Guns

[Todd]

Let's say they were 4, and the crimes of passion were also 4

I was unaware that these were crimes of passion.  Do you have any evidence to indicate they were?  Most of the information I've seen indicates that these were planned out.  As I wrote before, it is impossible to determine a buyer's intentions when guns are sold, and I've seen no evidence that such laws will prevent premeditated mass murder.  It even happens in countries with more stringent gun laws that the US. 

As to your question about what is "acceptable," well, that's hollow as well.  The only real answer is that no such crimes are "acceptable."  It's actually rather disturbing that you ask such callous questions.  A more relevant question would be: Can background checks or other forms of practicable gun control prevent such crimes? 

[Florestan]

I was unaware that these were crimes of passion.  Do you have any evidence to indicate they were?  Most of the information I've seen indicates that these were planned out. 

Do you really don't understand or just pretend not to? You turn and twist my words at every post. When I was talking about collective shootings, you asked about passion crimes and accidental fatalities. When I addressed those, you reverted to planned shootings. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

[Todd]

Do you really don't understand or just pretend not to? You turn and twist my words at every post. When I was talking about collective shootings, you asked about passion crimes and accidental fatalities. When I addressed those, you reverted to planned shootings. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

I completely understand the issues, but you are asking rather unusually constructed questions with unusual timing.  Since you have not offered any evidence to support any of your claims, and since you apparently now will not reply further, I'll simply restate my last question in broader form: Can background checks or other forms of practicable gun control prevent planned mass murder, serial killers from killing, or even crimes of passion?  I'll note that I find all of them unacceptable just so that is clear.

[Sergeant Rock]

Like 'em?

Well, I liked this one: an M16A1 with attached M203 grenade launcher:



I was my platoon's grenadier in Vietnam and Germany. This weapon saved my life. I liked the fact it provided both point and area fire in one weapon.

Don't like 'em? Own one?

But I don't like firearms in my personal life. I've never owned a rifle or pistol, and at my age, living in a relatively peaceful country and area, I don't plan to. Perhaps if I were 20 years younger and paranoid (and there is much to be paranoid about) I would join a gun club here and qualify for private ownership of a rifle. Pistols I've never liked. Although I was qualified with the .45 semi-automatic, and shot it often, I was never comfortable with it. Something about a rifle having a business end far from your body put me at ease. A pistol barrel, inches from me, made me nervous. When I see a Hollywood actor cram a pistol down the front of his pants, I cringe 

What's it for? Fighting off Indians?

Yeah. that is their primary purpose of course: to protect yourself and kill your enemies if necessary. I wouldn't ban firearms (even if that were practically possible). I know too many responsible gun owners and hunters who bring me delicious game. Shooting is part of both the Summer and Winter Olympics: it's a legitimate sport and I would not want to deprive people who enjoy shooting targets. I would make it much harder for Americans to acquire firearms. Tougher standards and completion of a training course with a test at the end (in the same way we have to show some competence before we're issued a driver's license).

Sarge

[c#minor]

After reading all of this i am appalled to hear "God" and "Gun" in the same sentence. I am in the middle of the debate being for the ownership of long barrel guns and for the outright ban of handguns BUT to hear anyone say that it's a God given right to own a gun? A: There is no such thing as a "God given right", B: God would not like guns, even if the right wing Christian Conservatives (no offence to the right wing) would lead you to believe otherwise.

As being an American who tries to form my opinions on what i think is best and with regard to the "founding fathers" i am very cautious in saying the outright ban of handguns is a good thing. I am an ardent supporter of less government control over anything in my personal life because the government can never be given too much power BUT the good in having the liberty of owning a handgun does not outweigh the risks of being harmed by one. Handguns are perfect for crime, they are small and easy to conceal and can strike fear and cause death to anyone looking down the barrel. I would be sad to see them go because i enjoy shooting them but to keep them because i enjoy them is selfish. I do not want to be a supporter of a product that is used by violent criminal to commit their crimes and kill others. Yes i enjoy them, but i enjoy my safety and the safety of others more so than the occasional target practice.

[longears]

In a perfect world there might be no guns. (Although in a perfect world there would be no predatory criminals so no one would have anything to fear from them.)  But ours is a less-than-perfect world with millions of guns and real bad guys who use them to harm decent people.  The bad guys are no more deterred by laws prohibiting gun ownership than they are by laws prohibiting rape, murder, robbery, and so on.  On the other hand, no one has anything to fear from firearms in the hands of decent people.  It's twisted reasoning that would remove firearms from good people so as to make them easier prey for bad people.

The entire subject is an interesting one in which facts and passions often collide and prejudice shouts down reason.  There has been an enormous amount of research done  and anyone sincerely interested in having an informed opinion is free to have at it.  But most, it seems, prefer to trumpet the attitude that "Our minds are made up--don't confuse us with the facts!"  I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed by an internet discussion with strangers...but perhaps a mind that's closed might be persuaded to open just a bit?  After all, what's to fear from a thorough, objective examination of all the available evidence? 

[Grazioso]

It's funny how some anti-gun proponents paint gun-rights advocates as paranoid and fearful for speaking about self-defense or the need to fight tyranny with violence, yet some of the former are the ones who seem to have an irrational fear. Judging by some of the posts here, they're afraid to look at firearms or even touch them. To them, I frankly say grow up and act like men. If you don't like to own or use guns, fine, but at least acquaint yourselves with them so that you can make rational decisions about them and handle them safely if the need should ever arise.

After reading all of this i am appalled to hear "God" and "Gun" in the same sentence. I am in the middle of the debate being for the ownership of long barrel guns and for the outright ban of handguns BUT to hear anyone say that it's a God given right to own a gun? A: There is no such thing as a "God given right", B: God would not like guns, even if the right wing Christian Conservatives (no offence to the right wing) would lead you to believe otherwise.

You should realize all the contradictions in your post.

Why would God not like guns? As I said, the Bible is filled with God exhorting the elect or just to utterly annihilate their worldly enemies. Clearly He's no stranger to weapons and violence:

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them:"

Joshua 6:17 "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD"
Joshua 6:21 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

et al.

As being an American who tries to form my opinions on what i think is best and with regard to the "founding fathers"

If that's true, yet you deny and disclaim God-given rights, you have a problem, for if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll find the famous words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [emphasis mine] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I am an ardent supporter of less government control over anything in my personal life because the government can never be given too much power BUT the good in having the liberty of owning a handgun does not outweigh the risks of being harmed by one.

You make it sound like a simple dichotomy: make guns illegal=no harm, keep them legal=harm. You might own a gun as a law-abiding citizen and use it safely, morally, and legally while a criminal acquires and harms you with one illegally. Should the just have to give up freedoms in the (vain) hope that the wicked will stop being wicked, that they won't still find a means of harming the innocent?

I do not want to be a supporter of a product that is used by violent criminal to commit their crimes and kill others.

Then throw away your all your kitchen knives. The thing is, you are always at some risk of violent crime, and criminals, by definition, do not care about laws and will acquire and use weapons (guns or otherwise) in illegal and immoral ways. You or your loved ones could potentially be on the receiving end. Do you not think you should have the right to defend yourself effectively?

Guns are designed specifically for maiming or killing. Why would you want to own one?

First, why should anyone need to justify to you or their government why they want to own something? Secondly, many guns are designed specifically for casual or competitive target shooting (as in the Olympic Games) or collecting. Many are indeed designed for hunting, which of course involves killing, but so, indirectly, does heading to the supermarket (as Sforzando recommends as an alternative). The animals are killed either way, and given the horrifying methods of mass-scale animal husbandry and slaughter, it's probably much kinder to let an animal live a natural life in the woods until a hunter's bullet kills it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The entire subject is an interesting one in which facts and passions often collide and prejudice shouts down reason.  There has been an enormous amount of research done  and anyone sincerely interested in having an informed opinion is free to have at it.  But most, it seems, prefer to trumpet the attitude that "Our minds are made up--don't confuse us with the facts!"  I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed by an internet discussion with strangers...but perhaps a mind that's closed might be persuaded to open just a bit?  After all, what's to fear from a thorough, objective examination of all the available evidence? 

Nothing at all. But the clear implication from your post is those in favor of gun control are emotional, illogical, prejudiced, and uninformed, while those who favor guns are rational, logical, open-minded, and knowledgeable. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I would suspect the issue is not as air-tight as you imply.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Many are indeed designed for hunting, which of course involves killing, but so, indirectly, does heading to the supermarket (as Sforzando recommends as an alternative).

Not Sforzando's point. I do not "recommend" heading to the supermarket; I simply point out that in 21st-century America, that is what most of us do, thus forestalling the need to kill animals for food ourselves. As for the lack of humaneness with which animals are characteristically bred and slaughtered as part of our food supply, that is a separate issue.

[c#minor]

You should realize all the contradictions in your post.

Why would God not like guns? As I said, the Bible is filled with God exhorting the elect or just to utterly annihilate their worldly enemies. Clearly He's no stranger to weapons and violence:

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them:"

Joshua 6:17 "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD"
Joshua 6:21 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

et al.

If that's true, yet you deny and disclaim God-given rights, you have a problem, for if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll find the famous words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [emphasis mine] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...


You make it sound like a simple dichotomy: make guns illegal=no harm, keep them legal=harm. You might own a gun as a law-abiding citizen and use it safely, morally, and legally while a criminal acquires and harms you with one illegally. Should the just have to give up freedoms in the (vain) hope that the wicked will stop being wicked, that they won't still find a means of harming the innocent?

Then throw away your all your kitchen knives. The thing is, you are always at some risk of violent crime, and criminals, by definition, do not care about laws and will acquire and use weapons (guns or otherwise) in illegal and immoral ways. You or your loved ones could potentially be on the receiving end. Do you not think you should have the right to defend yourself effectively?

First, why should anyone need to justify to you or their government why they want to own something? Secondly, many guns are designed specifically for casual or competitive target shooting (as in the Olympic Games) or collecting. Many are indeed designed for hunting, which of course involves killing, but so, indirectly, does heading to the supermarket (as Sforzando recommends as an alternative). The animals are killed either way, and given the horrifying methods of mass-scale animal husbandry and slaughter, it's probably much kinder to let an animal live a natural life in the woods until a hunter's bullet kills it.

"Why would God not like guns? As I said, the Bible is filled with God exhorting the elect or just to utterly annihilate their worldly enemies. Clearly He's no stranger to weapons and violence:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:17, Joshua 6:21"

I am sorry i did not specify, The Christian God does not like guns, the Jewish one does. Now i will presume you are Christian because you said Bible. If my 12 years of Catholic School taught me anything about religion is that the New Testament is the largest part of the Christian Doctrine. But if you are a religious fundamentalist i guess in your opinion your wife is your property. My point being the Bible is full of contradictions especially between the New and Old Testament. Jesus preached PEACE, GUNS are not the most overwhelmingly peaceful objects. Get it, got it, GOOD.

"If that's true, yet you deny and disclaim God-given rights, you have a problem, for if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll find the famous words:"

Christian rhetoric has existed for a long time. These men were genius, but they still were politicians and knew how to use their words to create an impact.

Anyways i was looking at it from a philosophical point of view. There are no God given rights in reality because people in a CIVILization always have had there right controlled by other PEOPLE. So hence forth, if we live in a civilization we have no "God given rights." This is true in America as well as many other places.


"You make it sound like a simple dichotomy: make guns illegal=no harm, keep them legal=harm. You might own a gun as a law-abiding citizen and use it safely, morally, and legally while a criminal acquires and harms you with one illegally. Should the just have to give up freedoms in the (vain) hope that the wicked will stop being wicked, that they won't still find a means of harming the innocent?"

With the outlawing of handguns this would stop handgun production, which in turn OVERTIME will greatly reduce the number of handguns in the country. Yes i understand that there will still be some illegal handguns in the country but if people need self-defense they still have their rifles and shotguns. And i will not even waste my time with the whole notion of a handgun for self-defense.


"Then throw away your all your kitchen knives..."

Handguns per-capita kill many more people that kitchen knifes. I see the point your trying to make but it is (no offense) a stupid point. I see that it's obviously facetious but name ANYTHING that is used more often than handguns to commit violent crimes end in fatalities in the U.S. 

[Grazioso]

Not Sforzando's point. I do not "recommend" heading to the supermarket; I simply point out that in 21st-century America, that is what most of us do, thus forestalling the head to kill animals for food ourselves. As for the lack of humaneness with which animals are characteristically bred and slaughtered as part of our food supply, that is a separate issue.

Yet many still do hunt for food and should have the right to take care of their family themselves (be it hunting or self-defense).

I am sorry i did not specify, The Christian God does not like guns, the Jewish one does. Now i will presume you are Christian because you said Bible. If my 12 years of Catholic School taught me anything about religion is that the New Testament is the largest part of the Christian Doctrine. But if you are a religious fundamentalist i guess in your opinion your wife is your property. My point being the Bible is full of contradictions especially between the New and Old Testament. Jesus preached PEACE, GUNS are not the most overwhelmingly peaceful objects. Get it, got it, GOOD.

It would come as a great shock to most Christians to learn that the God of the Old Testament is a specifically and exclusively Jewish god and not the same one from whom Jesus sprang. In most mainstream Christian denominations, the Old Testament is not just some optional appendix to the Bible. And recall: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Christian rhetoric has existed for a long time. These men were genius, but they still were politicians and knew how to use their words to create an impact.

Anyways i was looking at it from a philosophical point of view. There are no God given rights in reality because people in a CIVILization always have had there right controlled by other PEOPLE. So hence forth, if we live in a civilization we have no "God given rights." This is true in America as well as many other places.

So, the Founders didn't believe what they were saying but were trying to hoodwink people with inflated rhetoric? Admittedly they may be speaking metaphorically and saying some rights are sacrosanct and their importance beyond question. The fact that humans in a civilization control or grant the rights of other citizens in no way logically discounts the possibility of God-given rights. It just means humans might ignore those rights, putting earthly law and desires ahead of heavenly ones and ignoring a higher power and his will in favor of the mundane.

With the outlawing of handguns this would stop handgun production, which in turn OVERTIME will greatly reduce the number of handguns in the country. Yes i understand that there will still be some illegal handguns in the country but if people need self-defense they still have their rifles and shotguns. And i will not even waste my time with the whole notion of a handgun for self-defense.

Why not "waste your time"? For handguns are indeed exceptionally effective close-range self-defense weapons (their chief role in combat, as opposed to a rifle for long-range killing). And how pray tell, is one to conveniently (or legally, given the requirement in most states that carried weapons be concealed) tote around a rifle or shotgun for self-defense? Never mind the other dangers and impracticalities of such a weapon in certain tactical situations where space is extremely tight, or where over-penetration or a wide spread pattern could lead to collateral injuries of the innocent.

There are millions of gun in the US alone, never mind the rest of the world, so how effective would outlawing handguns actually be at limiting their widespread distribution and ease of acquisition through illegal channels? Moreover, why would you want to limit their production? A gun in itself can do no harm. You should be concerned with the people who would use guns or other weapons to harm you. Even if they couldn't find a gun, they easily can and do find other means. Why is getting stabbed or beaten to death better than getting shot? Of which...

Handguns per-capita kill many more people that kitchen knifes. I see the point your trying to make but it is (no offense) a stupid point. I see that it's obviously facetious but name ANYTHING that is used more often than handguns to commit violent crimes end in fatalities in the U.S. 

Not a stupid point. Just about anything can or will be used as a weapon. Look at the knife crime epidemic in the UK. Consider that knives rank just behind guns statistically in their use in violent crimes in the US: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf Table 66. Note too that most violent crime there doesn't even involve weapons.

Instead of disarming the innocent to make it easier for the wolves to prey upon them, concentrate on incarcerating, eradicating, or reforming the wolves. Don't violate a fundamental Constitutional and human right (that of self-defense) for the theoretical possibility of added safety.

[longears]

Here's an easy start to begin informing yourself about the facts: Lott & Mustard's study of the effect of liberalized concealed carry laws.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Here's an easy start to begin informing yourself about the facts: Lott & Mustard's study of the effect of liberalized concealed carry laws.

If you post an equally well-reasoned, scholarly response from the opposition, I'll be interested in that as well.

From an editorial review of Lott's book, taken from Amazon.com:

From The New England Journal of Medicine, December 31, 1998
On an average day in the United States, guns kill some 100 citizens and are used in about 3000 serious crimes. The policy discussion concerning this important problem in public health and criminal justice is one of America's most contentious debates.

At one extreme are those who would ban all guns. At the other are those who would increase the armament of our already heavily armed nation. The latter view is reminiscent of Archie Bunker's solution to the hijacking problem of the 1970s. "If everyone was allowed to carry guns, them hijackers wouldn't have no superiority. All you gotta do is arm all the passengers, then no hijacker would risk pullin' a rod."

An economist, John Lott, has cited Archie Bunker's solution approvingly as he weighs in on the pro-gun side of the debate. The title of this new book, More Guns, Less Crime, aptly describes his conclusions. The core of the book is a large statistical study of state "right-to-carry" laws.

Between 1985 and 1992, 10 states, primarily in the gun-dense southern and Rocky Mountain regions, moved from "may-issue" laws for carrying a concealed gun (police retain discretion about who gets a permit to carry a gun) to "shall-issue" laws (police must provide a permit to virtually anyone who is not a criminal). Comparing crime trends in states that did and did not change their laws, Lott concludes that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime.

In at least six articles published elsewhere, 10 academics found enough serious flaws in Lott's analysis to discount his findings completely. These critiques are consistent with my own experience in formulating models to assess whether state-level changes in the legal drinking age affected youth crime, which convinced me that Lott's statistical approach can sometimes yield invalid results.

The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws.

Not surprisingly, Lott's model fails several statistical specification tests designed to determine its accuracy, and other models lead to very different results. For example, Jens Ludwig, an economist at Georgetown University, uses a different statistical approach and finds that the movement to shall-issue laws has, if anything, caused homicide rates to increase.

One would have expected that, given the problems with Lott's model, it would have gone back to the drawing board. Instead, Lott decided to go public, writing this book, holding press conferences, and presenting his results as if they proved that permissive gun-carrying laws actually save lives.

Sometimes it is not the model that Lott uses but the data that are just plain wrong. For example, in the one analysis not involving carrying laws, Lott takes data on gun ownership from 1988 and 1996 voter exit polls and purports to show that higher levels of gun ownership mean less crime. According to the polling source, Voter News Service, these data cannot be used as Lott has used them -- either to determine state-level gun ownership or changes in gun ownership. For example, the data from the exit polls indicate that gun ownership rates in the United States increased an incredible 50 percent during those eight years, yet all other surveys show either no change or a decrease in the percentage of Americans who personally own firearms.

Overall, Lott deserves high marks for attempting to study an important and difficult issue and for assembling and sharing his data; he deserves failing marks for pressing policy makers to use his results despite the substantial questions that have been raised about his research. Permissive gun-carrying laws may increase or decrease crime, and knowing the effect is critical for determining appropriate policy. Unfortunately, Lott's results do not provide credible evidence one way or the other.

Lott's book is pro-gun, with an academic flavor; indeed, some training in econometrics is essential to assess his statistical approach. By contrast, Making a Killing, by Tom Diaz, an analyst at the pro-control Violence Policy Center, is more journalistic and can be evaluated more easily by a lay audience.

Making a Killing focuses on gun manufacturers and argues that in the past two decades, in an attempt to increase their sales and profits, these companies have deliberately increased the lethality of firearms. The case is made with quotations drawn from the industry itself.

The problem for the industry has been that, given reasonable care, guns don't wear out. With fewer young people growing up into the markets for traditional hunting and sport shooting, convincing people that they need more guns has required innovation and fear-nurturing advertising.

Instead of innovating in the direction of safer firearms (e.g., guns with childproof locks and load indicators), the industry chose the opposite direction. Manufacturers made guns to hold more rounds, increased the power of the rounds and the speed with which the bullets could be shot, and at the same time made guns smaller and more concealable.

Ammunition and accessories with "Rambo" appeal -- bipods, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, laser sights, and expanding bullets -- have also been increasingly offered. Ammunition has come on the market with names like "Eliminator-X," "Ultra-Mag," "Black Talon" (whose razorlike talons could tear protective gloves, exposing doctors to infectious diseases), and "Starfire," whose advertisements called it "the deadliest handgun cartridge ever developed for home or personal defense," with "fast knockdown" due to the "massive wound channel" it can create.

Foreign manufacturers have a surprisingly large role in the industry as owners of many domestic manufacturers and as exporters of large numbers of firearms to the United States. Reversing the image of U.S. cigarette manufacturers as sellers of tobacco to less regulated and less health-conscious markets in the developing world, the United States has been the dumping ground for surplus guns, such as Chinese AK-47s and Russian SKS assault rifles, that are forbidden in most other countries.

Whereas Lott presents statistics to argue, unconvincingly, for reduced regulation of firearm carrying, Diaz uses quotations from the industry to portray, convincingly, an industry in need of some sensible governmental oversight.

Reviewed by David Hemenway, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1998 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. The New England Journal of Medicine is a registered trademark of the MMS.

[Scriptavolant]

Crime exists all around the world. But only in the U.S. people seem so obsessed about the irrevocable right to carry and own guns for "self-defense".
So we have two choices. In the U.S. the crime rates are so high that the government should take a rest and seriously consider to do something about it.
There is no sensible difference in crime rates between U.S. and the rest of the world, but Americans are somehow constantly afraid or convinced they are in need of weapons.
In both cases, owning a gun is self-defeating.

[c#minor]

I won't rant today but i will say a few things.

Jesus taught forgiveness and PEACE on earth. Ever heard the quote "What Would Jesus Do?" I am pretty sure he would have a 357 Mag strapped to his belt at anytime. And the fact that people are quoting the Bible to defend their stance on a political issue, and distorting its messages is the exact reason why i renounced my faith. Christianity had a good message but there is just too much hypocrisy for me to handle. I respect those who are stronger than me on this issue.

A QUESTION TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Who has had to use a gun for self-defense (other than war veterans and law enforcement, both who's service we appreciate) in their lives? I am talking you would only be alive because you had a gun.


ANOTHER QUESTION:
Do you know anyone who has been killed in a violent crime by a handgun?


Well on the first question, i have not.

On the second question i had two people i knew, one of them a friend, killed within two weeks and four blocks of each other by a handgun. One was a botched robbery, the other a revenge killing where the person i knew just happened to be in the way. I could speak of the accidental deaths of friends involving handguns but i have not made any points about accidents previously so i won't get into that.

[longears]

If you post an equally well-reasoned, scholarly response from the opposition, I'll be interested in that as well.

If you regard the review you cite as impartial, you need to reread the second paragraph.  The Archie Bunker analogy makes his very biased agneda crystal clear.  Incidentally, that purports to be a review of one of Lott's books, not of the study co-authored with Mustard.

The following page from the University of Chicago Library links to a variety of documents addressing the topic:
http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

c# -- I don't believe there were any revolvers chambered for the .357 magnum cartridge in Jesus's day.  He did, however, advise his followers to sell their coats if necessary to buy swords.

No one is telling you that you must be capable of defending yourself if you would prefer not.  Why do you think you have the right to prevent others from deciding for themselves whether they should be able to defend themselves if they choose?

[Dungeon Master]

This is a repeat of a post I made in response to the Virginia Tech Massacre. Of course, since then, a further 6000 (!) Americans have been killed by guns.

I'm sure the NRA and its supporters will make excuses, but there is something seriously wrong with the USA and its love of guns. In 1997, a man named Martin Bryant went beserk in Tasmania, Australia and killed 35 people. It was our worst gun massacre ever. The Prime Minister, John Howard, in probably his most courageous and best decision of his leadership got stringent gun laws passed, which severely restricted the sale and ownership of guns in Australia. Now, essentially all automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned in this country.

Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health:

Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56

Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide in Australia is about 6% that of the USA.

6%!

Either we in Australia have less social problems, a less violent culture, or less access to guns. Or maybe, just maybe, all three.

[(poco) Sforzando]

If you regard the review you cite as impartial, you need to reread the second paragraph.  The Archie Bunker analogy makes his very biased agneda crystal clear.  Incidentally, that purports to be a review of one of Lott's books, not of the study co-authored with Mustard.

Most likely everyone has an agenda; the people we consider unbiased are those who share our own agendas. But it is interesting that you allude to only one incidental passage from that review and ignore the far more important points that I italicized.

[LVB_opus.125]

I feel that guns could have a greater use in a more sane society. If the educated, sane, and overall intelligent regular folks were armed, there would be no chance for a criminal to make him his victim. Who is going to rob businesses at gunpoint when they all have guns to protect themselves? Unfortunately, the USA in particular is not known for widespread sanity or intelligence, so it's prudent to live simply where the crime rate is low and guns are unnecessary. However, I feel like busting a cap or two every time I am on the road. Southern California is not known for skilled drivers. I do note that I live in a previously very small town that never had a crime problem. But over the past three years, I am hearing of armed robberies constantly. My own girlfriend was held up at gunpoint all to steal what amounted to around two hundred dollars.

[Grazioso]

Nothing at all. But the clear implication from your post is those in favor of gun control are emotional, illogical, prejudiced, and uninformed,

In my experience, that tends to be true (and I once fell within that very camp, to my great discredit). More often than not, those strongly advocating gun control or banning

* are unfamiliar with gun function, safety, variety, and nomenclature, i.e., they've never used one or even seen one in person and therefore lack a basis of knowledge and personal experience upon which to found opinions.
* have not researched the relevant laws, statistics, and history and choose, in the case of the US, to selectively read the Constitution and its philosophical basis (just as some here choose to selectively read the Bible)
* suffer an irrational fear of firearms and violence and possess a correspondingly strong to desire to get rid of guns, regardless of the practical, moral, or legal costs. Or, their pie-in-the-sky vision of a hippie utopia overshadows the realities of human evil. It's nice, perhaps, to wish for a perfectly peaceful, weaponless world, but it's not realistic. Evil does exist, as do criminals and tyrannical governments. You can't merely wish them away, and it's childish or disingenuous to want to disarm the good in the hopes the bad will somehow decide to follow suit.

Of course, otoh, there are plenty of bubbas out there who just love guns and hate liberals and have never thought about why we should be allowed access to firearms, but whenever any serious debate comes up, knowledgeable RKBA proponents generally seem to have the upper hand when it comes to actually knowing about guns and the various legal and ethical elements of the debate.

Jesus taught forgiveness and PEACE on earth. Ever heard the quote "What Would Jesus Do?" I am pretty sure he would have a 357 Mag strapped to his belt at anytime. And the fact that people are quoting the Bible to defend their stance on a political issue, and distorting

The Bible is loaded with political ramifications for it deals, in part, with how men are supposed to co-exist with (or in some cases, annihilate) each other.

I won't go into a lengthy spiritual debate, but consider that much of the New Testament is concerned with spiritual psychology, with the war within and the attitudes needed to win it. You can resist evil in your own soul and mind and resist it externally, too; you can renounce hatred and vindictiveness within but still use force to stop or resist physical manifestations of evil. (For an interesting and illuminating parallel, read the Hindu Bhagavad Gita.) Note, too, the repeated distinctions in the New Testament between the Kingdom of God and earthly kingdoms, between the spiritual and mundane, such as the famous

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25

Recall, too, that Jesus was not a wimp or a push-over, driving the money-changers from the temple with a scourge.

And further Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

It's one thing to desire peace and to harbor no feelings of ill-will, another to just let your worldly life or liberty be taken because you're too much of a coward or weakling to defend yourself.