I have a 12 gauge Mossberg 500 myself; not only is it a nice defensive weapon, but it has bagged quite a few pheasants, and didn't cost much.

I would really make a point of the reduced recoil 12 gauge. I live in an apartment, and I keep reduced recoil 00 buck as my defensive load. Birdshot isn't reliable, and hopefully the reduced recoil will help for any stray shot that goes past the target.

Very informative series - I just finished 1 through 6 yesterday. Thanks for the insights.

I've been thinking about a shotgun ... What's your opinion of the FN Tactical Police Shotgun?

... If only there was a 10 guage version *sigh* ...

Nice post. I'm a recoil/inertia operated semiauto guy myself when it comes to shotguns, and think that the pump only crowd is prone to hypocrisy when they argue the absolute reliability of pump shotguns but carry semiauto pistols and rifles. On the other hand, locally to me in the midwest, there are lots and lots of police trade in 870's for less than $150, which is a pretty nice price for a short barreled, extremely reliable shotgun.

I'm not sure that Phelps's idea about reduced recoil OO buck really works since even reduced recoil 00 went clean through 4 walls over at box o' truth:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Personally, I'd either load a vareity of shells...i.e. #4 birdshot, #4 birdshot, then buckshot, or load all small buckshot (#4 buck) or very large birdshot (BB, T, #2) if I was really worried about penetrating walls.

USCitizen,
I've heard good things about the FN. Never handled one myself though. Seems like it'd be a bit pricey - you could probably get a Remington 870 configured the same way for about the same price if not less. But by all means if it strikes your fancy pick one up.

Thanks for answering. I think I'll do just that.
I may have to wait to Buy-a-Gun day though.

My last B.A.G. day (4/15) purchase is still in the 'paperwork' cycle.

Anyway, I enjoyed all 7 of the series. Thanks!

You really can't beat Jeff Cooper for silliness.

I suppose the question is why you would lovingly cite Mr. Cooper, given his lack of judgment regarding racial insensitivities?

Honestly, his response to the 'violence begets violence' question seems to be a certain pride in ignorance.

Jade,
Glad to see you're still in touch with your inner ass-hat.

To answer your question I cite the Col. because his answer was appropriate given the question. It expressed a more enlightened view of the world & the nature of violence as well as correcting a flaw with the pacifist mindset - that if one person stops being violent then we all will.

I'm curious - well no not really but it's a polite way to phrase the question - as to what racially insensitive comments you're referring to?

& do tell, since we're all a-flutter with anticipation - what would the "intelligent" response to the "violence begets violence" question be?

Pubs:

Glad to see you're still in touch with the rightwing cliche du jour.

'Appropriate' is really in the eye of the beholder; IOW, it's a highly subjective judgment. For NRA member Tim McVeigh, it was 'appropriate' for him to detonate a truck full of explosives outside the federal building in OK City. For various wingnuts, it seems perfectly 'appropriate' to shoot at cars on a freeway or the staff of medical clinics.

Of course, most of us understand folks like McVeigh, Furrow, and what seems like so many in the NRA base their concept of 'appropriate' on a skewed or deluded reality. Similarly, Jeff Cooper seems to believe (via his commentaries) that certain races and groups deserve violence based upon their race.

WRT the 'violence begets violence' question--the facts are stark. Your chances of being attacked or assaulted by a stranger are miniscule compared to the odds of being attacked by an acquaintance or family member. In fact, a firearm in the home is far more likely to result in a family member/acquaintance being shot than in detering or preventing an attack by an intruder.

Cooper merely promulgates the myth that everyman is Bruce Willis in a Die Hard movie, who just happens to stumble into the middle of a terrorist plot. The reality, of course, is much, much different.

Jade,

Where do you get your claims regarding the probability of, as you said,

"In fact, a firearm in the home is far more likely to result in a family member/acquaintance being shot than in detering or preventing an attack by an intruder"

...The Violence Policy Center?

Sounds as though you are of the "leftwing" variety, and yes, I am using that as a pejorative, just as you used it to open your "argument".

Do us a favor here and take a hike.

Yup, the Colonel goes in for Rambo fantasies, all right, that is why another stupid thing out of his mouth is, "Owning a gun does not make one armed any more than owning a piano makes one a musician".//sarcasm off.

Jade,

I hope publicola will forgive for the lenghty response.....

As to knowing the offender please read this link.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate

"Males were equally likely to be violently victimized by a stranger or nonstranger, and females were more likely to be victimized by a friend, an acquaintance, or an intimate.
During 2004 --

About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.

Sixty-two percent of males and 45% of females stated the individual(s) who robbed them was a stranger."

"For murders victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002. "

So your statment -- "Your chances of being attacked or assaulted by a stranger are miniscule compared to the odds of being attacked by an acquaintance or family member." -- is false.

Of course the statment -- "In fact, a firearm in the home is far more likely to result in a family member/acquaintance being shot than in detering or preventing an attack by an intruder." -- is also false when compared against Gary Kleck's studies.

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

As to this crap...."Cooper merely promulgates the myth that everyman is Bruce Willis in a Die Hard movie, who just happens to stumble into the middle of a terrorist plot. The reality, of course, is much, much different."

Your statment does a disservice to those on flight 93 and those CCW holders how have been shot in service to others, such as Mark Wilson. The people involved in those situations were everymen.

Great piece. Shotguns are truly versatile. I have the Rem870 with the home defense setup. I'm thinking about a semiauto, anyone have recommendations? 11-87?

I think cube pretty much laid waste to Jade's arguments, but may I add that this is a good example of why you can't argue with a left-wing zombie:

"most of us understand folks like McVeigh, Furrow, and what seems like so many in the NRA base their concept of 'appropriate' on a skewed or deluded reality. Similarly, Jeff Cooper seems to believe (via his commentaries) that certain races and groups deserve violence based upon their race"

So Publicola asked you to give discrete reference to Jeff Cooper's "racial insensitivity", and you answer with a libelous generalization about "so many" in the NRA.

Your brilliance is astonishing. Don't forget to vote December 12th, Jade.

That is a great Cooper quote.

Sadly, Cube elects to mix his apples and oranges. But what's confusing is that when one attempts such a gambit--it is usually for the purpose of defending one's side of the debate.

Cube's attempt at obfuscation of the issue fails to support his own side of the argument.

To demonstrate: in response to my fact that a gun in the household is more likely to be used against a family member or intimate acquaintance than against an intruder--Cube responds by opening the argument up to all crimes everywhere. Not just in the home--but everywhere.

A plainly different argument.

Even so--if we elect to use Cube's cherry-picking---my statement holds up as true.

Cube then goes on to cite Gary Kleck and his many famous studies. In reality, Kleck's surveys are something of a joke among criminologists and econometricians. Using Kleck's own numbers and survey data concerning DGUs--there should be over 40,000 justifiable gun homicides each year. Yet, the FBI UCRs show there are fewer than 300 justifiable homicides annually, from all causes.

Finally, Cube cites Flight 93 in which neither the terrorists nor passengers had firearms. Of course, the average US citizen has a several thousand-fold greater chance of dying from food poisoning than as the victim of a terrorist act.

Jade,

Again, where is this "fact"?

"Fake, but accurate" much?

Is your name Dan Rather?

-b

-B:

The fact:

a gun in the household is more likely to be used against a family member or intimate acquaintance than against an intruder

has been documented in numerous studies and FBI UCRs. Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091. is one such study. Another is Linda Saltzman, et. al., "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992;267, pp. 3043-7.

Another is Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, `In the safety of your own home': results from a national survey on gun use at home,' Harvard University, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA

There are many more cites I could provide.

Jade,

The New England Journal of Medicine and the AMA are not a credible source for this kind of information. Their studies are bought and paid for by the Pew, Joyce or Ford foundations. Guess who are huge supporters of Pew, Ford...

Big fucking Liberal circle jerk.

Harvard School of Public Health is the same.

You are ignorant of the real facts. Get some real ones.

Think I'm wrong? Ask those dumb fuckers in NEJM, etc. to get you the raw data. I don't care what their interpretations were. I'll be the one deciding for myself what it means, NOT YOU!

Jade,

When cube stated
"Your statment does a disservice to those on flight 93 and those CCW holders how have been shot in service to others, such as Mark Wilson. The people involved in those situations were everymen."

He is referring to your statement that "Cooper merely promulgates the myth that everyman is Bruce Willis in a Die Hard movie, who just happens to stumble into the middle of a terrorist plot. The reality, of course, is much, much different."

HE IS NOT REFERRING TO OWNERSHIP OF GUNS WITH HIS REPLY. Rather, he is referring to the notion that people MUST stand up for themselves and others - if you are incapable of doing so, due to a disability of some sort, so be it. But if you are simply unwilling to do so, you do not deserve to call yourself a citizen. If you do not believe that a citizen should be able to use whatever means necessary to defend him/herself or a fellow citizen - GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. Check the history books - see what appeasement, pacifism, and victim disarmament really get you. Violence only begets violence when you use it without just cause. Part of earning a CCW permit is not only knowing WHEN you should use force, but WHY you must use force.

Listen to politically motivated, paid and purchased idiots if you would like to - owning a firearm is not a bad choice. Having one in the house does not automatically place your family in danger. It is negligence that does so. A properly maintained, properly stored firearm does NOT increase the risk of injury to your family. It is only when the firearm owner ignores his/her responsibilities that he/she places anyone in danger.

The bottom line is this - if you would like to listen to "Squealer the pig" from the book Animal Farm, rambling on and on with all of these facts and supporting figures - go right ahead and do so. The propaganda machine has certainly done its job, and Trotsky and Stalin appreciate your blind loyalty. I could quote all the bullshit I wanted and shovel it as fact - but you've done that for us already. There are ways of slanting statistics, playing word games, manipulating evidence - just stop. Look at a firearm. Pick it up. Examine it. Find out how it works. Find out what guns are REALLY about. Are they evil? Is it possible that they are just mechanical devices, made to serve the will of their owners as all machines are? You shouldn't have to think very hard to answer any questions you may have. But you SHOULD THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don't let some other asshole make up your mind or influence your decisions. Your decisions are your own, and you are ultimately responsible for them. The liberal notion of "it's not my fault it's society's fault" is a crock of shit. EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. End of story.

Owning a weapon is not about blind violence - it is about vigilance and determination. Remain armed and vigilant, and use your weapon(s) only when you must. That is one of your many duties as a citizen of a free country. It is not the job of the government or the military to do this for you.

If your mind was open at all, you would have figured all of this out already.

Any questions? Email me. But don't expect to be able to quote everyone else - it is YOUR responsibility to give the issue thought, and form your own arguments.

-John D Keller, 21, from Mandan, North Dakota.

-B:

That's the best you have? All the studies are bad because they're all influenced by lefty/commie/pinkos?

You've got nothing.

JD Keller:

Here's the problem: the facts don't lie. And the fact is a firearm in the household is many times more likely to be used against a family member or intimate acquaintance than it is to be used against some intruder. That's the cold, hard fact.

When we board an airliner, we know there's some small chance that airliner may crash. But most of us continue to fly because we understand the chance that airliner will crash is pretty miniscule and we're willing to bear that small risk.

But what if the chance of an airliner crashing was 10%? I bet many people would stop flying. Would you continue to fly or allow your family to fly?

Yet, when it comes to firearms--you seem willing to take a risk that is far greater than even odds. Guess that's why Las Vegas does so well.

What's troublesome, though, is the gun community is happy to have the odds stacked against them. Were it just gun zealots who were wounded or killed by their cult-like behavior--I would care less. But the fact is many people, including children, ultimately fall victim to this foolishness. Everyone gets to pay for the costs of gun violence.

The problem with the gun community is that they're unwilling to accept responsibility. They refuse to learn how to safely use and maintain firearms and there aren't any restrictions as to who can buy a firearm regardless of physical or mental infirmity.

JadeRosieOdonnellGold,
I hope that you don't work in a field that requires any credibility, because you have NONE.

"The problem with the gun community is that they're unwilling to accept responsibility. They refuse to learn how to safely use and maintain firearms and there aren't any restrictions as to who can buy a firearm regardless of physical or mental infirmity."

A few posts back, (August 19, 2006 11:56 AM) you made sweeping generalizations about NRA members, as well as casting aspersions on Jeff Cooper- you were asked for discrete references to his alleged racism but failed to provide any.

Now the entire "gun community" fails to accept responsibility, and refuse to use firearms safely?

I don't think that statement carries any water. The ranges that I go to accept nothing less than complete adherence to gun safety rules. Every time I'm in the gun shop and someone's buying their first gun, I've heard some type of spiel about it.

But beyond that, you cast an aspersion on the "gun community".. I have an NRA membership, a few guns, and I go to the range. I shoot socially as well. All people who shoot at a range at the same time have shared responsibilities for safety, but that's where it ends.

I have as much responsibility for other gun owners' actions as you do for other car owners. I look at it as individual rights, which come with responsibilities. I do have a responsibility for where MY guns are and what is done with them. I chose to buy them, and I bought the responsibility.

Your generalizations about NRA members and gunowners are highly irresponsible. If you made the same applications to race or religion there'd be a different name for you than stupid gun grabber.

Quote from Jade

"-B:

That's the best you have? All the studies are bad because they're all influenced by lefty/commie/pinkos?

You've got nothing.

JD Keller:

Here's the problem: the facts don't lie. And the fact is a firearm in the household is many times more likely to be used against a family member or intimate acquaintance than it is to be used against some intruder. That's the cold, hard fact.

When we board an airliner, we know there's some small chance that airliner may crash. But most of us continue to fly because we understand the chance that airliner will crash is pretty miniscule and we're willing to bear that small risk.

But what if the chance of an airliner crashing was 10%? I bet many people would stop flying. Would you continue to fly or allow your family to fly?

Yet, when it comes to firearms--you seem willing to take a risk that is far greater than even odds. Guess that's why Las Vegas does so well.

What's troublesome, though, is the gun community is happy to have the odds stacked against them. Were it just gun zealots who were wounded or killed by their cult-like behavior--I would care less. But the fact is many people, including children, ultimately fall victim to this foolishness. Everyone gets to pay for the costs of gun violence.

The problem with the gun community is that they're unwilling to accept responsibility. They refuse to learn how to safely use and maintain firearms and there aren't any restrictions as to who can buy a firearm regardless of physical or mental infirmity." end of quote

How do you know what the odds are? Who conducted the survey? How was it conducted? How were the results reached? NONE of these facts have been quoted, only the end "results". These things MUST be known for a "study" to have ANY scientific basis. THAT is COLD, HARD FACT. And you don't seem to have that. So what you have are a lump of sweeping generalizations and prejudices against firearms in general. You haven't given ANY thought as to how to solve problems - you are LAZY, and think that a ban will solve your problems.

I suppose you're against nuclear energy too. Well the fact is that the nuclear community is one of the most responsible crowds out there - and determined, responsible firearm owners would rank at least second in my book. I've seen gun salesmen REFUSE completely legal sales because they did not think that the person on the other side of the counter was responsible or safe. WE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ACTIONS. You don't seem to be able to live with that.

So do everyone a favor and fuck off.

-JDK

Hmmm, let's see; Bad Idea Guy tells us gun owners are responsible because.....he says so.

Clue: anecdotes aren't facts. Perhaps, your range is the safest gun range in the world. An anecdote simply isn't a fact.

Currently, anyone who can hold a fistful of cash and make grunting noises at a gun shop can purchase a firearm. It matters not if the person is mentally impaired or doesn't know one end of the weapon from the other.

When was the last time you hit the range, Jade? I've been to at least 8 different ranges in the last year and the safety culture is similar at all of them. Please name for me a range from the NRA list that has documented, discrete safety problems.

I'd say that my anecdotal evidence along with years of consistently similar experiences add up to more fact than you've presented with your inane posts so far.

Watching bowling for columbine doesn't make you an expert on anything, btw.

Jade,

Excuse me, I can't quite stop the laughter. I am dismissing you and ALL of your OPINIONS (not facts, as you keep spouting) as complete garbage.

YOU said,

"Currently, anyone who can hold a fistful of cash and make grunting noises at a gun shop can purchase a firearm. It matters not if the person is mentally impaired or doesn't know one end of the weapon from the other."

This little snippet PROVES, beyond ANY DOUBT, that you HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

You've never seen, or even heard of, the ATF Form 4473, I'm certain, as there is a SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING THIS VERY THING on this. Guess what? The FBI checks for this, AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO, under that NICS system, before ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO PROCEDE WITH A SALE!

Another thing. Wrap your head around this, you schmuck. Do you think (a stretch for you I'm sure) that studies are commissioned for these types of things WITHOUT a predetermined outcome as an expectation, or are you naive enough to believe that these kinds of studies are performed by people or groups that have no political agenda, and are only attempting to get to some sort of "truth", as I'm sure you'd put it? That is precisely why I'd never give credence to any study, by VPC, the AMA, NEJM, the NRA, or anyone else. There is politics involved, always, and never truth.

Thanks anyway, I'll stick to reason, which is far sounder an ally as opposed to your easily manipulated statistics, compiled by god-knows-who, and interpreted by some bogus "expert" or Sarah Fucking Brady.

The next time you run across this type of thing, do yourself a favor; start asking questions. Who wants it and why? Oh, forget it, you don't care, as you've already made up your mind. You like the IDEA of gun control, it fits your ideology.

Arguing on pure statistics, BTW, you are about TWICE as likely to die from outright DRINKING YOURSELF TO DEATH, when compared to being shot, by anyone, in this country. Do ya wanna go back to prohibition? It IS the logical thing to do.

Dipshit.

Big Idea Guy: The last civilian range I "hit" was probably about a year ago. In my experience, ranges are like any other business; some are designed and run well and some aren't. This includes ranges that are in the NRA registry. I've witnessed an inebriated shooter at such a range nearly kill himself while practicing 'quick' draws and I've seen a range 'instructor' discharge his weapon accidently off the firing line. Some shooters take safety very seriously and others regard shooting as seriously as bowling or a video game.

Frankly, NRA registry has zero to do with the safe conduct of a range; in fact, the NRA does exactly nothing to approve or certify or qualify a range.

You seem to want to insist your anecdotal experience at shooting ranges is of more value than factual data. Again, you can't argue with the hard cold facts.

-B:

I'm convinced by your use of CAPS. It's a persuasive argument used by pre-adolescent boys and teenyboppers.

Just as your false "facts" are used by sanctimonious finger pointing authoritarians, such as yourself.

Fuck off.

And die, commie bitch!

Jade,
Sorry if the colloquial "hit the range" is not to your liking.

I did not say that the NRA certifies ranges, I just asked you to identify a specific range from the list. You did not do this. And my anecdotes are (I wanted to put that in caps, but just know that an emphasis is on "are") the basis for fact. Because I lay claim to individual rights. Like I said before, I'm not (parenthetical emphasis) responsible for others' behavior.

I gotta say that I find your views to be absurd, but the statement "The last civilian range I "hit" was probably about a year ago. In my experience, ranges are like any other business..." belies that you go to government ranges. Are you in law enforcement, or the US military?

If so, I'm curious about the following: Joining the "service" means you're serving what or whom? Serving elected officials? It couldn't be that you're supposed to be serving to protect the rights of individuals?? What is the purpose of the Constitution? Is it to provide a basic framework for how the subjects of the benevolent nanny-state should be ruled and regulated? If I may beg indulgence from your lordship, what is the purpose of the federal government?

BadIdeaGuy:

Wow, you're all over the place, aren't you?

First, you give me anecdotes about how safe the ranges you frequent are but when I provide my anecdotes--you deem them absurd.

But you have yet to address the facts.

Second, you seem very curious about my military background. Yes, I've been to many a military shooting range. And, yes, the military is no-nonsense about safety. If there's an incident at a military range, careers are ended. Contrast that with a civilian range whose entire purpose is profit-motivated; there is a far greater emphasis placed on attracting and maintaining a clientele than on safety. If a shooter goes to a civilian range and feels the rules and regs are too onerous--he's going to take his business elsewhere.

As to your questions about the purpose of the government--a quick search of the internet will have to satisfy your questions.

Jade,

Commie much?

"Contrast that with a civilian range whose entire purpose is profit-motivated"

This kind of language is yet another tired jab that you fucktard leftists use in an attempt to villify anything, or anyone, who attempts to make an honest living. It's straight out of Karl Marx's little book, "chasin money makes people irrational, angry and envious. money is bad, since it's the motivator, so make its acquisition, use and, eventually, its existance taboo.

You don't have anything original of your own, so you regurgitate that tired, soul-sucking and completely disproven theory known as communism, and try to pass it off as altruism.

Take your shit elsewhere, twit.

Quote from Jade - "Wow, you're all over the place, aren't you?"

Well you certainly seem to be. After all, I believe the rest of us have argued almost every one of your points, probably to death. In contrast, you seem to be picking and choosing your battles carefully - taking one snip here and another quip there. I haven't seen you even come close to tackling all of our points of argument - something I think the rest of us have attempted to do. Oh, and not all civilian ranges are profit motivated, thank you very much. Has anyone ever heard of a public range? Or is that just some outdated idea still kept in practice here in North Dakota? Sure, you never know who you will find out at a public range. I will admit first hand that I've seen people who are in need of remedial gun safety training. But the vast majority of people that I've personally met, either in South Carolina (ATP Gun shop and range) or here on the Bismarck/Mandan public ranges, have been downright decent people. Fathers helping their daughters and sons learn how to safely and responsibly handle a rifle, pistol or shotgun. Friends out sighting in their rifles for deer season. People out shooting clays in the afternoon. Like I said, just damn decent people out enjoying themselves. You seem to be more than willing to simply label gun owners as evil and wreckless based on the few bad apples you have seen. These are the result of people not teaching others. These are the fuck-offs that thought they could learn all by themselves, and don't give a shit about anyone. Here in North Dakota, we teach people who want to learn about firearms. We teach them correctly and safely. And you can see this in practice day to day.

Also, I don't think anyone gives a shit about your military experience (or lack thereof, since you only state that you've been to military shooting ranges, not that you've actually been in the military). You claim that every statement you make is based on fact, even when such "facts" are shaky and likely to be politically motivated. Yes, some ranges are businesses only concerned with making money. Things such as this are inevitable, no matter what business you are in. So what? You went to the shooting range of your own free will. The drunk who almost killed himself did exactly that - he harmed himself out of his own negligence. You know full well when you step onto a range that you may encounter such idiots. I know when I walk down a dark alley I'm taking a chance of being attacked. So what's your real point? That there's a chance some one is going to fuck off and get someone killed? I've got bad news for you - drunks with cars more than easily outnumber drunks with guns. And if you think a stray 115 grain FMJ from a 9mm is dangerous, what do you say about a 2000-3000 pound hunk of rubber, plastic and steel moving at 75 MPH? What's more likely to happen, being shot at during your lifetime or seeing someone drinking and driving? Since you seem willing to quote probabilities and statistics, what do you say about that? Which is more likely?

OH, I almost forgot. I haven't seen any references to your gender, a real name, a state of residence - anything really. I'm assuming that you may be female, seeing the screen name of Jade. But that's an assumption. And since we really don't know anything about you - just how the hell are we to establish YOUR credibility? Fuck, you might not even be a citizen of the USA. How are we supposed to know? It goes back to my statement about society trying to escape responsibility - you won't give us a single clue as to your identity, because you don't want to take responsibility for your own posts. Either that, or you are paranoid that someone might try to use that information against you. In either case, go ahead and live in your bitter fear of being assaulted, since you are so willing to be unarmed and unprepared. That is, unless you're like Diane Feinstein, that treacherous bitch from California. Leave it to a gun grabber to be two faced enough to carry a loaded revolver while trying to take guns out of everyone else's hands.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've stated my name, for the record. I've told you where I live. Hell, I'll even tell you I'm 5'10" tall, short dark hair, and 21 years old. I own 14 firearms, all stored in a locked safe. Think I care? Come and get me. I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, born in Bismarck ND. I am a Nuclear Power Technology major at BSC, and I am a Nationally Registered Emergency Medical Technician - Basic (NREMT-B).

That's who I am. A responsible citizen, willing to act rather than stand and be a spectator to the horrors being done to my fellow citizens. Go ahead, pull up a chair while your fellow citizens are being assaulted. Have a nice little show. Call and wait for the cops if you want to. Just don't do anything that might involve risk or responsibility, like lending your fellow citizen a helping hand. Just sit there and watch, I'm sure it's even better to you than reality TV. People like you make the rest of us sick.

I can't wait to hear another short quip about just one of my points. I can see this has already degraded into a series of jabs, rather than a purposeful argument. So go ahead. Take another jab. Then call me childish and immature. At least I actually have a name.

-JDK

And before someone gets any funny ideas, I should restate something.

Original statement - What's more likely to happen, being shot at during your lifetime or seeing someone drinking and driving?

Revised - What's more likely to happen, getting shot at during your lifetime or being HIT by a drunk driver?

-JDK

JDK:

Your argument seems to be that drunk driving is bad so gun violence is all right.

Again, the facts are not on your side. In several states, gun-related fatalities are eclipsing deaths from auto accidents.

Of course, the auto industry is regulated; cars are safer and the use of safety belts is mandatory everywhere and people do have to demonstrate at least a rudimentary understanding of driving and traffic laws.

But guns aren't regulated and anyone can buy one.

You also seem to be hung up on your qualifications. You assert your studying Nuclear Power Technology and that you're an EMT. That's admirable. Tell me, do you believe we should let anyone who has an interest become a nuclear plant operator? Or should we require they successfully complete a course of study, training, and licensing?

Should we allow people who like to watch ER and various doctor shows to become EMTs? Or should we require they pass coursework and get certified?

Jade,

You are as stupid as the day is long.

There are regulations, and MANY of them, for firearms. You are just buying the Donk tagline from that bitch Clinton.

You don't know your own ass from a hole in the ground, but are completely willing to pass what you think you know off as knowledge.

You still don't know the difference between fact and statistics, and I'm sure you'll go on thinking the same way, because you already have your mind made up, because of your bogus statistics that you keep asserting are "facts".

BTW, care to share from what states gun related fatalities are exclipsing auto accidents?

Thought not, because it's not happening.

You've never responded to my question regarding the form 4473, and I'm sure you'll never find out. If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you'd know not only what that form is, but why it's there, who checks it, authorizes it and administers the NICS process.

Instead, you banter on with outrageous claims about lack of "regulation" in the eeevil, death culture, bloodlusting, firearms industry, and other non-sense. Typical of your stripe to frame, paint, lie or whatever it takes to vilify those who you see as being wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about, and you never will. Fuck off.

-B

No, my argument is not that drunk driving is so bad that gun violence is all right. Who's comparing apples and oranges now?

You said "In several states, gun-related fatalities are eclipsing deaths from auto accidents." Oh, yeah, show me the "facts" that support this bullshit. Again, you fail to cite a credible, reliable source for this. Notice the words credible and reliable. I am willing to bet that ANY study done on such a subject will be slanted far to one side or the other, due to the political motivations of the people paying for the study. We have told you this before. Now you don't even bother citing sources - you simply claim it is fact. It is in fact bullshit.

The gun industry has FAR more regulations than you think - have you ever tried to actually buy a gun? How much did you actually have to do to buy a car? All you have to do is register it and buy insurance. A license simply means you know the rules of the road - it does not qualify you to drive anything with wheels. It does not teach you all of the important functions of the car. If you think it does, you're full of shit.

By the way - Yes, I have several qualifications. What are yours?

EMTs and Nuclear Power plant operators go through EXTENSIVE training and testing. You can't have it any other way. But you state that the gun industry is unregulated - you are dead wrong. A background check is performed for each purchase - NO EXCEPTIONS. You have to fill out form 4473 for every purchase - NO EXCEPTIONS. They know who you are and what you have ever done before you take possession of a weapon. You are a fool to think that they do not.

There can be more done to allow for training - this anyone can tell you. But your political groups are not pushing for training or for licensing - they are pushing for abolishing guns altogether. In other words - you are not fighting for the right cause or for the right reasons.

And what? Still no name? No home? No qualifications? Sucks to be you.

-JDK

JDK:

Care to explain your argument? Here's your revised question: What's more likely to happen, getting shot at during your lifetime or being HIT by a drunk driver?

In truth, it's about the same chance. But let's suppose it's not; let's assume your chances of being hit by a drunk driver are much greater than being shot at. Exactly how does this advance your argument? It's akin to arguing that relatively few people die of food poisonining so why have any regulation of the food industry.

In 2004, 16,694 people in the US died in alcohol-related traffic deaths. (Source: the pinko/commie National Highway Traffic Safety Admin). During the same year, nearly 30,000 people died in the US as a result of gun-related deaths.(CDC).

The gun industry has FAR more regulations than you think - have you ever tried to actually buy a gun?

In reality, there is no regulation.

You keep insisting that everyone who purchases a gun must fill out a form 4473. This is simply a falsehood. You must complete such a transaction if you are purchasing from an FFL dealer. Even so, many FFL dealers will look the other way or allow straw purchases. Of course, if one isn't an FFL holder, one can sell as many firearms as one wishes to anyone. Many gunshows will have dealers who aren't FFL holders. NRA member Tim McVeigh made a living by traveling with gun shows and acting as a straw purchaser.

I'd agree with you that a drivers license doesn't mean you're an excellent driver. In fact, I really believe drivers licensing should be more rigorous.

But you don't have to see to buy a gun. You don't have to know the business end of the firearm to buy a gun. You can be mentally impaired or have a long history of alcohol/substance abuse and still buy a gun. Aagin, your argument seems to be that since driver licenses don't eliminate all accidents why require a gun purchaser to know anything at all.

EMTs and Nuclear Power plant operators go through EXTENSIVE training and testing. You can't have it any other way.

I'd agree. But you seem to believe that putting a firearm into somebody's hands doesn't require any qualification beyond the capacity to exchange money.

Jade,

"Look the other way"

Asshat. THIS is a FEDERAL crime. Did you know that? Thought not. THAT very item is a regulation. Do you understand that? NO, you don't, because you are too blind with your own rage of the situation.

"During the same year, nearly 30,000 people died in the US as a result of gun-related deaths.(CDC)."

CDC has no business tracking, compiling, interpreting or doing ANYTHING with "gun related" deaths, as this is NOT a disease, you dumbass. The only reason that a stat is included in their annual report is because of a mandate, and I'd explain the reason for it, but it's far beyond your comprehension. And 30,000 isn't even close. More like 10,000. Again this is due to a gross exaggeration and bending of "data" that you keep insisting is "fact".

Again with the misinformation on the "buying a gun" question. First, define what it is you are attempting to discern. Do you even know what that means? YOU are the one who insisted "Currently, anyone who can hold a fistful of cash and make grunting noises at a gun shop can purchase a firearm. It matters not if the person is mentally impaired or doesn't know one end of the weapon from the other," which would mean, if I'm understanding you correctly, that the whole lying on the federal form isn't important or anything. What it is, is a felony, you asshat. Anyone who has been found mentally impaired, a habitual user of alcohol or drugs (convicted as such in a court of law) can not buy ANY gun from a gun dealer. Do you understand?

Private sales are NOT covered. This is something entirely different. Do you understand?

If someone sells a gun to a felon, who in turn uses that gun to commit a crime, both the seller and buyer are indictable under penalties outlined in US FEDERAL PENAL code. Do you understand that?

If you think that we (that would be the US, in general, since we are fairly unique with respect to our civil liberties, including private gun ownership) are "wrong" about this, and that every other country has it "right" about civilian gun ownership, MOVE THERE NOW!

For the last time Jade, you don't have any idea about what you are talking about, so go away, asshat.

Let's take this one at a time from -B, though I feel guilty about picking on a low information, Community College grad.

CDC has no business tracking, compiling, interpreting or doing ANYTHING with "gun related" deaths, as this is NOT a disease, you dumbass.

In reality, CDC was begun to combat malaria 60 years ago. Tody, its charter has expanded to include all public safety hazards including infectious disease, occupational/workplace hazards, accidents, etc. It's stated mission: To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.

IOW, poor -B was confused by a title.

And 30,000 isn't even close. More like 10,000.

When -B gets confused, he tends to pull numbers and 'facts' from the air. Or somewhere.

In fact, in 2004, there were 16,907 firearm suicides in the US alone. Just suicides. Thus, by -B's logic, not only was this suicide number off by nearly 70%--there apparently were zero gun-related homicides as well.

He makes this so easy.

which would mean, if I'm understanding you correctly, that the whole lying on the federal form isn't important or anything.

It isn't because it's unenforceable. If you notice on your tax forms, there's a similar certification where the taxpayer certifies that the tax form has been filled out correctly. Yet, very few people are ever prosecuted.

Private sales are NOT covered. This is something entirely different.

Shorter -B: I don't know how to answer this so I'll say 'it's different.'

Such an argument probably wore thin after first grade.

Then it's an enforcement problem?

"It isn't because it's unenforceable. If you notice on your tax forms, there's a similar certification where the taxpayer certifies that the tax form has been filled out correctly. Yet, very few people are ever prosecuted."

And you think that few people are prosecuted for cheating on their taxes?

You are delusional, Jade.

Oh, and the whole suicide by firearms number you state, it may be true, as I don't have the inclination to check, but you are postulating that that number is significant in adding to your argument. It isn't. When you figure out why that is, get back to me. BTW, that suicide number that you do state, cuts the total from your original estimate down by more than HALF! Do you get it now, dumbass?

Simply, you are a control freak. You are convinced that actions can be altered by telling people that they can't do or own a certain thing by issuing a law. This is more than non-sensical, it is sophmoric. It isn't true that a law can control behaviour and we have ample proof in history of the sort of non-sense about gun control that you keep harping about. It doesn't work at controlling the outcome, so get off it already.

Again, about the CDC, WTF?, you said,

"To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability."

Through what means, I ask? Telling people that the lack of firearms ownership is the way to avoid getting shot, is that it? Yep, you really do understand the CDC charter and their simpleton concepts.

Typical leftist, if it isn't working, turn up the power.

Get bent, Jade.

Quote from Jade :
"Let's take this one at a time from -B, though I feel guilty about picking on a low information, Community College grad."

This, coming from a person with no name, no qualifications, and no home or proof of citizenship?

Gee, that makes your opinions worth a lot.

By the way, the information you've posted doesn't mean you're of abnormally high intelligence - what it means is that you have a working internet connection, since you got it from the CDC's website. Oh, and about the whole suicide by firearm thing - is this news? If you choose to harm yourself with a firearm, you will most likely be successful. However, if I chose to die using my car, a bottle of Aleve or Tylenol, or simply a rafter and a piece of rope, that would be just as effective. Besides, for someone so obviously obsessed with "violent crime" - since when do you give a fuck about suicide? If you were so intelligent, you would know about depression. And the fact that it impairs your judgement, especially when thoughts of suicide are involved. You think making sure a firearm isn't in their hands will stop them? NO. They will simply use other means to kill themselves. People have a nasty habit of being creative. Or didn't you know that?

-B is absolutely correct when he stated that laws cannot control someone's actions. Remember that enforcement issue that YOU brought up? Take it up with the ATF and tell them to stop chasing people with nonsense charges of "illegal machineguns" and tell them to start doing their fucking jobs, like arresting people for straw purchases.

You cry and whine about everyone who owns a gun, yet the only people you can actually blame are the ones breaking laws that already exist.

And here are the FACTS, if you want to call them that, from the CDC's website

"Mortality

All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,611
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.7

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,250
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.8

Source: Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2004, table 2"
And here's the link - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

And for Vehicular deaths, the CDC's website says

"Motor vehicle-related injuries kill more children and young adults than any other single cause in the United States.

More than 41,000 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes each year, and crash injuries result in about 500,000 hospitalizations and four million emergency department visits annually. The economic burden of motor vehicle-related deaths and injuries is also enormous, costing the United States more than $150 billion each year."

And here is the link -
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/mvsafety.htm

So Jade, using your own source, YOU ARE WRONG.

So you can now officially FUCK OFF, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Firearm homicides account for about 1/4 the amount of deaths that cars do - suicides excluded because people who choose to kill themselves will use other methods if a firearm is not available, thus they will die anyway. And firearm related homicides account for only 3/4 of the total number of homicides - thus leaving only 11,250 murders out of what your figures would have led people to believe was actually around 15000-16000.

So firearms were involved in almost 28000 deaths in a year - MORE THAN HALF OF THESE WERE SUICIDES. If you want to cut down on suicide - look for ways to help people with their depression. You might find that attacking the REAL problem actually works.

And I suppose a society that legalizes marijuana/crack/cocaine/meth and bans guns would be more to your liking? I hope that joint helps you stay happily ignorant of reality.

-JDK

John,

Thanks for expanding on what was painfully obvious to the rest of us, for the benefit of the asshat. Really. I began to laugh at the asshat while reading your post, instead of wanting to throw all objects within reach at the wall.

What was I saying again about 10,000?

If you don't already, you need a blog.

-B:

Then it's an enforcement problem?

To a small extent, that's true. But the fact is the way the US Code is written, it must be established a would-be purchaser "knowingly lied" on the 4473. That's why fewer than four out of every thousand people who are denied a purchase via NICS ever get prosecuted.

Prosecutors understand trying to prove that somebody "knowingly lied" is a loser.

And you think that few people are prosecuted for cheating on their taxes?

Yeah. Some 40% of all federal tax filings have errors, mistakes, or outright deceptions. Yet, we see nothing close to 40% of US citizens getting prosecuted.

Telling people that the lack of firearms ownership is the way to avoid getting shot, is that it?

The CDC makes no such judgments. OTOH, they do spell out the consequences of certain behaviors. You smoke--you increase your risk of certain illnesses. You drive drunk--you increase your (and others) chances of death. You have a gun in the household, you increase you and your family's chances of gun violence.

JDK:

I can always tell when a gunloon is beaten; the frequency of CAPS increases.

Jade:

I don't suppose an apology can be expected -- as regards the derogatory reference to community-college folks? I am a graduate of one such institution, and not ashamed of it at all. I have no reason to be -- as I am also Mensa-eligible (although all the Mensa-ites I've met have made me want to steer clear of the org). I am also sure that others felt more-than-passingly insulted -- perhaps that was intentional?

Also, perhaps you deliberately choose to use inflammatory labels and such, so as to make your opponents 'go off the deep-end' (and doesn't that make you feel all warm and comfortable and righteous inside?), but it also has the effect of cheapening whatever points you're trying to make. 'Though I suppose that's not such an issue, when it also can help distract attention away from any *lack* of cogency and/or strength your point(s) may exhibit.

Additionally, you might want to be careful in the future about using the results of surveys or studies of people's opinions and behaviors -- having some familiarity with statistics, as well as having had a job (for over a decade) in marketing, I can assure you that the *how* and other specifics absolutely WILL determine just what the results and conclusions will be.

So, about that apology ... ?

-- EMA

Jade,

Why do you care so much that I, or JDK uses caps for emphasis? You insist that he must have lost the argument to have resorted to using a certain tone with you. He is yelling at you? Get it? The reason, you are a dumbass.

Back to the topic.

"The CDC makes no such judgments. OTOH, they do spell out the consequences of certain behaviors. You smoke--you increase your risk of certain illnesses. You drive drunk--you increase your (and others) chances of death. You have a gun in the household, you increase you and your family's chances of gun violence."

Based upon what? Their interpretation of certain statistics, which I denounce as being simple-minded and NOT accurate, either in scope, or how they are compiled. In other words, I question how they gather even raw data, as their method could be an attempt at fitting something into a predetermined outcome.

BTW, there is no such thing as gun-violence, just violence. The fact of what "tool" was used is largely insignificant. Sociopathic behaviour is not something that can be determined from breaking down those who do own a gun from those who don't, and if you don't agree, I'd say that there are statistics out there that would agree with some of my pre-determined outcomes.

The chances are damn slim of anyone ever getting shot in their lifetime. You are almost as likely, it seems from a quick search, to be struck by lightning.

You can't completely remove risk from life, only mitigate it. Avoiding this slight risk is asinine, and trying to legislate firearms out of existance is even more so.

Move on.

EMA:

I made no derogatory statements about CC grads; I did refer to -B as a "low information, community college grad."

I just wonder what offense you can take from that.

-B:

Their interpretation of certain statistics, which I denounce as being simple-minded and NOT accurate, either in scope, or how they are compiled. In other words, I question how they gather even raw data, as their method could be an attempt at fitting something into a predetermined outcome.

To date, you haven't presented any reason why you think CDC's findings are inaccurate--only that you don't like the results and have a mistaken notion of what the CDC does. OTOH, I can eaasily show why John Lott's or Gary Kleck's studies are worthless.

You can't completely remove risk from life, only mitigate it. Avoiding this slight risk is asinine,

I agree with the first sentence. The second is complete baloney, though. You have nearly 30,000 Americans killed each year--that's nearly a 9/11 every month. Gun violence also costs US taxpayers some $4B every year. The cost to businesses and families is astronomical.

And the fact is there are steps that can mitigate this problem. However, your solution to date is to make good the enemy of perfect; IOW, you believe we should do nothing if we can't prevent completely gun violence.

Jade,

What steps toward mitigation, then?

Wait, I know, more gun control, right?

Won't work, but you don't get it, do you?

You are using statistics like a drunk uses a lightpole, for a crutch, rather than illumination.

BTW, I thought the community college comment was funny. I may use it the future. Personally Jade, it does not matter if someone has an education or not, whether from community college, state university (mine, BTW), private institution, or even, gulp, self-educated. The biggest morons I know all come from the upper end of classic education spectrum, which I am a part of, regrettably in some ways, but that is not important. Some people can think, others can't. Formal education is no guarantor of being able to do so, and grants no one any kind of authority towards making judgements, moral or otherwise, unto anyone else.

That is the great promise of a liberalized society, but that isn't what you want to see, is it? You want things YOUR way, and you are relying on a statistic to prove your preconception. What is that statistic? How is this compared? To whom? To what? Are the methods the same, and being conducted by the same people? Are the countries different, if applicable? Might politics have an influence? Do you question such things?

According to several articles that I just Googled, straight from BBC, firearms usage in crime, as a whole, is up over that last several years in the UK, despite the FACT that handgun ownership has been banned since shortly after the Dunblanne massacre. The FACT (an immutable truth) that gun numbers would be statistically down since the ban would suggest that the rate of people getting them used on them, as a victim of such things, would go down as well. The Home Office's own tracking of this shows that in the years since Dunblanne, that is NOT the case. To wit, from one of the articles,

"Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said the statistics presented a "confusing" and "alarming" picture.

"One thing which no amount of statistical manipulation can disguise is that violent crime has doubled in the last six years and continues to rise alarmingly," he said." (I add no emphasis)

That, despite stricter gun control, and absolutely NO legal possession of handguns (I will absolutely agree that handguns are preferred in the criminal world, as so many liberals claim, and for many reasons) within all of the UK. How do you reconcile these contradictory points? Here, clearly stated in the same article, was/is the bigger problem, I think,

"Mr Letwin blamed the increase on young hard drug addicts and called on the government to provide better rehabilitation for them as well as putting 40,000 more police officers on the streets"

So let's make drugs illegal too, shall we. Wait, we already have. Stiffer penalties? Tried to that too, didn't work. Let's create an alphabet agency to fight the "problem" of drug use, and its supply. Wait, did that also! Still hasn't had the least bit of positive effect on either the demand, or supply!

Drug use is a problem, don't misunderstand me. When mind altering substances are ingested, especially when mixed with guns, NOTHING good can come out of it. I do not want these types running around, period. However, there is no way to stop it.

When you remove the gun from the planet, entirely, you may have something, indeed, the result would border on a Darwinian exercise (you want real carnage?), but that is never going to happen. Those who want to do harm will always have the means to buy a firearm, because a demand will always be present. Simple economics at work here, and no, that isn't being too reductive, so can it!

Your fetid little utopia is NOT attainable, and the whole idea smacks of an elitist ideal that is, at the vary least, repugnant, and on more practical terms, is at odds with the idea of Liberty, an expressly American ideal. One on which the nation was founded. There can be no compromise on this.

Jade, your general demeanor and language strikes me as one who either lives elsewhere, or pays far too much attention to the TV, and the "world opinion" that comes from it. If you are a citizen, again, I say move. There are plenty of places for you elsewhere, where you don't have to worry about the supposed "gun-problem" that doesn't exist. If you are a foreigner, why is it your concern? And don't give me some cheap alturistic BS, 'Kay?

No, I am not using statistics to back up anything. I've already stated, numerous times, that I question their use, and in many ways. I am trying to get you to reason, instead of simply turning the power up to the next notch. When will that next notch be too much, Jade? Only when there are zero "gun-related deaths"? That is a totalitarian attitude, and one that I will not tolerate as a status-quo of my government. Get it?

I am not here, on this planet, to serve anyone except myself. If you think it selfish, so be it. You may think that short sighted, but that is just too bad. I have myself to please, in whatever it is that I peacefully wish to pursue with the years that I can keep from the reaper. It may not be a measure that YOU like, but by even thinking that you should "do something" to change my mind, you have committed yourself to enslaving me. Get it?

Take your Nanny-ass somewhere else. Move on.

Quote from Jade
"JDK:

I can always tell when a gunloon is beaten; the frequency of CAPS increases."

And I can tell when a liberal fuck-tard is beaten - all she can bitch about is my use of caps, for lack of anything else to use as emphasis.

-JDK

-B:

Wait, I know, more gun control, right?

More gun control? Gun control hasn't been tried in this country. As I've demonstrated, anyone--felon, drug abuser, psychotic, etc.--can purchase a gun anywhere in the US. Anyone, anywhere...doesn't sound like gun control to me.

Further, even if one does comply with the few laws that exist--there's no requirement that person needs to have demonstrated even the smallest proficiency in maintaining and using a firearm. Again, doesn't sound like gun control to me.

According to several articles that I just Googled, straight from BBC, firearms usage in crime, as a whole, is up over that last several years in the UK, despite the FACT that handgun ownership has been banned since shortly after the Dunblanne massacre.

Depends on the sites you visit. However, if you visit the British Home Office's site, we find:

“Estimates from the BCS reveal large and consistent falls in violent crime overall since 1995.�

“Longer-term trends in violence overall continue to show significant declines. Comparison of results reported to the BCS in 2001/02 with those for earlier years show a 17 per cent decline in BCS violence since 1999, a 22 per cent decline since 1997 and a 33 per cent decline since 1995, all of these decreases being statistically significant�

“The fall in violent crime may seem surprising, given media attention to violent crime. However, the BCS suggests that violent crime in general has been falling for some time. Although BCS estimates present an average experience of violence, it is possible that the very rare but more extreme incidents of violence have increased at the same time. It is the latter that are more often reported in the media.�

You also imply that all handguns were banned in the UK as a result of Dunblane. In fact, handguns had been tightly regulated for nearly two decades prior to Dunblane.

Another interesting factoid: in the period 1984-2004, 36 police officers died in the line of duty in England, Scotland and Wales - 11 shot, 10 stabbed and three beaten to death, while 12 were killed by vehicles. In 2004, in the US, 54 police were shot to death in the line of duty.

Facts are difficult things, huh?

BTW, a big thanks to you, -B. It's good to hear that my arguments are not being disregarded. I can already see that Jade is running out of arguments, since all she has left is to once again bitch and whine about punctuation.

Jade - The people who are using CAPS for emphasis, such as myself, do so only because we do not care about using italics/underline/bold. If you think that vocabulary and punctuation make a liar such as yourself appear intelligent - you are mistaken.

-JDK

Quote from Jade - "As I've demonstrated, anyone--felon, drug abuser, psychotic, etc.--can purchase a gun anywhere in the US. Anyone, anywhere...doesn't sound like gun control to me."

Oh sure, they can - by making a straw purchase, which we've DEMONSTRATED is a FELONY.

Didn't you get the memo?

-JDK

United Kingdom — Population: 60,441,457
United States — Population: 295,734,134

Gee, this might help account for a difference in the overall number of dead cops, since there is such a vast difference in population, not to mention the number of cops.

Oh, and the PDF you listed is very clear in stating that OVERALL violent crime is falling - It also CLEARLY STATES that according to the BCS, 62% of violent crime consists of simple assaults, many of which go unreported. Police records also show that homicide and "other violence" cover only 6.1% of all violent crime. Other violence? NO MENTION is ever made of "gun violence". So you're saying that all violent crime involves firearms? You're really full of shit now, Jade. Perhaps you should read things more closely next time, before you find some quick generalized statistic to flaunt. This so called "decrease in violent crime" could be caused by anything, like people not getting into as many bar fights (or not reporting them).

Oh, and "Depends on the sites you visit?" NO SHIT JADE. Ughhh (disgust). Gee, you must not be too well educated if you can't read past the first three lines of YOUR OWN SOURCE.

So, "Facts are difficult things, huh?".

They must be for you.

-JDK

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the census data - GOOGLE it, shithead.

Jade,

You make some seriously stupid assertions in some or your latest responses, to wit:

"More gun control? Gun control hasn't been tried in this country. As I've demonstrated, anyone--felon, drug abuser, psychotic, etc.--can purchase a gun anywhere in the US. Anyone, anywhere...doesn't sound like gun control to me."

Gun control has never been tried in this country? Ya sure about that? Ever been to New York, Chicago or Washington DC? Thought not.

It has been illegal for many years to have a handgun (ANY gun in DC!) in any of those cities, yet Chicago and DC are consistantly in the top 5 deadliest cities in America. Why is that? Can't be because of the lack of gun control laws. Could it be that high concentrations of largely illiterate, fatherless and destitute people don't have anything else to do with their time? They have no work because they have no skills, and they have no skills because they have no education. Maybe? Doesn't sound like a gun problem to me, more like a sociological one, or cultural.

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois and California all have greater strictures and waiting periods than any of the other states. They also have bans on many other types of semi-automatic guns, both handgun and rifle, and magazine capacities, as well as a .50 Cal rifle ban (no new sales, all current rifles on a registry) in Kalifornistan. ALL of these states have a higher than average homicide rate, and the use of firearms for such is higher as well. Have these gun control laws worked? NO!

To a larger degree, there has been more resistance to gun control, because so many other states reject the idea, and that is how it is designed to work! Our Congress can only pass bills into law by majority voting, and then it must pass muster with the President before becoming law. In this respect, it is one or our safeguards at protecting the smaller states (population-wise) from the being dictated to from the larger ones. Don't like it?, tough!, it's suppose to be that way. Want it changed?, over my dead body!

At the Federal level, there was the ill-advised "Assault Weapons Ban", that wasn't anything of the sort, a complete misnomer. The purpose of that drivel, and admittedly as much by its most ardent supporters, was NOT to have any real effect on crime, but to affect the general populace, to soften them into thinking that there was problem, and the politicians were ready with an 'answer'. This law didn't actually ban any guns. It didn't force anyone to hand anything over (that's a clear violation of the 4th amendment) and only had slight effects on certain cosmetic items on certain guns. The only real teeth that it had was restricting magazine capacity to 10 or fewer rounds on NEWLY manufactured magazines to civilians for both handguns and rifles. LEO's and departments got to keep buying the regular capacity models, real shocker.

The real foresight was from those congressmen who were actually thinking when this whole thing went down. They were able to negotiate a sunset clause into the bill, whereby the law would have to be reauthorized after 10 years. This was agreed to by all parties, as this was thought to give enough time to ascertain if the law was having any effect. Big shocker when it went down the shit-tube two years ago.

The issue of 'gun control' in this country has been something that is occasionally a hot topic, and it HAS lead to restrictions and registration, of certain types of guns, notably machine guns, via the NFA of 1934. This law wasn't so much forbidding the ownership or use of machine guns (Yes, citizens use to be able to buy machine guns directly from the manufacturer's, but it was rare, as they were expensive and used lots of ammo (Duh!), but were favored by mob bosses as an effective means of suppressing law enforcement during bank robberies and heists.), instead, it placed a $200 tax on each gun, and it had to be registered, serialized and a record kept with the Treasury department and with the owner. Inspections, to this day, are periodic, mandatory, and can happen with almost NO notice to the individual. This hasn't changed in the 70 years of the Class III (fully automatic arms) firearms registry, and in that WHOLE period there has been ONE gun used in a crime, and that was by a former LEO who shot someone. ONE time.

The next biggest piece of crap was the GCA68, implemented after the horrific assassinations of MLK and Bobby Kennedy. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and the beginnings of the ATF form 4473 that we use to this day. It put a bunch of stupid stuff on the books with regard to size restrictions on handguns (an imported handgun couldn't be smaller than a certain sized box. If it could completely fit inside this box, it was banned. The box rule STILL applies to this day.) It also did some stuff that was probably necessary, as it mandated the elimination of mail order surplus gun buying, and made all dealer to citizen sales part of the 4473 documentation.

Straw purchases DO happen. It is a small fraction of total purchases, and does lead to criminals getting guns, unfortunately. Get over it. If it isn't that, there are thefts, and to a degree that authorities will not own up, many are thefts from law enforcement themselves, even federal agents' vehicles. Smuggling is, of course, always a problem, and will always be. Get over it.

BTW, thanks for helping me make my point regarding the lack of efficacy in gun control, most especially in Britain. I was well aware of the Dunblane massacre, and indeed the roots of gun control in the UK goes back farther, at least to 1920, when the government was desperate to squash a worker's revolt. It was largely irrelevant to the point being made, but thanks anyway. The first real seeds of gun control were made then, and it has been a long slide toward what you now see in England today, a total confiscation of the citizen's handguns, and yes, it WAS after Dunblane that this act took place, replete with blast furnace, I've seen the footage.

These stupid actions haven't lead to disarming the criminals on the other side of the pond, or anywhere, have they? You still have police and citizens alike being killed with guns, and guns that were supposedly banned. How could this be? Are thugs buying weapons elsewhere and bringing them into the country? Most certainly. Are there measures that can be taken to stop this? Probably, to a certain degree, but it will never be possible to END it. Do you see? It's been really effective at disarming the IRA, with all of the help that they've received from communist countries or terrorist organizations with weapons acquisitions, hasn't it?

Yes, anyone, including me or YOU could walk the streets of most ANY city on the planet and buy a gun, if one KNOWS WHERE TO LOOK OR WHO TO TALK TO! Do you get it? The technology to build a gun is not something that is all that hard to acquire, and it isn't something that can just be wiped off of the face of planet by waiving your magic wand that you call "Gun Control", do you get it? Backwater third world countries, with little more than a few lathes and hand files can turn out AK-47 by the hundreds, if not thousands.

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you sue the guy who invented that gun, he's still alive, ya know? THAT might solve it, ya think? It IS the weapon of choice of terrorists, the untrained, and the terminally poor. Why? Because it was designed by a guy who understood that the army he was designing it for were probably NOT gun enthusiasts, conscripts, with little to no education, and little understanding of the inner workings of guns. It largely can withstand abuse and lack of maintenance, and its ease of manufacture means large numbers (proliferation, ooh, how nasty!) and low costs. This isn't me proselytizing, it is history, deal with it!

Judging from your responses, I am guessing that you are a Brit citizen or ExPat living in the States, and view the situation here as appalling, due largely to A) media coverage, and B) to a view from the NuLabour/Guardian POV. Am I close here Jade?

You keep insisting that gun control is the answer to crime in general, and specifically 'gun-crime'. Nothing could be further from the truth. It does defy one's intuition at a certain level, but can easily be observed that it does absolutely nothing positive in application.

Your arguments are clearly based on numbers that are easily manipulated to read EXACTLY as you want to, and that is all. The real life stuff doesn't matter, because it doesn't fit with the theory you pray to like a demagogue. It is not possible to attain the ends by the means you are suggesting, and you are too blind to see why.

Case closed.

Gee, this might help account for a difference in the overall number of dead cops, since there is such a vast difference in population, not to mention the number of cops.

Let's see.

The UK has about a fifth of the population of the US. In 20 years, 11 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. That's about .5 police officer a year.

On the US side, 54 officers were shot and killed in a single year. That's 50+ police officers per year.

Now, we normalize for population differences. If we multiply the UK's population by 5--that means 2.5 police officers get shot and killed annually.

2.5 does not equal 50+.

Hmmm...I suppose you have a point there, somewhere.

Case closed, indeed.

Indeed, it is.

Jade,

"More gun control? Gun control hasn't been tried in this country. As I've demonstrated, anyone--felon, drug abuser, psychotic, etc.--can purchase a gun anywhere in the US. Anyone, anywhere...doesn't sound like gun control to me."

Out of what I can only describe as a morbid curiosity, what would it take for you to consider the circumstances here as "sound(ing) like gun control"?

-B:

Real gun control would take the form of licensing and registration, as well as some regulation of the firearm industry.

Currently, neither exists.

Jade,

Pretty much what I thought you'd say, and it is as vague and infantile a response as was expected.

Again, I say that you don't have any idea about what it is that is the real problem, and you are simply projecting. Nothing new.

When you can actually fix the problem (you can't, and no one can, BTW), or at the very least define it, get back with me. Until then, get lost.

-B:

To the contrary, I've eloquently outlined the problem: too much gun violence resulting in needless American deaths and injuries, along with attendant economic impacts.

And I've outlined the solution.

But you don't like it. Well, too bad. The pity is that you're not even bright enough to tell us why you don't like it. You're like the small child who won't even try a new food.

That's infantile.

Jade,

The real problem is that you are too self-assured that you've correctly defined the problem, which is the first big step at the solution.

Since the problem has not been well defined, you have mistakenly outlined an incorrect solution (there are an abundance of instances that illustrate this, and I'm not giving you a history lesson on this, do it yourself) that will do nothing more than exaccerbate the problem, but you are far too arrogant to admit it. For you it is some kind of math problem, "If the problem is guns, simply eliminate them," is what you are saying, but you haven't the honesty or integrity to look at the fallacy of that statement, since it would be a reflection on you, as a person.

No, I don't like your solution, because it won't work. Again, there are numerous reasons for this, and I'm not here to give you a lesson as to why. Better for you to find out for yourself.

Here is where I make a great distinction Jade, and one that I know YOU can't make, "I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THE PROBLEM!", and that is the one that you defined, not the one that I would define.

The answer to what you are asking isn't realistic, and you know it, yet you insist on pushing it as though it were true. Again, you just can't admit to yourself that it's a losing strategy.

"It's perfect, on paper, so just turn up the power 'til it works," is a lot like an ape using a series of progressively larger hammers to fit the square peg into the round hole.

Again, you know this is true, but you can't let go of your perfect theory long enough to handle any of the real issues.

I've had enough of you. You are short sighted and lack any vision. You certainly don't believe that anyone has any form of rights, nor liberty in this country, and that doing mostly what you want to do is not only impossible, but somehow amoral or something.

I hope the revolution starts soon.

"You're like the small child who won't even try a new food."

Yeah, that's the same.

Idiot.

No, I don't like your solution, because it won't work.

Of course it will.

Why? Because it's been demonstrated to work in other countries.

I hope the revolution starts soon.

No, you don't. You see, folks like you talk a big game but when it comes time to walk it, you suddenly find more pressing issues.

"Because it's been demonstrated to work in other countries."

You must be kidding.

Don't read much history, or even current events much, do you?

"No, you don't. You see, folks like you talk a big game but when it comes time to walk it, you suddenly find more pressing issues."

You are, again, very self-assured about this.

What, no more idiot trying to uninvent the gun?