I'll reiterate my offer, earlier made to you, more broadly: some people prefer knives as a defensive tool. There are some valid reasons for this -- for example, one never has to worry about ricochet or overpenetration with knives, so men with families may be willing to take a somewhat greater risk in return for the extra control that a knife gives v. a gun at short range.

It's a different proposition, obviously: guns and knives both require care and training in safe and effective use, but knives require training on a different order. Still, at the close ranges at which violent crime normally takes place, knives are at least as deadly as firearms.

If anyone is of the mind that he would like to consider that, I'll be glad to help them find the right tool.

Grim, I think a post on 'defensive' 'utility' and dual-purpose' knives would be fascinating - I'd look forward to reading it.

A.L.

I thought the your article "Are you right to own a gun?" was interesting. Reminds me of my Dad who, when he was a boy in West Virginia, bought a .22 rifle that he kept hidden under the kitchen floor boards. It wasn't that my grandfather was opposed to guns per se, just that he thought them dangerous and didn't want them around. Mind, my Dad also dynamited stumps as a teenager, so there was an acceptable level of risk in using the tools of every day life, but I guess my grandfather thought guns an unnecessary risk.

If you're serious about keeping a gun for self and family defense, it wouldn't hurt to read Massad Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme.

And we have Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection

As someone smarter than I said, when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.

..guns and knives both require care and training in safe and effective use, but knives require training on a different order

I've worked in restaurants, I dated a health inspector who was threatened on many occasions, and can testify that many chefs use knives for dual purposes. They use them as weapons to protect their kitchen from government intrusion, they use them to motivate the staff and they use them to enforce personal rules about the amount of cream that goes in the Bernaise.

Most chefs would probably have to answer 'no' to the question "is your crazy under control?"

Have there been studies about how quickly on average a person can retrieve a gun from a gun safe under pressure situations? I understand the need to keep guns secure, both from children and thieves, but in the home invasion/abduction scenario being proposed here, I think you'd have 5-10 seconds tops to get to the safe, do the combination, and get the gun (assuming it is stored loaded, which I don't think is recommended either). If it takes longer than that, the locked-away gun wouldn't be an effective defensive solution for the average person. I prefer a good home defense spray instead, which can be picked up and in firing position in a couple of seconds. The downside is that it doesn't have the intimidation factor that the sound of a pump-action shotgun being cycled carries...but again, if the gun's locked away, that becomes a non-factor until you have the gun loaded and in your hands.

I can see other reasons to have a gun - Katrina showed how quickly social order can disintegrate, for example, and by then if you don't have a shotgun, it'll be too late to get one. I just question a gun's utility as a quick-reaction self-defense tool if it is secured as recommended.

... I just question a gun's utility as a quick-reaction self-defense tool ...

I have the same questions about a gun's utility against a bear charging with less than four seconds to impact. Me? A knife, a walking stick, some good bear pepper spray, a dog (if I had one), and a plan.

I just question a gun's utility as a quick-reaction self-defense tool if it is secured as recommended.

Sure, a "just" question. Personally, I keep a cork next to my bed in case some wild crazy gay person or escaped convict happens to gain entry into my bedroom while I'm asleep and wants to have some fun (in their view!).

Now that I've read Tagryn, maybe should I keep it "plugged in" at all times to offset the delay in getting it off my night-table, getting it lubed up, pulling down my sleep shorties and getting the protection in place?

Because I think that the odds of either triggering scenario happening are roughly on the same order of NEVER-GONNA-FRIGGIN'-HAPPEN magnitude to really worry about, don't you?

Your gun at home is more dangerous to your family than an intruder.

It follow then that the easier you make the access to that weapon, the more dangerous it is.

Of course, I don't expect that people like Tagryn to accept these facts; paranoia and cowardice have an overriding power over reason.

Shoilee - go ask Denise Lee's family (from BRM's article) about how ridiculous it is to worry about home defense. Anyway, I'll put you down under the gun-makes-a-poor-self-defense-weapon category and ignore the uncalled for ad-hominem.

PD - I think the conventional wisdom is that anti-bear spray is preferable, not just for stopping power but also because on average a person who's just been startled by a charging bear isn't likely to get a kill hit with a couple rushed shots, which is all you're going to get at the relatively close proximity many surprise bear encounters happen at. A cloud of spray takes precise aiming out of the equation. A really determined bear will charge through the stuff...but if that's what you're dealing with, you're in deep trouble anyway, regardless of whether you have a rifle or spray.

Amazingly enough, the Brady Campaign has a good point about suicides.

Committing suicide with normal household items is relatively hard. It either involves inflicting lots of pain on yourself with a sharp object, rigging something fairly ingeniously, taking a slow-killing and possibly-survivable dose of medication, yadda yadda yadda. You've got to be fairly determined to do it, there's lots of chances to say "what the hell am I doing?" and get help, you're a lot more likely to be found by someone before it's too late.

If you own a gun and decide to commit suicide, you're probably going to succeed. That's all there is to it.

So the "crazy" that AL talks about isn't just "am I gonna take this thing down to the Sak'n'Sav and open up on the crowd?", but "Do I actually like myself?" If you go through bouts of depression, you might not want to have a gun in the house. And keep in mind that this can change, so if you were riding high last year, and you've since been dumped by your girl and lost your job, don't feel bad about taking your guns and ammo to a friend's place until you've got your feet back under you.

Also, keep in mind that you're making the same call for every member of your family. If your teenage daughter goes through an emo period six months from now and decides that it's better to have lived her whole life beautiful and short, you have to assume that she's going to be able to use one of the family guns.

Of course, I've heard some bears in human occupied areas encounter spicy foods in dumps, and become "pepper heads"; Spray those bears with pepper spray, and they come back for more!

Avatar, speaking as somebody who actually DID attempt suicide, and who had guns in the house: Sure, guns are more obviously certain, ditto for leaping from great heights. This is why people who are really serious about offing themselves resort to certain means, and people who are just crying out in pain chose painful methods you can back out of. Hey, I'm an engineer, I'd have had no trouble managing a certain and painless demise, so why do you suppose I tried a bottle of booze and a carving knife in the bath?

The reason was only obvious to me later...

Shoilee -

Calling anything Brady in a discussion of firearms is the same as Godwin's Law in political discussions. The discussion is now over because it has become about feewlings rather than cogent arguments of reason.

Go read my link above in #4. The police have NO legal obligation to protect you.

Avatar: Amazingly enough, the Brady Campaign has a good point about suicides.

I don't know about that. The United States suicide rate is lower than many countries with lower rates of gun ownership:

Austria: 26.1
Belgium: 31.2
Finland: 31.7
France: 27.5
Germany: 19.7
Japan: 35.6
USA: 17.9

(males per 100,000)

Approximately half suicides in the U.S. are caused by firearms with suffocation, hanging and poisoning the other common methods.

All of which is to say that I don't think reducing the number of guns in a society is an obvious way to reduce the number of suicides. In fact, I think some of the ways we attempt to address suicide by gun control laws are completely counterproductive.

The scholarship on the danger of owning a gun vs the protection it performs is, to be charitable, sketchy.

"Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck says there are at least 13 published studies finding no meaningful connection between the rate of firearms and the rate of suicides. The consensus of experts, he says, is that an increase in gun ownership doesn't raise the number of people who kill themselves—only the number who do it with a gun."

From Reason which is a great primer on the subject.

One interesting twist i have on this- Avatar et al, where do you fall on the issue of assisted suicide? One of the interesting footnotes on the (amazingly) confused dissents in Heller is that Justice Souter introduced the idea of a right to control ones own destiny as being fundamental in an assisted suicide case. Its wasnt part of the decision, but he mentioned suicice about 20 times in his Heller dissent as a valid rationale to prohibit firearms.

If one is willing to argue that human beings may have a right to pick their own end, it seems odd that one could use suicide as a rationale for outlawing lawful ownership. A reliable, painless method for doing so almost seems like a good reason to protect firearms constitutionally.

Just a thought.

Shoilee - it's interesting how hard it is for people to understand that there are very few 'facts' in the social 'sciences'; there is research and analysis, but the reality is that in many cases the outcome is conjectural and really rhetorical - the research is a supporting set of arguments, not anything conclusive.

This is largely because almost anything interesting in social research is inherently a wicked problem , which means it cannot be 'run' as an experiment in a controlled, reproducible setting which would enable us to draw strong conclusions from any outcome.

There are broad 'trends' which we can look to and which can provide help in making judgments.

There are - to my knowledge - no such trends either when it comes to suicides, domestic violence, or self-defense when it comes to guns. People who claim there are - on either side - are lying.

It would be interesting and useful to have better knowledge about the impacts of guns on behavior and on social outcomes.

But even without that knowledge, there is a strong argument to make in favor of letting people have more, rather than less, power, and for accepting the notion that freedom is meaningless unless it allows behavior which you see as noxious.

A.L.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to argue that "guns cause suicide" or that you should not allow people to have guns because they might commit suicide with them. (Honestly, on a bad day, that falls in the "plus" column over here, heh.)

All I'm saying is that, in the micro case, that is, for the individual, if you know you're the sort of person who suffers from depression, or if you live with someone who does, that's a factor if you're considering whether gun ownership is right for you. That's not a decision you make for someone else, and especially not one you make for society as a collective, but if you find things are looking pretty bleak and you're worried that you might get an impulse to check out, there's no sense in making it easy at the time.

It's obviously a different case if you actually intend to commit suicide, in which case, okay, I guess.

Avatar - with that, I wholeheartedly agree.

A.L.

I have to agree on a shotgun being the best choice for most as a defensive weapon. A 20 gauge is more than adequate to do the job. I prefer a 12 but that is just a matter of choice. Some consider my choice of 00 Buck softleads to be a little extreme, but I live in a rural area and am more likely to have to put down an animal hit by a car than a perp. I keep a S&W semi in 45 caliber loaded in the house for the main reason that it is easy to get into action. My favorite ammo for it is 165 gr +P Hollow Points. I have had two face to face confrontations in the last 25 years. I did not have to pull the trigger either time thankfully. I never leave a bullet in the chamber. That is how I have trained my family. All of my hadguns are DA/SA. I tend to lean towards magnums in revolvers. They are not a good choice in a House or Apartment because of over penetration. I use magnums mainly for hunting, as I got bored with Rifle hunting years ago.

The main reason I recommend shotguns(preferrably Riot Shotguns) for home defense is their psycological effect. If you have ever racked the slide in a Riot situation then you will know what I mean. The meanest of men turn thoughtful when looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge. Time and again I have heard of situations where a bad guy would take their chances on a handgun when they would run at the sight of Gramps with his Birdgun.(Grin) A secondary reason for considering a shotgun is it is less likely to have to be used. Always be mindful you might have to really use it. Be prepared to use it. Now on the next point some will differ with me. I live in Texas and we have a law that tells me I can stand my ground to defend my family and home. If you break into my home and get between me and my family I will consider you a lethal antogonist and I am going to shoot to KILL, not stop. A dead would be Rapist ain't going to sue anyone.

I am not going to go into Gun Safety as others have covered that. I will say that it is important to take a Safety Class. I really enjoyed all the conversation here about firearms. I hope none of you are ever in a confrontation of any kind where you have to shoot, but if you are, loose a round for the Gipper(Joking).

there is research and analysis, but the reality is that in many cases the outcome is conjectural and really rhetorical - the research is a supporting set of arguments, not anything conclusive.

So? That doesn't make the results of a study magically disappear because you hold an opposing agenda or view and want to dismiss them?

And I really don't think that social science is required for most people to understand that having a gun in your home elevates rather than alleviates certain types of violence.

And we're not just talking about suicide.

Now let's be honest here. How many of you gun owners have, or really expect to be (upon rational reflection), confronted in your homes by someone who is threatening your life?

It doesn't matter what kind of "analysis" is performed, the plain fact of it is that you are probably more likely to get hit by lightening, depending on where you live (and if you're sitting in front of your computer reading this website, you're probably not in Camden NJ). The problem that I have is that your over-reaction to your inaccurate assessment of personal threats becomes MY problem as well when you decide that you must keep a loaded gun in your home and your kid decides to bring it to Columbine High, or you open fire in a parking space dispute and end up spraying bullets into my living room.

And yes, I do want my government to regulate this, for the sake of my families safety.

Shoilee:

Sounds like you have enough paranoia for the both of us.

Go figger.

Shoilee - I've got three fire extinguishers in my house, and five smoke/CO detectors. And yet no one I know has ever had a house fire...

...I wore a motorcycle helmet for 25 years before I ever fell off of one.

You point?

A.L.

AL, the apartment building next to mine burned halfway down. Two fatalities, elderly and infirm. Firefighters kept it from spreading. A fire extinguisher would have stopped it without serious damage, too, the the residents had been able to get to it and use it.

While evacuated I recognized two of the firefighters from the chess club.

Firefighter: Hey, Lazarus, nice to see you! What're you doing here?
Me: That's my apartment there (points). Get back to fighting the fire.

Residents of the neightborhoods in question in DC and Chicago would strongly beg to differ on the odds of a house break-in.

Morever Schoilee is presenting a bad argument- break ins to occupied houses are indeed relatively rare in the US. Because the owners are relatively likely to be armed.

Break ins to occupied residences in Britain skyrocketed after their gun ban.

"As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
Joyce Lee Malcolm

Do you know some people that have had their house broken into? I sure do. If this were England more than half of them would have been home at the time. A little scarier a proposition, eh?

Essentially Schoilee is using the same logic as the anti-innoculation kooks, ie "infectious diseases aren't widespread and therefore we dont need to give our kids shots".

Sez Rod Parker:

"The main reason I recommend shotguns(preferrably Riot Shotguns) for home defense is their psycological effect. If you have ever racked the slide in a Riot situation then you will know what I mean. The meanest of men turn thoughtful when looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge."

A friend of mine, who's been a public defender for about three decades, (and presumably has some insight into the minds of his clients) sez that a fairly effective and completely safe burglar deterrent would be a motion- or intrusion-activated high quality audio recording of a shotgun being racked. He urges that this sound is sufficiently familiar to most would-be felons that 60+% would high-tail it out of there without ever actually laying eyes on the muzzle end of the gun. . .

I've lived in Los Angeles for 33+ years, including more than a decade in a fairly sketchy neighborhood (to use real-estate sales jargon, "MacArthur Park and Pico-Union adjacent"). My apartment was burgled once; my house once; neither time while I was there; my wife and young son came home on the house burglar, who fled out the back; they never saw him. Both burglars were obviously incompetent, and passed by stuff of value to take worthless stuff.

I also regularly walked around my old sketchy neighborhood, often late at night. The only people who really bothered me were LAPD, (Rampart Division) who thought I looked suspicious. They were probably right. Can't ever tell what kinda trouble law students might start...

Somehow, during all of this, nobody has ever "confronted" me in any fashion that a firearm would have been useful to deflect.

M.B.: Joyce Lee Malcolm's piece about gun-ownership in the UK is one of the shoddiest pieces of purported "social science" I've seen in a while, and I've seen some beauts. The leaps of inference are truly staggering...

R Gould-Saltman: Maybe you didn't look like someone worth the bother of robbing. Do you appear to be a penny-poor homeless guy? Do you appear to be someone that might be packing heat or could kick some-one's ***?

The problem with the dueling analogies is that R Gould-Saltman could certainly be right that he will never need a gun. But it can also be right that Bayou Renaissance Man's friend may only be alive today because of private gun ownership. Now she wants her own gun.

Who gets to decide? I say, not me. Who wants to make that decision for her?

In re: #22

I thought I made my objection pretty clear in my post above, but since you seemed to miss it:

The use of neither your helmet nor your fire extinguisher threaten other people as much as your use of firearms can.

Nor does the helmet on your shelf in your garage pose any danger to anyone at all.

The reason for that, of course, is that people are the danger being warded against in the case of robbery, rape, etc. The fire extinguisher is a tremendous threat to fire.

The other reason the fire extinguisher analogy isnt perfect is that an estinguisher doesnt demonstrably deter fire by just the possibility of its presense.

Although I do not think it is a significant effect, if deterrence is the issue then a sticker on the window of your house proclaiming that you have a shotgun aimed at the doors and windows at night should suffice to accommodate both factions. In fact it would probably be a more effective deterrent than a gun that is hidden from an intruder.

Shoilee you can think the sky is pink if you like, but statistically there is compelling evidence that break ins of occupied houses are drastically reduced where a firearm is a possibility. Common sense would back that up. Even an idiot criminal knows that a house that is almost certain not to have a weapon is safer than a house that well might. House breaking is actually easier if the homeowner can be coaxed to open the door for you... but not if his 80 year old wife pulls the .38 out of the drawer and ventilates your chest cavity when you push your way in.

That sticker would get you arrested in DC before a couple weeks ago if it were genuine. If not the deterrance would be minimal, probably LESS than it currently is, as every criminal would know that anyone loudly claiming to have an illegal assembled shotgun almost certainly would not or they would be in jail.

If you can explain why else the percent of home invasions in England is a full 40% of buglaries higher i'd love to hear why.

I'm not sure I'm following the fire extinguisher analogy. Read the first post from Bayou Renaisance Man:

The only reason my friend is still alive is that the apartment next to hers is occupied by a very nice couple. The husband is in the Marines, and he insisted that his wife learn to shoot. Hearing the disturbance, she stepped outside carrying her shotgun, and proned out the bad guy on the floor, waiting for the police to arrive.

So in that case, the neighbor having the gun was like the neighbor having the fire extinguisher. Good thing to have when there is trouble.

My sticker says "Warning. Bubonic Plauge. Quarantine."

Mark in #31

I'm not arguing, for the moment, that knowledge of a firearm can be a deterrent to a would-be robber. What I am doing is questioning how this information is conveyed to potential criminals.

Even an idiot criminal knows that a house that is almost certain not to have a weapon is safer than a house that well might.

How does any criminal arrive at this conclusion?

It would also seem to me that gun violence and gun ownership are both higher in neighborhoods where crime is more common. Now, it could be that crime would be even higher were it not for some deterrence effect, but this becomes a chicken-and-egg issue then, doesn't it?

And to return once again to my point, your right of deterrence must be balanced against my right of security when one can impinge upon the other.

I'm not unrealistic about this. Guns pervade our society; the NRA has won. This is indisputable. However, I am a strong advocate for much stricter and sensible gun laws that would allow both groups to be satisfied. From my perspective, that means making owning a firearm at least as difficult as having a driver's license. and restricting the total number and type of weapon that any one individual can own. And tougher laws on gun crimes.

It would also seem to me that gun violence and gun ownership are both higher in neighborhoods where crime is more common.

The problem is that this supposition is not true. Gun ownership is often much lower in neighborhoods where crime is more common. In Chicago and D.C., for example, gun ownership has heretofore been illegal -- but crime rates are hardly low.

On the other hand, I think every single house around here has a gun or six, and I can't recall the last time I heard of a break-in. I've heard of businesses being buglarized, but someone breaking into a family home? No way! A man could get killed doing that.

Somewhat off topic, Happy A-Bomb Day. Another year gone by without one being used by anyone.

"How does any criminal arrive at this conclusion? "

Fairly simply- in a nation with strict gun control, a criminal has a good idea of how risky/common it is to own a gun, because they are a criminal. In England the posession of firearms by citizens is nonexistant, ipso facto, the risk is almost zero unless they are robbing other criminals.

In a nation with polygot gun control and a tradition of otherwise law abiding citizens willing to tell the government where to stick it, the equation is more dificult, but clearly an area where gun posession is illegal is less likely than the same area where gun posession is legal.

"Now, it could be that crime would be even higher were it not for some deterrence effect, but this becomes a chicken-and-egg issue then, doesn't it?"

No, it is a matter of risk management. The good news is we have a large laboratory in the US. What is the incidence of home invasion in an urban area like Chicago compared to, say, Dallas. Crime rates could be similar, but the type of crime (and hence the type of victim) would differ.

"And tougher laws on gun crimes."

I have no problem with sensible licensing... so long as it is LOCKED into our law that the government cant use that list later to go a'gun grabbin if politics changed (this happend in the UK, Canada, and Australia after licensing despite sweaing up and down it wouldnt).

As far as gun crimes... this is the crazy part as far as im concerned. Why not lock up any who uses the gun in the commission of a crime for 20 years, no parole, automatically like we do with drugs? Who is against this and why hasnt it happened?

Crime rates could be similar, but the type of crime (and hence the type of victim) would differ.

You can go slightly further than that. Guns are valuable, and a kind of item that retains its value well on the black market. Things tend to be worth much less when fenced than at the store, because prospective buyers have to pay enough less for the product that they don't mind the risks of dealing in stolen goods. Guns, because of their utility to criminals, hold their value in that market better than many objects that can be stolen.

Thus, if potential gun possession were not a deterrent, you would expect to see robberies/burglaries in rural and Southern America much more than in urban America where guns are less likely. After all, those homes are more likely to have valuable guns in them.

In fact, we see the opposite. Areas with high gun ownership see almost no home invasions, "hot" robberies, and so forth. As I said above, we have crimes against businesses here -- businesses close and everyone goes home; or they have policies preventing their employees from being armed on the job. People are safe from robbers in their homes, though, because of the culture of self defense.

Shoilee said: Now let's be honest here. How many of you gun owners have, or really expect to be (upon rational reflection), confronted in your homes by someone who is threatening your life?

Okay, I'll bite. My son's house was broken into on a day when it was expected that he would be at work and only his lovely wife and their new baby would be at home. Unfortunately for the perp, son was home that day because he was ill. He shot the perp, a crackhead who has done time for various violent acts, in the act of kicking the door in. The only regret that he, I, or the police had was that it wasn't a fatal wound.

As a person living in a rural area with expensive equipment located in outbuildings, whenever I saw a strange vehicle on the property, I went out to question the visitors as to exactly what their intentions were with my 12-gauge in hand and a dog or three by my side. People have a tendency to be real polite then. After taking the license tag numbers of a few young men that "accidentally" got on my property and were looking through a barn and then phoning the police with said tag numbers, the "accidents" ceased as word got around.

Shoilee, your right to security isn't really impinged upon by law-abiding gun owners. Most crime is, after all, committed by criminals...

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Period.

End of story.

Any talk otherwise of choosing an edged weapon when a firearm is available, is not otherwise unsuitable for the purpose, and the user is appropriately trained (a lot easier than with a knife) is pure foolishness.

A knife fight is still a physical confrontation and regardless of your level of training it will require strength and an extreme amount of ruthlessness and violence. It has very high risks associated with it from any weapon they might have, the edged weapon you do have, and the required distance. If someone else is armed with a firearm - you're likely screwed without having one yourself. If they're armed with a knife - unless (and often even if) you have a firearm yourself, you need to be getting as far away from them as you can get, as fast as possible.

Actually, statistics show, that what people have most to be concerned about when there is a gun in the home, is not robbers, but themselves. Most gun deaths are suicides in the home. When guns have been banned, deaths in that area have gone down. Again, mainly because of the decrease in suicides.

As the song says,

That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or leave it if I please

> From my perspective, that means making owning a firearm at least as difficult as having a driver's license.

Huh?

The problems that we have with cars are almost all due to incompetence. The problems with guns aren't.

> and restricting the total number and type of weapon that any one individual can own.

Why? Am I really more dangerous with 10 guns than I am with 2?

>And tougher laws on gun crimes.

We already have very tough laws wrt crimes of actual violence, but DAs don't bother to charge them or plea them away. If violence is your concern ....

The only folks charged with gun crimes are the otherwise law-abiding.

BTW - Most home invasions take time. For example, suppose that the attackers break through the door. If there's someone in another room, that person has time to open a safe. In other case, the victims hear the attacker trying to come in. They can't go anywhere, help won't arrive in time, but they've got time to open a safe.

"When guns have been banned, deaths in that area have gone down. Again, mainly because of the decrease in suicides"

Incorrect. Gun suicides go down. The suicide rate doesnt necessarily. Look at the suicide rate in the UK or post gun ban. Note the ban took effect in 1997.

"The suicide rate in men aged 15 and over showed a downward trend during the 1990s until a sharp increase in 1998"

Is Shoilee saying "let's try something and if it doesn't work, we'll get rid of it and try something else?"

If so, I agree.

However, we've heard that before and the "we'll get rid of it" hasn't happened. That's a problem.

So, if Shoilee wants gun owners to support new attempts to curb gun violence, a good start would be to couple that with a repeal of restrictions that didn't work. Surely Shoilee can think of some.

And, if you're going to claim that something is new, it helps to know the history and experience with gun control. Shoilee has yet to propose something that hasn't already failed, yet Shoilee doesn't mention previous experience. If this time will be different, it would be nice to include some discussion as to why that distinguishes this time from previous attempts.

I'm willing to support a gun-ban with two conditions:
1: NO-ONE is allowed to have firearms. No Politicians making an exemption for themselves, no police officers, no soldiers stationed at home. Nobody, period.
2: Bodyguards, armed or not, are also strictly prohibited. You have yourself, and that's it.

I'm willing to support gun registration with three conditions:
1: Make gun-ownership universally allowed and manditory. The only exceptions being those in prison, the mentally ill, and those who've lost their rights as per condition 3.
2: if one can't afford a gun, he's given $500 and two weeks to register one.
3: anyone committing a crime gets his taken away and has that noted on his registration.

Why I say such on the ban: it's morally wrong.
Why I say such on registration: the last people do do that were the Nazis.

[..] the NRA has won [..]

The "NRA" hasn't won - the four million citizens that are members of it have won. Since SCOTUS has affirmed that individual firearm ownership is indeed a civil right, then it follows (as others have said from time to time) that the NRA is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization.

It's time for folks to update their thinking on this. The silly "evil NRA" certainly has the ring of a shibboleth period piece from the 90's.

I had the opportunity to take a concealed carry class. (Bunch of women ... young mothers to grandmothers.) So I did.

Always wanted to learn how to handle firearms so I would not be uncomfortable if I was ever faced with a situation requiring that. (No guns growing up, though my mother grew up shooting.) I then actually applied for and got my Concealed Carry permit ... and I don't even own a gun. Yet.

When I'm ready, I have all the papework done ;-) Until then I'll shoot from time to time (to make sure I can hit the barn door), for the challenge of getting better and staying familiar, as well as try out a variety of handguns. Accidentally ended up at a practical shooting evening at the local range last month with son (US Army) and 18 year old daughter (she'd never held a gun before). That's a good expereince to try to help get the idea of shooting at "someone" (which is the last thing most women want to deal with) in a more 'realistic' way.

Shooting is good for recreation, and a skill you hope you never have to use. But more than that it is a right our founding fathers had the wisdom to define for us.

Shoilee,

"I am a strong advocate for much stricter and sensible gun laws that would allow both groups to be satisfied."

Sorry, but that's the most preposterous thing I've read all week. The pendulum swung your direction for quite a few decades, it's got to swing the other way for quite a while before we get to the mythical Moderate Compromise Position.

And as for the venerable car analogy:

No, I don't have to have a federal background check before I buy a car.

No, I don't have to license it (or myself) with any government if I only want to keep and drive it on my private property.

No, the government doesn't tell me how few cars I may own. (Some governments, in some places, may limit how many I may visibly keep on a residential-sized lot, but that's a different--and far less intrusive--question.) Heck, if I accumulate enough cars, I might even open a museum and become a local celebrity.

Yes, if I get a drivers license from my state, and have a current registration for my car, I can drive it anywhere in the US I want--even Chicago or DC. Imagine that!

Mark B,

No, not at all, no way can I agree with gun registration. You first have to devise a method to irrevocably bind future legislatures, then let's talk about registration...

Armed Liberal,

I think that you underestimate the information that social scientists can infer from the data.

I'm an economist and I can tell you that there is a lot that one can learn from data, even without controlled experiments.

I wouldn't trust most research on a controversial subject like gun ownership, however. The investigators are too likely to have preconceived ideas about what the outcome should be.

Two more quick points on the subject:

I'll take an appropriate firearm over a knife or pepper spray in almost any conceivable fight. Hands down. No question. Ask any emergency room physician how much more damage a gunshot causes than a knife.

Also, I can get a gun out of a gun safe, load it and aim it faster than I can dial 911 and get an operator. Gun safes can have keypad locks. It might take me 3 seconds to unlock it and another 3-5 seconds to get a few shells into a weapon. (But I don't own a gun.)

-- TruthtoPower

T2P - I'm interested - what did you think of Taleb's "Black Swan"??

A.L.

Just to quickly catch up on the arguments - well, cars are more dangerous than guns - and actually cheezeburgers are more dangerous than guns (my old comment was that during my trips to South Central, I was in more danger from the ribs I was eating than anything else)...then again, many of the people who want to control guns also want to control what I eat. Hmmmm....

And living in Venice for years and years, I've been confronted three or four times walking about - once in a parking structure near the tony 2nd Street Mall. That's over twenty years, and I do tend to walk more than the average person.

I'll suggest that the high level of property crime in the UK is likely to be in some part because the perps are confident that the homeowner is not only not armed, but legally constrained from acting defensively. It's certainly hard to pick the gun ownership out of the mix - but I'll suggest that the overall social characteristic that links gun ownership and legitimate self-defense has a lot to do with it.

Shoilee suggests:

Guns pervade our society; the NRA has won. This is indisputable. However, I am a strong advocate for much stricter and sensible gun laws that would allow both groups to be satisfied. From my perspective, that means making owning a firearm at least as difficult as having a driver's license. and restricting the total number and type of weapon that any one individual can own. And tougher laws on gun crimes.

Well, there's a step toward agreement. The fact that guns in America are - and have been as far back as matters - so pervasive that any regulation on the sales of new guns just flat has no meaningful effect on the number of guns available is the strongest argument for why most gun regulation is simple 'feel good / re-elect me' posturing by politicians looking to pull the wool over their electorate's eyes.

I also have no problem with licensing - as long as the government doesn't have the database of licensees.

While you might feel better about limiting how many guns I can own, or what kind of guns they are, I'll suggest that there is no significant record of any impact on crime from 'scary' guns.

I am amused when I read about people arrested with 'thousands of rounds' of ammunition; when I competed, I typically ordered my ammunition in lots of a thousand rounds a month...

A.L.

Been a long time since I've felt compelled to comment. But there are just some silly things being said here.

1. Social sciences are not "falsifiable" therefore they yield no hard facts. You know that every time you drop the temperature of pure water, at ground level psi, below 0 centigrade it freezes. Every time you do it. That's a fact. All a social science can do is provide information to provide a highly educated guess. And that includes Economics. It is, indeed, inferential.

2. Every action in a central government society affects everyone. If the government, through threat of force, has to take more money out of my wallet to support a paraplegic on SSI who became a vegatable because he wasn't wearing a helmet I have suffered a degree of harm.

3. Some harm our society has to take in order to preserve some fundamental Rights. It's odd that people like Shoilee will probably scream to the heavens that the physical risks of terrorism that not having FISA is worthwhile in order to truly safeguard our Privacy Rights but then say the physical risks are not worth it to retain our Self Defense Rights.

I think that in order to truly support the Bill of Rights you need to support all efforts to protect it. That means no warrantless wiretaps and no taking my guns. No taking my property through the courts for others to use and no using the government to stop people from speaking even if I am offended by what they say.

Yet somehow there's an awful lot of people who think that they can be a little pregnant.

Shoilee,

After many break-ins in the local area, I was awakened by BC (Battle Command & dear wife) at 5:30am. Someone was at the door holding the newspaper. I turned out the lights, asked who it was. No answer. Racked a round into the XD45 (which is a VERY distinctive sound, believe me.) Person left. Quickly.

AL can tell you I travel. A lot. BC is armed AND dangerous. She is trained to ventilate first, worry about consequences later. Why?

3 years ago - meth heads attack a local builder outside his house and shoot him dead. Beat his elderly wife within and inch of her life. For about $100.

2 years ago - 80 + y.o. woman down the street beaten to death by an early morning intruder.

Last year:

Home invasion nets two dead. Beaten to death by traveling magazine sales guys. (This type gets to see my gun first.)

Home invasion nets one dead, one wounded. Robbed for a paltry amount to get drugs. They got the wrong house as they thought it was their dealers drug pad.

Median price for houses in my home town is ~$130k. All this action is in neighborhoods where the homes are well above that - $280k median price.

And others I cannot recall because I am gone right now. Did you read the "The Myth of 911, etc..."?

From Ashqelon, Israel.

hypocrisyrules #42 -

what people have most to be concerned about when there is a gun in the home, is not robbers, but themselves.

... This kind of thinking always puzzles me. Do you really believe that a mentally healthy, totally non-suicidal individual will suddenly turn suicidal just because s/he has access to an effective, reliable means of suicide? (A means whose main purpose isn't suicide, of course, but that is effective when turned to that end).

If that was the case, perhaps we should require mental-health checks before allowing people to:

• Walk across a bridge.
• Walk past a railroad crossing.
• Drive a car.

Now, as others have pointed out, the equation changes if you, or someone living in your household, have suicidal tendencies. In that case, it may well be wise not to have easy access to a gun. But trying to use this argument for banning guns across the board just doesn't hold water.

Two responses, practical and philosophical:

The practical #1:

A knife is a terrible choice for a primary defensive tool. Yes, they can do a great deal of damage, easily equivalent to or greater than a small caliber handgun round. But:

you have to close to within grappling range of your attacker, giving him the opportunity to hurt you while you're engaged with him.

you have to physically and violently engage with your attacker, and put him down without having the knife taken away from you.

you have to, through extensive training and overcome the natural reluctance to stab a human being, possibly several times.

you might just get shot while you're trying to use the knife.

The practical #2:
For home defense, I'd recommend considering a shotgun. I like a 12 gauge pump, but you might want to go as low as 20 gauge for better recoil management. Handguns are easy to carry and can be highly effective, but they're harder to use under stress conditions (of course, your circumstances may vary - they're also easy to keep in a bedside table or holster, so if you think you need one from that position, the handgun might be the right choice.) Or keep both in your house, so you'll have the tool you need at hand when you need it.

The typical load for home defense is 00 buckshot. I'd suggest reconsidering that one. At typical home defense distances, #8 shot is going to maintain a pattern tight enough to essentially be a single round, and you have a lot less problem with overpenetration. If you do use 00, I recommend this experiment: from a distance of 10 feet or so, fire a #8 round into some ballistic gelatin; now do the same with 00 buck. Now mock up typical interior wall by taking some 2×4s and nailing sheetrock or drywall to both sides, and do the same thing. You may decide to switch from 00 to #8 shot based on your results, especially if other people sleep in the house with you.

Practical #3:
If you can't kill someone, don't own a gun. If you're not sure that, in the gravest extreme, you can take a human life, don't own a gun. If you aren't sure that you or the members of your family can be trusted to make the right decision at the right time, don't own a gun. If you can't invest the time to learn to use the tool, don't own a gun.

The philosophical:
I'm not going to join the gang up on Shoilee, or engage any of his arguments, because the arguments on both sides are window dressing over a difference in fundamental world-view. Arguing suicide rates, risk / benefit with someone like Shoilee is meaningless - he's not interested in outcomes, he's concerned about how guns make him feel. The idea that other people might have power to do him harm scares him, and he wants somebody (read the government) to take care of him by taking that power away. He's willing to abdicate his right to self-defense, and since he has no interest in exercising it, he wants to make the decision to abdicate the right to self-defense for everyone else, too. And he's right about one thing - it will probably never bite him personally. The odds are long against him ever having to find out how that cork thing works out for him (better have two, though, just in case, buddy), in large part because he's getting a free ride from the people who do maintain arms in their homes. In the absence of a Brady Campaign bumbersticker on the car parked in his driveway, a potential home invader has no way of knowing he falls into that camp.

And, I'll be honest - I'm the mirror image of him. Even if you could prove that banning private gun ownership would lower the suicide rate, I'd say "so what?" Even if you could establish that there were negative societal outcomes to gun ownership, that wouldn't trump my right to own one - any more than I would be willing to give up free speech if someone "proved" that the stress of being exposed to conflicting points of view caused cancer.

As far as the odds go - the odds are good my house won't burn down, but I have fire insurance. The odds are good my car won't catch fire, but I have a fire extinguisher in the trunk. The odds are good that there won't be a natural disaster in my area that leads to a supply chain breakdown, but I have bottled water, canned food, and a Coleman stove in my house. Like my white haired old granddaddy used to say " A gun is like a tourniquet. You'll probably go your whole life and never need one. But if you do need one, you need it real bad and you need it right now."

He's willing to abdicate his right to self-defense, and since he has no interest in exercising it, he wants to make the decision to abdicate the right to self-defense for everyone else, too.

What the heck are you talking about? You are attempting to tar me with a brush dipped into the can full of prejudices, assumptions and misconceptions that you seem to hold against people who advocate gun control.

Although I don't think it is necessary, perhaps it would be useful at this point to give you an insight into where I'm coming from. Make no mistake: I will do my utmost to kick anyone's ass who confronts either me or my family in a life-threatening manner. I'm not afraid of conflict or it's consequences. I am not asking the "government" to be fully responsible for my personal safety, although I do believe (as do most Americans I think) that they have a major role to play in this (as one of their core functions...promote the general welfare and all that).

I am simply not convinced that owning a gun would be a net benefit to me except under the narrowest set of circumstances in which its use might be warranted. And given that, I'm not as certain as you seem to be that the clearly demonstrable costs to society, or to my own personal safety, or to the safety of others, that arise if I choose to be a gun owner are worth the presumed benefit, however unlikely those situations are as well.

I'd say that most people that own guns cannot meet the conditions you lay out in "Practical #3". So where does that leave us then? In a society where the majority of gun owners have no idea how or why or whether they'd be able to use their lethal weapon. This does not sound like a good situation to me, and I see absolutely nothing wrong, like you seem to, with questioning how we as a society can address this issue.

Why not institute a licensing program where people must demonstrate the ability to act as you suggest they should as a pre-condition to owning a gun?

And please don't try to insinuate that I'm trying to force my beliefs on anyone else. I'm presenting my point of view. You have yours. Whether laws reflect one or the other more accurately doesn't necessarily mean that one group has coerced the other into adopting its viewpoint. You cannot live in a society without accepting this basic fact. And in reality this argument is more for my own sake than yours, since I think we can all agree that gun rights advocates are better represented by the current interpreters of the law than those, like me, who advocate much stronger restrictions.

Shoilee,
But the two positions aren't reciprocal - my position is that I don't care at all whether you own a gun or not. Properly, that's entirely your decision. If, on the other hand, the "point of view" you advocate is that the government should limit my ability to possess a gun, then you are attempting to coerce me through the mechanism of the government. Government action is coercion, always - sometimes its justified, often its not. The social contract that's outlined in the Constitution establishes that we're a representative government, so we accept government coercion in most things a majority of our representatives agree on - those are called laws. The social contract we live under also maintains that there are limits on what the government can do - there are rights that the government, no matter whether a majority of our representatives agrees that they should, may not trespass on.

The government may not require a civics test before allowing someone to post their opinion on the internet, because we recognize a natural right to freedom of speech and thought. In the same vein, I don't see how you can justify requiring a test to allow a person to possess the means of self defense, even if it would be a good idea. And it wouldn't, because people who believe that the populace should not be armed would manipulate the test to interfere with gun ownership, much as literacy tests were inequitably applied to deny the right to vote to segments of the population. Probably most people who own guns shouldn't, and I'd include a good many cops in that judgment. But its not my place to tell them they can't.

But I stand by what I said - if you're willing to abdicate your right to possess the means of self defense, you're willing to effectively abdicate your right to defend yourself. If you don't buy that, let me know how doing your upmost to kick their ass works out for you when three or four felons enter your home with the intent of doing you harm. But don't presume to make that decision for me - or, hell, for my mother. I'd probably do better than most if I were unarmed in a situation like that, but I don't think you've got any business trying to get your local cop to take her gun away from her because her having one makes you uncomfortable.

I don't see a single misconception or assumption here - you'd like to persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to gang up and interfere with people who choose to have the means to defend themselves at hand, and are trying to sound reasonable while acting statist - and as for prejudice, yes, I am deeply prejudiced against people who would engage with their representatives in government to violate my rights and pretend its OK because they believe laws aren't coercive in nature.

And I also stand by something else I said - 12 gauge pump with #8 shot - you know, if your house ever does get broken into and you either have to change your mind or get a bigger cork.

If, on the other hand, the "point of view" you advocate is that the government should limit my ability to possess a gun, then you are attempting to coerce me through the mechanism of the government.

Sure. That's one way to look at it. No argument here. So I guess you think its also ok for me to have a few dozen hand grenades or maybe some sort of nuclear weapon on hand to deter criminals. You think that the possibility of a shotgun in my house would deter crime? How about a nuke? No doubt that would work even better. You ask about a group of armed assailants (now we're really living at the fringes of the probability curve to make our arguments, aren't we?) What about a whole damn division of hostile forces? Don't tell me you think that there aren't 500 or 5000 people in America who might decide that they want to kill you, all (or most) at the same time, right?

To boil it down, you're ignoring the issues of scale and collateral costs. Purposefully, I am guessing.

As things stand today in the US, neither he nor you get to have a nuke at all; nor any number of functional hand grenades without virtually impossible hoop-jumping. Seems to me you've already got your wishes there.

You think that the possibility of a shotgun in my house would deter crime?

He thinks (if I may) that the impossibility for any criminal or gang who might case your house to be certain that you do not have a shotgun is beneficial to your safety. He is correct, unless you are perceived to be someone who will let such a party steal it from you without resisting. Any deterrence has to be credible.

A sufficiently stupid or confident assailant might not be deterred. 'Twas ever thus.

"Groups of assailants" include two guys pretending to sell magazine subscriptions, and they include larger numbers impersonating police serving a dynamic-entry warrant. Both of these are matters of fact, they have occurred. That it doesn't happen much doesn't mean it never happens.

To boil it down, you're ignoring the issues of scale and collateral costs. Purposefully, I am guessing.

To boil it down, you are ignoring the fact that people in jails teach each other how to do this home-invasion sort of thing, and get together to do it in violation of their paroles after they get out. Ignorantly, I am guessing.

As has been alluded to by other posters in this thread, this kind of thing appears to be much more successful as a career path in places where it's more of a certainty that the only armed response will be from the folks in uniform who draw chalk outlines and frown a lot... after the energetic, enterprising fellow(s) are long gone.

Shoilee - I asked you a question. Did you read the link above?

You can, of course, choose not to answer. And that is an answer in and of itself.

Once more time, Shoilee-

To boil it down, you're ignoring the issues of scale and collateral costs.

What those of us who choose to be armed do not ignore is just that.

Scale - Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes the bug. You betray that you do not understand that and try to hide behind specious examples of hand grenades and nukes.

Collateral costs - I suspect you have not a clue here. Most of who have weapons know exactly the costs. Many of us first hand, having been victims of violence in our lives.

Here is what I say: "Never again."

There are many myths of violence and self defense. Here is one of the best sites I know to make it clear for you. Marc MacYoung

Good luck.

From NNSD's page on "High Risk Behavior and Knowing Where You Are"

Many 'civilized' people feel themselves to be egalitarian, when in fact, they are very much like Romans. A people who's lifestyle relies on the existence of
A) a working/servant class,
B) a political/business system and
C) police/military
to provide them with their needs and security. These 'modern Romans,' seldom travel outside the comforts of their lifestyle; their particular 'Rome' if you will. (The "Just because your lifestyle takes all your time ..." statement applies here). When we bring this up, those who consider themselves cosmopolitan strenuously object, but understanding this modern Roman analogy is important to grasp what follows and how it can effect your safety. Despite the fact that these 'modern Romans' deal with non-Romans all the time, they don't realize that they are dealing with these people under very narrow circumstances. Circumstances dictated by the 'customs of Rome.'

Heh, Shoilee, what happens when you step outside your Rome? Do you know?

From Ashqelon...

Shoilee, you're making arguments that become kind of silly. Hand grenades and nukes (and ground-to-air missiles, etc. etc. ad nauseum) are useful instruments of foreign policy, but we don't each get to have out own foreign policy.

What we do get to do is - should we choose to, and pass some basic qualifying tests (not a felon, not crazy, at the age of majority) buy the tools we need to tip the odds in our favor in the event A Plausible Bad Thing Happens. Is owning a gun an absolute guarantee that you'll be safe from bad people? Absolutely not. Does it come with a huge bundle of responsibility that many gun owners ignore? Absolutely - just read the annual Darwin Awards.

But the core of my argument - which I think is close to the 'Standard Case' - is that the pervasive ownership of guns by good people like me acts as a check on crime because criminals are calculating as well...the anecdotes of bad consequences from noncriminal gun ownership are balanced by the good anecdotes, and the data shows no meaningful trend whatsoever (in spite of efforts on both sides to find one).

Which leaves us with the moral argument. And in my mind, there are two overwhelming ones.

The first is that each of us has the duty - not right, duty - to combat evil whenever and however we plausibly can. We can't enjoy the benefits of society and then be bystanders when it is threatened. This doesn't mean tackle large armed criminals - it means say something when people do something wrong, stand up when challenged, and yes - if you have the tools and capabilities - defend yourself when attacked. Bad - evil - behavior must be expensive for the person who performs it.

The second is that - as a society - we're better off allowing people the freedom to make mistakes - even horrible ones - than living in a regime that tries to protect us completely. Because to protect me completely, society has to control me completely. And historically, that hasn't worked out so well.

A.L.

Ok, so the examples that I used were not well chosen. The point I am trying to make, though, is that a line has to be drawn demarcating what specific kinds of weapons individuals can own. Even gun advocates such as yourself recognize this. But realize that the line is not fixed and it is not always so bright. For me, it is drawn too far to the liberal side, and so I will continue to advocate and support causes that promote greater restrictions on ownership and use of firearms.

What I would like to see is that only people of proven responsibility and capability be allowed to own firearms, especially handguns. I don't have any problem at all with your ownership of guns. You certainly seen to have given gun ownership a lot of thought and you are also probably very well trained in their use. Absolutely no problems with that, and I'm not suggesting that you should give them up for my safety. I myself have had some memorable times at a range and enjoy shooting, and I own two rifles (a WWII relic and a Mosberg .22).

But I seriously doubt that you or I are the typical gun owners in America. And even if we are there are far too many who simply should not be allowed to own one for one good reason or another (I know there are already laws pertaining to certain mental or criminal records, but I'd like to see them go even farther). What the NRA and like-minded libertarians are advocating is essentially that any idiot or hothead has the nearly unrestricted right to own almost any kind of weapon they so choose. And of course the gun laws and enforcement of illegal sales that has been institutionalized in America should be brought under control. By the government.

And although I have to believe that a lot of gun owners and enthusiasts probably feel similarly, the "slippery slope" argument tends to come up all too frequently, and so in the end restrictions end up being strongly opposed even as most Americans support them, including law enforcement people who face the biggest threat from our gun-saturated society (and not just from criminals).

Shoilee,

You're not going to make much headway with these arguments, here or anywhere else, because:

A. Due to the anti-gun bias of the major press, most Americans who are not actually gun activists have a very mistaken impression about that degree of gun regulation already in place. Once you bring people up to speed on how extensive the current regulation actually is, support for any more regulation drops drastically.

B. Almost the entire country has been involved in decades-long experiment in liberalized concealed-carry laws. The results are in and no significant problems have occurred anywhere; not even in one single state.

C. States like WA and PA, which issue concealed-carry permits without any training whatsoever, don't have a measurably higher incidence of accidents or of handgun misuse than anywhere else. Who knew that the average citizen actually could be that responsible? Certainly not your inner statist, which is showing a bit too much in your last comment.

Once the suicide numbers are taken out,(can't do much about that) and the "criminal on criminal" shootings are taken out,(do we care?) and the lawful shootings are taken out,(applause) the number of firearms deaths left are very low.

The much publicized "child" deaths are mostly teenage gangbangers shooting one another, little kids getting hold of daddy's gun and shooting themselves is EXTREMELY RARE.

True "gun accidents" are EXTREMELY RARE, thank the NRA and their gun safety and hunter safety courses. Gun accidents have shown a huge decline over the last 50 years.

Normal middle class Joes do not fly off the handle, grab a gun and shoot people in ANY STATISTICALLY RELEVANT NUMBER. Criminals do, and that is where the "a gun in the home adds danger" arguments come from. Criminals shooting their families and friends.

We do not have a "gun" problem in this country, anymore than we have a "screwdriver" or "hammer" problem. What we do have is a breakdown in civil behavior among certain cultures. Totally non PC to mention it, of course. All you have to do to see it is to look in the box marked "race" on the police report.

I would suggest to anyone thinking banning or restricting firearms ownership will help eliminate violent crime, to examine England's current fixation with "knife crime". They have gotten rid of nearly all the guns. They do not have a "knife problem", any more than they had a "gun" problem. They have a CULTURAL problem- and in their case it is exacerbated by the rejection of the age old concept of self-defense by the government.

One of the consequences of living in a free society is risk. We cannot remove all risk. To attempt it is to remove all freedom.

In my experience, most folk who support restrictions and/or banning firearms tend to support expanding Governments role in society as well. The Second Amendment was written to PROTECT the people from the Government. So in this way their position is at least consistent -more Government control, less personal freedom.

"But I seriously doubt that you or I are the typical gun owners in America."

Ah, the elitist argument rears its head. Most Americans are too dumb to take care of themselves, much less be allowed to exercise their natural rights. The unspoken core of most liberal philosophy i might add.

"What the NRA and like-minded libertarians are advocating is essentially that any idiot or hothead has the nearly unrestricted right to own almost any kind of weapon they so choose."

Clearly not the case. Whatsmore, hotheaded idiots are allowed to do all kinds of things in this nation not specifically protected by the bill of rights. Like getting liquored up and behind the wheel of a car which kills and maims an order of magnitude more innocent people.

Raven,

""criminal on criminal" shootings are taken out,(do we care?)"

Well, actually we do somewhat, for the risk of collateral damage if nothing else; but certainly your larger point--of objecting to the inclusion of under-age-21 criminals among the "children killed by guns" figure--still stands.

Yeah, right, Mark. Hope that populist message works out well for your side in the fall after the majority of Americans have finally begun to realize that they've been living on the suckee end of the economic and political tornado that has been carrying wealth and national resources upward. Even though this has certainly occurred with Democratic complicity, I'm sure you are aware that most people associate the recent historical messes with Republicans who have amply demonstrated on many many recent occasions that their true constituency are elitist warmongers and profiteers.

SHOILEE, was there some point I missed? Kind of baffled by your response, sorry. Not really sure who's "side" I am on, mostly I want to be left alone by Gov. Seems like there is always somebody ready to tell me what to eat, what to do, what not to do, what I can say, what I should think, how high my toilet seat has to be, etc.

My take is the basic difference in political philosophy is between those who want the maximum of individual liberty, and those who want the state to have control over as many aspects of life as possible, ostensibly to
"protect" the people from (take your pick of a jillion issues) . Usually this protectionist urge is offered as a counter to "The Evil Corporations (cue Thunder of Doom in background). Unfortunately, the Government IS the Biggest, Baddest Corporation of them all.

"A dangerous servant and a fearful master".

Back to guns- despite all the touchy-feely concern about crime, and suicide, etc., my belief is the core reason most people against guns, are against guns, is because they perceive the issue accurately- they realize civilian ownership of weapons is a deterrent to ultimate state power, exactly as the Founders intended. This is a very bitter pill for those who believe in maximum power for the state.

My take is the basic difference in political philosophy is between those who want the maximum of individual liberty, and those who want the state to have control over as many aspects of life as possible, ostensibly to "protect" the people from (take your pick of a jillion issues).

Well, this is a problematic view because it is inaccurate. Very inaccurate. Wildly off the mark. And I think you know which viewpoint I think you're mis-representing or misunderstand.

One of the core functions of government is to secure individual freedoms by making sure corporations, or the government itself in many cases, do not exploit their potentially powerful position (access to very large monetary resources, lets say, or to the media) by acting in a manner that harms one group for the benefit of another.

How do you think the mortgage crises that we're in the middle of arose?

And even those who want the "maximum of individual liberty" recognize of course that this philosophy cannot and never will be taken to it's logical extreme...that's the recipe for anarchy. So there are lines, and we get to argue about where they should be drawn. I'm not necessarily expecting to change anyone's mind here, and I'm not really even trying that hard to do so, but at least it would be reasonable to expect that you recognize the simple fact that just because someone doesn't share your view or position means they must support the most extreme opposite position. You're never gonna understand anything but your own views if you insist on jumping to such unwarranted conclusions.

As an example, the mirror image argument to yours from my perspective would be to accuse you of favoring anarchy and/or being gullible enough to allow powerful but narrow interests to convince you to hold a position that may very well be counter to your own personal interests. However, I don't really think that a conversation would be well served by making such accusations, do you?

Hope that populist message works out well for your side in the fall after the majority of Americans have finally begun to realize that they've been living on the suckee end of the economic and political tornado that has been carrying wealth and national resources upward. Even though this has certainly occurred with Democratic complicity, I'm sure you are aware that most people associate the recent historical messes with Republicans who have amply demonstrated on many many recent occasions that their true constituency are elitist warmongers and profiteers.

And this relates to law-abiding citizens owning guns how, precisely? I'm really baffled by this turn in the conversation, Shoilee. It looks pretty random and non-thread-related to me. Or is there some deeper significance related to AL's question

'Are you 'right' to own a gun?' ?

Shoilee - you jest...(sorry, I've been restraining myself so far in the thread).

One of the core functions of government is to secure individual freedoms by making sure corporations, or the government itself in many cases, do not exploit their potentially powerful position (access to very large monetary resources, lets say, or to the media) by acting in a manner that harms one group for the benefit of another.

Yes, that's one of the functions of government. But that's also a relatively modern interpretation of the responsibilities of government and definition of liberty (fits nicely in the PoMo interpretation of language as a tool of power). Many people who - for example, authored our foundational documents - believed that the biggest threat to liberty was the government - because only the government can legitimately use force to enforce its will.

If that's your interpretation of liberty, then of course all kinds of intrusive acts by government - backed by the threats of force - are fine with you.

A.L.

Thank you, AL, this comment about "core functions" was exactly what I meant by "want the state to have control over as many aspects of life as possible...."

But that's also a relatively modern interpretation of the responsibilities of government and definition of liberty

Well, it just so happens that I find myself living in these "modern" times and have this quaint idea (joke intended) that this more than justifies my particular interpretation of constitutional law. In fact, one of the great advantages of our founding charters, in my view, is that they provide the means to update laws to align with changing social needs.

Many people who - for example, authored our foundational documents - believed that the biggest threat to liberty was the government - because only the government can legitimately use force to enforce its will.

I acknowledged this as well in my previous comments. But I fail to notice any examples of such overreaching WRT gun laws, the subject of this thread (as Nortius has reminded us).

Now, if you want to discuss the issue of governments abusing their power for their own unitary gains, I think we can have a very long and I'm guessing heated discussion on how THAT has played out in the "post 9/11" world, don't you?

In other words, if you're going to complain about the government intruding upon your individual rights and liberties, I'd be curious about how you feel about FISA, the NSA domestic surveillance program, Abortion, same-sex marriages, Executive Privilege and Signing Statements.

Modern, however doesn't mean "anything goes" - or at least I'll hope not.

It's interesting to me...FISA, Patriot Act, etc. are historical blips on the radar of government action (the pendulum has swung back and forth since John Adams' times) - and it's interesting to note that they are tied to the government's responsibility for collective protection from foreign threat - which the left gets strokes over, while the overall trend toward moving personal responsibility to the government and away from the individual is a secular trend which the left fully supports.

I'm just out of step, I guess...

A.L.

#49 from Kirk Parker:

"No, not at all, no way can I agree with gun registration. You first have to devise a method to irrevocably bind future legislatures, then let's talk about registration..."

Right on the mark.

I think this is a very good article, something that anyone who talks about this issue should read:

All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America
Professor Joseph E. Olson and Professor David B. Kopel (link)

I live in Australia. In a different way, with a different political course of events, but in conformity to the same general considerations about how civil liberties are lost, we've followed that slippery slope all the way to the bottom too. Concerns about slippery slopes and what future legislators may do (and what police and other people who get to interpret the law in practice may do) are not exaggerated.

If your main concern and strategy is to prove you are reasonable by accepting some reasonable gun restrictions, and some more, then you are likely to lose the relevant freedom.

Here's what your registration or Permit to Acquire forms will look like after a while, if you go that route. Please notice that anyone who wants to acquire a gun is assumed by default to be doing so for spurious reasons and with nefarious intent, and that the only legitimate reason for you to have the one specific firearm you apply to purchase is need, not want, and that the government, not you, is the judge of your needs or lack of them, and that self-defense is not a "Genuine Reason" for seeking permission to acquire a handgun. You won't have that right. (link)

It's better to whack the camel on the nose every time it tries to get that nose inside the tent. That's how the Americans saved their guns.

Alternately you can decide that only agents of the state have the professionalism and moral authority to be armed, and everybody else had better shut up and listen to them lecture on this topic. (link)