Question I can't answer

[Spica]

I was asked a question today that I can't answer. Can some of you help me with an answer.

Here's the question: Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

I really need something to help with this.

[eleny]

1. I think that people who don't know how to use them should not carry them

So the example I would give would be where someone pulled out a gun, had it taken away from them and it was used against them. M'kay?

[bemildred]

2. I think the idea would be that other people would be safer.

Nevertheless, any fuckwit that accidentally kills themselves with a firearm would seem to fill the bill.
That said, I generally support the 2nd amendment.

[NMDemDist2]

3. ask them in return to prove the people were safer

use examples such as Sudan, Thailand, Sumatra

then show them the stats from Australia

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

[krispos42]

75. Not a good statistic...

I checked out some info on the FBI's website. It looks like in 2003 there were slightly less than 15,000 homicides in this country. Slighty less than 10,000 were caused by guns in one fashion or another.

The real question here is does banning guns reduce homicides?

Of course homicides by guns go down as they are removed from the public. That is obvious. I bet there are very few people killed by horse-drawn chariots every year as well. Not because chariots have gotten safer, but because there are few chariots running around. I also bet that fewer people die per capita from frostbite in Arizona than in North Dakota. If you remove the manner of potential death from a population, then the deaths caused by that potential will decrease.

I bet that Germany also has a really low rate of handgun suicide. They probably have a comperable suicide rate to us, but the anti-gun advocate would note only the really low handgun-suicide rate and ignore the drastically higher rates by jumping, pills, and self-mutilation.

Those countries mentioned above are not known for gun rights, and have a low number of guns per capita. The question is are homicide rates per capita that much better? In the US, we have 15,000 homicides in a population of some 280,000,000, or about 5.35 per hundred thousand people per year. Is Germany better or worse?


There are some 220 million firearms in this country, which represents some 60%+ of the total worldwide civilian firearm population. I'm pretty sure we don't have 60% of all firearm homicides.

[Totally Committed]

4. Turn the question around...

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where NOT restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

Except for truly lawless times, the answer to that question should be "no". The questioner is then asked if they feel the times now are "lawless" and if not, why a private person needs a hand-held weapon.

Then, please remind them that, held and used the right way, a set of keys is a hand-held weapon. So far as I know, young children rarely, if ever, kill each other with sets of keys.

TC

[Spica]

6. That doesn't fly

Even I can point to things like Germany dis-armming their population. England and Australia aren't good examples either because explosion in violent crime they've seen in the past three years. I need a logical historical example.

[Finder]

10. Gun crime has not risen in England. n/t

[Spica]

14. Violent crime certainly has though

Their collecting peoples knives over there now. What's next cricket bats?

[57_TomCat]

19. Not true...

Gun Crime in England has risen a great deal. Here are some interesting articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2190483.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/49948...

Lots more where that came from.

I do believe the severe gun control in England has been a major reason that crime and gun crime have risen so much. Even so it is much less than the US in many ways. What is interesting is when guns were completely unregulated in England prior to 1920 the English still had lower numbers than the US. Culture has a lot to do with it.

[Pert_UK]

81. I'm intrigued...

Given that British citizens have never (in recent history) been allowed to carry firearms for self-defence purposes, and that only a tiny, tiny percentage of Britains ever owned guns anyway, why exactly do you believe that the "severe" gun control laws have "been a major reason that crime and gun crime have risen so much"?

[iverglas]

32. damn, you're good!

Even you can demonstrate the complete pointlessness of your question!

Here's what I'd do. I'd ask whoever is asking you the question in question -- and gosh, I'm just so curious about who it might have been -- a question like this:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where prohibiting the average person from driving faster than 100 km/h has made him/her safer?

How's about:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the average person's access to antibiotics without a prescription has made him/her safer?

Or maybe:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where prohibiting the average person from practising medicine without being admitted to the profession of physician has made him/her safer?

I might even try something like:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where eating pizza has made someone safer?

Maybe you could see how your interlocutor does with them, and report back.

[Spica]

40. It is not a pointless question...

which is exactly the point. And using a bunch of non sequitors isn't a historical reference to a place and time where the average man was safer due to lack of access to handheld weapons. I can come up with event after event where weapons restrictions directly resulted in the death of thousands and millions in some case. England and Australia have seen a explosion of crime since they banned guns. Criminals have guns while the average person does not. England has gone so far as to jail people who stood up to the criminals and hurt the poor criminals.

[iverglas]

47. so ... I'm still wondering

Who asked you this famous question? And why were you soliciting a bunch of strangers to answer it for you -- when you very obviously take the position that the question is loaded and unanswerable?


Here's the question: Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

If someone asked me to name one cow that has ever jumped over the moon, I would answer "mu", the recognized answer to a question that cannot be answered because it is loaded with a false premise. I do not believe that any cow has ever jumped over the moon. Ergo I cannot name one cow who has done it.

You very obviously do not believe (or at least claim not to believe) that anyone has ever been safer because access to "handheld weapons" has been restricted. So why are you wanting someone to answer it for you? Would I go trawling the internet for answers to a request to name a cow who had jumped over the moon?


And using a bunch of non sequitors isn't a historical reference to a place and time where the average man was safer due to lack of access to handheld weapons.

You might want to learn what an analogy is. Understanding the concept can help a lot in following thoughts.

The fact that you believe that no one has ever been "safer" (than what?) as a result of not having access to weapons does not make it so. The question is loaded with a false premise in your mind, but not necessarily in fact.

So with my question:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where prohibiting the average person from driving faster than 100 km/h has made him/her safer?

A-na-lo-gy. Pretty good one. Can you answer the question? If not, do you propose that speed limits be abolished?

You might think that prohibiting the average person from driving faster than 100 km/h has not made that person safer. But you might also think that this is not the point of speed limits. They are not imposed to make the person who would otherwise speed safer; they are imposed to make people in the vicinity of the person who would otherwise speed safer.

Hmm. Getting it at all? Ready to acknowledge the complete pointlessness of your question yet?


I can come up with event after event where weapons restrictions directly resulted in the death of thousands and millions in some case.

Yeah, I'll just bet you can. And I'll also bet they'll be the same specious, repeatedly discredited nonsense as is commonly come up with by people who say such things.

I wonder how many people -- people who were at no fault themselves -- would not have been killed in car crashes if they had not been prohibited from driving faster than 100 km/h? Just think ... if they'd been going 120, they would not have been where they were when the other car crashed into them ...

Speed limits kill. Obviously. Just like firearms control.

Of course, swallow enough bilge like that, and it just might kill ya too.

[Spica]

50. Thanks for setting me straight.

I do not and have not taken the position this is an unanswerable question. It can be answered one of two ways, either there has never been an occasion where restrictions on handheld weapons have made the average person or there has. I so far have yet to find any situation where such restrictions haven't been detrimental to the average person. Pick a handheld weapon and it has been banned somewhere in human history to the detriment of those deprived from what I've been able to find. I've been asked a simple question. I've posed the question to this community in hopes that someone has an answer they are aware of. You can make all the assumptions you would like about me, my motivations, intelligence and purpose. It still doesn't answer the question.

As for my coming to the internet looking for an answer, I thought there might be a short cut to the answer by pursuing this path. I will have to say that I'm amazed that weapon immediately translates to firearm within this commuity. The hand is the instrument of destruction, not the tool. As for the koolaid, I'll pass.

[iverglas]

51. "still doesn't answer the question"

I guess it takes one to know one. I asked you a pretty straightforward question myself. One that contains no false premises -- and isn't asking you to demonstrate something you have never claimed to be fact:

Who asked you this famous question?

Well ... no false premises ... unless ... no one really asked you the question at all.

I've been asked a simple question

you say again. BY WHOM? I ask again. Anyone? Anyone at all?

But I gotta admit to being curious, if someone did ask you it: WHY? I don't think it would occur to me to ask YOU the One Question, even if I were of the same persuasion as the multitudes wandering around asking it.


I do not and have not taken the position this is an unanswerable question. It can be answered one of two ways, either there has never been an occasion where restrictions on handheld weapons have made the average person or there has.

No, there are far better ways to answer it. One is in my post currently at the bottom of this thread. Another would be: Who gives a shit? Miss Manners' response would probably be: Why do you ask?

Shall I go on?

There appears to be a rather concerted effort to get this crap some traction in the blogosphere, and presumably elsewhere. (Again, see my post at the bottom.)

I can't think of a single reason why I would want to participate in this bit of diversionary grooming on the part of self-described knuckle-draggers and right-wing wackos (sorry, but I'm just quoting what I see). Here's one fan of the "question":

http://dads-garage.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_dads-garage_...

Oh, and oh, please, come and try to put a Mexican flag above a US flag in my presence, flying above US soil. That kinda crap might be ok in Commiefornia, but it ain't gonna "fly" here. You've never TRULY seen a burning flag until you've been wrapped up in one. And it won't be MY flag on fire as it's wrapped around your criminal ass.

Here's what needs to happen, and in this order:

1) SECURE THE BORDER
2) REDUCE RED TAPE FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION
3) DEPORT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS

Oh, and that one is also a fan of Kim du bloody Toit (no, that link isn't to Kim, it's to a comment on Kim that has many fans)


You can make all the assumptions you would like about me, my motivations, intelligence and purpose. It still doesn't answer the question.

I don't assume nuttin, chum.

I look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Not that I've shared any of them with you, so not that I have any idea why you'd be saying any of this.

Of course, if you wanted to ask ...


So, no response to that other post? I wouldn't want you to miss it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Spica]

53. Again thank you

You've made your answer crystal clear. The question has no merit and no reason to be debated since its based on a false premise.

[Skip Intro]

5. Couldn't we just compare the violent crime rate here to that of England

or some nation where access to guns is restricted?

[Finder]

7. England?

[catnhatnh]

8. Gee....

....I had to check to see if you were still onboard or already banned....Not because this post is over the line but because with 11 posts this is a tough subject to tackle...I support to a degree,gun ownership rights,but a look at statistics for countries banning firearms ownership shows much lower firearms deaths...that is NOT indicative until all other mayhem events are also correlated and I do not know if that has ever been done...I can say that as a truck driver who serviced several Connecticut firearms manufacturers in the 90's, I was appalled to see multiple tractor trailer loads of things like 12 ga. streetsweeper pistol grips leaving Mossberg or high magazine loads carbines leaving Winchester arms...what I saw at Charter Arms (M-16) we won't discuss...these are not all going to cops, collectors, or enthusiasts...they were weapons made to kill and given my 'druthers I would rather they were produced by hand and cost 10's of thousands of dollars each....

[RagAss]

9. I support the second amendment.....the thing about lawless times

is you never know how quickly they will show up. That being said, I strongly believe in safety instruction when it comes to firearms. I was fortunate in that regard, I had the lessons of handling guns safely drummed into my head during my early teens before being allowed to hunt with my brothers.

There is one more thing related to this topic that I do want to mention. As a youngster I was always under the impression that the Soviet Union had disarmed their population. Since those days I have met numerous Americans who formerly lived in the USSR...they look at me like I have two heads and a tail when I mention this belief...almost all of them had rifles and shotguns and a good number had handguns as well.....their big lament was when they left to immigrate here they had to leave them behind....

[Ravy]

11. Britain is a great example.

[slackmaster]

43. Not really, and here's why

The British homicide rate has always been lower than the US homicide rate.

In 1920 when Britain passed its first gun control legislation, the homicide rate (murder, manslaughter, plus infanticide) for England and Wales was 8.3 per million. It went down slightly over several decades, reaching 6.2 in 1960, but by 1975 it was already back up to 10.3. My source gives a rate of 14.1 per million for 1997.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99...

In 1920 the US homicide rate was 6.8 per 100,000. US gun control began in 1934 with the National Firearms Act; it didn't get really serious until 1968 with the Gun Control Act.

The US homicide rate bottomed out in the late 1950s and early '60s at around 4.5, then back up to 9.9 in 1975 and I have a figure of 7.4 for 1997 for comparison with the British rate.

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#usmu

The US homicide rate has been around 5-7 times the rate for England and Wales throughout the period for which numbers are available. Neither country has seen a precipitous drop that can be clearly associated with the adoption of gun control at any time.



Just eyeballing the graph above, it looks to me like the factors that may have been most important in reducing US homicides were the New Deal in the '30s, World War II which not only put people to work but shipped young men overseas in large numbers, and economic prosperity (I read that as good employment) in the days of the Clinton Administration.

[blimpie]

12. Here is my take on the subject

Some people argue that private ownership of handguns should be completely banned. If they were it would make criminals easier for police to spot. If someone had a handgun they would certainly be a criminal.

It wouldn't take long at all for handgun crimes to go away. That form of gun control would make us safer from gun crime just like the numbers for the countries listed in the post above.

At some point people need to ask themselves a question. Do I want to be mugged and beat up for my money or shot to death? Of course other crime statistics will go up with guns banned. At least the crime without a gun isn't nearly as violent in nature. Get those guns off the streets.

[benEzra]

27. You mean like in the District of Columbia?

Here is my take on the subject

Some people argue that private ownership of handguns should be completely banned. If they were it would make criminals easier for police to spot. If someone had a handgun they would certainly be a criminal.

It wouldn't take long at all for handgun crimes to go away. That form of gun control would make us safer from gun crime just like the numbers for the countries listed in the post above.

D.C. has an almost total ban on handguns, and no one is allowed to possess a functional rifle or shotgun even inside their own home. Yet it has one of the highest homicide rates in America, despite having the lowest rate of lawful gun ownership AND one of the highest per-capita incomes, as I recall. D.C.'s homicide rate is considerably higher than that of the metro areas across the river. Chicago and Camden don't seem to be poster cities for your hypothesis, either, despite their draconian gun laws.

People mention England, but England's homicide rate when its gun laws were similar to current U.S. law were even lower than they are now. I'm not trying to argue post hoc, ergo prompter hoc, just pointing out that there is NO causal relationship between the banning of gun ownership in the UK and any decrease in crime rates.

The state with the lowest crime rate in the United States also happens to be one of the most pro-gun states in the nation--Maine. Massachusett's homicide rate is relatively low (high education, per capita income, and access to health care, anyone?), but so is that of a number of pro-gun states.

IMHO, lawful gun ownership is an entirely separate entity from criminal gun possession and misuse, and demonizing/eliminating the former does nothing about the latter, as the UK is rapidly finding out.

[iverglas]

33. or hey, how about my house?

D.C. has an almost total ban on handguns, and no one is allowed to possess a functional rifle or shotgun even inside their own home. Yet it has one of the highest homicide rates in America ...

I have a total ban on handguns in my house. And yet, and yet ... if someone who lives in my house gets a handgun from a guy across the canal and brings it into my house and shoots me ... well isn't it amazing how dead I'll be.


... despite having the lowest rate of lawful gun ownership AND one of the highest per-capita incomes, as I recall.

Yes. Perhaps you'll also recall the meaninglessness of averages in situations where distribution is wildly uneven. You might want to consider the median incomes, and the incomes of different groups within the population, and try comparing them to both the US nation-wide and any other particular places you might think of.

Especially given as how we all know that income inequality appears to be a predictor of homicide rates, e.g.: the greater the disparity in incomes, the higher the homicide rate.

[benEzra]

38. Quite so...

Especially given as how we all know that income inequality appears to be a predictor of homicide rates, e.g.: the greater the disparity in incomes, the higher the homicide rate.

Quite so...but that's a hell of a lot stronger correlation than there is with lawful gun ownership rates, now, isn't it?

[iverglas]

39. it is?

(income disparity) a hell of a lot stronger correlation than there is with lawful gun ownership rates, now, isn't it?

I wasn't aware that this had been proved, or could be proved.

At the international level, the US has *both* the greatest income disparity *and* the highest firearms ownership rate, among comparable countries. So how would we know which might be a causal factor, or which might be more causal than the other?

Or -- one might think that one has some influence on the other; might the growing income disparity in the US have led to a rising rate of firearm (esp. handgun) ownership? For use in crime, among the great underclass deprived of income, and out of perceived need to protect against crime, and perceived usefulness of firearms for that purpose, among segments of the population with more income?

If one is bent on comparing only within the 50 US states, one might well find that income disparity correlates better that "lawful gun ownership rates" with whatever it is we're talking about (homicide rates, crime rates). But we'd also probably find, if there were a way of measuring such things, that the unlawful firearms ownership rate is considerably higher in the places with high income disparity.

And we all know that all firearms start out being lawfully owned, right? And that really, firearms just know no state borders. Really. So: the more lawfully owned firearms anywhere in the US, the more unlawfully owned firearms pretty much anywhere in the US; it seems rather obvious.

[thefamethrowa]

70. A quibble.

"And we all know that all firearms start out being lawfully owned, right?"

Wrong. A short-barreled rifle, machinegun, short-barreled shotgun, a pistol built on a designated "rifle receiver," or one built by someone underage, is illegal from the start. Guns are often built from parts purchased from overseas, something that is legal if the receiver is built or purchased by the end user; building guns from scratch, too, is fairly easy, especially in the case of something as simple as the mostly-stamped Sten. People scarcely ever make smokeless-powder guns from scratch, but you can bet there would be a cottage industry for it, were they illegal--it'd be too lucrative for there not to be.

[Irreverend IX]

55. So what should we work on changing?

It seems that income inequality and access to handguns may both be tied to homicide rates. Which should we work to improve?

Trying to eliminate handgun ownership will cause millions of people to shun the Democratic party, including many blue-collar workers who are otherwise completely in line with the party's goals.

Getting rid of, or at least ameliorating income inequality will be hugely popular with the aforementioned blue-collar workers, middle class people and everyone but the super-rich. A party that tossed gun control aside and focused on this as its major plank could create a super-majority and drive Republicans from power forever.

So which should Democrats focus on? Decisions, decisions...

[iverglas]

58. eek! sounds like COMMUNISM to me!!!

Getting rid of, or at least ameliorating income inequality will be hugely popular with the aforementioned blue-collar workers, middle class people and everyone but the super-rich.

Gonna set up a politburo and nationalize Walmart when you get elected?

Serially now. What's the plan? Eliminate the grossly distorted distribution of income and wealth in the USofA ... how was that, now? Welfare "reform" maybe? That was Democratic Party policy, and that did a real good job of eliminating income inequality and increasing social justice, eh?

And they tell me firearms registration will never fly. I can hardly wait to see how, er, socialism goes over.


Oh, P.S.

A party that tossed gun control aside and focused on this as its major plank could create a super-majority ...

I think the phrase you're looking for is "dictatorship of the proletariat". Practise up, now.

[Irreverend IX]

66. What's your point?

You may want to read my post again. I don't think you fully processed it the last time. It seems like you got stuck on the "income inequality" point and started hooting and shrieking over that portion of my argument like a deranged chimpanzee. "Communism" is a canard the right wing often throws out when discussions turn to social justice, so it's kind of suspicious to hear it coming from an alleged progressive. Radical redistribution of wealth isn't the only way to close the economic gap; national health care, a higher minimum wage and a less regressive tax structure are just a few of the steps the U.S. could take toward that goal. A skilled and charismatic statesman (something the Democrats seem to lack now, unfortunately) could run on these issues and win over huge portions of the working and middle class, as long as the party platform wasn't bogged down with anti-gun rhetoric.

And the question stands: handgun access and income inequality are two factors that may be linked to the murder rate. Gun control is a known Democrat killer, while FDR soared to victory after victory when he campaigned on social justice. Which of the two factors does it make more sense for Democrats to combat?

[iverglas]

68. my my my; YA THINK???

"Communism" is a canard the right wing often throws out when discussions turn to social justice, so it's kind of suspicious to hear it coming from an alleged progressive.

So, have you managed to remember your name so far?

Assuming you have, if I may, let's see how you're doing on remembering what comes out of your keyboard.

You really should. You wrote it about 25 minutes after you wrote that paean to social justice I was replying to here. And you wrote it in this very thread. It went like this:

However, in light of the crime wave that followed handgun prohibition in Britian, the anti-RKBA philosophy may better be categorized with known tickets to disaster like communism and Scientology.

And my response, in case you've managed to miss it so far, was to giggle at being red-baited.

So back to me being an alleged progressive and all: aren't you just the cleverboots? You obviously know so much about moi, you must be a new charter member of the all about moi club that meets here regularly. So of course you know how I've belonged to a party, for the last nearly 40 years, that is approximately way off the left end of the political spectrum where you're at -- and yet holds numerous seats in the federal Parliament, with 17.5% of the popular vote last election, and at any given time generally controls the governments in 20 or 30 per cent of the provinces. The one I've been a candidate for several times myself. Not quite as left as I'd be in the best of all possible worlds, but I do think that social democrat is as left as circumstances permit in this particular time and place, unless you really want to sell newspapers on streetcorners.

national health care, a higher minimum wage and a less regressive tax structure are just a few of the steps the U.S. could take toward that goal.

Gosh. Living in Canada and all as I do, d'ya think I might know a wee tad about suchlike stuff? And do you actually think that all of those things DON'T constitute a redistribution of income, if not wealth?

A skilled and charismatic statesman (something the Democrats seem to lack now, unfortunately) could run on these issues and win over huge portions of the working and middle class, as long as the party platform wasn't bogged down with anti-gun rhetoric.

Yeah. And as long as FoxNews *was* bogged down, under about 50 feet of its own sewage, say. And, say, hell had frozen over. And I do remember welfare "reform".

Oh yeah, and as long as the mile-wide streak of base self-interest and just plain mean-spiritedness that a great big huge chunk of your population displays on its back with pride just kinda evaporated. That's a good one, that is. People who are so blindly selfish that they balk at, oh, a firearms registry, so reeking of self-righteousness that they put their all into violating the equality rights of anybody they think inferior to them ... those people are going to rush out and vote Yes!! to all those proposals to give a bunch of lazy strangers something they don't deserve, and that they're getting off the sweat of the good hardworking godfearing guntoting salt of the earth we're talkin about here -- proposals that, like universal healthcare, necessarily involve taking away some of that freedumb shit y'all are so mesmerized by. Yeah. That's gonna happen.


Which of the two factors does it make more sense for Democrats to combat?

Gee. When exactly did this become a dichotomy?

You're talking to someone who's got both, you see. Relative socioeconomic justice, and relative difficult access to handguns, f'r instance.

You have neither, and yet you think one is just around the corner, maybe if you just squint your eyes up and wish real hard.

And then you're willing to set your sights so low. C'mon, you're dreaming; why not do it in technicolour? Why not go for a little more social justice AND a little less killing and maiming and misery and, of course, economic loss?

Boyoboy. I can never figure out why anybody thinks I'm this naïve. Or thinks, or thinks that somebody else thinks, that anybody else is so gullible as to imagine that you've just fixed my little red wagon.

But yeah, you g'head. You run a social democrat for president. (As always, I might be irked or disappointed to see someone with such fine and high ideas using words like "statesman" ... but I'd have to be in a different time and place to have expectations that would prompt such responses.)

Now, when you find one who isn't also in favour of redrawing the entire firearms landscape down there, send him/her over so I can have a sniff. I'll let you know whether you've found the genuine article. Of course, your first clue that you had done might be the sudden cooling of the earth's core ...

And you can let me know when you've grasped that sarcasm thing.

[Irreverend IX]

71. Sigh...

"And my response, in case you've managed to miss it so far, was to giggle at being red-baited."

It seems my mention of communism has burned out your logic centers. I'll try and explain I meant, using easy one-syllable words. I mentioned communism as an analogy. An-al-o-gy. I also compared anti-RKBA views to libertarianism and Scientology, but I don't see you accusing me of painting you as a libertarian or Scientologist. My point is that communism and Scientology are like anti-RKBA rhetoric in that they are utopian fantasies that fail terribly when put into practice.

"Gee. When exactly did this become a dichotomy?"

It didn't. I described two possible courses of action for the Democrats: one that will skyrocket the party to dominance and one that will hamstring it. The party could try to do both things, but it'll be hard to take over American politics when so many gun owners, large swaths of the rural working class among them, are put off by talk of further restrictions to the lawful use of firearms.

"Why not go for a little more social justice AND a little less killing and maiming and misery and, of course, economic loss?"

Are you suggesting that more gun control equals less killing and maiming and misery? Let's draw another analogy (consult a dictionary if you are unfamiliar with the term) between guns and drugs. In the early 20th century, drugs caused more than a little suffering and death. Alcoholism, morphine withdrawal, overdoses... it wasn't a pretty picture. This led the U.S. government to experiment twice with drug prohibition.

The first experiment ran up a staggering cost in lost lives and ruined communities. Thousands died from drinking bathtub gin and inner-city neighborhoods were ripped apart by gang warfare, leading the nation's battered vice squads to admit defeat and immediately afterward take up arms against a host of psychoactives with less of a history in American culture.

The second prohibition experiment continues today, although any rational person can see that it is an utter failure. The U.S.'s drug laws are circumvented every day at parties and street corners around the country, and all the government has to show for it are millions of deaths and ruined lives and the world's highest prison population.

So let's ban guns and create another hugely profitable black market. Sounds like it'll work great!

[iverglas]

72. talk about yer over-heated, eh?

So let's ban guns and create another hugely profitable black market.

Do what you like. I haven't noticed anyone hereabouts proposing to "ban guns", so lord knows who you're talking to and what about, but feel free to express yourself.

Let's draw another analogy (consult a dictionary if you are unfamiliar with the term) between guns and drugs.

Yeah, I see you've just arrived in the room too and think that nothing ever happened before you got here.

So let me help you with a sampling.



The first two posts quoted below were in response the opening post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
quoting this article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04189.ht...
and I was particularly talking about this bit of the article, which you might want to note (my emphasis):

This was described some years ago in a magazine called American Firearms Industry: "Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market. . . This innovation has driven the handgun market."

The most spectacular change in the U.S. civilian firearms market since the end of the Second World War has been the rise of the handgun. In 1946 handguns were only eight percent of firearms sold. Beginning in the mid-1960s this changed. Handgun sales are now twice the level of 40 years ago, consistently averaging about 40 percent of the overall market.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
6 May 2004

So American Firearms Industry said: "Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market"

Damn, if that isn't exactly what *I* say in response to that moronic "prohibition" "argument".

There is *not* an infinite, unsatiable market for firearms, the way there is for alcohol and other intoxicants.

Firearms are *not* consumed, requiring constant replenishment of supply by users.

Firearms are *not* addictive. (Hey, far be it from me to say they are.)

People may *like* to keep acquiring more firearms, but they don't *need* to keep acquiring more firearms to fulfil the purpose for which they acquire them.

And despite all the bathtub/backroom firearms production guff I'm always hearing, the firearms artisans tinkering away in secrecy under prohibition are really, I think, just not going to be engaging in the technological innovation that the industry itself acknowledges is essential if people are to be persuaded that they "need" more firearms.

Bing, bang, boom. Out of the mouths of the purveyors themselves.

Of course, I bother to address the "prohibition" "argument" only in so far as it is relevant to anything I actually advocate, which is not remotely in the way of a prohibition on firearms, but does involve very tightly restricted access to certain firearms, in particular handguns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
6 May 2004

Except in persons in whom there is a pathology, collecting really is not an addiction.

I think you might actually have understood that to be the point I was making in distinguishing between purchases of firearms by collectors and purchases of alcohol or other intoxicants by addicts.

... I simply said that no one NEEDS to acquire firearms IN THE SAME WAY AS SOME PEOPLE *NEED* TO ACQUIRE ALCOHOL OR DRUGS. That is not a value judgment or opinion. It is a statement of fact.

Do you people really want firearms acquisition to be recognized as an addictive activity?? All I was saying is that it is not, and that therefore this moronic "prohibition" "argument", which assimilates firearms to alcohol and drugs, is based on a false premise and can be disregarded as the nonsense it is.

And that the firearms industry obviously agrees with me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
10 May 2004

On paper, total prohibition of alcohol looks like a great way to prevent DUI. But doing so only largely serves to annoy the vast majority of people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.

Well, to that I would say: so the fuck what? Laws against shoplifting probably annoy very large numbers of people who would like to have nicer stuff than they have. Do we really care? The fact that a law "annoys" any number of people really isn't a relevant fact, unless it is also an unjustified interference with the exercise of their rights, of course.

The problem with prohibition on a substance for which large numbers of people have a pathological need and of which they constantly have to replenish their supply is not that it "annoys" them or anyone else. It is that it is destined to be ineffective to a degree that renders it an inadequate response to the problem (kinda like stiff sentences for using firearms in the commission of offences), and an is appropriate given that the substance-seeking behaviour of those who need it creates other problems. None of which factors (by American Firearms Industry's own admission, we will recall) apply to firearms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
19 May 2004

When you can plant and grow guns in your back yard, or make them by combining easily-obtained pharmaceuticals in a garbage can, I'll be prepared to say that the gun/drug analogy might make an atom of sense.

Or, as I've repeatedly noted, to no response, when we have evidence that there is a pathology involved in the urge to acquire firearms, and that once hooked, people *need* to have them and must replenish their supply on a daily basis.

An analogy constructed in total disregard of the principal features of one half of it isn't really much of an analogy. I don't even see an apple and an orange in this particular one; at least they're both fruit. I see no similarity whatsoever between firearms and drugs/alcohol, in fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
17 June 2004

We've discussed previously why Prohibition is a bad analogy for guns.

Yes. Actually, I was doing it quite a while ago, precisely because:
- firearms are not readily manufactured by yr average person, or in quantity, clandestinely
- firearms are not addictive
- consumers of firearms do not require a constantly replenished supply of the product (as alcohol consumers do even if they're not addicts)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
10 December 2003

Is this somehow supposed to demonstrate that a prohibition on firearms ownership (which strikes me as a straw person to start with) would have the same results as a prohibitively high tax on cigarettes?

If so, perhaps you can explain the analogy.

Are firearms an addictive substance that their users need to replenish their supply of once or twice a day? Does the market for firearms involve billions of transactions a year? Would half the adult population be constantly looking to fill a need for firearms?

And if the firearms that were used in the violence that resulted from turf wars and so on were themselves supply-regulated, where would all that violence be coming from?

... Prohibitions on owning or doing things that large numbers of people have either very strong reasons or very strong urges to own or do on a regular basis certainly do often result in crime and violence. Prohibitions on owning or doing things that people have no need and no raging desire to do, don't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
18 January 2006

Cause I'd love to read the chapters on Govt Intervention and law enforcement that suggest that the war on drugs is working, or that prohibition of prostitution, gambling, booze, etc worked either.

Yup. And when you admit that firearms are addictive, and that individuals who wish to acquire firearms are addicts, and that they require constant replenishment of their supply of firearms -- and prove that anyone at all who matters here is proposing PROHIBITION of firearms -- we can talk.

Ready? ... Well, actually, you could claim any of that all you wanted, and unfortunately I wouldn't be agreeing. So maybe you'll come up with a better analogy some day.

So we've got that "analogy" thing down, I see. Perhaps now you could work on "specious".

[Irreverend IX]

74. That's quite a catalog of fallacious arguments.

The point you make over and over again is that firearms aren't addictive the way many illegal drugs are.

Counterpoint 1: Not all illegal drugs are addictive, in case you've been reading too much DEA propaganda. Marijuana, for instance, has no phsyical addictive potential at all. You can get into a psychological habit of smoking it, much like people can get hooked on video games, but it doesn't hook people the way tobacco does. Hallucinogens, which are among the most vigorously suppressed psychoactives, have even less addictive potential. After a trip ends, most users desire at least a short cooling-off period before they use again. But despite this, people continue to buy these substances. I guess there must be something more to it than addicts desperate for a fix.

Counterpoint 2: In an area where guns are prohibited or heavily regulated, black market firearms will be a booming market because firearms are an important tool of the trade for criminals. Let's quote one of those old posts of yours...

"Conversely, there has indeed been a violent black market in cigarettes when prohibitive taxes were imposed in the past; machine-gun fire from smugglers on the St. Lawrence River into waterfront communities in Ontario, for instance, was unfortunately not unknown."

Machine gun fire? I somehow doubt those guns were legally owned and operated. They were probably purchased on the black market by smugglers who felt they needed the lethal force of automatic weapons to conduct their business unimpeded. Hundreds of other criminals, from small-time pushers to mafia soldiers, do the same. Guns are a necessary tool for illegal business operations, just like a car or cell phone. When I lived in Japan I was aware of a lively trade in illegal guns conducted in large cities' Chinese and Korean ghettoes. Despite the world's strictest firearm regulations, the crooked massage parlor and pachinko plaza owners in Tokyo sell a steady stream of illicit guns to criminals.

Counterpoint 3: You mentioned that guns don't need to be replenished after use like drugs do. Guns may not be spent in their use, but bullets sure are.

[krispos42]

76. Of course they would be easier to spot!

They would be by definition a criminal. You could also make millions of people criminals by outlawing jeans.

Look, whether you want to believe it or not, most crimes committed with a gun do not end with a shooting. How many armed robberies occur every year, from muggings to car jackings to bank robberies? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? And most end without anybody killed.

Likewise, millions of crimes such as breaking & entering, assault, robbery, home invasion, rape, kidnapping, and carjackings are stopped by the intended victims producing a firearm and driving off their attackers. Many go unreported for various reasons but mostly because the intended victim is afraid of legal hassles and reprocussions.

The flip side of your argument is that if everybody that was legally able to carried a concealed pistol the crime rate would also go down as criminals found themselves outnumbered by honest, armed citizens. There would most likely be a spike in violence, with criminals and victims dying, until enough criminals were killed, jailed, or simply make a career change to bring the crime numbers down. Remember, predatory criminals often commit dozens of crimes before they are caught, so every mugger or rapist taken off the streets saves dozens of crimes per year.

If there was a total handgun ban tomorrow, there would also be spike in crime as honest citizens turned in their handguns by the millions while career criminals would have to actually be caught with the guns before the guns were removed from the streets.

The question you have to ask yourself is this. "Who do you want to have guns? Cops and career criminals? Or cops, career criminals, and the intended victims?" Those are your choices.

[SoCalDem]

13. Try google...or our old pal Ann Ecdotal

[left is right]

15. It takes only an instant

for a law abiding gun-owning citizen to cross the line between good citizen and a murderer of a spouse, or a neighbor, or that idiot in the car who just rammed into his car.
Several years ago a black leader interviewed on NPR's FRESH AIR, I can't remember who, said that as he was growing up in his inner city, his mother tried to protect him from gang activities; he knew which streets to avoid, if he was going to remain out of harm's way. Later, he said that he was given a handgun and he stopped avoiding the dangerous areas because he then felt safe; and gradually, he started to actively seek out trouble because he had a gun. He went on to say that his mother caught him with a gun--thank God--gave him hell about it and took it from him and probably saved him from killing another youth and spending the rest of his life in prison rather than as a leader in this unremembered (by me) national black organization. It was quite enlightening to hear him talk about the easy transition from avoiding trouble to actively seeking it out because a gun made him feel powerful.

[blimpie]

16. That is true that guns can make people aggressors.

That is a great example. My father owns a .22 rifle and my friend owns a .38 revolver and I worry everyday when one of them might get hurt using a firearm. That would be my proof that gun control would work. If I didn't have to worry about them hurting themselves or others I feel that I would think the world to be a safer place. I can only hope that we can learn a thing or two from countries that have reduced citizen ownership of firearms.

[benEzra]

28. I respect your opinion, and your personal choices on the subject...

and I would only ask that you also respect my choice, and those of the other 80 million or so Americans (including at least 1 in 4 Dems) who chooses to own guns. We own guns safely and responsibly, and we intend to keep them.

If anyone misuses a gun--or commits a crime that would disqualify one from gun ownership--then by all means address the problem. But sending the guys with machine guns and black body armor to kick in OUR family's door will do absolutely nothing to make anyone in this country any safer.

[iverglas]

34. my goodness

But sending the guys with machine guns and black body armor to kick in OUR family's door will do absolutely nothing to make anyone in this country any safer.

Is THAT what the Democratic Party is proposing to do in the US???

No wonder so many people won't vote for them!!

[benEzra]

37. No, they're not...thank goodness...

but if those of you who wish to outlaw the possession of handguns and nonhunting rifles and shotguns get your way, then somebody is going to be collecting them, now aren't they?

Or did you think that the VPC et al would just let us gunnies keep all our stuff that they disapprove of?

[slackmaster]

45. I used to own a .22 rifle and a .38 revolver

A Ruger and a Smith & Wesson.

But I lost them both in a tragic ocean kayak accident.

[justgamma]

17. Can't answer that ,but

can you name anytime in history that waiting 3 days for a background check saved a life. Well, I can.

Nobody is trying to take away your guns. Responsible gun ownership should be the rule.

[schwindj]

18. I cannot think of any time gun restrictions have worked

First off the real reason for the 2 amendment is to prevent
the government from confiscating guns, because that would
allow the government to become tyrannical much like what
happened with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I do not know
about you but I do not trust very many people currently in
the government. Can you honestly say that Bush or anyone like
him would never ever abuse their power. Well what if we as a
nation had no means to prevent the government from rounding
us up and putting us in some form of concentration camp like
was done to those of Japanese decent in WWII. 

And the idea that gun related accidents would go down if guns
were banned is a pretty weak argument. That is like saying
there would be no more car accidents if cars were just
outlawed. Or people would not be scalded if coffee had to be
served at room temperature. I see gun ownership as a personal
responsibility not anyone elses. A gun is an inanimate object
that requires input from a user to operate. The gun only
responds when the trigger is pulled by someone, and it is
entirly up to that user to ensure that gun is being operated
in a safe manner, much like it is imperitive for the driver
of an automobile to be focused on the road and being safe
otherwise you are likely to cause an accident.

James

[blimpie]

20. National Guard

A well regulated militia(AKA Military), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people(in said militia) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They were clearly wanting a United States military to have weapons to defend our country.

[Spica]

22. National Guard is not the militia

The National Guard didn't come into existence until the early 20th century. Even I know the militia refers to the citizens of the US. The founding fathers are/were pretty clear on their us of "the people" in referring to ordinary citizens.

[blimpie]

23. Militia definition.....sounds like the NG to me.

mi·li·tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)

n. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

[benEzra]

29. Federal law defines the militia as every male citizen aged 18 to 45...

and modern thinking would extend that to women as well.

The National Guard is organized under Congress's power to "raise and support armies," and is always subject to the authority of the President. There are National Guard troops fighting in Iraq right now.

[hydrashok75]

59. The NG is under Federal Command

...and can be called up by the president whenever he wants, no matter what the state governor says.

Once and for all, for the love of all that is holy in this universe, please put that tired Natl Guard = Militia bullshit to bed. I think we need a sticky atop the forum.

[PeterBrady]

24. Facts not assumptions

You're not serious are you?

The one time the Supreme Court addressed this issue.

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme... /

I've bookmarked this web site for people just like you.

He needs definitive, empirical proof. Every argument I've seen here offers no proof.

How can anyone prove a 3 day waiting period saved someone's life. Because someone said so? Because guns are banned is some countries, and in those countries gun crimes are lower than in the U.S., then that proves you are safer without guns? BS.

Does culture play any part in gun crimes? Does poverty play any part in gun crimes? Do other laws play any part in gun crimes? Are individuals responsible for their gun crimes? All of the arguments I have seen thus far certainly don't make me believe that restricting (or eliminating) handgun ownership will make me or anyone else safer.

Then I read this nonsense.

"Some people argue that private ownership of handguns should be completely banned. If they were it would make criminals easier for police to spot. If someone had a handgun they would certainly be a criminal.

It wouldn't take long at all for handgun crimes to go away. That form of gun control would make us safer from gun crime just like the numbers for the countries listed in the post above.

At some point people need to ask themselves a question. Do I want to be mugged and beat up for my money or shot to death? Of course other crime statistics will go up with guns banned. At least the crime without a gun isn't nearly as violent in nature. Get those guns off the streets."

Come on, just like the war on drugs has ridded our society of drugs. Sure, let pass another law and make millions of more people criminals.

I could go on but I'm through with the twisted logic in this thread.

[blimpie]

25. You have proved my point. about the NG

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''

All these males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense have to do is stroll down to their local NG recruiter and become an occasional soldier. They will then be given their arm to bear. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment say that all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense have the right to store their arms in their own house. It is to keep arms ready to bear and have them when needed for defense at a well regulated place. Sounds like a National Guard armory doesn't it?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

30. The right recognized is not that of the militia, but of the PEOPLE...

if you read the Second Amendment. The same "people" as in the other Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights. You will also notice that the "people" do have the explicit right to keep arms, not just to bear them.

40% of households in the United States choose to own guns. Something like 80 MILLION people of voting age lawfully own them. You may not like that, or agree with our choices, but it is a reality that those who choose not to own guns will have to accept.

[blimpie]

31. The 2nd amendment can always be changed or interpreted differently

The fact stands that the 2nd amendment doesn't state where we are allowed to keep them and everyone should agree that firearms would be better if they were regulated and stored at an armory.

It isn't 1776 anymore. If the time comes that the guard needs to be armed they can hop in their cars and go get their issued weapon. Nobody needs a gun in their own home, while risking the life of their children, for some excuse that is not feasible. I am sorry but that's the way it is. Just wait a few years and as more restrictive gun control takes hold we will be safer if we can get all the Republicans out of office and some more sensible Democrats in office.

[crankybubba]

35. short on facts strong on hyperbole n/t

[benEzra]

36. My wife and I, and 80 million others, strongly disagree with you...

The fact stands that the 2nd amendment doesn't state where we are allowed to keep them and everyone should agree that firearms would be better if they were regulated and stored at an armory.

Define "everyone."

There are 80 million of us who CHOOSE to own firearms and store them at home, constituting approximately 40% of U.S. households. There are many more who don't personally own guns but support the right of others to choose to do so.

The percentage of the population that supports gun prohibition as you describe is around 20%, the same percentage that supports bringing back the 18th Amendment, the Volstead Act, and Prohibition. Neither is going to happen.

It isn't 1776 anymore. If the time comes that the guard needs to be armed they can hop in their cars and go get their issued weapon. Nobody needs a gun in their own home, while risking the life of their children, for some excuse that is not feasible.

"Risking the life of their children." No, we're not. Our guns are stored in a safe, thanks. If you're not a criminal or substance abuser (who can't legally own a gun anyway) and store your guns as we do, the risk is negligible at worst. We take safety seriously.

BTW, on a per-owning-household basis, swimming pool accidents kill 10 to 100 times more children than gun accidents, which are EXTREMELY rare. Would you support a blanket ban on swimming pools?

National Safety Council gun accidents page. Note also that the gun accident rate has fallen another 40% since that article was written, even as the number of lawfully owned guns (particularly handguns and nonhunting style rifles and shotguns) increased substantially.

I am sorry but that's the way it is. Just wait a few years and as more restrictive gun control takes hold we will be safer if we can get all the Republicans out of office and some more sensible Democrats in office.

No, that's NOT the way it is. And some people's obsession with taking guns away from their law-abiding, responsible owners is why there's NOT a Dem in the White House right now. Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee, as well as West Virginia, largely on the gun issue; had he won those two states, he'd have carried the election even without Florida (and don't think the gun issue wasn't a major factor in Florida as well). Kerry and Edwards' misinformed support for S.1431 (2004 session) hurt the 2004 ticket badly in states with high rates of gun ownership.

At LEAST 1 in 4 registered Democrats nationwide own guns. Around a third of independents own guns. Promising to take some or all of their guns away is going to cost you a lot of those votes.

Alienated Rural Democrat

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Spica]

41. The People

The Preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...

Amendment I states, "Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free speech thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment II states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Amemdment IV, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,..."

Amendment IX, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people."

Amendment X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unless all the other amendments use a different meaning for people your argument is untrue. The statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is crystal clear in its reference to the citizens of the United States. Otherwise all the other amendments don't apply to the people in general either. The founders and authors of the constitution were very explicit in their use of common language to avoid confusion as to meaning.

As for when "the guard needs to be armed they can hop in their cars and go get their issued weapon." What happens in a disaster when things break down? Witness the recent events in New Orleans. I'll relate an antecdote I've heard repeated many times. A writer on his way West was outfitting in St. Louis for his trip into the wilds of Western America. He asked the clerk in the mercantile, he was making his purchases in, if he would need a gun. The clerk said to him, I don't know, but I do know that if you need one you will need it really, really quick.

You offer nothing to my search for a time or event that answers the question I have been asked. I appreciate your feelings but they are not a logical answer.

[iverglas]

48. pretty learnèd discourse

(snork) for someone who's been at this for two weeks.

You got a special filter on your google or something?


Unless all the other amendments use a different meaning for people your argument is untrue.

Really?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people -- each individual ever-lovin one of 'em -- have "powers" of the sort that could belong to a state government? What sort of powers might they be, that could be exercised by an individual person? What have you got in mind here? You must have something, or you presumably wouldn't have quoted this.

I don't actually take the position that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right. The collective right is the right of self-determination: the right of a people (because yes, it is sometimes a collective noun) to form a state and choose the government of that state -- the right to "the security of a free state". With the "right to keep and bear arms" being the right that individuals must have in order for the people, collectively, to exercise that right to self-determination by defending the security and freedom of their state, if force is used to threaten its security and freedom as a self-governing state.

Just like (sorry if anyone else is getting bored here) the right to vote: the individual right that must be exercised by individuals, in order that the collective right of self-determination -- to choose its government -- can be exercised by a people.

And yet ... ya just can't go voting willy-nilly whenever and wherever and for whatever purpose ya want.

That's an a-na-lo-gy. I'm waiting for someone to find the flaw in it.

[slackmaster]

44. Even if the Second Amendment doesn't say that, the Ninth does

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[hydrashok75]

60. That doesn't make any sense.

If we needed a militia and all the guns are in one place, if the bad guys take out that one place then we're all disarmed. When the shit hits the fan, you can't always just hop in your car and get a state issued weapon. Didn't you learn anything from Katrina?

More restrictive gun control? Good luck. That didn't work out too well for us in 1994, I doubt the Democrats will want to touch the hot stove twice. Gun control is a stupid idea that's run its course. Good riddance. If you want to keep guns away from felons, great--but keeping them away from me at the same time makes no sense.

As for what you need in your home, too bad for your argument we have a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of Needs.

[DonP]

46. well regulated = well trained

In "18th century speak" well-regulated meant well trained, not well controlled the way we use the term today.

The idea was that since the citizens, as part of the (irregular) militia, must be ready to assure our security from threats, both foreign and domestic, "the ... people" should be well trained or regulated and know how to handle arms effectively.

In fact I believe that the founders did not want a standing army but instead wanted to know the people, the same individuals as enumerated in the other 9 articles in the BoR, had the ability ot act if need be.

The "Battle of Athens Tennesee", in 1946, was a prime example of where that idea was proven again when armed citizens (WWII veterans) took up arms formed an irregular militia to assure that their voting rights were allowed.

[LWolf]

21. Ok.

Back in the 80s, I felt safer when I didn't allow my then husband's friends to leave their guns in my closet when they decided to go out, or stay home, partying. They were average guys who liked their guns.

I felt safer around these good old American boys when they weren't armed.

I felt safer when I was raising my sons not to have guns in the house that they could access. I wanted them locked up, with ammo in a separate locked location.

There were times when the presence of guns made me feel less safe. Like when I was sent to visit my Dad, and he left me with my teenage step siblings, who didn't like me or my presence in their house, for a 3 day fishing trip. And told us all where the loaded gun was (in the headboard of the bed)in case we "needed" it.

Like when my ex-husband wanted to go target shooting, and take along a case of beer.

[Spica]

42. Let me elaborate.

I am looking for a concrete, factual, historical or current event that exhibits the benefits of restricting weapons to the average person. Where they were made safer as a result of these restrictions. So far the answers I've seen make this gentleman's question cause me to believe the restrictions we've placed on some weapons in this country to have more to do with controlling the people and less to do with solving the problem of violence.

I've been doing a lot of research into this over the past two weeks. I can not refute the premise of the question, that no one is made safer by limiting the access of handheld weapons. And please, don't point to England. They have made a fine mess of things. Now, their collecting knives since they have become the weapon of choice with which to committ mayhem. Cricket bats seem to be looming on the horizon next. Likewise the weapon of choice in Africa is the panga, or machete, rather than guns. Witness the events in Rwanda.

I understand this. Criminals do not obey laws by definition. Violence comes from the mind and is manifested via the hands. You can beat someone to death with a closed fist. As an American, I find my liberties being restricted, my home set up for government invasion and the dangers of violence in the streets growing rather than lessening while more and more laws are passed that have zero effect on criminals. They have a tremendous effect on law-abiding citizens but zero effect on the problem.

[iverglas]

49. oh lookie, I finally found it

google: "restricting the access of handheld weapons"

Could we have found the originator of this sincere query?

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/03/28/Responding+To+Cal...
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/Just+One+Question...

The View From North Central Idaho
Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal
Tuesday, December 14, 2004

... There is only one real question (this is NOT the "one question") to ask, "Does gun control make the average person more or less safe?" Yes, we could debate what the 2nd Amendment really means. And we could debate how even if all guns were banned you would still have to reanimate your cold dead fingers before you could take it from me. But that is a distraction from the real question (again, NOT the "one question"), "Should firearms be restricted?"

... My "one question" is this:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

(big red letters, in the original)

The author goes on to say:

There are three possible answers to this question.

1. "I don't know." In which case my response is, "Come back to the debate when you can answer 'Yes' or 'No'."

2. "No." In which case my response is, "Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don't want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again."

3. "Yes and here is my demonstration."

Well, he's wrong. There is another answer -- my answer, the only good answer. And it is:

What colour is orange:
True or False?

If he really claims not to get it, then he can be given a clue: ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.


Now, shouldn't people who use other people's work cite the source and give it credit?

Oh ... unless maybe you are the self-described "red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal" in question ... ?

[Spica]

52. Thank you for the reference.

And pointing to a direction for the answer.

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” (Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948))

[Pert_UK]

80. Wow....

THAT'S a strong argument that I havne't heard a thousand times on here before....



Yes indeedy do, reference to a country repressing the inhabitants of another over half a century ago certainly does further your argument for the widespread arming of all civilian populations.

Oh, and that may not be your exact argument but it must be somewhere in the right ballpark, eh?

[Wickerman]

54. now now, people come here seeking answers

and, by golly, the Gungeon is the place to get them. I suspect that user Spica will soon see the light and become a gun owner. A liberal gun owner. A voting liberal gun owner. Praise Jesus.

[Irreverend IX]

56. Grade A sophistry

After making that argument, you could have defended Charles Manson with a straight face. Or built an insanity plea case for Jesus in front of Pontius Pilate while the defendant proceeded to heal lepers and raise the dead in the courtroom. When faced with a question you cannot answer, a question that rips away one of the principal pillars of the gun-grabbers' argument, you plug your ears and shout "Nyah nyah nyah nyah, that's a stupid question!" If you cannot provide an example of handgun restriction increasing public safety, your ideas will have to be relegated to the intellectual bottom drawer where libertarianism and other much-touted non-proven blueprints for utopia gather dust. However, in light of the crime wave that followed handgun prohibition in Britian, the anti-RKBA philosophy may better be categorized with known tickets to disaster like communism and Scientology.

[iverglas]

57. bears repeating

I'll just adapt it to the situation.

While (you claim) that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" (you are) demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that (there is) stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChalleng...

Let's put it all in as many one-syllable words as possible, okay?

The "question" is asking for proof of something that cannot be proved. The only way the thing in question could be proved is if the person who is being ordered to answer the "question" had a crystal ball that worked in rearview mode.

The "question" is asking for proof of something that no one is under any obligation to prove. That is because no one has ever made the claim that proof is demanded for: that restricting any individual's access to "handheld weapons" made that individual "safer" (than what, I still don't know). No one here has made that claim. So why would anyone here answer such a ridiculous "question"?

I might give it a shot, though, if I got a little reciprocation. Somebody answer me this one, maybe:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person DID NOT make them safer?

Get out those rearview crystal balls, now, and tell me WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if x had been y.

As we all know, the dog would have caught that rabbit if it just hadn't stopped to pee.


And just to help you out a little more:

When faced with a question you cannot answer ...

You want me to find you the first time I said on an internet discussion board that the mere fact that someone types a bunch of words and sticks a quotation mark at the end of it does not mean that it is a question ?

The fact that someone can't "answer" a mishmash of words and punctuation reflects not on the person who isn't "answering".

... a question that rips away one of the principal pillars of the gun-grabbers' argument ...

Well, if only someone could quote a gun-grabber, or any real-life person, making the argument in question ... you'd have a point. And be making a statement that contained a true premise.

... you plug your ears and shout "Nyah nyah nyah nyah, that's a stupid question!"

It's a shame you apparently haven't mastered the language and concepts I'm using sufficiently to grasp what I'm saying, but it is neither my fault nor my problem. If you are capable of understanding, then there appears to be nyah-nyahing going on, but not from this direction.


And just for good measure ...

However, in light of the crime wave that followed handgun prohibition in Britian ...

I and a few others are still waiting for an explanation of how handgun prohibition led to a rise in the number of assault-related offences committed by drunks on drinking binges. That being the essence of the "crime wave" in question, as anyone with the brains to learn facts and the decency to admit s/he knows what they are will tell you.


the anti-RKBA philosophy may better be categorized with known tickets to disaster like communism and Scientology

Eek. I must be a red, and you're baiting me. Damn, who would have expected that around here?

If only *I* could find a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal or right-wing wacko to quote in my defence ...

[Spica]

61. Fine, here's one off the top of my head

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person DID NOT make them safer?

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9C04E3D8113BF934A25753C1A967958260

Suzanna Hupp lost both her parents as a direct result of restrictions on handheld weapons.

www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

Let's what if Dunblaine. What if a single teacher would have had a weapon?

(And please don't divert this by going off on teachers with guns in the classroom. We trust them not to rape or sexually abuse our children don't we? Why shouldn't we trust them with protecting them too?)

Let's what if Port Moresby, a single bystander with a weapon?

How about Rwanda? Just a few rifles in the possession of the Tutsis? Oh wait, the UN will save you.

Edit to add: 100 days of slaughter

Why is it if the reverse of this question is so easily answered is the converse case without merit or reason and a stupid question to boot? I know, probably something I don't understand about the language.

Like I said when I started this. Why are there no simple, shining examples of where restricting access to weapons made anyone safer?

[crankybubba]

62. don't hold you breath waiting for a response

expect more "fun with semantics" and avoiding the question instead of discourse.

[iverglas]

63. why is it?

Why is it if the reverse of this question is so easily answered is the converse case without merit or reason and a stupid question to boot?

Well gosh. It just must be because some people have rearview crystal balls, and some don't. Ya figure?


Let's what if Dunblaine.

Okay!!

What if a single teacher would have had a weapon?

And what if three more psychopaths in the vicinity of the school had had handguns???

(Links to the Luby's reports)

And what if there had been three people with handguns in the restaurant, and they pulled them out and started shooting as soon as the bad guy did ... and they missed a coupla times and hit a coupla the people who -- in this alternate universe we call the real world -- the bad guy didn't hit, who are still alive today?? Or even: what if he saw one of them pulling out that handgun and shot him/her dead, and s/he was one of the people who, again in this little timeline of ours, is still alive? Or how about if one of the people in Luby's with a handgun in that alternate timeline didn't happen to have it on his/her person because s/he had left it on the bedside table the week before and somebody broke in and stole it (and then used it to hold up the local 7-11 and kill one of the clerks)??

What IF?

From your link to one of the usual charming places:

Suzanna Gratia Hupp will live the rest of her life with regret. Had she been carrying her gun the day a madman executed her parents while she cowered helplessly and then fled, she is convinced she could have stopped one of the worst massacres in U.S. history.

I'm convinced that if only I had ... well, so many things, eh? I'd be a millionnaire today, or a famous novelist, or a supermodel. Ya just never knows, do ya?

Where did that bad guy get his gun, anyhoo?

Elsewhere, Gratia (now Hupp, I presume -- oh, and knock me over with a feather: she's a Republican) said:

http://www.oshadavidson.com/under_fire.htm

"My only regret," Gratia told a TV reporter, "is that myself or some other person, a reasonably sane person, didn't have a gun."

Well golly. If only the world were exactly the way we want it to be, all the time. If only only good guys got guns. Sadly, and I know it's just danged hard to believe: when good guys got guns, bad guys are gonna get 'em too.

And once you have CHANGED THE FACTORS IN THE EQUATION, you really do NOT just get to go back and pretend that all other things would have been equal in whatever little scenario you're hoking together to drive whatever agenda you're cruising around on.


How about Rwanda? Just a few rifles in the possession of the Tutsis? Oh wait, the UN will save you.

Oh wait ... if the big brave president of the big strong superhuman USofA (being the only one with the capacity in the region to do so at that instant) had BLOCKED THE AIRWAVES so that the radio station could not continue broadcasting the incitements to genocide that are recognized by thinking people everywhere as pretty much the sine qua non of that stain on the world's conscience, then the Tutsis really would not have needed any "handheld weapons" at all. But no, Mr. Bill snivelled about free speech, if you can fucking believe it, and hundreds of thousands died.

See? I can change the equation too. And my way's a lot better.

'Cause the world just ain't either/or -- even when you're trying to rewrite the past. You really just do not get to say okay, everything else stays the same -- but there's a guy with a white hat standing in the corner over there, and he's going to shoot the bad guy down with a single bullet before he even gets a shot off, and of course he isn't going to screw up and hit a bystander, and he isn't going to set the bad guy off into a frenzy of killing that he might not have done otherwise ... no, you're just going to make up a world that's exactly like this one except that some lone ranger with his trusty sidearm and steely gaze and rock-steady aim is always there, on the edge of the shadows, waiting to save us all. (Or hey, it's your fantasy, so maybe that's you I can't quite make out over there in that fuzzy halo of light ...)

What IF the dog hadn't stopped to pee? I'm sure you're absolutely convinced that it would have caught that rabbit. No ifs, ands or buts. Hindsight really is such a wonderful gadget, isn't it? Hope you didn't throw out the warranty.


Why are there no simple, shining examples of where restricting access to weapons made anyone safer?

Hey, I love a party game!

Let's see. There was the guy who walked into the hallway of my house next door when my father was staying upstairs, planning to steal whatever he might find (him having just lifted my purse out of my dining room unbeknownst to me). He ran off when my father called down the stairs. If he'd had a gun, my father would have died six months too soon. There ya go.

There was the guy who planned to kill me after abducting me, etc. He eventually made me get out of the car so he could take me "for a walk" in the bottom of the abandoned quarry. He turned his head, I ran like a demon out of there, he knew he had a problem, he split. If he'd had easy access to a gun, why, I probably wouldn't be helping you out here.

I live in the kind of neighbourhood where, if I were in a comparable sized city in most of the US, the sound of gunshots would provide our nightly entertainment. Hookers, crackheads, dealers, pimps. There have been too many assholes setting off very loud (and illegal) firecrackers in the last week, but gunshots? Never heard one. Not once, in 25 years. If the assholes in question and the rest of the riff raff had ready access to firearms -- why, once again, you might be talking to the wind right now.

But like I said immediately after you posed your "question": where are the shining examples of where prohibiting me from speeding has made me safer??

Of course I also said:

WHO ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION?

And that one's the simplest one of all.

[crankybubba]

64. peeing dogs aside...

see what I mean( )

[Spica]

65. Shoulda, woulda, coulda...

I so love the superior intellect.

[Spica]

67. Again, thank you

Since it seems to be so very, very important to you as to who asked me this very simple question I'll tell you. It was a woman I know. Like I said before, does it really make a difference who asked me?

Do you have more than fear and emotion to offer? I gave you a specific case where restrictions to handheld weapons did result in an average person being less safe. How about some from your side of the story? I see you toeing the gun control line and spouting their rhetoric and fear but not producing facts. A gun is a tool much like a hammer, screwdriver or awl. I'm all for preventing violence. How does taking action against the law-abiding help stop crime though? Criminals do not obey laws. If guns are made illegal they will simply be manufactured by other criminals.

Its good that you have been able to avoid harm from the criminals you've encountered. The overwhelming majority of them are cowards. Be glad your attacker didn't elect to run you down with his car or the man in your house decide to use his fists. Violence does not automatically equal gun.

I will say one thing for your responses here. They have made it clear to me why I've had to vote for the lesser of two evils in so many presidental election over the last 30 years. Are you a politician? You certainly answer things like one?

[iverglas]

69. hey, I played your stupid party game, chum

How about some from your side of the story?

I guess I was typing in invisible electrons or something, eh?

You go ahead. You pretend I didn't play your stupid game. You pretend I didn't offer several specific examples of how much UNSAFER I would be if I AND EVERYONE ELSE had ready access to firearms. I'm sure someone besides you is amused.


Be glad your attacker didn't elect to run you down with his car or the man in your house decide to use his fists. Violence does not automatically equal gun.

You missing something here?

YOU'RE RIGHT. I didn't get run down, and I didn't get choked to death, and I didn't get beat up for my wallet. MY crystal ball says that all of those things would have involved far too much effort and risk to the person doing them, effort and risk that are NOT present when such people have firearms -- and that IF they had had firearms, the entire equation would have been completely rewritten.

Just like you rewrote all your silly equations to suit your own specifications, and of course your own agenda.

Its good that you have been able to avoid harm from the criminals you've encountered.

I haven't avoided harm. I've avoided DEATH. And if that one person in particular, and who knows how many others of the hundreds of thousands of people I've rubbed shoulders with in my life, had had a firearm, I WOULD BE DEAD. I was there, and I know.

But that particular fact has pretty much bugger all to do with my policy positions, just so's you know. I offered it up as my contribution to your party game, and that was all. Since the "question" was moronic, any "answer" given to it is equally moronic, including mine.

I see you toeing the gun control line and spouting their rhetoric and fear but not producing facts.

I haven't figured out yet what "facts" you've produced. Oh, if only I'd had a gun, nothing bad would ever have happened to me. You might want to check with one of those dictionary things. That ain't a fact.

Rhetoric and fear? Yeah, you'll find my rhetoric on the back of cereal boxes, in two languages. In actual fact, you and I both know perfectly well that your whole problem here is that I am NOT saying what you want me to say. I really am just not so gullible or dim as to fall for cheap tricks like the One Big Question. Really and truly.

And I smell desperation. The kind of desperation that manifests itself in denial and diversionary grooming.


Criminals do not obey laws.

NOOOO! Really?!?!? I'm going to have to think about that one, for sure!

And when I've done that, I'll see whether I can figure out whether it's relevant to anything I've ever said about anything. So far I can't, but maybe if I think really hard, I'll come up with something.

Or heck, you could just tell me. What's that got to do with anything I have ever said?

And oh yeah: "a woman I know". Oh hoo hah. Has it not occurred to you that just continuing to refuse to answer would have been quite a bit less lame than that? Sheesh.

[pat0704]

73. Impact of Brady Law

I think there is strong evidence that the Brady Law has probably made us safer. While, of course, any law restricting sales to individual can be circumvented by those who are determined to do so, there is no reason to believe that placing obstacles in their way cannot have a positive effect.

A major impediment to the effectiveness of any gun-control measure is that no law can make a gun disappear. As a country, the US is saturated with guns, and any measures to change that would take years to implement and are politically untenable. Thus, it would be very difficult to get guns of of the hands of those who already have them.

What about those who don't have guns? Could stricter measures make harder for would-be criminals to get a hold of guns? A possible way to answer this question is to look at young people. Children do not own guns, but of course may legitimately or illegitimately come to possess them as the get older. Is it possible to keep guns out of the hands of young criminals?

Statistics show this may be so. We all know that crime rates have decreased significantly over the past decade or so. This is especially so for young people. But take a look at these statistics.

Homicides by youth 14-17

Gun
1994 3,630
2004 1,059 (70% decline)

Nongun
1994 753
2004 485 (36% decline)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapagetab...

That is a significant difference! Clearly something happened to make gun homicides drop much faster than nongun homicides. The Brady Bill went into effect in 1994. While, of course, teenagers cannot legally buy firearms anyway, it is very possible that the Brady Law made it more difficult for their normal sources to acquire them. None of this is proof, but it certainly is suggestive.

The Brady Law may not be an example of a law to restrict access to handheld weapons. After all, it is not an impediment to law-abiding people to buying a gun. But if it appears to have a positive effect, one must question why opposition by gun-rights advocates is so strong.

[benEzra]

78. Gun owners generally don't oppose the background check requirement...

many of us opposed the original Brady law (mandatory waiting period plus optional background check), as did the NRA, because its primary effect (if not its purpose) was to hassle the law-abiding gun buyer. This system was soon replaced by the mandatory Federal NICS point-of-sale background check, with no waiting period for those who pass, a law which was heavily supported by the NRA.

The only complaints you'll hear from gunnies over the NICS check system occur when somebody tries to twist the system into a backdoor registration system, which is specifically prohibited by the law.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

79. Although the question makes logical sense, it's disingenuous...

Assume I'm the average person (actually, I'm a lot better than average). Now, has there ever been a definite, specific occasion where I have benefited from not having access to a firearm?

No...and I'm not sure how that could make sense...The only way in which it could make sense is if (for example) I'd got drunk or gone temporarily insane and wanted to kill my family or my boss or myself. If I'd had a gun it would have been trivially easy to achieve this in an irreversible way (i.e. a shot to the head doesn't leave time for second thoughts). Now, not having a gun I would not be able to commit this crime and therefore I have benefited in this way.

Of course, the pro-RKBA person can claim that I would never actually be in this position, but consider the number of workplace/home/suicide shootings there are each year, and work out whether that number goes up or down if we make it just a bit harder to get hold of a gun.

The whole issue of this debate can be boiled into two separate sides as follows:

Pro-RKBA: I can give lots of SPECIFIC, DEFINITE examples of where a specific individual has been better off because they had access to a firearm (e.g. self defence cases)

Anti-RKBA: My contention is that the average man on the street is generally better off and safer if he lives in a society that has strict limitations on access to firearms.

The "Anti-RKBA" position is one where the ABSENCE of something (injuries and death due to firearms) is the benefit, and you can't measure the absence of something, which is why the anti-rkba case can look weak....Of course, it doesn't help that when an anti-rkba person does the only thing that they can do to further their case (and compares the US with another similar country with more restrictive gun laws) the pro-RKBA person usually ignores it and comes up with spurious reasons as to why the comparison doesn't actually stand up or apply to the US.

I am absolutely convinced that there are less gun deaths in societies where there are sensible restrictions and controls on who can own guns. Basically, I am FAR happier knowing that if one of my neighbours/peers/friends/fellow citizens wants to own a gun then they have to be prepared to contact the police for vetting beforehand.

I realise that this goes against some people's idea of the 2nd Amendment, but I genuinely believe that there are many people in every society who are not responsible enough to own a gun. I'd rather live in a society that weeds them out, rather than one which has the default position of allowing anyone with the inclination to buy one without a second thought.

Oh.......and your later comments about knife-grabbing and cricket bats do rather suggest that you're not going to make a serious contribution to this debate, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and look forward to reading your response....

[Pert_UK]

82. Oo! Oo! Yet another way to look at it....(how exciting this all is!)

"Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to a specific person would have made another person (or themselves) safer?"

Wahey! Yes, yes I can........

In fact, any instance of somebody with no previous criminal or mental health record perpetrating a "murder-suicide" or "going postal", or anybody who has accidentally shot themselves (or someone else)...etc. etc. etc.

It seems to me that in this debate many people on both sides need to grow up and admit that occasionally the other side has a point. Yes, guns can be used to save lives in self defense, but yes, they can also be used by apparently "normal" people to cause harm to themselves and others.

[Speaker]

83. Ask Paul Martin

Here's the question: Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

Ask Paul Martin.

Oh, Canada

In the beginning.....


(Before December 8, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/29/poll... target=_new>http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/29/poll...

OTTAWA - Two new polls show the federal Conservative party has lost its lead in public opinion across Canada in the past week.

Then Mr. Martin forfeits the election.....


(December 8, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=b50545... target=_new>Handgun Ban

Anne Dawson , with files from James Gordon and ElizabethThompson, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, December 08, 2005

MONTREAL -- Prime Minister Paul Martin will propose a ban on most handguns in Canada, CanWest News Service has learned.

Sources say Martin, who will make the election campaign announcement this morning, wants to choke off the supply of handguns in this country, particularly guns brought into the country illegally and those sold on the black market.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200... target=_new>Martin proposes sweeping ban on handguns

Liberal Leader Paul Martin is proposing a sweeping ban on handguns to combat growing gun-related violence in Canada's cities.

"Handguns kill people -- that's why they exist, and they're taking too many Canadian lives," said Martin during his "safer communities announcement" at a school near Toronto's violence-plagued Jane and Finch area this morning.

A handgun registry in Canada already exists and has been active for more than 60 years.

Handguns are currently classified as either restricted or prohibited. Canadians can get a handgun license by proving the weapon is part of a collection, in target-shooting competitions, or for target practice.

The announcement will likely be popular in vote-rich urban centres. But it could anger voters in rural areas, (LOL)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/1... target=_new>Liberals vow to ban handguns

The Liberal strategy for making the streets of Canada's cities safer begins with banning all handguns and getting tougher on crime. Paul Martin announced the proposed ban in a troubled Toronto neighbourhood on Thursday.

"I've come to the conclusion that significant change is needed. I've come to the conclusion that we should ban handguns,"

The End Result.....

(After December 8, 2005)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-19-canada-co... target=_new>Canada's Conservatives ready to close the deal

TORONTO -- Canada's Liberal Party appears poised to lose its 13-year grip on power in Monday's elections-- an outcome nearly unimaginable here just a few months ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/0... target=_new>Conservatives celebrate minority government victory

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Canada's next prime minister, pledged to work with all parties in the next Parliament after Canadians elected a Tory minority government Monday, ending a 12-year reign of Liberal rule.

Haaaaa Haaaaa!!!!!


<img src= width=400 height=300>

*snicker*