.

"As for its use to fend off an oppressive federal government, I can't believe anyone actually believes any militia, or any combination of them thereof, have any chance against the US Military. But...I'll listen to arguments."

Obama wants to create an armed "Civilian Security Force" that is equally well armed and funded as the regular military. Why?

Could it be because he doesn't trust the military to put down an armed domestic rebellion?

His Homeland Security Advisor, Janet Napalitano, put out a memo identifying retired veterans as possible recruits and leaders of a domestic terrorist force.

If you were, oh...say a Communist Authoritarian who planned on turning the U.S. into a Communist Dictatorship, would you trust the U.S. military to carry out your coup? Would you trust them to put down the inevitable rebellion by the militia contemplated in the 2nd Amendment?

No, you wouldn't. The military has historically stayed in their barracks and refused to get involved in civil unrest. The States and the Federal Government have used the National Guard instead (although the recent extensive use of the National Guard as a defacto Army Reserve blurs that line).

In fact, having been sworn to uphold the Constitution, our hypothetical dictator would expect at least as many soldiers to join the rebellion as not (putting the Napolitano memo in a creepy new light).

So, instead, you would want to create your own Internal Security Force, loyal to you, the Dictator, personally. Because your darn right would be dictators fear an armed citizenry. Why? Because a would be dictator in charge of an oppressive Federal Government would not, at least not as of today, be able to count on the regular military to put down such a militia.

So, you don't believe anyone actually believes a 2nd Amendment Militia has a chance against the U.S. Military? Well, Obama does. Think about that one.

Peter.......

I see a lot of opinion in that post.... precious little fact. I'm not saying you are wrong, but if you are going to make statements like the ones you just made, I think you should do us all the favor of doing a little research and showing some studies that back you.

You have claimed that other people have made arguments that aren't viable, but you haven't shown why. Ken provided some statistics on death rates by guns to back his arguments. I provided a historical example of when the 2nd amendment actually FORCED the federal government to live up to its obligations. (The 20s-30s were a really scary time in American history.... we missed slipping into Fascism my the narrowest of margins. I might argue that it didn't matter because 50 years later we happily walked right into it with big smiles on our faces....)

I like ya Peter, and I actually kinda agree with you in a lot of this.... but your "argument by opinion" style is filled with poo! :)

Very amusing list, especially considering, in many cases, Communism and Nationalism are polar opposites...

>>Obama is a Left Wing Authoritarian in the mold of Stalin. Consider:>>

Wow. It is like you are getting orbital mind control rays directly from the Sean Hannity satellite! Awesome!

He actually sounds a bit more like Michael Savage.

Monty.
A little extreme I would say. Stuff like this destroys the crediblity of conservatives.

"11) For compulsory national service;
12) Wants to create an Internal Civilian Armed Security Force;
.
.
.
15) Wants to severly curtail gun ownership rights;"

Besides the fallacy of telling me what someone else "feels" (as in Obama hates X) I'm simply going to address the above inconsistency....

Either Obama wants his Left Wing Communist Militia to take away your freedom to watch Faux News, or he wants to take your guns away so that his Jack Booted Gestapo thugs can knock down your door and force you to turn off Faux News and listen to NPR. You can't have both at the same time.

(While you can accuse NPR of having a liberal bent if you want... studies have shown that people that listen to NPR repeatedly get the correct answers about questions of FACT while Faux News watchers repeatedly score the lowest. I guess reality has a well known liberal bias)

I'm for compulsory national service. I'm for compulsory assault rifle ownership. (well, its the army's rife, you just keep it at your house) I however admit freely to being a socialist about quite a few things.... So you can call me a socialist if you want... I think you'd be wrong, but I won't take it as the worst insult someone could come up with.

"16) and through all of the above, is trashing the Constitution."

Yeah, those 8 years of illegal wire taps, politics driving intelligence, TREASON (outing a CIA agent is treason where I come from), and recess appointments all strengthened the Constitution.

Get Real. Obama has done a lot of things that REALLY REALLY bug the hell out of me.... and I would believe the honest outrage of anyone who was as equally critical of that retard I was stuck with for 8 years.... but when Bush gets a free pass and Obama is "trashing the constitution" I gotta wonder:

1) Where in the heck fire do you get this non-sense from?
2) Are you immune to any fact that doesn't mesh with your world view?

Note that I am not defending Obama as the worlds greatest president ever... I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote against him in the next primary... maybe even in the election if the other party can put up someone who believes in science. (that is a knock on Palin, not so much McCain) However, our logic for why Obama is terrible.... is... well... not based in any fact dominated consensus reality that I engage in.

Just you wait and see. Obama is building an entire shadow government parallel and outside of the Constitution. The Czars, Obamacare, Cap & Trade, ACORN, SEIU, and more, are all pieces of a dictatorial regime.

Obama means to "remake" America, his words mind you. I take him at his word. The result of what he wants to do to America will be to destroy the Constitution.

You either get it, or you don't. The evidence is all there if you're willing to look at it. I'm not interested in trying to educate you, you have to do that for yourself.

If you're a Socialist, I appreciate your honesty. That said, we have nothing else to talk about in terms of politics.

Socialism is anathema to the American Experiment in Self Government. I want America to stay the way the Founders intended it to be---one of limited government, free market capitalism, where freedom and liberty of the individual is paramount. Socialism will destroy that. Socialism has brought poverty and stagnation everywhere its been tried. No Thanks@!

Interesting, Montgomery, about your views on socialism, since most of Western Europe has strong socialist elements in their economies and the fastest growing economy in the world (China) is communist. Doesn't sound like "poverty and stagnation" to me.

Of course, rampant free market capitalism is what caused our housing bust and the ensuing recession, but we'll just right that off as a "blip", right?

I find the political talking heads, on both sides, pretty hilarious. They feel they have to get sensationalists in order to get listeners. Bush W. was a "fascist" and now Obama is a "commie." Pretty hilarious stuff, in a sad sort of way.

I'm a conservative democrat. I'm socially conservative, believe in dialogue rather then bullying as a foreign policy method, and believe that our economic system should be a balance of free market and government regulation that allows for entrepreneurism and growth while managing risks to the national economy. I'm also anti-union and anti-monopoly. Yeah, everyone has at least one reason to hate my guts :-)

But will all that, I've gotta say that I felt less secure in my personal rights as an American under the last 6 years of Bush's presidency than I do now under Obama's.

Yes, Obama's economic policies are naturally more left than Bush's, but frankly, it's tough to get more "right" than Bush was in that regard. Everything is relative. Yes, Obama's health care plan is socialized medicine lite, but compared to the alternative the GOP presented (McCain's buy insurance over state lines), it's by far the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it will help, but 1. it will hurt less than McCain's plan would have and 2. we're at the point where we have to try something.

As for the Founding Father's comment - you do realize that they lived before the Industrial Revolution hit our nation and died long before we evolved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy? Those same Founding Fathers, however, were smart enough to make the Constitution flexible enough to adjust to the changing times. 1780's economic policy doesn't work in a 21st century economy. Thankfully, they realized that, even if you don't.

Yep, and from the other side of the Ocean it seems the US system is in need of nothing short of a revolution.
You don't get good sensible politics when the politicians are so totally in the hands of both lobbyists and (to a lesser extent) electorate.
And while it once sounded like a swell idea to have a Senate (from latin 'elder') to see to that the laws made by congress were good, in a statemanlike manner, it appears to be just a tool for the fight between Dems and Reps today. Your nation can only suffer from that.
Btw, our parliament had two chambers once too, but changed to one chamber system a few decades ago. Works great apparently as I have never heard of any suggestions to move back to the old system:)

Out of curiosity, does your country have anything like lobbyists (you're in Sweden right?)

I agree lobbyists are a problem here, but I'm not sure how exactly we should deal with them. I want to say just get rid of them but have this sneaking suspicion that there would be unintended consequences.

Hardcore. One reason behind having the two separate legistlative bodies in the US, that applies even today, is to prevent/reduce knee-jerk fear driven legistlature. The members of Congress are re-elected every 2 years, so on average, vote on legistlature about a year before being re-elected - this makes them very succeptable to public opinion and less able/likely to take the "long view" on subjects. The Senators, on the other hand, are elected every 6 years, so, theoretically, 2/3 of them have at least 3 years before being up for re-election. The theory is rarely tested out, but does allow the nation to potentially avoid bad legistlation out or re-election fear.

<<<>>>>

Well that and most people in this country are actually centrist or conservative.

Archduke wrote:
>>I am curious why you self-identify yourself as a Democrat. Nothing on that list is specifically Democratic and much is Republican. >>

While I can't speak for Andy, looking at his list, "Dialogue vs Bullying as foreign policy" is pretty much on the Dem side (see: "I want to talk to our enemies, rather than shut them out and invade them"); A balance of free market and regulation is very Dem (rather than "Let the invisible hand make it all work out! Hurrah for market adjustments!"); Being Anti-Monopoly is very Dem. The only thing on his list that is remotely on the Republican side of things is being Anti-Union.

Andy, by comparison in many in the Swedish Parliament the elected sit for four years, and the election date is fixed. (Elections for local and regional governning bodies take place at the same date.)
Wiki has good pages on this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

The Senate has far stopped being the representative of the sovereign States - with the limited exception of earmarked money for State projects - and serves nothing more than to impose the will of a smaller population, but one spread over a far larger land mass with, now, arbitrary segregation.

Senators are not a national position. I have nothing to say about who gets elected in Utah. The Senators in Utah need not speak to my issues or yours - they need speak only to the issues of the citizens of Utah. That these positions may be of national, rather than geographic, scope is not what matter. Again, citing the two issues I mentioned above - gay rights and single-payer health care - the Senators of Utah need not appeal to a national position on those issues, but rather to Utah's position on those national issues.

As a result, on National issues, the citizens of smaller states are massively overrepresented. A similar calculus applies (though it is mitigated by a large majoritarian component) to the electoral college. Since the vote for each State in the EC are the sum of its House (majoritarian) and Senate (counter-majoritarian) seats, the National election for our President is also (though to a lesser degree) biased towards the beliefs of those in the smaller States.

I would say that any bias in smaller states in the electoral college is more than balanced out by the winner-takes-all nature of the Electoral College in most states. If 49.9% of the voters in California vote for party A and 50.1% vote for party B, party B gets all 55 Electoral College votes, giving those majority voters in California an increased weight in their votes that more than offsets the greater representation of those in smaller states.

I will also note that of those states/districts with 3 or 4 Electoral College votes (i.e., 1 or 2 congressmen), 6 of them are in the liberal leaning North East vs. 6 in the West. Then there's AK and HI (which split in the 2008 election).

Given that TX (34 electoral college votes) is typically conservative and both CA (55) and FL (27) are swing states, the whole concept that the liberals in larger states are being disenfranchised is pretty spurious.

In reality, the socio-economic link trends toward rural areas being more conservative vice urban areas being more liberal, but there is no such trend or link between states with lower electoral college votes and those with larger for there is no direct link between urban population proportionality and state population.

The book I'm thinking of (I'm on the road, it's in a box) was not the tripe that I find on Google.

I'll dig out the author of it and give a full citation.

But very nice summation. The Senate was also intended to represent the views of the States to the national government; that never worked as well in practice as it was intended.

Which is why the mounting drive for 19th century populism got the 17th Amendment passed, which allowed for the direct election of Senators, and opened them up for lobbying aims as well.

Carl, one thing you should be aware of - your national government is about the same size and scope as a middle tier state government in the US. Your elections are probably as contested as, say , the ones in Virginia are. Most Europeans have no *clue* about the scope of Americal national level politics.

Ken, do not forget we vote for the European parliament. Politics on that level is not unfamiliar to us, and neither are we unfamiliar with US politics at that level. Actuallly, we know very little, if anything at all, about US state level politics.

About the last president campaign I agree with you; too much of a mess, after Bush, to be worth running for. Why get yourself wrinkles and gray hair like Clinton?

I have to respectfully disagree with Ken on this one. The only way I see this one ever going away as a "hot topic" issue is if both sides come together and agree upon a resolution that neither likes but that both can live with.

It's not as if we religious conservatives aren't breeding more religious conservatives :-) People are also still trending toward being more socially conservative as they age so no, I don't see one side gaining an overwhelming advantage in numbers any time in the next 100 years.

Much in the way the religious conservatives opposed black-white marriage, abortion right, and supported jailing and (before that, killing) men who had sex with men, they can really only continue to prevent social progress through the Senate and local elections. The religious conservatives will loose on gay rights, like they did on rights of blacks to marry whites, but that eventuality will occur through the courts as the courts will ultimately follow the movement in the various States.

This is probably a good 20 years off and the excessive breading of religious conservatives is unlikely to be a significant factor. ;) The timing could certainly end up being further delayed. Religious conservatives were successful in preventing blacks and whites from marrying until the late-seventies. They were successful in keeping criminalized male-male sex until only a few years ago. So, sure, they very likely will be able to have hold-outs on gay marriage for several more decades, but it is almost a certainty the the courts will eventually fix things that (national) politicians cannot.

"You are twice as likely to kill yourself with a gun than you are of being in a situation where having one might be useful."

Peter, I would like to see some reliable statistics on this one, since the studies I am familiar with, especially the one by Gary Kleck (a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization {quoted from his own disclosure statement}), show the guns are used to defend gun owners almost 2 million times a year. This number far exceeds the number of people killed by guns each year, so please enlighten me as to where you obtained the information you are putting forward.

Montgomery said:

"3) You say you felt less secure in your liberties under Bush than Obama? That is a testament to the power of the MSM to influence opinion. That statement is flatly ridiculous to me, although you are entitled to your opinion, however poorly informed."

What complete and uninformed nonsense. You call that a response??? Did Andy say that he was watching MSN all the time, or did he simply forget to mention that his sources weren't exclusively from Fox News? Andy's not the only one who has felt this way and there is a vast quantity of evidence to back this up. Bush started illegal wiretapping, Bush made torture mainstream, Bush punished dissent and disagreement through illegal and underhanded methods (outing a CIA agent), Bush fired attorneys who did not follow the party line, then tried to cover it up. You can criticize Obama if you want, but you have your own blinders on if you ignore the Orwellian activities of the Bush administration in its run-up to and prosecution of its private vendetta against Iraq.

Also, of course Western European economies are stagnated, so is the US and most of the rest of the world. We call that a recession, perhaps you've heard of it? At least the Europeans protect their unemployed. Your examples of violence there are exclusively from France, which has a revolutionary tradition that inspires this sort of behavior, which has nothing to do with Western European socialism as an ideology. I'm not sure I like it, but at least it's not the couch potato apathy of American "democracy".

So you're saying that Obama has sent out a directive for union thugs to go beat up anti-union people? Back up that nonsense with some actual fact. Immediately. And please do cite your sources. Some thugs who happen to be involved with unions may be emboldened by an administration who isn't actively trying to crush unions out of existence, and it would be unfortunate if there were violence as a result, but that's a ridiculous stretch to suggest that Obama would have ordered these gangs out. Good grief.

Approximately 2 million lives saved by civillian firearms ownership.
Approximately 15K deaths by firearms (suicide and homicide combined)
2,000,000/10,000 = 200x as likely that your gun will save you as you'll commit suicide by gun.
2,000,000/5,000 = 400x as likely that your gun will save you as you'll be killed by someone else as a gun.

Montgomery. You posted a lot of paraphrasing of Right Wing bloggers but no actual fact.

Here's a fact for you: under the Bush administration, American citizens were arrested and held, without charge or trial. That hasn't happened under the Obama administration. Ergo, I feel safer.

re: LGBT issues. While admittedly, religious conservatives were at least partly behind the early bans on inter-racial marriage, same gender relations, etc., they were hardly a united front. There were always measurable elements of religious conservatives who did not support those bans. The former has only the weakest of religiously-based arguments; most were based on prejudice and, at the time, societal norms (unfortunately, many conservatives are resistant to any change) while the latter, while having more scriptural basis, is more easily handled with the "what happens between two consenting adults..." approach.

Neither same gender marriage nor abortion rights have such a divide among religious conservatives. There are divides, but they are focused around subjects like civil unions and allowable exceptions - items I foresee as being ultimately part of any "don't like it, but can live with it" compromises that are eventually reached. But on the core issues themselves, there really isn't any sort of "epiphany", as happened with the other two cases, that can occur for these. Also remember, that the courts do not have the ultimate power. Religious conservatives got the 18th amendment passed, after all. I'm not saying prohibition was the correct thing to do, but the fact is, if you change the constitution with an amendment, the courts no longer even have a say.

>>Approximately 2 million lives saved by civillian firearms ownership.>>

You can't realistically claim "2 million lives saved by civilian firearms ownership". Firearms were claimed to be used in 2 million instances of crime. That is all. There is no way to know if even a single one of these would have resulted in a death if not for the civilian firearm ownership.

Were *some* lives saved by civilian ownership? Sure. I'll certainly give that some people were in life threatening situations that they got out of by virtue of having hand guns. But it seems that just as many people were put in life threatening situations simply *because* civilians owned firearms.

"But it seems that just as many people were put in life threatening situations simply *because* civilians owned firearms."

Ken and I have shown statistics from reputable studies that civilian firearms are used to prevent approximately 2 million crimes a year. Are these all life threatening? No, of course not. But are you seriously telling me that rape or assault or armed robbery are ok just because they don't result in death?

You should read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Masaad Ayoob. Although a bit dated (published in 1980) it is an excellent work detailing instances of self defense with handguns, with case studies about the event, and what followed the actual shootings.

Show me your studies that prove that "just as many people were put in life threatening situations simply *because* civilians owned firearms." That is what has been asked of those of us who are pro-gun, now I ask it of you. Where is the proof of your statement?

Well Tim, you and others have asked for evidence: it has been provided. Anecdotes, personal opinions, and mocking Ken and I do not change that. Gary Kleck himself admitted that he was not expecting these results when he made his study, but that is what he came up with. 2 million defensive gun uses a year. To be fair, many (indeed, perhaps most) of these consist of simply showing or brandishing the weapon to scare off a thief/attacker. That doesn't change the fact that the gun helped prevent a crime.

Just an FYI, I do not now, and never have, had a CCW permit. The only time I have carried firearms with me was when I was in the Army. I live in NJ, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

Paul. Well, first of all, it is currently the liberals who are stalling on a constitutional amendment vote on the definition of marriage. 3/4 of states ratifying such an amendment is not outside the realm of probabilities.

Also, I do find it ... humorous, in a sad sort of way, that those of us who support legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman are considered "prejudiced" for our views. I have quite a few gay friends. I've been to their homes, I hang out with them. I don't approve of their lifestyle choice, but that doesn't stop us from being friends. I have friends who smoke pot, too, and I don't approve of their lifestyle choice either - does that make me prejudiced against pot smokers? I guess all the people who dislike Michael Vick are prejudiced against animal abusers, too, right?

The fact is, marriage was created as a religious institution. It was not until relatively recently that government even began getting involved in marriage. The fact also is that defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not impinge on anyone's civil rights. You are not barred from marrying someone based upon religion, race, or sexual preference. A gay man may marry a gay woman or may marry a straight woman.

Yes, things get a bit ridiculous at that point, but really, what's next? Removing the 2 person limit, legalizing polygamy - after all, we wouldn't want to be prejudiced against those who prefer multiple partners, right? 2 men and 3 women getting married together? Of course, because marriage is all about sexual preference...

Now, I'm one of those "radical" religious conservatives who supports states having the right to set up civil union laws. I understand the need for, and support next of kin rights, etc. I'm opposed, however, to defining same-sex relationships as marriage - I support the right for those relationships to exist and recognize the need to allow some formal recognition, but those relationships aren't consistent with the religious principles that created marriage in the first place.

Also, FYI, according to the 3 online dictionaries I checked, sex and gender are synonymous in this usage; gender is only masculine/feminine in the context of language - in the context of genitalia, it has exactly the same meaning as sex.

bakija said:

"I heart you, John. I'm glad you are here :-)"

Thanks Peter! It's nice to be back, even if I find myself ranting uncontrollably. Whew, I'd already be banned from the SFB BBS after this.

Okay, more ranting :)

As for the gay marriage thing, marriage was not created as a religious institution, it exists all over the world in a variety of forms and has done so throughout human history. If you are to single out marriage in the western tradition, then you would trace it back to the Roman period, where it was entirely a civil institution. It remained so throughout the Roman period, even in the more Christianized late empire and continued to remain so throughout the period of late antiquity, following the collapse of imperial authority in the west. I don't recall exactly when the church finally co-opted marriage, but I want to say it was introduced as a sacrament at the Council of Trent, 1547ish, although it could have been as early as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (can't remember and don't have the data immediately available). At any rate, it's not fundamentally a religious institution and if the church wants to claim ownership of it, it can do this within its own group of followers, but it lacks the authority to make such a claim across society as a whole for many more reasons than simple historical lineage. Government has been involved in this particular strain of marriage significantly longer than Christianity has been and I personally would much, much rather have government involved than religion.

And from a personal standpoint, I also have friends who are gay and I frankly don't care what their lifestyle is. If they form a legally-recognizable union, I don't care what they call it and it certainly doesn't harm me in any way. If it brings happiness to them, then I'm all the more for it and it makes me happy too. Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is a complete non-starter, because it's only a statement and not an argument. Perhaps the statement expands into an argument by saying that it is meant for the purposes of procreation, but I think it's suitably been demonstrated that marriage is not required for this and if a religion wants to confine its followers to this institution before allowing such a simple pleasure as sex, then that's its prerogative...with its followers.

I find it funny how religious fundamentalists try to insist that gays are trying to inflict their lifestyle upon others when all they're asking for is to be allowed to interact with their own in ways that are acceptable to others. The incursion here is entirely coming from the fundamentalists, who feel that their religious beliefs are being encroached upon if the government does not compel others to behave like them. I'll leave the sometimes dubious notion of moral absolutes for another discussion, but I'm with Paul on this one, although admittedly not so much from a legal standpoint, as I'm not a lawyer.

-John

is "flag @ Whitehouse.Gov".

It was set up by Linda Douglas, communications director for the White House Health Reform Office. There is a video that she made, where she introduced the site thusly:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag @ Whitehouse.Gov. ”

All those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome would have been up in arms if GWB had done this. The selective outrage exhibited on the Left is so typical, and why I no longer take their complaints seriously.

Carl, in my state of New Jersey it is illegal to own, let alone to use a Taser. Pepper Spray is a decent alternative against bare-handed attackers, but really would do little to deter anyone outside hand-to-hand range.

Paintball is indeed fun, but the tactics that are used in paintball are counter to everything I have learned in my time in the military and the defensive handgun classes I have taken since. Also, a paintball gun would do little to protect my wife and children in the event of a home invasion robbery. Just last week a couple in my town was badly beaten when two men broke into their home to rob it. I take the responsibility of protecting my family seriously.

"Andy, your rhetorical pretzel-twisting is making my head spin. The point of legalizing gay marriage is to eliminate the social marginalization and violence that's still being committed against gay people just for being who they are. You realize that sexual orientation isn't a choice, right? You might find homosexuality icky yourself, but just understand that by opposing gay marriage rights you're endorsing systemic bigotry."

Legalizing Gay Marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with social marginalization or violence committed against Gay people. Do you really think that those who commit hate crimes against gay people will stop because gay marriage is legalized!?!? And, if anything, the social marginalization against Gays would increase as Gay marriage is legalized; primarily as a backlash. I personally support adding crimes against Gays to hate crime legislation; marriage has nothing to do with it. Also, if you recall, I personally support civil unions - having those relationships legalized and recognized - my opposition is in calling those relationship marriage.

Also, I do concede that some people are born with a pre-disposition to homosexuality. Some people are born with a pre-disposition to stealing, too - that doesn't make stealing any less wrong. No, instead, we expect kleptomaniacs to still choose not to steal, despite their pre-disposition. So, while I concede that people are born with a pre-disposition to homosexuality, I still view it as a lifestyle CHOICE. Difficulty of choice does not equal removal of responsibility.

-----------------------------------

Regarding the origins of marriage, I have to respectfully disagree with Vae_Victus. The Jewish church has marriage deeply entrenched in its religious dogma and the early Christian church, primarily made up of former Jews, maintained this pattern. It was also core to the religions of Ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Greece, where Hera was the goddess of Marriage and every marriage blessed by her or the patron deity of the community. In fact, I can think of no culture, whether the aboriginal cultures of North America, Africa, or Australia, or the older cultures of China, Korea, and Japan in which marriage was not intertwined with religion. A common theme, across cultures and continents, is marriage being a covenant between the husband, the wife, and deity.

Paul. Sorry to have to inform you, but most people who are against Gay Marriage are not bigots, are not people who would commit acts of violence against Gays, disrupt marriage ceremonies, etc. While it may SEEM to be similar to the racial issues, it is not. Most of those I know who, like me, are opposed to Gay marriage, would stand beside me and them, defending them against violence and such ceremony disruption. Our opposition has nothing to do with them and everything to do with how we feel about the institute of marriage.

>>Show me your studies that prove that "just as many people were put in life threatening situations simply *because* civilians owned firearms." That is what has been asked of those of us who are pro-gun, now I ask it of you. >>

I'm not claiming that there are studies. It is simply common sense. If guns are out and about, people get put in life threatening situations, simply 'because they are around, and guns are life threatening. Sure. Sometimes they help you avoid life threatening situations. But it seems likely that them simply being available puts people in life threatening situations as well.

Ok, here is what I have seen. This is pure anecdotal evidence. And I'm not claiming it necessarily represents the country as a whole. But not counting people who have used firearms in the line of (law enforcement or armed services) duty:

-I personally know zero people who have been killed or, even injured, by random (i.e. robbery/homicide/mugging/rampage shooter/whatever) gun violence.

-I know zero people who have ever needed to actively defend themselves with a firearm (i.e. used a gun in self defense; as opposed to "I have it in the house for protection").

-I know a single person who has a carry permit. He is an ADA who spends a lot of time putting criminals in jail and (not unreasonably) feels he and his family are safer as a result. I don't know that he has ever had to use said gun in self defense.

Conversely,

-I know (knew) *many* people who have been killed either through suicide, stupid gun accident, or by virtue of domestic violence by legally owned handguns.

(and too be fair, I also know many people who legally own guns who have never run into any of the above, and use them safely without incident).

I mean, maybe New York (where I have lived for 39 years, half of which was within 5 miles of Manhattan) is less crime riddled than the wild wild west that y'all live in (ahem, that was sarcasm :-), but I find it difficult to fathom that *that* many people find themselves in situations where having a gun will make a life or death difference. As opposed to the actual many people who find themselves in situations where having a legally owned hand gun results in someone dying by virtue of suicide, accident, or domestic violence.

>>How many people do you know who got their house burgled?>>

Plenty. None of them were home or (if they were) faced a physical threat as a result.

>>Please define "used a gun in self defense".>>

Were in a situation where having a gun saved them from a physical threat.

>>Does it have to be fired? Or merely shown? Does having it ready at hand as an option when talking someone down count?>>

I'm happy to accept any of these. And yet, I don't know a single person (not in the line of law enforcement/millitary) who has been in such a situation (i.e. they were in a confrontation where they had access to a gun, and having access to said gun made said confrontation less harmful than it would have been otherwise). I know people who have legally owned handguns for "self defense", yet other than having the gun in the house "just in case", I don't know that any of them has *ever* needed said gun for such a reason. Maybe I'm just lucky. Do I know people who have been victimized by crime? Of course. But no one who has ever been shot by a criminal with a gun, nor anyone who would have necessarily been able to save themselves from said victimization by virtue of having a gun.

>>How would you break those down? How many suicides, how many stupid gun accidents, how many domestic violence escalations?>>

Multiple suicides. Multiple stupid gun accidents. At least one domestic violence escalation (that ended in a suicide). All involved legally owned handguns and either the owner of said gun of the family of the owner of said gun.

>>Blaming suicides on guns is like blaming suicides on sleeping pills, or razor blades, both of which are easier to get, and in the case of sleeping pills, much less messy. How many of those suicides were teenagers?>>

I would never blame suicides on guns (although it is certainly possible that if said gun was not as available and easy, something would have gone differently--someone taking sleeping pills or cutting themselves is far more likely to survive than someone shooting themselves in the face). But yes. If someone really wants to kill themselves, they are going to kill themselves. But, at least in my experience, legally owned handguns are far more likely to result in you or someone you are related to dying than they are to save you from a criminal stranger.

Yes. I know that statistics indicate that somewhere between 2 Million and 100 thousand people a year use guns to defend themselves. It is apparently difficult to find a detailed breakdown of these defensive uses, but they seem to often include police, military, and use against animals as well as "civilian defending themself from a random attacker".

Archduke. It IS interesting how, with most issues, which party your view aligns with has to do with the "degree" in which you favor/oppose something. I have been a registered Republican in the past and I'm a registered Democrat now primarily because being a registered Republican where I live basically means your vote doesn't count (there isn't even a GOP candidate for the state legistlature for my district). However, while the "official" platforms may not align this way, basing my opinions off the actions of the parties involved, it has leaned me Democrat, despite my disagreement on most social issues.

Based on the actions of GOP leadership (i.e., Bush Sr., Bush W.), my view on foreign policy certainly aligns more with the Democrats (i.e., I had fewer problems with Clinton's approach than with either Bush's). On domestic policy, I again, had far fewer issues with Clinton's policies than the Bush ones. On a personal level, I think Clinton is slime and think that Bush W. had his heart in the right place, but ultimately, we have to judge them based on their decisions as President, not as men.

>>Your personal experience aside, the statistics show that civilian owned handguns provide a material benefit that significantly outweighs both the homicide and suicide rates, and that they're safer than baseballs for accidental injuries.>>

And as we all know, statistics are often used in suspect ways, at best. The more I read about the Kleck "research" (which is where the "2 million instances of civilians using guns in self defense each year" is primarily based), the more it appears that, unsurprisingly, it is controversial at best, and completely questionable at worst, due to dubious sampling techniques and general research procedures. I know that gun rights supporters *love* this example. But the more I read about it, the more I doubt the veracity of it.

>>You also know someone who's used a gun for self defense.>>

You are the first example of such a person I have ever run into. And not to question your experience even remotely, but there is no way to know what would have happened if you *didn't* have a gun. He might have run off just as quickly if you were holding a bat. Or even made a noise (if he broke in due to thinking the house was empty). You don't know. I mean, maybe you do, and if so, my apologies for assuming. But if the context is "Someone broke into my house, and I pointed a gun at him, and he took off", there is no way at all to know what the alternate endpoints of such a scenario were.

To continue with my anecdotal evidence, which, again, is completely anecdotal and proof of nothing (and I'm not claiming it is proof of anything at all). I'm currently sitting in a house with 6 people:

-A male in his 30's who has lived in the North East his whole life, half of that time within an arm's reach of NYC (that's me!)

-A female in her 30's who has lived in the North East her whole life.

-A male in his 30's who grew up in Louisville, moved to the North East, and now lives in Iowa.

-A female in her 30's who grew up in the North East, moved to Arkansas, and now lives in Iowa.

-A male in his 60's who grew up in Boston, lived in Chicago, and has lived in Arkansas for the last 20 years.

-A female in her 60's who has lived in the North East her whole life.

And not a single person here can think of a single person that they have ever known who has ever been injured or killed by an unknown criminal assailant with a firearm (and the theory here that I am questioning is "Having a handgun protects you from criminals with handguns"). In their lifetimes. None of them can even think of a single person who has used a gun in self defense (I can think now of Ken, the only example of such a person I have ever met. And unsurprisingly, I'm in a debate with him about gun control :-)

Again, I know multiple people who have been killed or maimed by legally owned firearms used in either suicide, stupid accident, or domestic violence (where the person using the gun for the homicide/suicide was the legal owner of the handgun):

-High school friend who killed himself.
-Other high school friend who killed himself.
-College friend who killed himself.
-Friend's mother who killed herself.
-High school student who killed himself.
-High school student who accidentally paralyzed his father from the neck down 'cause he didn't know the gun was loaded.
-Child of family friend who killed himself 'cause he didn't know the gun was loaded.
-Family friends in previously noted murder/suicide.

Maybe we are just really lucky in that we don't know anyone who has been involved in random gun related crime. Or maybe the "need" to have handguns for self defense is the outgrowth of general fear and paranoia that doesn't accurately reflect reality.

I certainly know people who have been victimized by horrible random crime. But of the people I can think of who *have* been victimized by horrible, random crime, it is unlikely that having a gun would have protected them:

-My sister's roomate was randomly stabbed on her doorstep apparently as part of a gang initiation. Having a handgun would not have saved her at all (assailant ran up behind her on the doorstep, stabbed her, and immediately ran off).

-A friend was attacked and raped at knifepoint by a unknown assailant. Having a gun is incredibly unlikely to have saved her, and very likely to have gotten her killed (she was grabbed at night in a park and pulled into the woods at knifepoint).

-My cousin's bandmate's girlfriend was the last victim of NY serial killer Joel Rifkin. But I never actually met her. And she was a drug addicted prostitute. Again, unlikely a gun would have saved her.

-A friend had a bullet go through his apartment fired from an unknown location for an unknown reason. Likely a completely random stray round from somewhere and not an intentional act. Having a gun would not have had any impact at all on this.

So while I certainly accept that there are certainly instances where people have handguns and they use them to protect themselves from random crime that could harm them, I suspect that it is much less often than people would like us to believe.

Honestly, I think a good dog is a much better deterrent / home defense tool than a gun. A gun in my drawer isn't going to help if I sleep right through the break in.

An Australian Cattle Dog, on the other hand... :)

As for the case of that soldier being prosecuted for handing in a gun he found - this is why "The Law" is not your friend. The tyranny of law is that it is blind and unrelenting. Anyone with common sense should see that he was trying to be civic-minded and not prosecute.

"I mean, maybe New York (where I have lived for 39 years, half of which was within 5 miles of Manhattan) is less crime riddled than the wild wild west that y'all live"

I know you were being facetious, BUT, a couple years ago, when SVC was attacking the north east for our lack of guns, I looked up the statistics on violent crime. And despite what most people might think, TX had a HIGHER rate of violent from across the board, in EVERY category, per capita, compared to NJ.... and we have Newark.

So either the presence of more guns doesn't deter crime, or Texans are a REALLY violent bunch of people that need lots of guns to be subdued. I tend to think the former is true, but I could be convinced of the latter ;-)

Would be pretty easy for the police to spot them.

Joe, you need only look at the Texan thirst for the death penalty to know which of your options is true.