Do guns make Americans safer?

Just watched "Bowling for Columbine" again tonight and was particularly struck by Moore's interviews with Canadians (some of whom had lived for awhile in the U.S.). One woman was talking about how Americans are so different from Canadians - how Americans are "reactive" - e.g. "hey, get off my lawn or I'll shoot you" - how they try to solve everything with violence - instead of seeing a problem somewhere in the world and trying negotiate a solution, as Canadians would do, Americans just run in there and start killing everyone.

But the clincher was the guy on the bus who said: "If having guns made people safer, America would be the safest place on earth. But it's just the opposite."

I wholeheartedly agree with that last quote.

I know there are a lot of DU'ers who pride themselves on gun ownership and who imagine they're safer as a result, although I've yet to see a story from one of them which relates how using a gun actually saved someone's life or limb. So I've got my flame-retardant suit on for this crowd.

There are far more homicides in the U.S. than in any country on the planet, and far more gun ownership as well. The correlations are there for all to see yet incredibly so many Americans still believe they're safer owning guns.

Maybe they should be forced to watch "Bowling for Columbine" three times a day for ten years. Maybe that would cure them of their delusions.

I'm literally surrounded by them, and they have itchy trigger fingers.
Actually, when I still lived in Chicago, I had to be in some nasty places. My gun might not have necessarily saved my life, but if I had to, I would have taken my assailant with me.

i.e., have you ever had to use it to defend yourself?

have you ever *actually* used your car insurance or does it just make you feel safer?

has a smoke detector ever saved your life?

a security alarm kept your house from being broken into?

i don't own a gun, and i don't really care either way i'm just playing devil's advocate

And as an attorney I'm always getting insurance companies to cough up money for my clients. Car insurance doesn't make me feel "safer" in the sense I was speaking re: guns, but in California the law requires such insurance, like it or not. No state requires citizens to own guns.

Smoke detectors don't kill people, but when the batteries run down they sure hurt my ears. Fortunately, all they've ever cost me is a few batteries to keep them from beeping constantly. Personally, I think I could do without 'em, but all the houses I've lived in seem to come with them pre-installed.

Yes, a security alarm did result in the arrest of a burglar at my residence on one occasion.

Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate. I'm required to do it all the time in my profession.

"Smoke detectors don't kill people,"

If a smoke detector is defective or the battery is dead, it certainly can cause people to die.

by failing to alert the people that there is a fire.

let me tell you a story. I grew up in a rough part of Chicago. Lots of gangbangers. In 1978, when I was 19, one of the gangbangers decided to pull a gun on me and some of my friends. I don't know what made me do it, but I got the gun away from him and pistol whipped the piece of shit with his own gun. Don't try this at home. It was a stupid thing to do, but I did it. The kicker was, I was charged with aggravated assault and battery in this incident! Of course, a few hours later, the authorities came to their senses and dropped the charges. Anyway, as I see it, the weapon I've carried for many years now sure makes me FEEL safer, and that's good enough for me. I certainly hope I never have to use it. It's come close, but I've kept my cool.

have used a legally carried handgun defensively.

These are some scary folks. They pay their $25 membership and they transform into Dirty Harry's..!!!

I know how to use a gun. It's the people who don't, the significant majority, that really scare me.
:scared:

"Hey, get off my lawn or I'll shoot you" - how they try to solve everything with violence."

I really do not think that is an accurate view of your typical American. Maybe Bush's foreign policy, though.

interviewed in the film. Their view of us is that we tend to try to solve things by fighting, when fighting isn't necessary, or even productive at all.

More guns, more crime.

I see a firearm as a tool; it can be used for recreational shooting, game hunting, or if needed as a last resort against an assailant. I've drawn a pistol three times in my life and, once it was seen, had the prospective assailant leave without further incident. That, in my view, made me safer. One instance was a potential carjacking, the other a group of kids on the highway showing me their pistol, and the last was a hooker who jumped in my car at a stoplight.
Additionally, if we ever have real, totalitarian tyranny here, I'd rather have the option of taking a few with me as I go.

Have a shitload of guns too. They really can't cast many stones on that issue.

They basically use guns for hunting.

And neither have I.

So cut the "we" shit.

}(

I never imagined I'd have to spell that out.

And by the same token I'm sure there are some Canadians who have shot each other. Simply not at anywhere the rate that Americans do.

That's not true.

I'm trying to engage people in a thoughtful discussion. Not a bunch of silly word games.

If guns weren't available to Americans, would they use other weapons to kill?

try, but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than some other weapon, so I imagine the death rate would drop significantly.

If guns were scarce, wouldn't people start carring hatchets, or big knives, or meat cleavers, or something?

Should we blame the weapon, or the people?

Carrying hatchets, meat cleavers, etc. seems a bit unweildy. Not likely to happen. Handguns are just too easy to carry and conceal, and are too often left around the house loaded, just waiting for some reckless adult or ignorant kid to set it off.

Tell that to all people in n Sierra Leone, Africa who had their limbs hacked off by various factions in the civil wars.

I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinion on how unweildly those implements are as devices to cause harm, fear, and torture.

You wouldn't see people walking down mainstreet in America with that stuff.

You contend that machetes, meat cleavers and other otherwise inconspicuous cutlery items are too "unwieldy" to be used regularly as implemnts of mass violence.

Fact is, today, as we speak, such items are being used to terrorize and victims people, mostly women and children, who have no defense against the brutes who hack off their arms and legs in decent sized portions of Africa.

That fact that its happening in a country ravaged by war doesn't change the fact that it happens.

The point is, it dosent matter if they use a knife or a gun, the intent behind the action is the same. Its the person doing it, now what they do it with.

I sleep at night in a room that is protected by a door, the nature of which would cause an intruder to make a lot of noise before he or she could get close enough to hurt me.

If they ever come and get through the door, they will be shot.

That is the extent of my involvement with guns which, to date, has been zero.

I wouldn't want to be without it and I hope I never have to use it.

you should go sit at a police department property room and see the stuff that gets turned in on a busy saturday night. People keep all kinds of weird stuff in their cars. I used to keep a folding USGI entrenching tool that could double as a nifty axe in a fight in my car (you never know when you're goig to have to dig a hole, and even a crappy shovel beats the hell out of an empty tin can for digging). It would have done heinous damage if I ever used it for self-defense, because one edge was both sharpened and serrated to enable it to hack through tree roots. I still carried a sidearm, though.

Because it puts a real dent in the "guns don't kill people" argument.

I lived for years in Hong Kong. Guns are very hard to get ahold of there. However, the city is very crowded, and being human beings, people get on each other's nerves. They also steal from one other, cut each other off in traffic, and sleep with each other's spouses (no more than anywhere else, mind you) -- all reasons in America you might whip out a gun and kill someone.

But they don't have guns. They have cleavers (called "choppers"), as in a kitchen implement for chopping vegetables and the like. And that's what they attack each other with.

And you know what? They don't actually **kill** each other that often, because while you can inflict a wicked wound with one of these things, generally your friends restrain you, or your good sense takes over, or your victim hits you with a chair before you actually kill them. In America, you'd be loading your third clip by that point and six people'd be dead.

So the availability of guns, not any difference in human nature, means that the homicide rate in Hong Kong is waaaaay lower than in an equivalent city in the US.

Just an anecdote, but telling, I think.

look at the non-gun homicide rate in Hong Kong and compare it to the US non-gun homicide rate. If both societies are the same except for guns being the issue, the rates should be similar. They aren't.

And the gun homicide rate in the US. They also aren't similar.

different cultures have different problems. Odds are that if you issued everybody in Hong Kong a gun to bring them to parity of gun ownership in the US, their murder rate wouldn't increase much at all.

Their gun homicide rate is different than the US gun homicide rate. Their non-gun homicide rate is different than our non-gun homicide rate. So logically, it's not the guns here that are the problem, it's that US society is far more violent by ANY measure than Hong Kong society is. Guns, knives, bare hands, beer mugs, mag-lites, garrotes, the tool used for homicide doesn't matter, what matters is the PEOPLE. Without the people being bent on mayhem, everybody could be given a nuke to carry around, and it wouldn't matter.

"the tool used for homicide doesn't matter, what matters is the PEOPLE."

This is simply factually untrue. The tool makes a HUGE difference. My original point was that one is hard pressed to kill anyone with a cleaver before being subdued, while with a gun, you can kill 2, 3, 15, whatever before you're stopped.

But let's take it down to one. A natural human response to threat/anger is to make a fist. If you've got a gun, just the act of making a fist means you've gotten off a shot or two, and someone's maybe dead already. For any other weapon generally available to people that just isn't true.

Sure people kill people -- but guns make it much easier for people to kill people, in bunches.

the same is true of cars. A car is several thousand pounds of self-propelled guided missile that's easily available to just about anybody. There are places on this planet where just about every household has a real honest to god machinegun in it. If the reason for gun violence is that guns make it easy to kill, then why don't places like that have a huge gun violence problem? It's because the people there are peaceable, and don't WANT to shoot people.

Had a machine gun was Iraq (and handguns, and an RPG or two). Hardly an exemplar of neighborly comity.

People there are scared shitless because they know their neighbors (and the criminals, and the insurgents, and the Americans, etc., etc.) are heavily armed and their lives are miserable with fear. Sure they have guns, but they don't get much joy from them. Or security. They can't poke their heads out of the door at night without risking getting it blown off. And they fall asleep in their doorways cradling the same AK-47 their neighbors all have.

The run-of-the-mill murder rate in Baghdad is sky high, and I'm not talking about insurgent violence.

I'd say Iraq has a "huge gun violence problem." I'd say these other places where people are armed the way you suggest (Dem Republic of the Congo, frinstance, Albania, Chechnya) have "huge gun violence problems."

And comparing killing someone with a car to killing someone with a gun is nonsense. Again -- guns make it too easy, and that's why they're more dangerous than any of the million other ways you can kill someone if you really want to.

eom

Found nowhere else in the world. All of those guns out there -- owned by people who've actually served in the military, trained extensively in the proper handling of weapons, and whose fitness to possess a weapon has been properly assessed. A smallish nation, with values relatively easy to reinforce and keep consistent.

And not many handguns, I might point out. Ya know, the ones easily concealed so you have to fear whether your fellow citizens are carrying.

Could a Swiss-like culture of responsible gun behavior emerge in America? I suppose so. I see no signs of this happening. Quite the contrary.

And certainly the gun manufacturers are not helping in their marketing campaigns to criminals -- increasing the fear of the noncriminals -- or pumping out more and more handguns to the most overarmed society in history.

Original question. Does owning a gun make you safer? No, it makes it that much more likely you'll die of a gunshot wound. And that American society will be more dangerous for all of us.

Go ahead, love your gun; consider owning it a sacred right enshrined in the Constitution; gird yourself to stave off a wicked government's infringement of your rights in a stand up fight, you with your handgun and them with a Bradley fighting vehicle. But please don't pretend that having all these guns increases safety. It just ain't so.

if I hadn't been carrying a gun on one specific day a few years back, yes, guns have made me measurably safer.

"Particularly pacific culture"????

ROTFFLMAO!!!! OMFG!!!! :) They're one of the most warlike nations I know, with virtually ALL men from their youth to their becoming medically invalid equipped and prepared for war. They are not AGGRESSIVE, but they sure as shit ain't pacifistic. No country which has tank traps built into just about EVERY city streetcorner is pacifistic. I suggest you go there on any given August 1st and then see if you think they're "pacifistic"!!! ROTFFLMAO!!!!!

"consider owning it a sacred right enshrined in the Constitution;"

What parts of the words "right", "people", "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble comprehending?

"gird yourself to stave off a wicked government's infringement of your rights in a stand up fight,"

Care to wager a guess who I work for?

"But please don't pretend that having all these guns increases safety. It just ain't so."

Fine. Then cite a SINGLE US State thats gun crime rate went UP after passing "shall issue" CCW reform. The problem has NEVER been one of law-abiding people owning or carrying guns, it's one of CRIMINALS having guns, in violation of already existing laws.

Guns no more cause deaths than spoons cause obesity.

"if I hadn't been carrying a gun on one specific day a few years back, yes, guns have made me measurably safer."

--Can't speak to the specific incident, but did it involve the other part(ies) having guns? Most often people carry guns because they believe the bad guys have 'em and want to be at least equivalently armed. Much better to reduce the availability of guns so you don't think you need them.

"<Particularly pacific culture"????> "ROTFFLMAO!!!! OMFG!!!! They're one of the most warlike nations I know, with virtually ALL men from their youth to their becoming medically invalid equipped and prepared for war. They are not AGGRESSIVE, but they sure as shit ain't pacifistic. No country which has tank traps built into just about EVERY city streetcorner is pacifistic. I suggest you go there on any given August 1st and then see if you think they're "pacifistic"!!! ROTFFLMAO!!!!!"

--Pacific, not pacifistic. Big difference. Sure they train; they prepare to defend their country from an invader. Not the same thing as arming yourself to stave off home invasion, or carrying to protect from a mugging or carjacking. While all European societies are struggling with problems of increasing ethnic (and in particular religious) diversity, which tends to change a nation's character, the Swiss have a tradition/tendency to civil order that holds today. And it doesn't involve casual carrying or use of guns outside military contexts.

<consider owning it a sacred right enshrined in the Constitution;> "What parts of the words "right", "people", "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble comprehending?

-- Got no problem with those words. It's just the words surrounding them that completely change their meaning. Like the "well-ordered militia" phrase (see Swiss, above). I, and a whole shitload of constitutional scholars, consider that the Founders meant something like today's National Guard, not broad ownership of guns by each and every citizen. You clearly disagree, thinking suggesting that the amendment says you are allowed to have completely untrammled access to whatever weapons you deem appropriate -- please correct me if I'm interpreting your position incorrectly. If I've got it right, don't you feel oppressed that you're discouraged from owning, say a flamethrower? A box of grenades? A backback nuke? These are certainly "arms."

"<gird yourself to stave off a wicked government's infringement of your rights in a stand up fight,"> Care to wager a guess who I work for?

-- This was a guess. Many pro-gun people maintain that ownership of guns by private citizens is a powerful disincentive to government to fuck with said citizens. I must be wrong. You'll be on the side of those oppressing the popgun-wielding stalwarts with the full range of weapons of mass destruction our government can afford, then?

"<But please don't pretend that having all these guns increases safety. It just ain't so."> Fine. Then cite a SINGLE US State thats gun crime rate went UP after passing "shall issue" CCW reform. The problem has NEVER been one of law-abiding people owning or carrying guns, it's one of CRIMINALS having guns, in violation of already existing laws. Guns no more cause deaths than spoons cause obesity.

-- Let's break this down. Gun crime rates don't need to go up to demonstrate that too many people die due to private citizens (criminal or otherwise) discharging firearms. Other societies have succeeded in controlling the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals through the direct method of controlling the numbers of guns.

I'll admit that in America, it seems as if it's too late. The millions of guns out there perhaps can never be contained -- the genie's out of the bottle.

"Guns no more cause deaths than spoons cause obesity."

-- Aw cmon . . . outside of the target range, the purpose of a gun is to kill. Period. Even threatening to kill is only meaningful because it's so easy to do with a gun. A gun's a product that, when used as the manufacturer recommends, leaves someone dead. Sure it's an inanimate object -- it requires its owner (or the thug who just stole it, or some passing 5-year-old, or a terrified kid who's never touched one before, etc., etc.) to pull the trigger. Big deal. It's still a killing machine.

"--Can't speak to the specific incident, but did it involve the other part(ies) having guns?"

yes.

"--Pacific, not pacifistic. Big difference. Sure they train; they prepare to defend their country from an invader. Not the same thing as arming yourself to stave off home invasion, or carrying to protect from a mugging or carjacking. While all European societies are struggling with problems of increasing ethnic (and in particular religious) diversity, which tends to change a nation's character, the Swiss have a tradition/tendency to civil order that holds today. And it doesn't involve casual carrying or use of guns outside military contexts."

It's the same exact thing, except on a larger scale. What kind of criminal would attempt a home invasion knowing that the people in the house had access to a machinegun? Why do you think it's so rare for a criminal to try and rob a police station or "cop bar"? It's because they're scared of the people inside shooting them. This has been backed up by scientifically valid research, done by Kleck, IIRC, in the Florida prison system.

"-- Got no problem with those words. It's just the words surrounding them that completely change their meaning. Like the "well-ordered militia" phrase (see Swiss, above). I, and a whole shitload of constitutional scholars, consider that the Founders meant something like today's National Guard, not broad ownership of guns by each and every citizen. You clearly disagree, thinking suggesting that the amendment says you are allowed to have completely untrammled access to whatever weapons you deem appropriate -- please correct me if I'm interpreting your position incorrectly. If I've got it right, don't you feel oppressed that you're discouraged from owning, say a flamethrower? A box of grenades? A backback nuke? These are certainly "arms.""

Sorry, the words "right" and "people" are the catchphrases involved. You DO understand that you CAN NOT interpret the same words in different manners within the Constitution, right? They must be interpreted the same within the same document. So whatever definition you put on "Right" and "People" in the Second Amendment must be the SAME definition used throughout the entire Bill of Rights. think about that long and hard, and remember the law of unintended consequences as applied to your position. You say the Founders meant today's National Guard. That's very interesting, considering that the document in question was ratified around 1789, and the National Guard didn't come into existence until early in the 20th Century. I suggest you read the various Militia Acts to see who exactly is in the militia....you'll find that under current federal law, EVERYBODY, male AND female (remember, the law cannot discriminate based upon sex any more), is in the militia unless they are disqualified by certain factors, such as age or a criminal record. I also suggest you read up on the difference between "the militia" and a "select militia" or "standing army", along with the National Guard's current legal status (for example, if the National Guard is a constitutionally defined "militia", how are their officers appointed, and how did they end up in Iraq?). You say a "whole shitload" of constitutional scholars support your position. Ever heard of Lawrence Tribe? How about Lund? Volokh? Polsby? Kopel? Cottrol? Levinson? The list goes on. We're not talking about unknowns here, Tribe was Gore's attorney in 2000, and is one of the preeminent Constitutional scholars in the country, to the point that his ConLaw textbook is the most frequently casebook used in Conlaw classes nation-wide. Compare this with Bassin's article @ 8 Hastings Women's L.J. 351 (1997)., and tell me with a straight face that the majority of credible legal scholarship supports your position. I DARE you.

"-- Let's break this down. Gun crime rates don't need to go up to demonstrate that too many people die due to private citizens (criminal or otherwise) discharging firearms. Other societies have succeeded in controlling the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals through the direct method of controlling the numbers of guns."

ROTFFLMAO!!!! You do realize that a large majority of people in the US who die by gunshot wounds have committed suicide, right? you understand this? You do understand that suicide is not a crime, don't you? At this point, your argument is basically "Just because I said so!"

"-- Aw cmon . . . outside of the target range, the purpose of a gun is to kill. Period."

Horseshit. A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only: To propel a projectile in one direction in accordance with the laws of physics. The USE it is put to is the choice of the person using it. Can you name a single case where a gun has killed somebody without a person acting upon the gun? Chainsaws are designed to cut things. The difference between a chainsaw being used on a tree or a human skull is the OPERATOR, not the chainsaw.

"You'll be on the side of those oppressing the popgun-wielding stalwarts with the full range of weapons of mass destruction our government can afford, then?"

Nope, I'll be the governmental actor who is upholding his sworn oath, to uphold the various Constitutions. Even if it means putting other governmental actors in prison for violating those Constitutions.

The USA has about 200 million inhabitants.
16.000 are killed on average within a year, if I have the right numbers.

Germany has 80 million inhabitants.
Between 32 and 64 are killed each year.

The numbers are even lower in the UK.

You think, Europeans are more peacefully? - Ever watched a football-match in GB or Germany?

Make Love, not Ted Nugent!
Prohibit guns, introduce a draft for the US-middle-class and above and let them play with their guns in Iraq and the world will be much safer pretty soon.
It's easy!
Dirk

and borderline insane...;-) ;-)

youre right though there are a lot of violent people in this country but luckily they dont have guns.

but it isn't because of guns, it's because of other factors. For example: look at the number of homicides committed in Europe without guns, and then look at the number of homicides that occur in the US without guns. If guns was causal, the numbers should be similar, but they are not.

BTW, between 60% and 66% of all gun fatalities in the US are the result of deliberate acts of suicide. Case in point: HST.

I'm ready to change my point of view!

BTW, I'm not so sure about other german cities, but in Hamburg, where I live, it is no longer allowed to sell gas-pistols or the kind of knives that are obviously meant as weapons, not as tools.

I would expect to a certain extent that the USA is more violent than many european nations. But this has not much to do with any kind of "american character", it might be due to the fact that never before in the history of mankind so many different people from different cultures and nations had to live together. And this is going along with a society , where social justice or real democracy doesn't exist, apart from the ideology. And I have to admit, I guess that never before in the history of mankind, the reality of a culture was so far away from it's promises.

And whatelse should this cause, if not violence?
But apart from this and for pragmatic reasons, guns rarely safe anyone, who is attacked; rather the opposite is true. And they are mostly used to kill.

Dirk

possession and use of a firearm by a person who is attacked is by far the safest thing the victim can do to avoid injury. The study found that 20% of victims that resist with a firearm are injured, 33% of victims who do whatever the attacker wants (ie no resistance at all) are injured, and almost 50% of victims who resist an attack without a weapon or with a weapon other than a gun are injured. This is fron the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the US. Which odds would you take in an attack? A 1 in 5 chance of being hurt, a 1 in 3 chance of being hurt, or a 1 in 2 chance of being hurt? I'd go with the 1 in 5 chance every time.

Regarding "knives as weapons as opposed to tools", you can die just as easily on an icepick as you can on a super-deluxe combat bowie knife. In fact, the icepick may be more effective, since the odds of it getting stuck on a rib are pretty small.

A quick search turned up this for the 2000 German homicide rate per 100,000 residents: http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#murd That lists Germany's total homicide rate per 100,000 residents as 1.17. That's guns, knives, bare hands, everything.

WISQUARS puts the US's 2000 homicide rate at 2.12 per 100,000 for non-firearms related homicides, or 5964 non-gun homicides. To find this figure, go to http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html and in report options #1 put the dot in "homicide", in Report options #2 put the dot in "non-firearms", and in section 3, set "year of report" to 2000-2000.

As you can see, in 2000, even when comparing Germany's TOTAL homicide rate by all means to the US's non-firearms only homicide rate, the US's select rate is almost double Germany's total rate. If you have other sources on Germany's homicide rates, I'd love to see them. The US rates are official government rates, from the government website itself.

"This is our 5th press briefing since midnight. Obviously, there's one story that going dominating news around the world for the next few days, and it would be easy to think that President Bartlet, Joshua Lyman, and Stephanie Abbott were the only victims of a gun
crime last night. They weren't. Mark Davis and Sheila Evans of Philadelphia were killed by a gun last night. He was a Biology Teacher and she was a Nursing student. Tina Bishop and Linda Larkin were killed with a gun last night. They were 12. There were 36 homicides last night. 480 sexual assaults, 3,411 robberies, 3,685 aggravated assaults, all at gunpoint. And if anyone thinks those crimes could have been prevented if the victims themselves had been carrying guns, I'd only remind you that the President of the United States himself was shot last night while surrounded by the best trained armed guards in the history of the world. Back to the briefing."
~CJ Craig

Weither she was drunk out of her skull or not has never been proven.

Midland Reporter Telegram

LEE HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR DIES IN TRAFFIC MISHAP

Michael D. Douglas, 17-year old Lee high School senior, was killed almost instantly Wednesday night when the automobile in which he was riding alone collided with another vehicle at the intersection of State Highway 349 and Farm Road 868.

The youth, described as one of the most popular students in his high school, was declared dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital shortly after 8 p.m. Police said death was attributed to a broken neck.

Ninth 1963 Fatality He became Midland’s ninth traffic fatality of the year---the city’s deadliest year for traffic death---and the second death this year at the same intersection.

Police said the Douglas youth, who lived on Solomon Lane with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Douglas, was headed south on State Highway 349, when the collision occurred.

The driver of the second car was identified as Laura Lane Welch, 17, of 2500 Humble Street, who suffered minor injuries along with a passenger in her car, Judy Dykes, 17, of 2409 Neely Street.

Both girls were released after treatment at Midland Memorial Hospital.

Funeral services for the youth will be held at 9:30 a.m., Saturday in St. Mark’s Methodist Church, with the Rev. O. A. McBrayer, pastor, officiating. The Rev. J. B. Sharp, pastor of the Aldersgate Methodist Church of Abilene and former pastor of St. Mark’s, will assist.

Internment will be Saturday afternoon in Memorial Park Cemetery in Austin, with the Newnie W. Ellis Chapel in charge of arrangements.

A native of Corpus Christi, the Douglas youth had moved to Midland in 1950 from San Benito, where the family had lived five years.

In his junior year at Lee, he was nominated for most popular boy. He was active in track and was presented with a sportsmanship trophy during the recent football game between San Angelo High School and Lee.

Survivors, in addition to the parents, are a sister, Mrs. J. W. Sims of Midland; a nice, Mindy Michelle Sims of Midland; a grandmother, Mrs. Myrtle Douglas of Shawnee, Oklahoma, and several aunts and uncles.

Midland Reporter Telegram, Friday, 8 November 1963, p. 3B

The article doesn't say what caused the accident. Was there no police investigation, no witnesses?

How many did YOU kill with your GUN? Or did she kill just more than noone? Who's doing the math?

She might be more successful than you, but she did everything to make sure, you can keep your gun and try to outstrip her.

BTW: it wasn't your gun, it was you killing less people than Laura?!?!

I wouldn't,

I don't understand America anyway, I want to buy a Haiku or a Zwilling Knive to kill Cucumbers.
Dirk

for you , I don't know if we are safer.
I don't have guns because I would probably soup them up.Guns were a little different 230 years ago.Ever notice the way people (gangsta types) hold guns now in t.v. & movies ? No skill required,just point and spray lead........Time marches on ?
the arguments pro & con have so many holes they look teeth at a freeper picnic.

I LIKE that!

"right", "people", "arms" or "shall not be infringed"?

Look at what's happened to this country as a result of that clause.

And since the language is archaic, and the Supreme Court's never interpreted it, Americans have always felt free to give it their own personal interpretation, and therein lies the problem.

the holding of that case was that in order for a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment, it had to have some valid military purpose.

Miller was legally precluded from joining a militia because he had a previous felony conviction. If it only applied to the militia (ie a State's Rights/Collective Rights interpretation) that alone would have been dispositive, but it wasn't.

Some things are irrefutable. The Second Amendment enumerates a right, not a privilege. That right belongs to the People, not the State. And that right "shall not be infringed", not even a little bit, no matter how "scary" guns are.

as to be no help at all with respect to the overall interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I read some time ago that the "militia" referred to by the crafters of that Amendment is now the National Guard.

In fact, from what you've written, that court appears to say that unless you own a gun for a valid military purpose (e.g., being a member of the National Guard), you have no right to own a gun.

the founders meant by a milita?!

1st off, the Founders didn't belive in "collective" rights, they belived in individual rights.

I'll refer you to the Federalist Papers 29 and 46. Also see: 10 USC 311,
10 USC 312, and 32 USC 313. (use this link to look them up: http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php)

For what the definition of Militia is, as it was intended by the Authors of the Federalist Papers and by the United States Law.

And it was the prior poster, not I who referred to "collective" rights.

Your link is virtually useless.

Have you done the adequate research to tell us what the authors of the 2nd Amendment meant by the word "militia"? I'm pretty sure I know what they meant, given the historical times when it was used, following the Revolutionary War, but do you have some different meaning that you can document?

Its a direct and easy way to look up the text of 10 USC 311,
10 USC 312, and 32 USC 313.

As to what the authors of the 2nd Amendment meant by the word militia:


I also previously referred to parts of the Federalist Papers. 28 (http://federalistpapers.com/federalist28.html), 29 (http://federalistpapers.com/federalist29.html) and 46 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)

The Militia as referred to by the 2nd amendment is NOT an organized force under the auspices of the state or States, but independent free men from whom the power of the government is thus derived.

Madison was AGAINST "Prussian" style militias. For a good example of a "militia" based on the Prussian model, I direct you the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Reserves (Landwehr), and the various State National Guards (Landsturm)

Of course, some people want to debate meanings of words, and redefine things to suit their own purposes, instead of suiting the purposes of the Constitution. And to that, I refer to good old Thomas Jefferson:

"Right of the People" does NOT equal "Privileges of the States". Ever.

You know that you can't interpret a single word in two different ways, right? So if "the people" refers to an organization of the Federal Government (which the NG is, which is how the NG ended up in Iraq) in the Second Amendment, what does that do to "the people" in the rest of the Bill of Rights?

People who say "the People means the State" are playing with fire. Try reading the BoR and substituting the word "State" for "People" everywhere it occurs, and then ask yourself if you like the result of your argument.

It didn't say that the owner of the weapon had to be in a militia, and Miller was BARRED BY LAW from joining a militia due to his felony conviction.

What it said was that in order for a weapon to fall uneder the Second amendment protection, there had to be some showing that the WEAPON has a militia or military use. The ownership of the weapon was irrelevant.

BTW, the National Guard was created in the early 1900's by federal statute. The MILITIA, on the other hand, is just about everybody, also by federal statute.

Amendment if they could see what America has turned into in 2005????

I don't think so, Tim.

They wanted an end to war and conflict, not a perpetual civilian slaughter with easily purchased handguns in the hands of any yahoo who wants one.

Martin Luther King on the subject:

"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim; by allowing our movies and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular past times" - Martin Luther King, November, 1963

They'd recognize George the 43rd as a direct spiritual descendant of George the Third.

Your argument is the same as saying that the Internet isn't protected by the First Amendment because the Founding Fathers didn't know about computers.

The entire system of government was based on a idea that the power of the government was derived from the will of the PEOPLE.



What power, ultimately, do people have if they are un-armed and unable to force a change of government?

I'm not saying armed insurrection is necessarily the only way, don't go quoting Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. at me, but to suggest that the Founders would think that a few accidental handgun deaths a year somehow justified removing the ultimate military ability from the people to replace the government...well...I just don't see anything anywhere in anything that they wrote that would ever suggest that.

I think, in fact, the Founders would look quite favorably on countries like Switzerland and Israel, who see firearms ownership and mastery to be essential for national survival.

I find it puzzling, in a time in our nations history where the specter of Authoritarianism and Fascism looms largest at any time since the late 1930's that some people are still pushing for a disarmament of the citizenry.

Our elections are already rigged, control of the media is being wrested away, demonstrations are routinely put down in a could of tear gas and billy clubs, yet for some reason we as a people should surrender our basic ability to fight against a government that has acquired too much power and acts outside the WILL of the people.

Considering that the 2nd amendment is there for just such a purpose, I'd contend that in 2005 the need for a 2nd amendment is stronger then ever.

:wtf:

in the US according to the Federal government. You DO realize that quite literally more infants under the age of 13 months old drown each year in 5 gallon pickle buckets than children under the age of 10 years old die by gunshot wounds, INCLUDING both accidents and deliberate acts, right?

Accidental firearms deaths are very, very rare occurrences.

saying that Torontonians don't lock their doors, or that "this is a Canadian ghetto" (which looks nice and clean). :eyes:

The 'ghetto' in my city sure doesn't look as nice as the one he portrayed. Nor do I know anyone in a large city who doesn't lock their doors. (maybe there are some, who knows...but it seems highly unlikely there would be many)

That being said, I do think the perception among Canadians is such as he portrayed, that yours is a more violent culture. Just looked up our stats and for 2003, there were 548 murders in total in Canada. (pop 33 million)

and the vast majority of the firearms related deaths listed there were SUICIDES.

Do you think guns CAUSE suicides, or do people who want to kill themselves with a gun find one to use?

Do you have a problem with people being able to commit suicide?

Guns make it a lot easier. It's really not all that easy to kill oneself without a gun.

it got away from the whole religious thing of "sin is illegal". This is why "do not resuscitate" orders are legal. And it's VERY easy to kill yourself without a gun. All you have to do is keep your fucking mouth closed, not eat or drink, and you'll die within a week. Or, you can eat a large bottle of tylenol all at once, and destroy your liver. Or there are a wide variety of other ways, like driving a car at very high speed into a concrete bridge abutment, "suicide by cop", et cetera.

ASSISTED suicide is a different matter, and one which is rapidly becoming more socially normalized.

You oppose suicide. That's OK. But please keep your quaint religious notions outside of the law. Separation of church and state and all that....

Personally I would find that, or injecting myself with a large dose of a narcotic, a lot easier than pointing a gun at myself and pulling the trigger.

The gun safety training I received as a child is practically hard-wired. This is something that people who aren't familiar with guns have a hard time understanding.

Owning more guns do not make Canadians safer. Sad, but true. They remain safer because they don't depend on guns to keep them safe. They rarely depend on guns, at all. They may own them, but rarely use them. We depend on guns, in the U.S., with not a great record. Thanks for reminding of us of a great movie.:-)

what it reminded me the most

is that Charlton Heston is a dick

is probably Marylin Manson...or Brian Warner if his mother is reading

Like god.... if he were hoLding a gun.

1.Home defense
2. Hunting dangerous and delicious animals
3. Keeping the King of England out of your face.

and you can see that with a few minor adjustments, you can turn one gun into five guns.

"Maybe they should be forced to watch "Bowling for Columbine" three times a day for ten years. Maybe that would cure them of their delusions."
A right winger once once told me that listening to rush limgaugh would cure me of my delusions.
Forcing opinions on people only causes resentment.

I'm struggling to parse what you mean by the opposite of:

"If having guns made people safer, America would be the safest place on earth."

America is certainly not the least safe place on Earth, so its opposite taken at face value is nonsense.

Do you mean something like "If not having guns didn't make people more dangerous, America wouldn't be the most dangerous place anywhere but on the Earth"?

:crazy:

There are far more homicides in the U.S. than in any country on the planet, and far more gun ownership as well.

I'll bet China has more homicides and more guns, but of course that is a meaningless statistic because it has far more people. What really matters is the RATE of homicide per unit population. The USA as a whole isn't all that bad. Unless you live in a dangerous city like Detroit or one of the gun control Utopias like DC or Chicago, your chances of being murdered here are very low.

The correlations are there for all to see yet incredibly so many Americans still believe they're safer owning guns.

I can't tell who you are referring to by "so many Americans" or even how many there are since you haven't bothered to provide any facts to back up what you are saying, but I'd say I am neither safer nor less safe because of the guns I own, and keep securely locked up in a bigass safe when not in use.



Speak for yourself.

Chicago is the 'murder capital of the US', yet owning a handgun is illegal there. The problem isn't the guns--- the problem is the predatory criminals who USE the guns.

Or DC?

I believe that last year as the second in a row that Chicago had the most murders.

x(

and then check the illegal availability of guns there.

Says George F. Will in a Washington Post editorial.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050224/news_lz1e24will.html

Maybe the city's 65,000 police officers can get it even lower when they put surveillance cameras everywhere. :eyes:

Want to predict the homicide rate in major cities? Look at their gun control laws. The stricter the gun control laws are, the higher the homicide rate will generally be.

If they didn't exist in the hands of people who we percieve as dangerous, there would be no reason to have them. I have wack-job people in my neighborhood who have guns, so I have a gun. If they didn't have them, I wouldn't need one. If they did not exist, we would all be safer.

I always hear about people saying that if there were no guns, home invasions, etc would increase. I cry BS. Places where there are no (or limited) guns have a lower incidence of that shit.

Home invasions are relatively rare in the US. They are far more common in both England and Australia, both of which have strict gun control laws. And the rates of home invasions in both England and Australia have gone up dramatically since gun control was implemented.

Gun control only affects the law abiding. Just as with pot and cocaine, people who are willing to break the law will get them.

I've probably told my story a half dozen times in the years I've posted here, a fact which you're welcome to search the archives and verify.

To sum it up: Nutjob broke into my house, stuck a knife to my wifes neck, and began raping her on our dining room table in front of my then-infant daughter, all while telling her that he would kill the baby if she screamed. Unfortunately for Mr. Nutjob, I was upstairs at the time, heard the commotion, and came down a minute later with my gun. When I reached the bottom of the stairs and found my wife being furiously pumped by an armed madman, I put several shots into his back, ending the rape and possibly preventing a double murder. I didn't kill him, but that was only because the ambulance was quick and the hospital was nearby.

My wife complained incessantly about my guns before that day. Today, she's a better shot than I am.

...what ever happened to that creep? I'm glad your wife is OK.

What kind of gun did you have?

My house has been broken into twice in the past year. I haven't been home either of the times...but it's only a matter of time.

He was sent to prison for it, but he's out in 2007. The gun was a Beretta 9mm...not the best home defense weapon in the world, but effective enough at 15 feet. The pistol was taken by the police and wasn't returned, so it's been replaced by a Remington 870 Marine.

I guess they needed it for evidence, but are they allowed to keep it forever?

They initially took the gun because they were questioning the legality of me shooting someone in the back at that close of a range without any kind of warning. When it became clear that I was entirely within my legal rights, the gun became "evidence" for the rape case. By the time the whole thing wrapped up a year and a half later, I wasn't really thinking about the gun anymore.

To be honest, I wouldn't have wanted it anyway. Shooting someone is a profoundly disturbing thing, and it took me a while to clear out the mental baggage that went along with that (when the ambulance took him away, everyone was sure he was a goner). We moved, replaced our dining room table, and basically eliminated any reminders of that day to put its memories out of our minds. I doubt I could have fired that gun again without bringing it all back.

It was an expensive loss, but I didn't care too much at the time. Still, I don't think they were supposed to keep it.

I'm glad your family all survived. If there's ever a "next time", use enough gun.

I'm glad that you and your family survived, and hope you didn't get sued by the worthless piece of crap.

"There are far more homicides in the U.S. than in any country on the planet, and far more gun ownership as well."

that you check your statistics. The US neither leads the world in the highest per-capita homicide rate nor in the raw numbers of homicides committed. Also, there are plenty of other countries where firearms ownership is higher both percentage-wise and in raw numbers. Your statement quoted above isn't simply factually challenged, it's complete and total bullshit. PROPAGANDA.

in states such as Texas and Minnesota affected the crime rate in those areas? When the issue is first being considered it's presented as some kind of panacea, like it'll be the end of crime as we know it.

I'm all for the ability of people to keep and bear arms.

it varies form "it had no impact on crime" to "it caused a considerable decrease in person-to-person crime".

Given that the anti gunners generally admit that it doesn't cause an INCREASE in crime, what's the problem?

I had the misfortune of stating my beliefs on gun ownership in college in the 70's. There was this inane petition drive for a movement called "Ban the Bullet." Its entire premise was that if we can't get rid of the firearms in this country let's get rid of the ammo. No one's forcing people to buy a gun even in right to carry states. The guns are not the problem. It's a societal tendency towards violence to settle disputes. MM said as much in Bowling for Columbine.

Love your sig line. Congrats on your daughter.

In BFC, MM touched on the racist nature of gun control. It's generally about keeping guns out of the hands of minorities and the poor. If you look at the cities with the highest ratio of minority population, you'll generally find that they have the strictest gun control laws. Back when racism was OK, they said as much (like the "swarthy immigrants" bit about the Sullivan laws). Hell, in the 1940's, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that gun control didn't apply to whites, since the legislative intent was only to disarm minorities. And the NFA of 1934 is the LAST Federal Jim Crow law that's still enforced.

I'll put my 20 gage scattergun up against a burglar with a pistol any ol' day. Point-blank, I don't even have to aim. And the wall behind him can be patched.

i do know that owning them gives you an opportunity to fight back. Given the current state of this country, I'd advise all Liberal Democrats to consider ownership. The conservatives will stop at nothing to rid themselves of us...personally, I'm not going down without a fight.

"If having guns made people safer, America would be the safest place on earth. But it's just the opposite."

I disagree. America is safer than many places. It's not about whether or not you own a gun, but how you live your life and how you treat others.

Be nice, and turn the other cheek. Be humble, and apologize to someone if you make them mad, even if their anger seems misdirected. Be a courteous driver. Walk away from fights. Humilitation never killed anyone.

eom

than the other Western nations; about three-fold, in fact. And, although American children are five times more likely to suffer a violent death, only 10% of these are caused by firearms. The correlation you state with guns is fundamentally flawed.

We have to look beyond just guns.

As for having the greatest homicide rate in the world, what the hell are you talking about?

To be sure, it's several times higher than the EU member state average, but not even close to the highest in the world. Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela all report higher homicide rates. There are likely many others, since obviously many authoritarian countries cook their numbers.