Gun Control, who's for it?

If you start out by using the word "lies," the rest of the debate is pointless and a waste of virtual ink. They are not lies, they are a forceful expression of a sincerely held point of view. They may be wrong -- in your view they clearly are -- but there is the matter of intention to "lie" that I don't think you can demonstrate in the case of the Brady contingent.

OK -- the use of a gun is:
a.) to fire a lethal or potentially lethal projectile.
b.) to maintain and/or display the potential of firing such projectile, or actually threaten to do so, with the intent of coercing someone to do something, or deterring someone from doing something you don't want them to do.

Anything else?

A firearm is nothing more nor less than a machine for throwing a projectile. The use of that machine it totally contingent upon the operator.

My firearms are most frequently used recreationally in target practice, to help develop a high degree of concentration and hand-eye coordination. I also use my firearms frequently to harvest food. Once in a great while I use my firearms for defense against dangerous or potentially dangerous animals. Thus far in my life I've never had need to use it to protect myself against humans, though one can't say how frequently the presence of my openly carried sidearm has deterred some one from initiating an assault.

Would you prefer the term "intentional misinformation" to "lies" in reference to the Brady Campaign? A common trait among many activist groups is to misrepresent information to paint a situation in the worse possible light. When information is taken out of context, statistics are intentionally inflated or data is gathered by including groups that are not applicable to the issue at hand (i.e. describing people between 18 and 26 years of age as 'children'), it might not be a "lie", but it certainly is misinformation and in the case of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it is certainly intentional.

Swanny

Yes. I like the paper weight idea. You can protect yourself and keep the papers from blowing away at the same time!

Ok. I think you missed my point. They defend. My motto is you shoot to stop the attack. You don't shoot to kill or mame. Yes someone is more likely to die after being shot by a gun. But if my life is in danger or I'm in danger of bodily harm, or my families life is in danger, I'm going to stop the attack. If I don't need the gun, ie. if the person is unarmed and I can easily overpower them, then I won't even consider the gun. But in the most serious scenario, the person is in my house and I don't know if they intend to harm me or my family, I can gaurentee they'll think twice before they ever try it again. That is if they survive. I hope to God that will NEVER happen. So many people try to say, "just give them what they want". Yes there are time when you do do that. But if they want to kidnap my daughter, and yes that has happened, or rape my wife, they definatly arn't going to get what they want. Some women who have been raped say they'd rather their attacker had killed them. I hope anyone who owns and carries a gun will never have to use it. It's a psycologically painful experence.

Thank you Swanny. I was talking about this before. How the AAP, American Acadmedy of Pediactrics, like to say how grave the danger is for a child who lives in a house where there's a gun. I'd say they are probably on the Brady Bill payroll since guns rank very low on the list of dangers kids face in homes. As a paramedic, in 12 years I've yet to run on any kid ages 0-15 who's been accidently shot. Now I've had to place a sheet over or have had to work more then a dozen from the #1 killer, automobles.

Nova, I'm also a paramedic - 30 years last month. (yep, I'm old) I've run six calls to children under age 15 who were shot. 3 of them fatalities. All were 11 to 15 years of age. None younger than 11. One was a result of horseplay, one an intentional act during an argument, and the others were cases of "show and tell." When you consider all of the pediatric calls I've run thus far in my career those cases truly are rarities, but they nonetheless do happen and represent issues that deserve to be addressed - by the PARENTS of those children who did not properly secure their firearms.

Of calls that I've run on people age 16 to 26, there have been considerably more firearms incidents, although they still represent a very small proportion of my historical call volume. I can only recall one incident involving these older "children" that was not an intentional act of violence. In that case a 21 year old male alleges he was cleaning his .357 magnum revolver when it discharged.

That was a sweet case, though. This dude centerpunched himself right between the eyes (literally). When we contacted him he was sitting upright on the edge of his bed awake, alert, oriented to person, time, place and circumstances. His chief complaint was neck pain and he also complained of ringing ears. Turns out the bullet struck the orbital ridge, penetrated the skull at an upward angle and followed the skull between dura and bone to exit just caudal to the spine at the level of the third cervical vertebra. He lived with no apparent damage to the central nervous system. I don't know if he deserves the Darwin award, or the World's Luckiest Idiot award.

When I consider the GSW calls I've run (gun shot wound for non-medics), the majority of victims were wounded/killed by a hunting arm, either rifle or shotgun. The suicides were most frequently by shotgun (messy - ugh). I can't recall ever running a call in which the victim was injured by a military or para-military style firearm and actually only a couple or maybe three in which the firearm inflicting the damage was a handgun.

Before someone hollers that my experience is predominately in rural and/or frontier census zones and therefore is not applicable to urban "society", I'll mention that the first 6 years of my career were spent on the Front Range of Colorado, in Denver and Colorado Springs. I worked Denver in the mid-80s when South Colfax was referred to as "the Saturday Night Knife and Gun Club" by the media.

Swanny

I want to apoligize for the post where I refered to the Brady bill and calling it a bunch of lies. However, misinformation seem to be what they specialize in.

First I want to say, that I’m always open to apologies.

This may not sway this debate in one direction, or the other, but I think that you may find it interesting. When I broke into the advertising business some 40 years a go, I did it with 2 speculative, public service, gun control ads in my portfolio. One of the ads showed a photo of a youngster running down the sidewalk, holding his toy six shooter high, while playing cowboys and Indians. (If you’re old enough, you might remember the photo, because I think swiped it from Life Magazine.) Anyway, the headline said, “Today he killed ten, and tomorrow he may kill you.” Then of course the tagline said, “Support Gun Control.” The other ad showed a photo of a GI, taking aim from a fox hole, and the headline simply asked, “Will he stop killing, when he comes home?” Of course this ad also paid off with the same tagline, “Support Gun Control.” I guess what I’m trying to say is, that some things just don’t change.

Is the implication here that once a soldier returns from combat that they're more likely to be a danger to civilized society than someone that didn't see combat?

That is absolutely grossly unfair.

I have never heard a statistic that shows that to be true. I would feel far safer surrounded in my neighborhood with combat vets than:

- urban gangsters
- youth gangs
- suburban drunk drivers

Don't these last three groups cause 100x more carnage than a law-abiding citizen that owns a legal firearm? They kill more and more, yet it's far easier to blame an inanimate object - a gun - for committing crimes.

Very few guns have ever killed anyone. The death is usually caused by the person operating the gun. So why isn't our focus on the operator?

When you read news stories, and look at verified statistics, you'll notice a dozen, maybe, cases where a licensed gun owner used his or her firearm in a reckless or illegal manner. Yet using those same news stories and verified statistics you'll see hundreds of gun-related crimes in that same time period that were perpetrated by individuals already prohibited by state or federal laws from possessing firearms.

No, we really don't need more and more draconian laws that only affect those that follow the law, but rather establish a justice system that adequately punishes or removes those that break our existing laws.

And we go into hysteria by the illegal actions of a minuscule percentage (n) of the population committing the majority of the crimes by passing law upon law that will be obeyed only by the remaining (100-n)% of us.

Well done Shamalama, that’s exactly what the ad was implying, and I couldn’t agree with you more, about enforcing the laws we already have.

AMEN to both of you!!!!!

DARN! It's no fun when Brother Shamalama talks sense!

Hey, who's been pirating my logon and posting messages in my name!!!

'Cuz I never makes no sense.

Some people have asked me "why" do I have to have a gun in my house? If I've never been a victim of a violent crime? I ask them, why do you have smoke alarms in your house if you've never had a fire? Or a security system if they've never been robbed?

Hello everyone, Very compelling subject Gun Control is, it's a nasty beast. We have all heard all the cliche's about gun control!! like guns don't kill people people kill people, gun control is hitting your target at 900 meters. Those statements are true, I don't take gun control lightly, but if I chose to own firearms be it for sport or self preservation that is my right and choice. Not some law maker who can't protect my family!!!, (by the way most of them have concealed weapons permits and carry at all times) and are willing to put stupid gun laws into effect that handcuff the law abiding citizen from protecting himself. In the case of property , if someone is walking out my front door with my tv I'm going to be really ticked off , I would never consider using a firearm in that situation maybe a nice bat! unless of course he had one and was willing to use it! then of course it's not a property issue the it's my life which means my families lives.

I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps and would have to say accidents with firearms do happen but in 24 yrs. I can only remember one, and I don't think it's an accident when your on a live fire line with a loaded weapon and you squeeze a round off!! because you thought you had the weapon on safe. Thats either a stupid or an on purpose take your pick.

I have 2 times in my life had to pull out a firearm in other than work related incidents. Once while my youngest soon and I were fishing and the other time a drug dealer kicked in my back door (he should not use his own drugs) he was about 4 blocks from one of his suppliers yes wrong house wrong neighbor hood, He was armed and so was I. I think he realized that I would have no compunction about saving my own life. So yes in that incident A firearm was used to coerce someone into doing exactly what I wanted which was through the gun down and lay down and wait for the Police. The fishing incident, happened out in the San Joaquin River Delta. We were night fishing from the bank, we had a camp fire going the lantern was hanging on it's stand when a pickup pulled up across the river from us 3 people got out we don't give them much thought there are people fishing both sides on any given night. When one fired, the first shot it hit about 2 ft. to the left of me and about 6 in. to the right of my son then about 5 more shots very fast. I grabbed my rifle and fired one shot at the bed of the pickup the gun fight was over because like most of those people they are pure breed coward and it's no fun when the target shots back. I can only imagine what might have happened had I not been armed. And it had never really occurred to me to take a firearm with me for that reason I always took one because of critters.

Gun control and firearm safety belongs to each of us!! and laws won't make use safe from stupid. The key is "TEACH EACH" safety. If your going to have firearms keep it safe, if you have children lock it up.

Antonio
Semper Fi