U.S. gun victims speak out

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5676267&cKey=1113246318000

CHICAGO (Reuters) - In America's epidemic of gun violence, the worst of any industrialized nation, the dead make news but the wounded are soon forgotten.

With firearms mayhem in the headlines almost daily, from a Minnesota Indian reservation to an Atlanta courtroom and recent random shooting sprees in Texas and on the East Coast, it is the wounded who go on living -- a half million of them in recent years by one estimate.

Some of them are speaking out, in raw black and white essays and photos on display at Chicago's Peace Museum (http://www.peacemuseum.org).

"I touched my face and saw the blood on my hand," says Ciara Padilla, who was 4 when shots from a drive-by gunman tore into her Dallas home.

The bullet "went in the top of my head, under the skin, so it didn't go into my brain. I just waited to be with my mom and dad so I wouldn't be alone," she adds. The camera caught her on a bench in front of a paint-peeled piano topped by a scarf and family photos, in the same home where she was shot in 1997.

more

[Worst Username Ever]

1. Thanks, good post.

We often forget that for every one killed, many more are wounded.

[Redstone]

2. Second the thanks.

Redstone

[mainer]

3. But -- but -- America is the culture of life!

That's why this country honors guns!

[DoNotRefill]

4. Actually, most people killed with guns in the US.....

are deliberate acts of suicide. They are almost 60% of the gun fatalities nation-wide. Accidents are a tiny minority of firearms deaths, like under 5%.

[NNN0LHI]

9. In 2002 39% (11,829) of all U.S gun deaths were due to homicides

56% (17,108) were due to suicides.

Don

[Toots]

13. This post wasn't exactly about gun deaths..

It is about the ones that survived a shooting. Lots of people shot in America that is for sure...

[DoNotRefill]

16. It depends on your frame of reference....

More people in the US die each year from medical malpractice than from automobile accidents and guns COMBINED. And more kids under 13 months old accidentally die each year in 5 gallon pickle buckets than children under 10 years old that are killed with guns, be it accidental or intentional.

[Ilovestout]

47. we need health, we need trasportation, we don't need guns

gun deaths are preventable, lower the number of guns, and the use of guns in crime will be reduced.

[obxhead]

54. not a chance!

lower the number of guns, and the use of guns in crime will be reduced

This will not be the effect. Guns are bought, at 1/10 the original price, in back alleys every day. They are illegal and stolen guns for the most part. I don't think there's any background check (maybe your local meth head pulls out his laptop to be sure your safe)

go ahead make guns illegal. Then we can all make a TON of money selling them to all the wrong people. :)

[Ilovestout]

55. that is the effect as has been shown in many cases

NYC had 11 years of declining crime after it passed strict gun control. Australia had a reduction in gun crime after it passed significant gun control. And the states that had strict concealed weapons laws had a greater reduction in gun crimes than states that had loose concealed weapons laws.

[obxhead]

60. did non-gun crimes decline as well??

just a ? I don't know the stats. I am curious though.

[Ilovestout]

61. in many cases

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm">BOJ Stats

though gun crime decreased more then other forms of crime, which may also be evidence that "substituion," that is the substitution of guns for other weapons, may not be very likely. The same could be said for suicides, suicides by firearms decreased more then no firearm suicides, but overall all suicides decreased.

[DoNotRefill]

77. That's a good link....

good and DEAD....

It's interesting to note that as state CCW laws liberalized, there was a MASSIVE drop in violent person to person crime, while property crime increased...Why is that?

Could it be that criminals don't like getting SHOT by victims?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

90. No, but...

The majority of CCW laws were passed in a time of declining crime rates (i.e., the Clinton Years, when expending economic prosperity proved that a good job is the best crime deterrent -- but I digress). Crime Rates went down in states that passed CCW and in those that didn't pass.

It would be premature to say that passing CCW lead to the decline. On the other hand, CCW opponents predicted a bloodbath if people were allowed to carry concealed weapons. Didn't exactly happen, did it?

[DoNotRefill]

103. CCW reform....

started in the mid 1980's.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

107. Came to fruition in the 1990's

[DoNotRefill]

110. IIRC...

Florida enacted their original CCW reform bill in 1986...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

115. One state down...

49 to go...

Based on the data here Florida didn't experience any appreciable decrease in violent crime after 1986. Steady decreases came after 1994. And the majority of CCW laws were enacted in the 1990's when crime rates nationwide were hitting thirty and forty-year lows.

The meme that CCW states experienced huge reductions in violent crime simply doesn't hold water. Now don't get me wrong. I'm pretty much in favor of CCW if someone can pass a background check and a safety course. But over-selling the benefits of CCW makes us look just as foolish as the "bogeyman" tactics of the anti-gun crowd.

[NickB79]

73. Do you have a link to the Australian crime reduction statistic?

From what I've read, crime increased, not decreased. I do know I read the same thing, that crime increased in Great Britain after they passed more stringent gun control laws. The English crime increase story I read on the BBC website a year or two ago.

On edit: here is one of several stories that came up on the BBC website when I did a search for "gun crime" in England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3737662.stm

"Home Office figures show that, in England and Wales, there were nearly 25,000 firearm offences in 2003/2004, compared with less than 15,000 in 1998/1999."

[HarveyBrooks]

87. Here you go

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

[DoNotRefill]

76. And after 1976, when DC passed the strictest gun controls in the US...

what happened to THEIR gun crime rate? How low did it drop?

[DoNotRefill]

75. Really? after England banned almost all handguns and confiscated them...

what happened to the raw figures of gun crimes there? Did it go up or down?

YOU may be willing to "Call 911 and die", but I'm not.

[MrBenchley]

93. Oh no! The phony English bloodbath...

Some people never get tired of telling lies, I guess.

By the way, the entire gun crime among the 60 million people in the UK in a typical year is well under the level of a medium sized American city like Birmingham, Alabama.

[DoNotRefill]

104. Just as I'm sure....

that England's entire raw non-gun homicide numbers is well under the level of the raw non-gun homicide numbers of that same city...

[MrBenchley]

112. Well, there's gun nut logic or whatever it is....

Brits aren't killing each other fast enough to suit....

[DoNotRefill]

118. Huh?

Where did I say that?

the Brits have a much less violent society than we have in the US. If every person in the UK had a handgun, this would still be true.

[MrBenchley]

123. So the reason we should continue to let halfwits have unregulated guns

is because another country is less violent...HO-kay.

[Kerrytravelers]

5. Aw... that's just them liberals trying to tell us that guns kill people.

Hey, I have no problem with gun ownership, but what is wrong with registering them and waiting periods and, quite frankly, why do hunters need the automatic weapons that can take down a small twon with one spray of the gun? There are hunters in my family and all they need are rifles.

If we register our cars and our dogs, why not register guns in a manner far more profecient than is required today?

The NRA scares me.

[DoNotRefill]

6. Prolly 'cause....

there's no "right to own and drive cars" or "Right to keep and breed dogs" in the constitution.

Even the UN charter recognizes the right of self-defense. That doesn't mean self defense with sticks...

[Kerrytravelers]

7. Donotrefill

I understand that you're a gun owner and a gun rights avdocate. But tell me, the NRA doens't scare you just a bit? The same organization that wants to arm teachers in the classroom isn't just a bit out there for you?

I personally do not own a gun. I have family members who do. They are extremly safe with their guns. The go to firing ranges and they hunt. They collect guns. They also recognize that in this country, we have a terrible attitude towards vengence and anger and getting even. I"m not advocating taking away anyone's guns, but waiting periods and safety locks aren't violating your Constitutional rights. You can have your guns, but just because you may be sensible and safe doens't mean everyone will be that way. Unfortunately, our laws and safety concerns have to be aimed at keeping us safe from the dumbest, most careless idiot in society while still allowing us freedom.

[DoNotRefill]

11. My wife is a teacher with a CCW permit....

and I'd trust her to have a gun in school a hell of a lot more than I'd trust an "armed security guard" to have a gun in school. Remember Columbine? There was an armed cop there when the shooting started...and he RAN AWAY. Making schools "gun free zones" simply guarantees the safety of the criminals shooting up the school. You DO know that several shool shootings were stopped when law abiding people (both faculty and students) got guns from their cars, don't you? IIRC, the Appalacian School of Law shooting and the shooting involving Kip Kinkle are examples of this.

"Gun control" is bullshit. All it affects are people who obey the law. People who don't obey the law (AKA "criminals") don't CARE what the laws say.

You say that waiting periods and safety locks don't affect constitutional rights....the same argument has been used for poll taxes, literacy tests, et cetera.

[Ilovestout]

50. the UN charter recognizes the right of states to defend themselves

from invasion and occupation, it is the only legal form of warfare in the UN charter, it says nothing about individual ownership of firearms. And ownership of firearms is not neceserry to defend one's self. And article 1 of the UN charter sounds pretty supportive of gun control.

UN Charter

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

[DoNotRefill]

74. take a look at Resolution 1368....specifically:

"Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,"

Or, you can read Article 51 in Chapter 7 of the Charter, which speaks about individual self-defense.

It sure as shit SOUNDS like they recognize the right to individual self defense....Of course, those people who say it doesn't are the same ones that say "the right of the people" in the second amendment really is "the privilege of the State"...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't improve his reading comprehension...

[Ilovestout]

147. in accordance with the charter

the charter doesn't say you can have any weapon you want because you are afraid of a faceless, nameless "somebody," you are irrationally scared of. The charter is clear, peace and lawfulness first, lethal force absolutely last.

[left15]

8. you seem confused

The NRA does not does not support automatic weapons, they have been outlawed since 1933. You may be refering to semi-automatic weapons. Nearly ALL hunting rifles fall into this class.

As for waiting periods, I have never seen any data to show they were of any value. Most of the receient shootings were done with stolen weapons.

As for registration, it is not true that you have to register a car or a dog upon purchase, (at least not in Illinois) infact, you only have to register vehicles that will be driven on public roads, race cars, antique cars, and farm trucks do not need registration. I'm not sure about the registtration of dogs, but I know it doesn't happen at the time of purchase.

All criminal violence is is a terrible waste, be it with gun, knife, arson, or explosives.

We don't blame vehicles for vehicular deaths, we blame the drivers.
So why do so many blame guns for the actions of the criminals who shoot them?

[NNN0LHI]

10. What is the NRA position on armor piercing bullets if you know?

Thanks in advance.

Don

[DoNotRefill]

14. They generally oppose such legislation....

because of the way it's worded. The last bill that came up that they opposed would have banned ALL ammunition because it was "armor-piercing", at least compared to cotton balls.

I've not seen the NRA oppose bans on steel-core ammunition, which is what's traditionally seen as "armor-piercing" ammunition.

[NNN0LHI]

19. Right. Every cop I know wears a Kevlar vest on duty

They must wear them for those bullets made out of cotton I suppose? Because the vests they wear sure as hell won't stop any armor piercing rounds that I am aware of.

Don

[DoNotRefill]

26. Don....do you know how the standards for bulletproof vests are set?

I can sell a "bulletproof" vest with one layer of kevlar, even though almost all bullets will penetrate it. A level II "bulletproof" vest will not stop a bullet made out of ice if it's fired from a .357 magnum with a full load.

How many Level II vests will stop a regular FMJ fired from, say, a .308? Does that mean that ALL .308 FMJ bullets are "armor-piercing"? Of course not.

[SidDithers]

80. Ice bullets melt before leaving the barrel of the gun...

All you end up shooting is a cloud of steam.

They did the tests on Discovery Channel's Mythbusters.

Sid

[slackmaster]

82. I've successfully fired an ice bullet from my potato gun

The bore is 1.5 inches. The gun is powered by compressed air, 150 PSI provided by a bicycle pump or any other suitable source.

The ice bullet punched through a piece of 1/4" plywood at 5 yards, and disintegrated into very small pieces when it hit a concrete wall.

The next step would be to embed a hard metal spike or shrapnel in the ice.

[lonelysoul2020]

18. Do you mean body armor?

If you mean body armor like cops use all most ALL rifle calibers can penetrate body armor. All the most popular hunting rifles for medium to big game can penetrate body armor.

[NNN0LHI]

20. How many cops get shot with rifles compared to handguns if you know?

Thanks in advance.

Don

[lonelysoul2020]

22. I don't know

But most cops are shot with handguns. yet most handgun ammunition isn't able to penetrate body armor that I know of. And NNN0LHI i brought up the fact that rifle ammo can penetrate body armor. As you didn't say what kind of armor piercing ammo you wanted to know about. I bet the NRA fully supports all most all rifle ammo even tho it can penetrate body armor.

[DoNotRefill]

27. Most cops wear a vest designed to stop a specific caliber.

Do you know what caliber that is? It varies, since it's the caliber weapon the OFFICER carries. That should tell you something.

Penetration of a bulletproof vest is a function of velocity. It's not the function of some kind of magic bullet.

[Kerrytravelers]

12. I'm not confused.

First off, welcome to DU. At 87 posts, you are really new here.:hi:

I don't live in Illonois, so the laws are clearly different.

Look more carefully at the NRA and their propaganda.

I have seen data that show waiting periods allow for checks into backgrounds and cooling off periods for those who buy guns in anger. The NRA doens't seem to care, but they are only a lobbiest for the gun manufactureers. If the gun manufactureres were to pull their $$ from the Rethugs, suddenly guns would earn a sensible place at the table of discussion, not a hot button topic to wedge people apart.

Now, as you mill around here, reading, you will see that DU is pretty divieded on guns. I am part of the group who basically doens't care if people have guns or not, but I am admant that the NRA is out of control and they encourage their herds to be angry and oppose any type of gun laws or enforcement. The gun owners in my family are members of the NRA, but mainly to know what they are up to. It is a dangerous organization, just as plugged into * as the fundies and neo-con death squad.


Don't assume that I"m confused because I disagree or I've seen other stats. I'm not near as hard coare against guns as a large majority of DUers here. But I think we all need to remember, here at Du we tend to have more commonsense than most people. Our laws need to keep the most stupid in mind, and protect us from the most stupid!
:)


There is a huge difference between a gun owner and a gun nut.

[DoNotRefill]

15. Heh. I bet the Republicans say the AARP is out of control, too.

There are cases where waiting periods have literally caused people to die. How? They knew people were coming after them, that the police couldn't protect them, so they tried to get a gun and ended up dead before the waiting period was over.

Criminals NEVER undergo waiting periods. Why? Because they are CRIMINALS. Breaking the law is WHAT THEY DO. Even SCOTUS has said that registration schemes can't apply to criminals, and that criminals can't be punished for disobeying registraion laws, based upon 5th Amendment immunities.

Gun Control is nationally a dead issue. It cost us both the 2000 and the 2004 national elections, along with control of Congress. yet there's no shortage of Democrats who will continue following Sarah Brady's pied piping to our political doom. The Brady Campaign is THE SINGLE MOST SUCESSFUL FALSE-FLAG OPERATION EVER. Remember who her husband worked for?

[FiveGoodMen]

17. I guess that means that in all the countries with gun control

they have about the same per-capita number of gun deaths each year?

[mbperrin]

21. ***crickets***

nt

[billbuckhead]

23. I thought the Swiss were comrades in arms with the American gun nuts?

Maybe NRA whore Tom DeLay will go over and visit those Swiss for printing this criticism. America's over the top gun violence is nothing less than terrorism and it's about time a civilized nation begins proceeding against gun violence. The victims of guns in the nation far exceed that of Islamic terrorism and an appropriate response is long over due.

[DoNotRefill]

25. It's a Reuters article....

picked up by a swiss news source.

[reprobate]

94. America...a civilized nation? Surely you jest.

Gun violence is at pandemic levels in our country's inner cities. We are a nation that began in violence and it's been our themesong ever since. Is it a coincidence that violence is taught by ALL our media as the acceptable means of conflict resolution?

Is it a coincidence that fathers teach their sons that they have to be the strongest among their friends and that an imagined insult is reason to inflict bodily harm?

We are a truly diseased nation and the only thing that will change this is to remove the means of killing each other. The gun is the great equalizer. It's universality is the one thing that separates us from most other nations.

I am a former LEO and a gun owner. I would gladly give up my guns if it would guarantee that everyone would be safe in the streets of our cities at night. Would removing guns guarantee that? I don't know. What I do know is that it takes far more cajones to attempt to rob someone with a knife than with a gun, so there would be far fewer crimes against persons.

The alternative of course is to require that all adults be armed in publicThen cops won't have to enforce the law, just sweep up afterwards.

[DoNotRefill]

29. Well damn....I MUST be wrong because I didn't answer in under 30 minutes..

Sorry, SOME of us have a life.

[DoNotRefill]

24. Rwanda had gun control...

So did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Pick a country that had a genocide, and you'll find that they ALL had some form of gun control...namely the people who were massacred were by law unarmed.

Now if you want to look at, say, industrialized western nations, you'll find some interesting things. For example, some countries with gun control have a HIGHER rate of suicides per capita than we do, but there is a substitution effect...namely that since guns are harder to get, they commit suicide in different ways, but still at a higher rate than in the US. Also, if you look at countries like England, which has incredibly strict gun control, you'll find they their overall homicide rate is far, far lower than the US's overall homicide rate. If you break it down further, their NON-gun homicide rate is far lower than the US's NON-gun homicide rate. Now if guns are the reason the US has such a high homicide rate, how can you explain the discrepancy in the NON-gun homicide rate? Surely you wouldn't say that guns cause people to kill each other with, say, knives, would you? So why is there that discrepancy?

Now if you take countries like Switzerland, which ISSUES machineguns to practically EVERY household as part of their militia system, but has an incredibly low homicide rate across the board (gun and non-gun homicides), you will conclude, if you are honest, that the issue isn't guns.

[lonelysoul2020]

28. Amen

[billbuckhead]

30. Afghanistan has wide open gun laws, so do the Red biblebelt states

The gun worshipping Red state biblebelt of the USA is even higher than the rest of the USA in gun deaths. The Brookings Institute said that gun violence costs America, a $100 billion a year. Almost 30,000 deaths, over 50,000 wounded and $100 billion dollars, those are Iraq war numbers. Here's senate testimony;

Testimony of
Professor Jens Ludwig

Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University

May 13, 2003
Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. It is an honor to appear before this committee as you consider the role of Project Safe Neighborhoods in reducing gun violence in the United States. My testimony is divided into two sections: a summary of the conclusions, and supporting analysis.

Summary of major conclusions

• Funding additional law enforcement efforts to combat gun violence is in principle a good use of scarce government resources. Such efforts are important in part because of the substantial costs of gun violence to American society, estimated to be on the order of $100 billion each year.

------------snip---------

<http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=754&wit_id=2066>

[DoNotRefill]

35. Heh. you're joking, right?

You DO know that a supermajority of gun deaths in the US are not the result of crime, but are the result of suicide, right? How does it cost society a million dollars for each person that commits suicide? Be specific.

[billbuckhead]

38. Way more Americans die from murder than from foreign terrorism

Someone has to pay for all this mayhem and it's the taxpayers. Use Google, there are a dozens articles about these Brooking Institute studies.

[DoNotRefill]

72. And way more people die accidentally in cars than are murdered...

and the American people foot the bill for that, too.

Prohibition NEVER works. If you weren't so dogmatically fixed to your position, you'd admit this.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[obxhead]

56. excellent point.

[MrBenchley]

99. Really...

Be sure to link to a news story about the passage of gun control in Rwanda. Do.

"So did Nazi Germany"
...and yet every fuckwit with a swastika around today is pushing the repellent and utterly phony "gun rights" horseshit...and gun shows are awash in Nazi memorabilia. Go figure that....why it's almost as if that claim was total horseshit or something.

"Now if you take countries like Switzerland, which ISSUES machineguns to practically EVERY household as part of their militia system"
Wonder why gun loonies don't move en masse to Switzerland? Oh yeah, that's because those assault weapons are strictly registered and gun owners names kept ni a database, while EVERY bullet has to be accounted for in writing.

"you will conclude, if you are honest, that the issue isn't guns."
And you will conclude that the problem is the way guns are distributed and sold by a corrupt industry.

[DoNotRefill]

106. So you're saying...

"And you will conclude that the problem is the way guns are distributed and sold by a corrupt industry."

that the corrupt gun industry causes people to kill other people with knives and other non-gun weapons? Do guns often speak to you, telling you do do bad things?

[MrBenchley]

114. Guess that Rwanda gun control claim was rubbish after all

Thanks for confirming it.

[DoNotRefill]

121. Decree No. 12/79 of 7th May 1979...

http://www.saferworld.co.uk/publications/Horn%20Rwanda.pdf

Read page 17 of the PDF.

[MrBenchley]

122. Wow...that is pathetic....

So because gun owners had licenses, Rwanda had genocide....

Guess thats what passes for "logic" among the trigger happy.

[DoNotRefill]

126. Reading comprehension, Mr. Benchley....

"Art. 12
The permits for possession, carrying and selling of arms
and ammunition, are revocable due abuse of the arms
and when the state security is in danger. In the latter
case, the state reimburses the individual according to
when he has ceased to use the arm after which the
administration receives the arm and ammunition. The
reimbursement is on the basis of the full months
remaining before the expiry of the permit.
The Minister responsible for National Police has the right
to withdraw authorization already given to possess
firearms."

The Minister responsible for National Police has the right to withdraw authorization already given to possess firearms....What does that mean? It means that the people that the Government wanted dead didn't GET permits.


"Art. 20
The Ministry of Defence authorises:
 The acquisition and giving out of improved arms as
well as spare parts for these.
 Their passing on to any other person irrespective of
who he is.
 It gives the same authority as pertains to:
 Ammunition for improved arms as well as their spare
parts.
 Heavy weapons, spare parts for these, ammunition
and spare parts for the same.
The request for authorisation following the approval of
the prefect and Bougmester is addressed to the Minister
of Defence."

The Ministry of Defense gave out guns to those people who were going to do the killing. Since guns were expensive, they also handed out machetes to save on ammunition costs.

We know what the end result was....mountains of bodies. Chalk up ANOTHER victory for "reasonable gun controls"...

[MrBenchley]

129. If only you had any, refill.....

Be sure and document any of your claim....

"The Ministry of Defense gave out guns to those people who were going to do the killing. Since guns were expensive"
Gee, you mean that most Rwandans didn't have guns to start with?

"We know what the end result was..."
Yup...more lies from the trigger-happy gun nuts.

[DoNotRefill]

131. Well, considering that up-thread...

you denied that Rwanda had ANY gun control laws, where exactly is your credibility?

[MrBenchley]

133. My credibility is just fine, refill....

Wish I could say the same about you.

[DoNotRefill]

134. So, are you saying that my link is bogus?

Sure did come from a RW source, didn't it...

[MrBenchley]

137. Which link?

The link about Rwanda recalling all those guns as part of its massacre plans? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a link for that. In fact, it sure seemed from your account that guns weren't that plentiful to start with.

Funny how the BBC doesn't mention any gun confiscation here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3580247.stm

You'd think if it happened or contributed significantly, they would have.

[DoNotRefill]

138. Nah, the link about Rwanda having...

gun control ENTIRELY at the discretion of the Government. You sure did hear a lot about armed victims shooting the people killing them with machetes, didn't you....

[MrBenchley]

140. Wow, talk about desperate spin.....

"gun control ENTIRELY at the discretion of the Government."
Now be sure and show us where any guns were confiscated....since that's still the point you yet to prove in any way, shape or form.

And then we can start on why every fuckwit with a swastika around today screams in rage over gun control and pushes that idiotic "gun rights" rubbish....

[MrBenchley]

100. Really?

Be sure to link to a news story about the passage of gun control in Rwanda. Do.

"So did Nazi Germany"
...and yet every fuckwit with a swastika around today is pushing the repellent and utterly phony "gun rights" horseshit...and gun shows are awash in Nazi memorabilia. Go figure that....why it's almost as if that claim was total horseshit or something.

"Now if you take countries like Switzerland, which ISSUES machineguns to practically EVERY household as part of their militia system"
Wonder why gun loonies don't move en masse to Switzerland? Oh yeah, that's because those assault weapons are strictly registered and gun owners names kept ni a database, while EVERY bullet has to be accounted for in writing.

"you will conclude, if you are honest, that the issue isn't guns."
And you will conclude that the problem is the way guns are distributed and sold by a corrupt industry.

[saigon68]

34. Sarah Brady has made lots of money

By pushing Big Jim around in his low slung chair.

She is spared "working" -- and exists like jimmy swaggert and jim Baker USED TO-- (ie: get someone to send you funds for your cause and then SPEND THE FUNDS ON YOURSELF)

There are 900,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin. None of them like sarah brady's shilling and as union people and lower middle class will ALWAYS vote for the BUSH/CHENEY CLONE on this issue alone. And TOTALLY AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Karl KKK Rove knows this--hell any blind man knows this.

[DoNotRefill]

37. Hell, some DEMOCRATS know this....See:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/04/11/JohnBrummett/319855.html

"Guns, Dean predicted, would never come up - either pro or con - in his 50-state survey of what the Democratic message should be.

"Guns aren't an issue," he said. "If Philadelphia wants gun control, fine. If Alabama doesn't, also fine.""

Dean would have beaten Bush like a tin drum if we'd have given him a chance...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[saigon68]

62. Adios

[Ilovestout]

57. how do you know how much Sarah Brady has made?

If you're going to make arguments back them up. Did she receive a salary for being president of the Brady Campaign? Probably, and it was probably her full time job. But thats hardly the sames as "a lot of money."

[saigon68]

63. Deal w/it --- Sarah Brady cost Tennessee and Arkansas to Al Gore in 2000

She's a greasy shill for the repukes AND She's against the working man and woman and anyone who wants to protect their family, by using their own resources.

[MrBenchley]

97. What a pantload!

"There are 900,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin. None of them like sarah brady's shilling and as union people and lower middle class will ALWAYS vote for the BUSH/CHENEY CLONE on this issue alone. And TOTALLY AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS"
So why the hell should we pander to the sort of fuckwit who embraces corruption, war, bigotry, and economic ruin just so he can wave a popgun around?

Of course, we'd all love to see the proof that all 900,000 hunters are union members...

[DoNotRefill]

105. Yay! Bench used the "P" word!

Yay!

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

111. "Pantload" fits pretty much all posts from "pro gun democrats"...

They tend to be horseshit from stem to stern.

[MrBenchley]

98. I see trigger-happy fantasy still abounds...

"There are 900,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin. None of them like sarah brady's shilling and as union people and lower middle class will ALWAYS vote for the BUSH/CHENEY CLONE on this issue alone. And TOTALLY AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS"
So why the hell should Democrats pander to the sort of fuckwit who embraces corruption, war, bigotry, and economic ruin just so he can wave a popgun around?

Of course, we'd all love to see the proof that all 900,000 hunters are union members...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

91. Automatic Weapons are not outlawed...

Heavily regulated, yes. But individuals who meet extremely stringent federal criteria can possess them.

[Silverhair]

142. Effectively outlawed for the average person. NT

[slackmaster]

146. True, only very wealthy individuals can get them

There's nothing progressive or liberal or egalitarian about that.

[Kerrytravelers]

31. Post a story about victims of gun violence speaking out and those who own

guns get mad. When victims of automobile accidents speak out, those of us with automobiles don't get mad. I want to hear any and all suggestions on how to make driving safer. All many of us want is a way to make people safer.

We don't have one law enforcement friend who doesn't support constantly talking about guns and what role they play in society and about gun safety.

Instead of getting mad, perhaps our DU friends who own guns could explain their feelings and issues to the rest of us and what their feelings are, rather than tell us we're confused or what we understand is bullshit. It's the whole honey and vinegar thing going on here.

EDITED TO ADD:

My intent is not to be smart ass or antognistic. I have seen a few of you on other threads talking about guns and the fact that you are gun owners. When I was out canvassing during the campaign, I ran into a guy canvassing from MoveOn. He said that before joining the military and being sent to Afghaistan, he'd been a rethuglian. Well, getting out had changed his view. He still held the same opinions, but felt that there were better ways and approaches at making life better n America. He switched his party and went to work for Kerry. He, too, is a gun owner. But he said that he'd grown up in an rual area where everyone owns a gun. That is the same with much of my family. I am different. I grew up in big cities all my life. It isn't common for everyone to grow up, learning to shoot, going hunting, and owning guns. I'm not saying it is that black and white, rual versus city. I would just like the gun owners to tell us why they feel the way they do. Prehpas we won't continue to go in these circular discussions all the time.

[lonelysoul2020]

32. For me as a gun owner.

I value my right to own guns for my right to protect myself/family, my property, and if needs be my country. The gun is the best TOOL to do that job. And from what I've seen when victims of gun violence get together they usually want to ban guns. Yet when people the victims of automobile accidents speak out they DO NOT want vehicles banned. That is why gun owners get a little irritable.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

92. For as "great" as America is supposed to be

it's still so uncivilized that Americans feel they need to arm themselves for protection to sleep at night.

[slackmaster]

125. Your broad-brush statement does not hold water

...it's still so uncivilized that Americans feel they need to arm themselves for protection to sleep at night.

SOME Americans feel that way, just as SOME people in other countries do. And the a subset of the population feels is not a valid measure of the degree to which a society is civilized.

Personally, I keep a Louisville Slugger and a pitching wedge by the front door in case of alien invasion.

[slackmaster]

33. I'll take a shot at giving you a decent answer

I own dozens of firearms, and this post doesn't do a thing to my blood pressure or heart rate.

When victims of automobile accidents speak out, those of us with automobiles don't get mad. I want to hear any and all suggestions on how to make driving safer. All many of us want is a way to make people safer.

Poor driving skills and aggressive or negligent drivers present a far greater risk to people than the probability of getting shot. People are far more likely to experience a car crash than a gunshot wound. I've been the victim of the former several times and despite being around firearms since childhood have never even come close to being shot.

We don't have one law enforcement friend who doesn't support constantly talking about guns and what role they play in society and about gun safety.

My law enforcement friends enjoy target shooting and gun collecting as much as I do. I have never personally heard one say the gun ownership rights of non-LEOs should be further restricted.

Instead of getting mad, perhaps our DU friends who own guns could explain their feelings and issues to the rest of us and what their feelings are, rather than tell us we're confused or what we understand is bullshit. It's the whole honey and vinegar thing going on here.

I feel that the restrictions imposed by the National Firearms Act (which regulates machineguns, short-barrelled shotguns, etc.) and the Gun Control Act (established the licensing system for dealers, defined classes of people prohibited from owning guns, and ended mail-order gun sales) are appropriate, but there needs to be better enforcement. People who get convicted of serious crimes or put under a restraining order for a domestic violence complaint should be actively disarmed. In most states (including California where I live) there is no mechanism to do that. I also believe anyone who fails the background check when attampting to buy a gun should be prosecuted, as he or she has already made a false affidavit punishable as perjury.

I think we need major improvements in the availability and effectiveness of mental health care in this country, and an end to the War On (some) Drugs. I see violent crime as a behavior problem. Trying to take away the tools that sometimes get misused by criminals fails to address the root of the problem, and harms people who are not criminals.

I would just like the gun owners to tell us why they feel the way they do. Prehpas we won't continue to go in these circular discussions all the time.

My political philosophy is libertarian at its core. The freedom to own, say, and do as we please as long as we do no harm to others is the cornerstone of our society.

[obxhead]

59. thanks.

[Kerrytravelers]

66. This istruly the most intelligent response to this questions I've read.

Thank you for stating your beliefs clear and without insulting those of us who hold (seemingly) different opinions.




This was very well stated and quite intelligent:

I feel that the restrictions imposed by the National Firearms Act (which regulates machineguns, short-barrelled shotguns, etc.) and the Gun Control Act (established the licensing system for dealers, defined classes of people prohibited from owning guns, and ended mail-order gun sales) are appropriate, but there needs to be better enforcement. People who get convicted of serious crimes or put under a restraining order for a domestic violence complaint should be actively disarmed. In most states (including California where I live) there is no mechanism to do that. I also believe anyone who fails the background check when attampting to buy a gun should be prosecuted, as he or she has already made a false affidavit punishable as perjury.

I think we need major improvements in the availability and effectiveness of mental health care in this country, and an end to the War On (some) Drugs. I see violent crime as a behavior problem. Trying to take away the tools that sometimes get misused by criminals fails to address the root of the problem, and harms people who are not criminals.





I never thought we shouold just disarm everyone, especially law abiding gun owners. As I've stated, many of my family members are gun collectors and hunters. They are law abiding citizens who have done nothing to deserve having their property taken away.

Thank you for answering in a manner that invites others to listen rather than be insulted and therefor not open to listening to you.

Take care friend!

kt:hi:

[DoNotRefill]

36. I've been shot on three different occasions....

by criminals who didn't give a shit that shooting me was illegal as hell, or that their possession of firearms was illegal as hell.

So why exactly do you want to disarm ME, while leaving people like those who shot me with guns? What did I ever do to you to make you want me to die?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

45. That's the same excuse given for literacy tests for voting....

and it didn't hold water then. Why should it hold water now? Civil Liberties are civil liberties, and restrictions on them are categorically unacceptable.

[HarveyBrooks]

43. By the way...

anybody who isn't in law enforcement who has been shot 3 times by criminals must put themselves in a position to get shot. Try taking another route home from work or something.

[DoNotRefill]

44. "sworn" and "officer"....

are parts of my job description....

[FiveGoodMen]

52. Then you'd have a gun either way

[DoNotRefill]

71. So apparently your life is worth less than my life....

because I work for the Government?

How do you figure that?

[FiveGoodMen]

102. My life is safer without a gun

unless I either work in a profession like yours or else have some stalker or enemy coming after me.

Absent those specific, high-risk situations, I'm more likely to get shot if I have a gun than if I don't.

[DoNotRefill]

108. You're more likely to commit suicide with a gun....

if you have access to a gun. If you don't have access to a gun, you're just as likely to commit suicide with another method as you are to commit suicide if you have a gun.

[FiveGoodMen]

124. I'm suspicious of the claim

that I'd be just as likely to commit suicide some other way. A gun makes it a snap decision.

[DoNotRefill]

128. OK....

so getting into a car and driving it into an abutment at 90 miles an hour is NOT a snap decision?

If somebody wants to commit suicide, they'll find a way. Even being incarcerated and on a "suicide watch" doesn't stop people from killing themselves.

[Romulus]

116. false use of statistics (bzzzzt)

the "more likely to be a victim of gun violence because you own a gun" canard still lives, I see.

The grand study that some people cite for the claim that "owning a gun =will be shot" also shows that renting your home makes you "more likely to be a victim of gun violence" than owning your own home. And it never controlled for legal gun ownership vs. illegal gun ownership.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084
October 7, 1993
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes

As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.

Later studies expressly acknowledge the flaws in merely comparing raw body counts between gun-owning households and gun-free households without more analysis.

http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/160/10/929


Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Linda L. Dahlberg , Robin M. Ikeda and Marcie-jo Kresnow
Received for publication February 9, 2004; accepted for publication June 7, 2004

Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home.

Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.

Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership.

But it's OK, because everyone uses stats this way . . .

[MrBenchley]

127. Nope...accurate use of statistics....

"it never controlled for legal gun ownership vs. illegal gun ownership."
Why should it?

"The grand study that some people cite for the claim that "owning a gun =will be shot" also shows that renting your home makes you "more likely to be a victim of gun violence" than owning your own home. "
Really? You mean those people have leases that fire bullets?

And here's the conclusion of the second study...

"Those persons with guns in the home, regardless of the type of gun, number of guns, or storage practice, were at significantly greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide and firearm suicide than those without guns in the home"

[DoNotRefill]

130. Imagine that....

people who had access to a gun were more luikely to commit suicide with a gun.

Tell us, if a person didn't have access to a gun to commit suicide with a gun, how could they commit suicide with a gun?

And do you have figures showing that people WITHOUT access to a gun are somehow less likely to commit suicide by another means?

[MrBenchley]

135. That is rich, refill....

That's why we should let halfwits and lowlifes have unregulated guns...so they can play Two-Gun Kevorkian.

"Tell us, if a person didn't have access to a gun to commit suicide with a gun, how could they commit suicide with a gun?"
Hey, how could they shoot their neighbors, friends and family members? It's a real puzzlement, all right. Better call for the Hardy Boys....

[FiveGoodMen]

136. It's a funny kind of argument which is bolstered by the use of (bzzzzt)

Did you go to a debating class where they told you a condescending attitude helped?

"Second the gun in the home might not have been ..."

But it might have been. You've only shown that a study which DID conclude that ownership raised risk was carried out by scrupulous researchers. Not that their conclusion was false.

"Third ... "

Yes, it could be that people in bad neighborhoods buy more guns and get shot more even though it's not because they OWNED guns. But again we don't know that, we're just admitting that maybe. It may also be that neighborhoods go to hell when everyone living there buys a gun. We don't know that from this study either.


You want to say the statistics are debatable? Fine. But you were nowhere near ready to use the buzzer.

(Incidentally, I'm not going to play 30 or 40 rounds of dueling stats with you. It won't help.)

[silvermachine]

85. Figures

EOM

[DoNotRefill]

109. Huh?

Please explain the above post. Thanks.

[silvermachine]

84. Typical histrionics from you

EOM

[left15]

67. lack of communication

It seems many times when people speak out against gun violence they are lumping all gun owners together, and speaking out against all of us.

Also, firearms is a fairly technical field, and many in the media and those who wish to pass more laws don’t always have a firm grasp of what they are saying. This tends to irritate gun owners, because we have to constantly correct critical technical errors that are stated again and again.

One example mentioned here is the armor piercing bullet. Bullets are made of metal and gunpowder. Bullets are made of soft metal (lead), so they don’t wear out the barrel of the gun. When bullets made of soft metal hit an object, they tend to spread out. Some bullets have a hard steel post in them to reduce the amount the bullet spreads out. Bullets with steel posts penetrate body armor better than bullets without steel posts. The ones with the steel posts have been dubbed “armor piercing” or “Cop Killer” bullets. Banning these would be OK, but it misses the point that there are other calibers and bullet configurations that do a much better job of piercing body armor and don’t have a steel post, but nobody is talking about banning these. Banning the ones with the posts would little to help protect anyone.

Another example that comes to mind is a bill last year in Illinois to ban .50 cal rifles. Them bill basically said it would be illegal to own a firearm with a barrel of .50 cal or greater.

The problem was that not only did it cover .50 cal rifles, it also covered 12 Ga shot guns as well as black power rifles, (muskets and flint locks) both of which have barrels greater than .50 cal

This bill would have eliminated all deer hunting with firearms in IL.

So a bill designed to eliminate sniper rifles get all the way to the floor of the IL house that accidentally eliminates shotguns and black power rifles. The only way that seems possible is that the bill was not reviewed by anyone who know anything about firearms.

This is only 2 examples, but I can think of several more.

.223 sniper rifles
Automatic vs. semi-automatic.
Plastic guns (glock)
Etc.

Without both sides talking about the same thing in the same way, it tends to lead to shouting.

[Silverhair]

68. The gun-grabbers don't care about the technical stuff.

If a bill happens to outlaw more guns that it was advertised to do, then to them that is a good thing.

They use inflammatory phrases for everything. Consider the example of bullets. They can be either lead tipped, or full metal jacket. If they are lead tipped, then the gun-grabbers scream about "dum-dum" bullets, and yell that they are forbidden by the Geneva convention, which has nothing to do with civilian shooting. If the bullet is FMJ, then it an armor piercing cop killer bullet.

They will twist and distort facts and cherry pick studies, all in the service of gun-grabbing. In fact, many of them seem to take pride in being ignorant of shooting matters.

[lonelysoul2020]

69. So true

and when people that know about guns try and correct them about there mistakes and such. They are called gun nuts so it makes it very hard to communicate.

[MrBenchley]

113. Wow...what a silly post....

"They use inflammatory phrases for everything."
You mean like "gun grabber"?

[sendero]

39. This is one aspect of "liberalism" ..

... I don't care for.

Some people see a problem. It makes them uneasy. They think there "should be a law".

But the devil is in the details. Outlaws don't care about your laws. Not every problem can be solved with legislation, anyone who has thought it through knows that.

I have no problem with reasonable, common sense regulations. Registration, background checks, perhaps short-term waiting periods for handguns.

But then the "I can fix the world" crowd starts up and we get nonsense like the "assault weapons ban" and vague restrictions on ammo and other crap.

Try to understand this: guns are out there and there is nothing, nothing not one damn thing you can do about it. Pass laws till you are blue, it will change nothing. So why do Dems keep playing into the hands of the right with the pointless rhetoric about solving a problem that simply cannot be solved?

[MisterP]

48. that's what they said about DDT

[sendero]

49. Yeah..

... bright person. So tell me how your magic "gun control" is going to work so I can poke it right full of holes with half my brain removed.

Get real, the government cannot even control something like pot or meth or coke or X or ANYTHING, yet you have the magic plan.

I'm waiting....

[Ilovestout]

58. legislation can solve problems

legislation set up the school systems, police departments, and much of the health care in the world. And the assualt weapons ban was not nonsense, after it was passed there was a reduction in the use of assualt weapons in crime, it was unscrupulous gun makers taht used "cosmetic" changes to get their guns to pass. But if a real awb was passed, one htat banned ALL semiauto rifles with either A) a pistol grip, B) a large capacity magazine, or C) a threaded muzzle, then there would be little way to get around that kind of a ban. And handguns are the major crime gun, NYC banned handguns and crime fell for over a decade, at a faster rate then anywhere else in the country.

[sendero]

78. Nobody said ...

... legislation cannot solve any problem. It just cannot solve ALL problems.

Banning all semi-autos? Thanks for making my point. You might as well outlaw farting, you are just that silly.

[Silverhair]

46. About 2,000,000 millions times a year guns are used for self defense.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Very few of those actually involved any shots being fired as the criminal stops and runs away as soon as the gun is seen.

In a different survey, the Dept. of Justice, in 1994 (Janet Reno's term of office) estimated 1,500,000 defensive gun uses annually.

Of course, to the gun-grabbers, the lives saved and injuries avoided by those acts of self defense don't count.

Yes, I used a pro-gun site for my reference, but note that it cites an DOJ study. Besides, the gun-grabber crowd will cites anti-gun sites for their references. To attack the site because it is pro-gun instead of arguing the facts themselves will be a form of ad-hominum (Couldn't find the right spelling.) attack. But I am sure that such an attack is exactly what will happen.

[sendero]

51. I think...

.... you meant either 2 million or 2,000,000, but not both :)

[Silverhair]

65. OOPS !!! You are right. Thanks for the correction. NT

[Ilovestout]

53. there are only 108,000 reported incidents of defensive gun use a year

Klecks work is seriously in question. Questionable methods of self-reported studies lead to huge over estimations. Possibly intended on the part of pro gun lobbyists.

[Silverhair]

64. The study you refer to is badly flawed.

Furthermore, the DOJ study, under Janet Reno, found 1,500,000 uses per year. Twelve other studies found similar numbers between 1.5 to 2.5 million. So out of 15 studies, you are picking the ONLY one with 108,000 uses. You are extremely obviously cherry-picking the study to fit the agenda.

[DoNotRefill]

70. And that surprises you because....

???

[slackmaster]

81. 108,000 is more than sufficient to justify continued private use of guns

It's a very conservative figure, and says nothing about other POSITIVE uses of firearms like the various forms of hunting, recreational target shooting, and collecting.

[MrBenchley]

101. That IS rich...

So the estimate is off by a factor of more than 500, but what the hell....it's guns! Yippee!

By the way, be sure and tell us why those positively used guns can't be registered and those "responsible law-abiding" gun owners licensed and more strictly regulated.

[moondust]

79. That's BS.

If that were true there would be thousands of stories in the news constantly about gun owners who tried to defend themselves using their guns but were unsuccessful and died trying to squeeze the trigger because they moved after the attacker had told them not to and were shot. The gun lobby would blow these stories up into epic propaganda pieces. I personally do not recall ever hearing ONE single story of this nature in the media in my 50+ years.

In addition, the odds of a gun owner having his/her gun ready and capable of defending anything at the moment of the threat are very low in my estimation. Far more common: "It was in my purse." "It was in the glove compartment." "It was in the closet." "It was in the gun case." "It was out in the car in the parking lot." etc.

Ridiculous.

[HarveyBrooks]

83. I also find it strange that

after these people scare the bad guys away with their guns they don't feel the need to call the police and report it. Guess they dont care if the criminal victimizes someone down the block.

BTW - why do my posts keep getting deleted? All I said was I hate gun nuts (oops - will this get deleted now)?

[silvermachine]

86. Join the club...

eom

[NickB79]

88. Even calling the police doesn't guarantee anything

I had to use a firearm to defend myself and my family. The criminal? My father, who had just beaten my mother and was coming for my sister, brother and I who were hiding in the bedroom. No shots were fired, and when the police arrived 45 MINUTES LATER, they refused to arrest my father without arresting my mother as well. He claimed she hit him first and he acted to defend himself, so they said they would have to arrest both of them. They didn't pay any attention to what my 14 yr old sister or myself (17 at the time) had to say about what really happened, about how he was continually abusive and struck her first. So, in my case the police WERE called, the incident WAS reported, but they didn't pay attention to what we had to say. After that, I don't find it hard to believe that the police aren't called as much. I have very little faith in them after that incident.

[slackmaster]

119. Maybe because there is no crime to report even if they do call the police

Guess they dont care if the criminal victimizes someone down the block.

<sarcasm on> The person down the block should get a gun too. <sarcasm off>

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

139. Maybe because there never was any criminal to start with

Except in right wing fantasy....

[NickB79]

89. Well, that's what the Dept. of Justice study found

Along with a dozen other studies, as pointed out in post #64. Feel free to disagree with them.

[MrBenchley]

96. In fact, if you click through the links...

You'll find that it's nutcase pseudoscientist Gary Kleck reporting that number, not the DOJ...and that the "guncite" loonies are flat out LYING about what the DOJ study says.

[MrBenchley]

95. Not even close to true....except in right wing fantasy.

"To attack the site because it is pro-gun instead of arguing the facts themselves will be a form of ad-hominum (Couldn't find the right spelling.) attack."

And what is it to point out that the claim doesn't come from the Department of Justice, as you claim, but from screwball pseudoscientist Gary Kleck....or that the pieces of right wing crap who put together "guncite" are outright LYING about the DOJ study?

"The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims."

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

And here's what the DOJ has to say about people boasting that they waved their popgun around and scared off attackers...

"--They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
--They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories. "

And here's some more about Kleck's idiotic numbers from the same DOJ study...

"It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8,
the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF
estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all
NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated
assaults. If those percentages were close to
accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!
NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals
are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders.
That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases."

[Romulus]

120. please properly attribute the authors of your cited "study"

Lest some people here think the DOJ is attacking its own reports.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported
here are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Research and authors being:

Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms

by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig

The two chief anti-gun-owner researchers in the US. . .

[MrBenchley]

132. That IS rich, rom...

The entire reason this study was dredged up was that it was supposed to be a DOJ survey....of course, that was back when we were supposed to believe gincite's LIES about it.

"The two chief anti-gun-owner researchers in the US. . ."
In other words, they're not crackpots like Kleck and John Lott.

By the way, let me remind you guncite LIED deliberately.

[slackmaster]

117. Smells like a sewage treatment plant plus diesel fuel in here

Why the hell hasn't this thread been consigned to the Gungeon yet?

[NNN0LHI]

144. Why not hit the alert and ask the moderators?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

145. It's just a vague feeling - nothing I have actually read

I'm sure the Mods will do their job when the time comes.

[Silverhair]

141. Defending the 2 million defensive uses per year statistic.

My purpose in the post is to show that the figure is NOT unreasonable. In fact it is very reasonable.

On a population base of 300 million people, that is 1 defensive use per year for each 150 people. If we estimate that half the population does not have guns, then that is one use per year for each 75 gun owners. If we estimate an average adult life span of 51 years, (21 years growing up and 51 years after that for the adult portion of their life) then it become a bit less than a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Further factor in that some people will have a greater exposure to crime than others, and for the average gun owner, it becomes an event that doesn't happen in their lifetime, but others it will happen two or three times in their lifetime yielding an average of a bit less than once-in-a-lifetime.

So a once-in-a-lifetime event can yield two million events per year with no problem.

But for the gun owner, that once is enough. I have had my once. No shots fired, assailant fled before he could begin to carry out his threat.

[tyedyeto]

143. And now...Guns-in-bar measure advances in House - AZ

Here is the link to the thread in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3476439

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story...

PHOENIX - The Arizona House voted yesterday to let people take guns into bars and restaurants if the establishments don't deny them permission and if the bearers aren't drinking alcohol.
Arizona now bans possession of firearms in bars and restaurants that sell alcohol.

Supporters say current law deprives law-abiding citizens of the means to protect themselves and others and subjects their guns to the risk of theft if they're left in vehicles parked outside bars or restaurants.

Critics said the bill (SB1363) could lead to confrontations in bars and increases in insurance premiums for the businesses.

<snip>

Hopefully Gov. Napolitano will veto this one too.