This'll bring 'em runnin', if they're awake yet.

Backlash my rear end.

It's just so ridiculous.

and he's starting again today.

Sheesh, I need some time to catch my breath.

when any sign of a "backlash" actually occurs, eh? Opinion pieces in the newspaper don't count.

Will Americans leery after decades of gun rights restrictions stand their ground after the Trayvon Martin case?

At some point progressives need to move to the side of human rights and support the 2A like the rest of the Amendments.

The Giffords and Martin shootings should be good examples of why we need more liberal firearm freedoms here in America.

I don't "sport" my handgun in public. I carry concealed.

I felt you might be moderating your position.

Prove it.
BTW, got those links yet?

And of course, the attempt to undo this will give Democrats a welcome excuse to not address the fundamental conservative economic policies that are making this country such a shithole. "We can't change the tax code... we were working on really important gun legislation!". Ditto for cutting the Pentagon, campaign-finance reform, reining in corporations, fixing the prison system... .nope, nope, can't do any of that! We have to try to ban assault magazines and pistol grips again!

and still confirmed Kleck's results?

It is just a matter of time. Reason and logic lead to the conclusion that the more prevalent guns become in society the more gun violence there will be. Society will do the only thing that bullies understand and that is to refuse to be cowered into submission.

It is not the number of guns, but who has them.
Otherwise, why does areas that have the highest gun ownership have less violence than those who don't?

I must say that I haven't done much research on the matter but my instincts tell me that statistic is suspect.

My feeling and my opinion (I admit is is just that) is that time will prove me right.

Some how the fact that it is the only reply that is used on this board in these discussions does not give me a sense of comfort. It seems more of a group think.

this discussion has been going on for awhile. Think about it. What areas have the highest murder rates? Mostly urban areas with high drug trafficking. Few if any law abiding folks own guns in those same areas either by law or choice.

Now, take places like Vermont or Wyoming. High gun ownership, no shot up neighborhoods. El Paso is safer than many Canadian cities.

At the beginning of the school year we did not go out of our apartment complex at night out of the fear of being shot. Some gang initiations required the initiate to shoot someone. We stayed by the pool (our building was an enclosed rectangle with a pool in the middle) and listened to the shots being fired.

I guess our area would not help the FBI statistic support the relaxing of gun restrictions.

I lived in Vietnam and in a gang neighborhood where carrying a gun was the norm with part of the population and I felt that I was living in an area of de-evolution. To think that that should be the norm everywhere is just plain lacking in intelligence and mental health.

Gangs don't buy their guns at the local gun shop in the US anymore than they do in say, Jamaica or USVI.


I never said it should be the norm, or should not be anything. Merely pointing out the issue is who has them. We both agree gangsters should not. Gun ownership is the norm where I grew up, we never locked our doors, I rode my bike anywhere I wanted in the city day or night, and we averaged a armed robbery once a decade. I don't even remember a murder being committed (other than the public safety director killing one of his own cops). The only other shooting were justifiable. There was no de evolution there.

I owned guns there as did all my neighbors and still do. We never locked our door at night either.

But none of us carried our guns around on our person all the time or felt that the need to defend ourselves would come along at anytime.

The relaxing of gun restrictions that has occurred in the last few years is not what a rational society would do in my opinion. It is the result of a successful bullying campaign by the right and the NRA. I think some sanity will return as soon as people begin to stand up to the bullies.

other than to school for rifle club. I have never been a big fan of Robert Bork's "moral harm". To me, regulations should be based on empirical evidence to prove
compelling state interest. Besides, even if it is legal, few actually do even in Vermont.

This makes it difficult for you to understand that honest people can own and even carry firearms in a very responsible manner.

It is hard to explain without being offensive to people other than to say that most people do not have the desire to or feel the need to carry a loaded weapon and that being the case, the act of doing so seems some how a deviant behavior.

any behavior that is not common or not part of the mainstream is deviant behavior. Taking a vow of silence or celibacy is also deviant behavior, does not mean either is a bad thing.

most people do not have a desire to carry a loaded weapon and it can be hard for a person who doesn't carry a firearm to understand why another person would wish to. It is also harder to understand why anyone would have that desire if you grow up and live in an area where few people are allowed to carry concealed weapons and only the "bad guys" do.

I should point out that I do not recommend that everybody should own a firearm for self defense or get a carry permit as guns are not for everybody. To legally own or carry a firearm is a decision that should require a lot of thought and training. You have to realize your own weaknesses and also be aware that you have to be willing to secure your firearms from both thieves and children. You can also be well trained and yet if you fail to follow the basic safety rules you can have a tragic accident that can injure yourself or another person. A firearm also makes suicide quick and easy. Mixing firearms and alcohol or drugs is a dangerous as driving while drunk or high. I often tell those who ask for advice on firearms that it may be a bad decision and to be damn sure that they will be responsible with their firearms and also that it is a possibility that even if they do everything right, a member of their family might misuse a firearm in the future.

My point is that if you grow up and live in an area where few honest people own firearms and yet criminal misuse is very common, you might say exactly what you did in your reply ...

But if you grow up and live in an area where many honest citizens own and even carry firearms responsibly even if you don't, you may have a far different view of firearm ownership. For example I grew up in northern Ohio and while my parents didn't own any functional firearms, many of our neighbors owned shotguns and rifles for hunting. I joined the Air Force during the Vietnam era and qualified on a yearly basis with an M16 or M1 carbine. I didn't look forward to the yearly requirement to qualify with a rifle but my wife pointed out that I seemed to have enjoyed shooting a rifle when I returned from the range.

After I left the service I moved to Florida where many of my friends and co-workers owned firearms. I was working the night shift at a factory and there was rumors of a prowler in my neighborhood. My wife wanted to have some means of self defense so I bought a handgun from a friend and co-worker and went to the range with him to teach both my wife and myself how to use this weapon.

I found handguns were far more difficult to shoot than rifles but I enjoyed the challenge. After a year of going to the range and attempting to hit a target at 25 yards, I decided to trade my original weapon in for a more accurate weapon. A couple of years later, I decided that while I enjoyed shooting, I was a very poor target shooter. I traded my second handgun in a a target quality .22 caliber pistol and did a lot of reading on how to target shoot and asked advice from experienced shooters. Eventually I did get much better at shooting and it turned into a rewarding hobby. For many years I enjoyed reloading my own ammunition and tailoring the rounds to produce the best accuracy in my growing collection of firearms.

It's not all that surprising that after 30 years of target shooting, I decided to get a Concealed Weapons Permit which I have had for over 15 years. I know a good number of shooters who go to the range on a regular basis who also legally carry a firearm. We are not paranoid nor do we going looking for an excuse to shoot someone. We are possibly more aware than many average people that anyone can be a target of a predator and we like to be prepared in for the possibility that we find ourselves in an unlikely situation where we are threatened and attacked by an individual who plans to put us in a hospital or six feet under. Many if not most of the people that I know who have carry licenses and carry are retired police officers or ex military. The overwhelming majority are well educated, hold jobs that require an education in a highly technical field or are retired from such jobs. Obviously I don't know as many people who have carry licenses and don't shoot on a regular basis. However statistics show that such people rarely misuse their firearms to commit crime. Only 168 people have lost their Florida carry permit because of a crime committed that involved the use of a firearm since 1987. When you consider that Florida has issued 2,167,283 Concealed Carry Permits in this 25 year time period, this is an extremely low number. (Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

I can understand why you feel that people who legally carry a firearm are displaying "deviant behavior." In my opinion your view reflects your upbringing and experiences in life. I refuse to discount your experience as irrelevant but I would ask you to consider that people with far different backgrounds and experience than yours might have far different views.

Carrying a loaded weapon where ever you so desire is not an enlightened act in my opinion but tends more to the state of paranoia. Like I said it is difficult to talk about without insulting people but there must be he space for people who feel it just isn't wise for a society to go around armed to be able to speak their mind.

We should not let our voices be silenced.

the fact is that violent crime has been steadily decreasing and is now at levels last seen in the late 60s.

Now I refuse to say that this decrease in the violent crime rate is do solely to the more liberal gun laws that have recently passed such as "shall issue" concealed carry, Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. There are simply to many factors to consider in the crime equation to come to such a conclusion. However it is an interesting coincidence that the passage of such laws occurred at the same time frame that violent crime rate started to decrease. For example lets look at the history of "shall issue" concealed carry.



While I can't state that these laws caused the decrease in crime it is a logical conclusion that such laws did not cause the violent crime rate to rise dramatically. During the same time frame the sale of all firearms and especially semi-auto firearms also known as assault weapons skyrocketed. Semi-auto pistols with high capacity magazines became far more popular than revolvers and currently lighter and smaller models that hold less than 10 rounds are replacing the snub nosed revolvers that I still carry for many who chose to legally carry concealed. Obviously more guns did not cause more crime or the graphs above would show a dramatic increase rather than a significant decrease.

I have attempted to explain that one's life experiences can influence his/her opinions on owning or legally carrying firearms for self defense. I understand this and I also have personally experienced the tragedy a firearm can cause which is why I caution everyone who is considering buying one for self defense to very carefully consider that decision.

I have absolutely no problem with you presenting a view that differs from mine. Your viewpoint is just as valid as mine and anyone considering owning a firearm would be wise to listen to both of us before they make a decision that might possibly lead to a disaster in their life.

There are valid and logical viewpoints on both sides of this issue but unfortunately the proponents for each side often use hyperbole to enhance their argument. If you listen to the main stream media you will be led to believe that the only purpose of a handgun is to kill and that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida is a license for vigilantes to confront criminals and blow them away. The pro-gun contingent will attempt to convince you that you need a firearm to defend yourself and your family and you need to get a license to carry. Both groups have an obvious agenda.

My point is that people differ and much depends on where they live and grew up and their life experience as adults. I will not insult you because you oppose owning or legally carrying a firearm. You seem to wish to try to avoid insulting those like me as you say ...



Your opinion that people like me are excessively paranoid doesn't really insult me but it is false. I have often walked dangerous streets without a firearm and I have faced some tight situations and have successfully defused them and walked away without any violence occurring. I practice something called situational awareness and that alone is probably enough to avoid 99% of the danger that ever will confront the average individual. I have some martial arts training in my background and although it is 20 years in my past, I can still use some of the "tricks" that I learned. I also carry a very effective non lethal pepper spray deterrent. I don't fear life as I am as prepared as I can be. I also wear my seat belt and practice defensive driving even when I am simply driving to a grocery store that is less than a mile from my home. There is a fire extinguisher 10 feet from where I am typing and a first aid kit in my bathroom.

My approach to life is to be as ready as possible for whatever it chooses to throw at me. As I have explained I have 45 years experience in target shooting handguns and it is logical that I would chose to carry one although I doubt (and pray) that I will never have to use it for legitimate self defense.

In 2009 El Paso, TX, which is on the Mexican border, and has more guns than people had only three (3) murders for the whole year. El Paso has a population of about 650,000 people so it is a major city, not a Mayberry. While Chicago is larger, the per capita rate in Chicago is much higher.

Data for all cities and states can be looked up on the FBI website. In general the places with the tightest gun restrictions tend to have higher violent crime rates while the places with few gun restrictions tend to be lower crime. There are some places that are exceptions on each side.

How do you explain that? And no, I'm not saying more guns=less crime but, at the same, time, it can be said that more guns certainly doesn't=more crime

Oh wait, I get it, I get it, you've been to the jpak school of the backlash is coming or is here now.
If I were you, I would demand my tuition money back.

or, the Kool-Aid that flows back into a drinking glass from one's mouth, contaminated with slobber and food particles, palatable only to the one drinking it.

All you have to show for backlash is some anti-gun editorials from predictable anti-gun sources. For frontlash I have over 20 NRA backed bills signed into law in various states so far this year.