STOP STOP STOP STOP!!! Of course it is not all the Arabs fault but the game changed when those planes were hijacked! I can never feel the sympathy I felt before. I just want it to stop. Isn't this great preoccupation with Iraq just a cover for the fact we cannot find or stop Ben Lauden?

GGRRRRR....Don't get me started! Why can't more people see that going after Saddam is an important part of the War on Terrorism, not merely a side issue?

Kill em all!!

Lynn, darling... that has yet to be shown. However important it is to get him out of power in that country, it has yet to be shown that he had/has any involvement in terror campaigns or Al Queada specifically. Just because he's an egomaniacal dictator doesn't make it a step in the war on terrorism.

On a side note, don't you think he's too busy gassing, starving and killing his own people to be involved? naw... maybe not. He probably IS involved, but that's not the point.

cheers!

Jim, you are, as always, a voice of reason.

A minor quibble with an otherwise excellent post:

> If guns were banned, nobody would have guns. That's the point.

Guns (and indeed, all defensive weapons) are banned in England. It hasn't been working so well (which is a vast understatement).

The 'if guns are banned, only criminals will have guns' maxim which you obviously dismiss is proving itself true there, right now.

Yes, there are less gun homicides... but now a knife is more than sufficient to give a criminal total confidence in his ability to have his way with any citizen short of a off-duty police officer. I fail to see how this is an improvement, especially since London (the city of police snooping cameras and gun bans) is now more dangerous than New York, by a recent crime estimate.

There are less gun suicides (which anti-gunners usually lump into the 'violent deaths by guns' category to pump it up by as much as 3x), but more ACTUAL suicides... again not much of an improvement.

Though to be fair I'm pretty certain the increase in suicides is not BECAUSE of the ban, but rather despite it... Its not increasing death in that case its simply useless in preventing it.

And England is a frigging island, for gods sake, and a tiny one. It SHOULD be the perfect test case for antigun laws's effectiveness.

On the other hand in America can't stop drugs OR humans from crossing our 2 land borders, our 2 sea borders, or our massive air border... what on earth makes you think illegalization will have any effect on the black market for guns, other than the price increase normally asccoiated with making something illegal?

Getting rid of the legal channels like gun shows and classified ads will have some small effect, to be sure. But is the price worth the effect?

AN ASIDE: And if you reply that any price is worth saving one child, I shall smack you. We could save many orders of magnitude greater numbers of lives by reducing the speed limit nationwide to 10 mph and forbidding cars that went faster then that. I do not see anyone lining up behind THAT lifesaving proposal, because it would inconvience all of us very greatly (we are mostly all car users). To save lives you want to restrict a *constitutional right* that I use, but you are not willing to save a greater number of lives by restricting (not banning) something that you use that is NOT a constitutional right. That is hipocrasy, and I hope you examine this post critically and ask yourself if I am making sense... I don't require that you come up with the same answer I do, just that you honestly ask yourself the question.

Even if the antogunners took control of the federal apparatus and banned every form of firearm, they could not possibly reduce the amount of firearms in this country by a signifigant amount, either.

In summary, this 'point' is every bit as inane and unthoughtful as the people you mean to lampoon.

But I liked most of the others :-)

Brian,

Here's my simple take: 'More guns means more gun-related deaths.' No value judgement, just a statement of what I consider to be common sense. I would be interested to hear your reaction.

My further opinion is that a huge dose of honesty is desperately needed in the gun discussion, from both sides. For example, to take your analogy with autos and auto-related deaths (which, by the way, I think is apt) a little farther, I would say that the honest position is that the price you are willing to pay for unfettered enjoyment of your Constitutional right is the death of about 30,000 Americans annually - just like all of us drivers would have to admit that the price we are willing to pay for a car-centered existence is the annual death toll on the highways. And I'm not criticizing a car-centered existence or gun ownership.

As you point out, the question then arises of what effect would any (further) restrictions on guns have on the gun-related death toll.

As to Constitutional rights, I am a firm admirer of the Founding Fathers and, in fact, am somewhat in awe that America was blessed with so many visionaries on hand simultaneously at the birth of our nation. However, do you really think that the Founding Fathers foresaw 15-year olds sporting Uzis and AK-47s, or considered the nation's premier gun owners association would oppose restrictions on armor-piercing bullets ? The Founding Fathers were wise men; I can't believe they wouldn't have wanted to inject a little common sense into the debate.

Scott,

Great lists, by the way.

Rofe and Brian: While it may be "a statement of common sense" we have statistics to check common sense. (By the way, why is it called common when it seems to be in such short supply?) For instance, Switzerland is quite possibly the most heavily armed country in the world (per capita), and it's gun death rate is incredibly low. Also, unless you're only worried about deaths by gun, you should also look at the total violent death rate, separating out suicides, etc before you make a common sense judgment. Japan has a very high death rate by suicide without guns.

Thus, Brian appears to have the better of this discussion, so far. On the other hand, I see no reason (speaking as a former hunter and current gun owner, although the guns in question are not in my actual possesssion) why the 2nd Amendment has to be seen as allowing fully automatic rifles or other such weapons, and I don't see Brian calling for it at all. Just as we have some restrictions on cars and driving, we can have some on gun ownership (like no felons possessing them, no privately owned sawed-off shotguns, no anti-tank weapons, etc) and Rofe has some good points here.

Having said that, is Rofe ready to let anyone otherwise not disqualified to let everyone own as many Revolutionary War type weapons as they wish? They're obviously every bit as deadly as modern guns. (Witness our success in the War and the death of Alexander Hamilton, for instance.)

Common sense would seem to dictate the the Founders knew what they were writing about -- there is a danger of tyranny from a central government, the people have some rights to defend themselves if necessary, from both government and other humans, the right is not defined as unlimited. So, why the effort to ban _all_ guns, and especially those that might be useful in the sense that the Founders evidently cared about (i.e. hand guns, rifles, and shotguns)?

I tend to advocate the view articulated by Neal Stephenson in his last book (Necronomicon?)

Handguns should be banned. They're only good for killing people. However, people who have the proper permits should be allowed to carry whatever large gun the feel like wherever and whenever they want.

But that's just me. I think we in the US have a cultural problem, not a gun problem. People with something to lose don't usually shoot other people, no matter what kind of gun they have.

Any one who will take the time to read the constitution can see that we have a right to bear arms. Anyone with any common sense can see that guns are dangerous. The big problem with guns is that the number of people accidentally shot is much higher than the number of people intentionally shot. Guns are dangerous and they need to be handled with care and skill. Some people should never be allowed to have a gun but you have a right to own a gun and you can't take a persons rights away unless that person commits a crime. The only solution I can see is to greatly encourage all gun owners to have training and to ruthlessly prosecute people who commit gun crimes and people who injury others in a gun "accident". Mishandling or improper storage of a gun should be treated like drunk driving. If anybody is harmed, then you forfeit you right to gun ownership forever.

After someone is hurt, possibly a child, then it is too late.

Sorry Pat, but the "what about the children" argument is lame. You house is full of things that could harm or kill a child. And most of the stuff in your house that would harm a child is not protected by the Bill of Rights. Do we take everything in your house that might harm a child away from you? Or maybe we just take your children away?

Sorry to be so harsh but I really don't like the "what about the children" debate technique. It is lazy and manipulative. Hence it's common use by the evening news ("What you don't know about your washing machine could kill your children! Film at 11.")

When I was fourteen years old my cousin, same age, was killed by an "unloaded gun" his brother was fooling around with. "What about the children" is a personal and valid argument to me.

My children are grown. They were raised in a household with only one hand gun but many rifles and shotguns. My dad gave both my sons Browning shotguns for Christmas, he owned a sporting goods store.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but so am I entitled to mine.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. And my guess is that more people would agree with you than with me. It is very sad and tragic when a child is killed. I just don't think it is more tragic if a child is killed rather than an adult. My great-grandfather (who I did not know) was killed while cleaning his gun. He was middle-age, the prime bread winner. He died before there was anything like a social safety net. Because of this the material impact was huge, the reverberations were felt through a couple of generations.

I don't have any guns although I was raised with them and I really enjoy shooting. For me, the danger of having them around is higher than whatever enjoyment and personal safety they may provide.

I agree completely with your last paragraph. The only type of guns I would like to see banned are handguns. Hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, by the way my cousin was killed by a 22 rifle. The reverberations of his death have had a great impact on my life even now 45 years later. I cringe when I see the gun cabinet at my son's house even though it is locked. I have always dread hunting season in my home state, especially deer season.

I think we agree on many more things than I imagined. I also think that an adult can make rational decision that a child lacks the capacity to make. We are responsible for protecting them in every way possible including teaching them about guns and gun safety since they are going to have to grow up in a world filled with guns it would seem.

AUTHOR: Brian Waxx
EMAIL: nospam@hotmail.com
IP: 208.59.249.9
URL: http://none
DATE: 10/06/2002 01:12:48 AM

I’m a North American myself but I think its only fair that you make a “Top 5 reasons North Americans are morons” list too.