Attack the messenger all you like.

Sarah Brady is an anti-gun advocate and has been on point since her husband was brutally attacked and nearly destroyed. Like other victims of violent crime, that event shaped her viewpoint. Since she came out on the anti-gun platform she has never avoided that. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

What is amusing though are people who feel compelled to massage her image because her openess on this happens to be politically inconvenient. I know who Sarah Brady is and you do too. The difference is you deny it and I don't. I may not agree with her but I do respect her commitment and honesty even if I don't agree.

When you put a supposition as fact in post #159, you've lost the argument. That's not ad hominem. Either you have proof that the personal views of Sarah Brady are the views of the organization, or you don;t. Supposing doesn't get us anywhere.

Speaking of shaping a viewpoint, how many in here were raised around guns?

Well, I didn't think we were exactly having an argument but that is a fair point. However, I have no reason to disbelieve the veracity of the quotes attributed to her nor believe that they would be on a website that is supposedly now, not in agreement with them. Sarah Brady is an anti-gun advocate, that is the bottom line and the original point.

By "raised around guns", do you mean in the home, neighbors had them, etc? Growing up my uncle was a hunter & had shotguns at his home. I don't recall them being too visible otherwise. There were certainly more toy guns out during play with kids. Pretty much everyone in the neighborhood had those including me.

You should question the source before using those quotes to form an argument, or rather a discussion point. If they are factual, then your point may stand. No evidence has been presented to suggest that, though.

It's like using wikipedia in your bibliography for a college paper. Unless your teacher is an idiot, you're going to get marked down.

As an anti-gun advocate myself, I can say that the question to carry may simply come down to a question of how willing someone is to take the responsibility for killing, be it for defense or otherwise. It concerns me that so many people believe themselves capable of making a Solomon-like judgment in that split second before pulling the trigger. If you combine that with the statistics DC provided above, that 22.4 percent of gun victims were slain by family members and arguments (including romantic triangles) comprised 27.1 percent of reported murder circumstances, it paints a picture much different than self defense. In fact, it seems as if when one has a gun, they become more dangerous to those around them. If almost 50% of gun murders come from family members or arguments, that suggests that the holder of the gun, be they trained or not, becomes the very dangerous criminal that so many own guns to avoid or stop. I'd call that the worst kind of irony.

"We must get rid of all the guns". Sarah Brady, Phil Donahue Show 1994

to add to that, the brady campaign was initially started as Handgun Control inc. An organization whose intent was to ban all civilian ownership of handguns.

/end threadjack

It appears to me that it is you guys who are massaging her image...in a negative way...with no credible sources to support your posts of her alleged quotes.

I was going to let the Sarah Brady issue go, but since you want to keep it alive with more unsubstantiated and undocumented quotes, I thought I would provide some quotes that can be documented:

Speech from Sarah Brady, delivered to general public on October 13, 1994, at the Thompson Conference Center, at the University of Texas, Austin,
TX:

There are people sure would like to ban everything; there're others who would like--do not want any laws and would arm everyone. But somewhere in the middle are most of us who feel that if you are responsible--FINE, but let us do everything to instill that responsibility and I know Texans' love their guns. Lots of people in this Nation do. One of the very first speeches I gave was in New Hampshire to a town hall meeting years ago and absolutely nobody came to hear me except two bus loads of NRA members. They sat politely and listened, so Texas is not the only state that loves their guns, people in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts everywhere. That's part of our culture and we are not trying to change that....

HCI, the organization I chair--and I think we share this also with Texans Against Gun Violence--want and I have said this before, our key is responsibility. Responsibility from gun owners, responsibility from the dealers, and responsibility from the manufacturers of guns and that is what gun control is kids, responsibility. It is not banning; gun control can work and can work even more effectively and that is why I think more and more Americans are demanding tougher laws.

....Common sense measures like training--does it not make good sense--that people know how to use the weapons....

...We need to expand the list of prohibited purchasers to those convicted of violent misdemeanors and cracking down on the illegal sales at gun shows. ...

...Regulate, but not ban or take away. It is regulation and it is done for one purpose only and that is to save lives so we advocate in our bill in the future that we require licensing of all purchasers, licensing to include mandatory safety training, and that every purchaser have this license; whether they buy it from a licensed gun dealer or whether they buy it from their neighbor. And in order to do that just as we do with cars you must register your gun, not a large Federal registry in Washington; of all of the gun owners. If they wanted that, all we would have to do--of our Government--is try to take over all of the guns in this country, which they--there is no chance of anyway--but all they would have to do is go to the NRA Headquarters and get their mailing list* and they could go get them, so that would be the easy way you don't bother registering them....

....Every gun owner should be responsible for what happens to his or her weapon. That's all we say, and the way to do that is through registration. You buy it from--you have to buy it from a licensed gun dealer to begin with, then when you go to sell it you be sure that the person you sell it to also has a license...

http://www.io.com/~velte/sarah.htm

------

Sarah and Jim Brady speak at the Democratic National Convention
August 26, 1996

That's why we supported legislation that would require a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. The idea was simple: Establish a "cooling off" period and give police the time they need to conduct a background check on the buyer...

..The gun lobby likes to say that Jim and I are trying to take guns away from hunters and sportsmen. The gun lobby is wrong. To the hunters and sportsmen of America we say: keep your guns. But just give us the laws that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hands of children.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/conventi...hes/brady.html

Soundmotor "knows" that Sarah Brady is an anti-gun advocate from undocumented quotes on thinkexist.com, a site like wikopedia, where anyone can join and post a supposed quote from a famous person, without providing documentation.

and dk, where is the documentation to give credibility to your supposed Sarah Brady quote from the Donohue show? Do you have a transcript or is it secondhand from a gun advocacy site?

Its these kinds of baseless, unsupportable posts that I find dishonesty and simply cheap shots at those with positions with which you disagree.

If you cant document it, it has no credibility......and as far as i am concerned, its just bullshit put out and perpetuated by those without the facts to support their allegations.

Oh snap.

I left out the remarks by Sarah Brady at the White House signing ceremony for the Brady Bill in 1993:

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/11/199...bill.text.html

Nothing in her remarks about this bill being the first step to banning handguns and sporting rifles.

I documented remarks made by Sarah Brady.

dk and soundmotor.....where are your credible primary sources? It shouldnt be that hard, if those quotes really exist :eek:

I will certainly give you credit for putting more time into this than I am going to. I also agree with your closing point if correct. I would like to ask you though what you accept as proof?

soundmotor...it look me very little time to find actual speeches by Sarah Brady.

You posted earlier:
You say you know who she is and accused me of denying that she is an anti-gun advocate. I provided speeches showing that she is for sensible gun control (background checks, registration, etc) like most Americans, and not for banning guns.

Proof that she is an anti-gun advocate would be something along the lines of speeches, policy statements from the Brady Center (or Hand Gun Control Inc.) or anything verifiable that call for banning handguns and sporting/hunting firearms.....not quotes that have been perpetuated on gun advocacy sites for 10 years, yet NEVER sourced.

But it really doesnt matter. Yes, I know who she is and what she represents and although she is mostly in the background now, my support for the work of the Brady Center will continue and I suspect the Center probably wont have your support. I will just leave it at that.

/final end of threadjack

I have extensive martial arts training, and have been in fights where people were maimed for life- I plan to get my ccw soon, because I have seen myself what unreasoning violence can do to a person- Family members of mine have been murdered, and might have lived if they had a gun to fire back with- that said, carrying a weapon requires a responsibility to train with it, be able to use it with excellent proficiency, and accept that it is a killing tool- with all that that statement entails- a claw hammer will kill you as dead as a gun, but guns allow killing at range, quicker- banning guns in my view just makes my 5'2" wife unable to effectively defend herself against a 6' 3" 250 lb male attacker. For those of you who advocate avoiding bad situations, note that my mother in law was murdered just after grocery shopping,after being shot in her driveway, by a crazy ex who violated his parole, traveled from missouri to idaho to find her, aquired an illegal gun, and then shot her- totally disregarding the restraining order, and various other legal restraints- her gun was in the house, she did not have a carry permit, but the trial and crime scene indicated that she was killed with a second shot about 10 feet from the gun case- to those that would say that if he had not had a gun then he would not have shot her, that is correct, but he was significantly larger and would have certainly managed to overpower her- once again, a gun in her hands could have saved her......so I will soon carry a gun, because I believe that while I will likely never ever need it, If i do then it is very much needed...

Would you mind if I asked what you're trained in? I'm just curious.
It's difficult to respond when you don't use periods. I think that it's important for everyone to have combat training, even if you're a pacifist. It's about keeping your options reasonably open. Though I've never fired a gun that I can think of, I've received training in hand to hand combat and many weapons training. I know that if there were ever a reason for me to defend myself, I could do it in a way where I was safe. I would hope that we would live in a society that if we need guns, would require very serious training before issuing.
This assumes that a gun is the only tool to even the odds in that hypothetical situation. I'm sure you would agree that there are a plethora of other tools that are not anywhere near as deadly as a gun that she could use to defend herself with no less of a success rate than a gun. I would ask if you've ever been tased before. Or maced.
I'll have to interrupt briefly. How did he get the gun?
I wonder how many people bring snake venom antidote with them next to their gun. It's highly unlikely one will need it, but if you are ever in that highly unlikely situation you'll definitely need it.

If you live in rattlesnake country, I believe it is practically expected that you have some in your first-aid-kit in your glove compartment.

Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide

By now, any informed American is familiar with Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.'s famous axiom of "More Guns, Less Crime." In other words, American jurisdictions that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are far safer and more crime-free than jurisdictions that enact stringent "gun control" laws.

Very simply, the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms has helped reduce violent crime in America.

Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.
Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates." According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me people are putting the cart before the horse. People carrying doesn't cause crime, crime causes people to carry.

Does carrying a gun make you safer? No.

Does carrying a gun when you are trained and fully knowledgeable and skilled in how to use it properly and responsibly, and have the intention of using said gun if you are placed in a situation that warrants it? Yes.

Do I feel the need to carry when I am firmly entrenched in low crime suburbia? Yes. I am licensed to carry and do. My weapons vary and are loaded. I was raised in a home where guns were not only stored, but out, loaded, and handy. My instruction in firearm usage began before I could LIFT any of the guns in my parents home.

Lack of widespread instruction and knowledgeable usage and storage is the cause of many problems here in the states. One of the reasons I carry is because the general public doesn't. I have been asked if I am former military. (I am not). I have been asked if I am a member of Law enforcement. (I am not). I have been asked if I am a member of some branch of the government. (I am not).

I am Jane Average. I wear a shoulder holster. On the street, in broad daylight, smack dab in the middle of suburbia. Have I discharged my sidearm in a public venue out of need? No. Will I hesitate if faced with a situation where it is warranted? Absolutely not. I am not a police officer. I was not trained to maim. I am fully prepared for what I aim at to die. Yes death is final. Does that bother me? No.

Why do I carry? Because too many of you can't/don't/won't. Does it make me safer? You bet your ass it does.

willravel, I will attempt to answer your questions- first, as to my training, I have studied I.T.F. taekwondo, Kali arnis escrima, judo and jujitsu, kendo, european fencing, traditional european swordplay, and close quarter combatives, (with gun/ counter gun, and gun retention) I am by no means an expert in any of the above, but have had to use more of it than I would like and am proficient.

as to the other weapons question, I have been maced while working security,while engaged in a bad gang brawl- I and my wife often carry sabre brand mace, and find it to be effective, some of the time- I for example wanted the intense pain and burning to end, but was able to function, and continued to fight- some people can pretty much ignore it, some people are alergic and get hospitalized- sadly, it is not a reliable substitute for a gun- you have about a 10 foot range, and while there are styles that are slightly better, in windy conditions, it is likely to get you too.....it will also get you too if you use it in your car, or a close hallway btw......
As to the taser, my shop occasionally sells one, so we tested one in the interest of being able to fairly endorse it (or not) - it works, in that I was incapactated, except that it has some hefty limiters- first, you have one shot, and then you are down to using the contacts on the unit, which is not great as the minute that you loose contact they can move again ( when we tried it it was like throwing on and off a switch- neat and with no lasting side effects, but if you hit someone and they fall, you tend to loose contact, then they can move again- not good at all if they have even a knife). with your one shot, you have 15 feet or range- that is not much at all, and if they have a gun, or hell, a crossbow, you are quite dead. finally, the leads that shoot into you must get good contact, and stay in- I have talked to one officer who's taser failed cause the perp fell and rolled, dislodging the leads, and another that had the leads stopped by a heavy coat- (the other officer with him shot for the legs with his taser) Tasers are doing great things for law enforcement, but usually they are used while multiple officers are present, and to prevent them from having to beat someone down- it is simply not something that I would stake my life on..... Look, I run a weapons store- we sell everything but guns, and if it is a weapon, from a knife to a sling to a bow to a freaking bronze axe, I have handled it, used it, and have a good idea as to its strengths and weaknesses- yes they will kill you dead, but none have the versatility and effectiveness of a firearm. this is why firearms are so popular- I could ask my wife to use an inferior weapon if her life was threatened, but I am not going to- if her life (or mine for that matter) is threatened, I am going to use something that will work, and will kill my attacker grave yard dead.


Oh- and as to how my mother in laws assailant got a gun, he was a multiple felon, and unable to buy one, but had contacts in the aryan brotherhood, and got one illegally through them- which bolsters the argument that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns........

22.4 by family members + 27.1 over arguments = 50 % of gun murders??????? Faulty logic there - don't you think there's just a bit of overlap in those numbers? (even if they are accurate?) It's also pretty much a given that 100% of murders are caused by argument (read disagreement). Stats can be massaged. Gang members shooting each other is counted toward "people being shot by aquaintences", also as "children killed by guns". Most victims of violent crime were known by their attackers beforehand, be it murder, rape, robbery or burgalry. Doesn't matter to me if I know someone or not, if they escalate an "argument" to the point that my life is in peril, I believe I have the right to stop the threat.

Just like your extensive self defense Krav Maga training or whatever you're into, I would never dream of using my gun offensively. But how far would you go with your fighting skills? I would imagine until the threat to your safety was ended. I'm not going to shoot a guy for lifting my wallet, but if he orders me to kneel facing the wall in an execution position, I'm not going to comply. Pacifism's fine if you're dealing with another practitioner. What stops you from using your deadly hands against a family member or to solve an argument is the same thing that stops me from using my gun.

Assuming that they had multiple choice (which is often the case in such stats), there would be zero overlap. How would 100% of murders be caused by an argument? Also how is a disagreement the same thing as an argument? Yeesh.
So can the NRA's numbers. Until we have evidence to suggest these numbers are wrong, assuming they're wrong makes no sense.
It's fortunate that the person who held the study is a poster on TFP.

Oh, you're not involved in the study? I got confused because you're speaking as if you have a great deal more information about this study than was provided.
How about you just not treat your relatives and friends like crap? Or be more careful choosing your friends? It's a lot easier than spending hundreds of dollars on a murder machine.
You'd be wrong. I'd go far enough to disable them short of causing permanent damage. If it comes to a case where it becomes necessary to kill, I run. There's no way I'm going to become a murderer. I have a set of morals that I stick to. If someone is shooting at me and I'm with the wife and/or daughter, I get between the gun and the loved one(s) as we all run together. Someone else's life is not mine to take. Just because they are a fucking asshole doesn't mean I need to be. Besides, if I shoot back he's just as likely to keep shooting.
I don't ever use my hands to kill. If you shoot someone in the leg, there's a reasonable chance they'll bleed to death. And on top of that, you're trained to hit the torso when you learn to shoot for defense. Any shot can be a kill shot. If I break your right collar bone, you'll hurt, but you're not going to die.

Respectfully, will, have you ever been in a real fight, not a minor scrap or misunderstanding, but something where people were dedicatedly trying to do you serious bodily harm up close and personal? I ask because I felt a lot like you sound before I was in a few- it seems that you are under the delusion that you will have the luxury of hurting someone to the point of permanent damage but not beyond. being in real fights has made me.

1- never want to be in another
2- painfully aware that life is not like training
3- aware that if it comes down to me or them, if I get to choose, its gonna be them

real fights suck, and while your idealism is heartfelt, I hope that you get to keep it......

Idealism and ignorance both start with the letter "i" but that is where the similarities end.

Shooting to wound / disable? I hope no one takes your advice, will. One of the most important things you learn in a conceal/carry class is that you do not shoot unless you must, and when you must, YOU SHOOT TO KILL. This is both because: a) if you shoot to maim/disable, you have a higher chance of missing and instead ending up dead, and b) if you maim / disable someone who attacks you, you will get your ass sued off of you instead of if you shoot to kill. A corpse cannot sue you and actually win in civil court. To protect your life and your property, you must shoot to kill.

Here here seretogis

I'd say at least a dozen times. I've broken a few bones and I've had my nose broken. I've even had a bullet pass through my calf. I'm still alive and so are they. That's the bottom line.
I don't like fighting inexperienced people or people with weapons that know how to use them. Other than that, it's not really so bad. If it comes down to me or them, I've made a serious mistake. If that terribly hypothetical situation coms into play, it's going to have to be me.

I suspect that a lot of people, in fights, won't stay in control enough to maintain their wits. That's a mistake no matter what. Part of my wits is being able to quickly judge if I can disable, how I can disable the fastest, or if retreat is necessary. It's about maintaining a state of conscious fight or flight. Simple in theory, and not so hard to maintain if well practiced.

I don't want this to turn into a pissing contest, though. I happen to have been in a few fights, but that doesn't make me a badass or a tough guy. I'm just some guy who isn't willing to kill. It's really that simple.

Careful calling someone ignorant.
Which is precisely why I posted this:
The simple fact is that if you're going to have a gun, you're ready to kill. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's completely barbaric.
A corpse can't sue. That's very nice.

I can't wrap my head around how someone who's willing to kill for his/her property isn't in jail or under the care of professionals. At least I can understand why someone would shoot to protect him/herself and his or her family. Murdering someone because they're taking your shitty TV is down right evil. And that's not a word I used often or lightly.

Will, I will repeat this, because I know it has been explained to you ad-naseum already on this board.

If you shoot someone, you are using lethal force, regardless of your intentions or aims. There is absolutely no reason to "shoot to wound" someone. If you do, then it implies that the situation was not serious enough to justify lethal force, in which case what are you doing discharging a firearm in the first place?

Again (not that it will sink in this time), you shoot center mass because it is the most reliable hit in a very stressfull situation, if you can rationalize some other course of action through what should be almost instinctive training (if you are carrying in the first place), then you shouldn't be pulling the trigger, you should be running.

This is why I end up repeating myself. I wish you had read my post more carefully, as I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.
Jesus.

The issue I have with most gun advocates is their propensity to frame the issue in absolutes - the right to carry vs ban on guns:

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

"...intent was to ban all civilian ownership of handguns"

Most Americans dont support either extreme. Why do gun proponents continue to frame the argument in those terms?

Do they really believe that reasonable gun control is only the first step to banning guns? Where are the examples to support such a claim? As far as I can recall, there has not been a serious attempt to ban handguns (or sporting rifles) at the federal level in my lifetime and the one local ban (Wash DC) was ruled unconstitutional.

What is wrong with reasonable gun control (background checks, registration, closing gun show loopholes where anyone can buy, child protection locks, etc) that allows law abiding citizens to own guns but attempts to keep guns at out of the hands of criminals, mentally ill who might harms themselves or others, AND children.

Are laws like the Brady Bill perfect? Absolutely not. But there is not a doubt in my mind that it makes it more difficult for those who shouldnt have guns to obtain one.

It also doesnt prevent the killing of family members: 12.3% of the nearly 15,000 homicides in the US in 2005 were family members (the 22% figure cited earlier were of known victims; nearly half were unknown). Most were killed with guns. I dont see how these numbers are massaged, as some would claim.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/images...erbyrelate.gif
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens...rtable_09.html

That is the tragic fact of having a gun in the home.

So if there were no guns in the home, there would be no (or much less)familial murder? Why didn't you say so? I'll just find that magic fairy I have stashed away and have her miracle all the guns out of households all over the country. Then we can ride off into the sunset on our unicorns.

I hear all this bitching about there not being stong enough gun laws, but when one does get passed no-one ever enforces it. How is this for a gun law:

If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to prison for life.


As will said above, they have proven themselves willing to kill someone. So why don't you guys get tough on the dirtbags who are hurting and killing people, and leave the rest of us alone.

No, wives would go find the guns and buy them out of the back of a truck. :rolleyes:
...because someone has to die in order for the murderer to be caught. Prevention saves the victim.
You have a gun, right? Doesn't that mean, according you your own words, you're willing to kill?

Yes, I am. But that does not make me a criminal. It makes me a person who holds certain principles above the sanctity of life.

And my suggested law was not limited to murder. If you commit any crime what-so-ever and a gun is involved, even if it is not fired, you go to prison for life.

You're not a criminal unless you break the law. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
Prevention saves people from crime. That's what I'm talking about: preventing crime.

OK...I'll say it....there would be fewer murders of family members.

Consider this statistic from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports as well:

(in 2005) Law enforcement reported 533 justifiable homicides. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 341 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 192 individuals.

Thats 1,825 homicides (mostly by firearm) of family members and 192 justifiable homicides by private citizens in 2005 (a representative year?).

In the most basic terms, it is 10 times more likely a private citizen will kill a family member than someone (perhaps a family member but more likely a stranger) that posed a threat requiring a deadly response.

I'm not out to get you and I'm not opposed to law abiding citizens having guns...I am just pointing out the facts that it causes many tragic unnecessary deaths and is rarely used to its maximum extent in a legal manner against criminals.

I also agree we need tougher mandatory sentencing, but not necessarily life in all situations where a gun is present in the commission of a crime.

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Service

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188
Statistics courtesy of the FBI

Ergo. doctors are 95 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Anyone can play with numbers to "prove" their hypothesis.

Laws are useless. Criminals, by definition, are people who don't care about laws. The only thing preventing me from going on a murder spree with a gun is the same thing preventing you from going on a murder spree with Krav Maga, we are both rational, reasonable people. You follow your self defense discipline, I'll follow mine. We both have to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning.

It would be nice if we could all just get along. I'm all for universal peace, ending world hunger and curing AIDS, hurrah for me , nominate me for a Nobel Prize.

This doesn't necessarily conclude anything.

Two things.

1.) Doctors perform many procedures over the course of the year. (Think five to twenty patients seen in a day, 5 days a week, over the course of a year--that's a lot of patients treated.)

2.) Those that are treated by doctors may already be at risk of death.

Remember that old bumper sticker?

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

Totally true.

You left out the best (most humorous) part of this widely circulated message that has been around for several years.....always without a source:

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.

No...the stats of accidental deaths by physicians are not from the FBI.

Here is one conclusion: the most dangerous weapon in the hands of the public is information without a source.
If you have an FBI or Uniform Crime Reports source, you would be the first!

Actually, omega48038 was supposedly quoting from stats released by the U.S. Dept of Health Human Service. But the numbers might be off.

Here's a link that suggests the stats are closer to 44,000 to 98,000 people each year.

The HHS stats say alot about the state of medical care.

Now where are the stats on accidental deaths caused by lawyers :)

That, my friend, is the topic of another thread. :)

[QUOTE=dc_dux]
What is wrong with reasonable gun control (background checks, registration, closing gun show loopholes where anyone can buy, child protection locks, etc) that allows law abiding citizens to own guns but attempts to keep guns at out of the hands of criminals, mentally ill who might harms themselves or others, AND children.

Are laws like the Brady Bill perfect? Absolutely not. But there is not a doubt in my mind that it makes it more difficult for those who shouldnt have guns to obtain one.


QUOTE]

How will a law prevent someone who ignores laws from obtaining a gun?

The reasonable gun control that you cite is already in effect.

1). Background checks - Already done, local, state and federal level
2). Registration - Already done
3). Gun show loopholes - No such thing. The same laws apply to gun show purchases as any other transaction.
4). Child Locks - Federally mandated

All of the above rely on one simple fact, the law abiding already willingly comply, the law ignoring never will.

Back to topic.....Washington DC's has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to challenge the Circuit Court ruling that nullified the DC gun law (which prohibited registration of handguns, thus banning all hand guns -- as a DC resident, I personally thought it was far too restrictive)

If the SCOTUS takes the case (it will decide when it convenes next month), it could be the first time the Court rules on the scope of the Second Amendment in 68 years -- not since U.S. v. Miller in 1939.

DC's arguments:
I'll look forward to the discussion if the Court takes the case.

***

Laws like the Brady Bill make it more difficult for those who shouldnt have guns to acquire such weapons. (I will have to look into the issue of background checks at gun shows)

My point, in response to earlier mischaracterizations of gun control advocates and implications that gun control means banning guns,(dk's assertion that liberal haters of the Constitution are trying to take away his guns) was that reasonable gun control helps and does not infringe on rights of law abiding and mentally stable citizens.

And while 1,500 accidental deaths/yr by guns may not represent a national epidemic, legal gun owners are still more likely to cause a tragic accidental death of a family member of friend than to use the weapon with deadly force against a potential criminal.

Over two million gun owners use their guns to prevent violent or coercive crimes, last time I checked uniform crime statistics, it averaged to somewhere around once every 13 minutes. In well over 90% of those cases, no shots are fired because displaying a gun is enough to deter the crime. This only accounts for incidents that are reported to law enforcement, we can logically presume that the actual number is higher because not every incident is necessarily reported to the authorities (although I don't know by how much, and I am in no way qualified to estimate it.)