Guns Save Lives

[Little-Acorn]

Stossel nails it.

How long will it be before legislators realize that their laws to "control guns" work about as well as their laws to "control illegal drugs"?

--------------------------------------

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/02/27/guns_save_lives

Guns Save Lives

By John Stossel
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

[Hobbit]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

Is that what you really think? Seriously, if everybody has a gun, how many sane people are actually going to use one without provocation? Look at NRA shows. Bad things don't happen there because everyone's armed. Look at the ACTUAL history of the 'wild' west, and you'll find that gun battles were a rarity because of the fact that starting one was a death sentence. If everyone is allowed to have a gun wherever, there won't be mass shootings, because anybody who tries will get shot before the body count breaks double digits. Also, look where the violence is now. It's in places where guns aren't allowed, because only lawbreakers have guns there.

If this whole shootout-a-minute thing is even remotely true, explain to me why places where there are lots of guns allowed (outside military battle zones), places like NRA conventions, the Kentucky machine gun shoot, and military bases, NEVER have mass shootings and, in fact, have little to no violent crime at all whereas 'gun free' zones are the ONLY places mass shootings occur.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

.....because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence.

No one is advocating arming EVERYONE....you don't get the point.

Having the freedom of choice, and knowing the responsibility of owning a handgun (or any weapon), and the consequences should be allowed by anyone who meets the legal criteria for ownership.

You may meet the criteria, but you are afraid of guns, and you shouldn't own one...it is simple.....those of us who have trained to carry, and practice using them, as well as following all the laws pertaining to gun ownership should not be denied the right to "bear arms."

[Little-Acorn]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue.
Attacking the messenger as usual... (yawn)


arming everybody isn't the answer
Didn't even read the article, did you....


That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees.
The tired "victims are no different from the criminals who attack them" dodge has been debunked here many times. You seem to be hoping people have forgotten by now.


a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t
Same comment. Repeating the same hysterical claptrap in the face of solid evidence disproving it, doesn't constitute "debate". Just more hysterical claptrap.


any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to.
In other words, the situation wouldn't change from what it is now.

Except that fewer would want to, knowing they'd probably be stopped before they could kill more than one or two. So a number of them would give up and not try at all - a vast improvement over the way it is today, where nutcases who want to kill people know they can seek out a so-called "gun free zone" where he'll be able to kill dozens without fear of being stopped by his victims, until the cops finally arrive and kill him after he's made his tally.


So you agree that It's the vision of a crazy person.
No, I said your vision was hysterical claptrap, as it has been every time you've presented it and gotten shot down (no pun intended) in the past. But you're close. :lol:

[Hagbard Celine]

Is that what you really think? Seriously, if everybody has a gun, how many sane people are actually going to use one without provocation? Look at NRA shows. Bad things don't happen there because everyone's armed. Look at the ACTUAL history of the 'wild' west, and you'll find that gun battles were a rarity because of the fact that starting one was a death sentence. If everyone is allowed to have a gun wherever, there won't be mass shootings, because anybody who tries will get shot before the body count breaks double digits. Also, look where the violence is now. It's in places where guns aren't allowed, because only lawbreakers have guns there.

If this whole shootout-a-minute thing is even remotely true, explain to me why places where there are lots of guns allowed (outside military battle zones), places like NRA conventions, the Kentucky machine gun shoot, and military bases, NEVER have mass shootings and, in fact, have little to no violent crime at all whereas 'gun free' zones are the ONLY places mass shootings occur.

The reason is that criminals and people who don't know how to use guns don't go to NRA meetings and the Kentucky machine gun shoot. Gun afficionados and gun enthusiasts, people who know guns and have considered all of the points we're discussing here today are the people attending the events you have mentioned. Psychopath loners don't go to crowded events. Criminals don't broadcast the fact that they own and use guns, they conceal it. It's not rocket science. Not to mention the fact that alcohol, drugs, crime, spousal anger and other real-world variables aren't a part of the equation at controlled firing ranges and conventions with rigid itineraries. Be realistic here. Do you really believe that if everyone were allowed to have and carry guns around willy-nilly that everyone would be noble and responsible with them? It's beyond naive. It's just like the "abstinence only education" issue. It's an idealistic vision of how things should be, but it doesn't work in real world scenarios. In the real world, if someone gets mad and there's a gun on their waist, they use it. In the real world, if there are an average of five guns per household (one per person) toddlers find them and blow their heads off with them. It's a simple statistics problem. More guns equals more gun violence. Period. You want to know why gun violence only happens in places that are gun free? Because psychos target them genius! The answer is to screen people who buy guns for criminal and/or abnormal-psychiatric backgrounds, require them to apply for a license to carry it as well as a waiting period to root-out passion criminals.

[hjmick]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

Interesting, but I think it is your own feelings on the issue that prevent you from seeing the big picture. No one is advocating that everyone go about packing heat, no one is saying that everyone must own guns. No one is suggesting that crazy people be allowed to legally own a gun. The thrust of Stossel's article is simply that gun control laws do nothing to control guns when it comes to those who carry out criminal acts. Those of us who own guns and are responsible, law abiding owners are the ones penalized by the laws that make it almost impossible in some areas to acquire a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I am no more likely to start shooting over a petty argument than I am to go home, remove my gun from the safe, return to the scene of the argument and then start shooting and I do not believe that any responsible gun owner would be either.

The truth of the issue is this: If they want it bad enough, no gun control law is going to prevent the bad guys from getting guns. They have no interest in heading down the local gun shop, picking out a gun, taking the safety test, paying the money for a background check, waiting ten days, picking up the gun, then going out to commit their crime. They find that buying guns from their homies is much faster. As for the few lone gunmen who go on these shooting sprees, this study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637) essentially concludes "that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws." Basically they determined that the threat of having their shooting spree cut short and not being able to achieve their notoriety acts as a deterrent.

As for their ability to purchase the guns to begin with, unless and until people are willing to have their medical and psychological records made available in a nation wide database, essentially sacrificing their right to privacy, there will be a few nuts who slip through the system. Now, do we relinquish a Constitutional right for statistical anomaly? Or do we continue to do our best to prevent criminals and crazies from gaining access to guns and continue to enjoy the freedoms spelled out by our Founding Fathers?

Remeber, gun rights advocates don't want to force everyone to own a gun. We have no desire to impose our views on the entire populace. That has never been the agenda. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of gun control advocates.

[Little-Acorn]

Psychopath loners don't go to crowded events.

Megachurch meetings in Arvada and Colorado Springs aren't "crowded events"???

The opening of a shopping mall in Omaha or wherever it was, isn't a "crowded event"???

Virginia Tech wasn't "crowded"? Northern Illinois Univ wasn't "crowded"?

Where do you imagine these shooters DO go, to find the huge numbers of unarmed victims they intend to massacre??

Little haggy, do you think at all before you type this astounding bullshit? You might be that stupid, but why do you think the rest of us are?

It's hilarious to see how little haggy goes off into his own region of outer space farther and farther, to try to defend his long-discredited "ideas".

This is more fun than a barrel of monkies.

[Abbey Marie]

...
That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees.
...


If the new bees can help defend us from further attack by the original bees, it makes perfect sense.

[Hagbard Celine]

Megachurch meetings in Arvada and Colorado Springs aren't "crowded events"???

The opening of a shopping mall in Omaha or wherever it was, isn't a "crowded event"???

Virginia Tech wasn't "crowded"? Northern Illinois Univ wasn't "crowded"?

Where do you imagine these shooters DO go, to find the huge numbers of unarmed victims they intend to massacre??

Little haggy, do you think at all before you type this astounding bullshit? You might be that stupid, but why do you think the rest of us are?

It's hilarious to see how little haggy goes off into his own region of outer space farther and farther, to try to defend his long-discredited "ideas".

This is more fun than a barrel of monkies.

They don't "attend" crowded events. Unless of course they're there to shoot them up. They're not lining up to join glee club or to attend gun seminars populated by skoal-dipping walking cowboy hats. It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons. You act as if these three safety requirements are some unbearable burden on your "freedom" when in reality you're just a fundie who likes to pretend he's a cowboy when he goes out into public wearing his cowboy hat and his pistola on his waist and you're resentful that society would dare impose requirements upon you first before allowing you to do so. :rolleyes: BOOHOO

[theHawk]

The answer is to screen people who buy guns for criminal and/or abnormal-psychiatric backgrounds, require them to apply for a license to carry it as well as a waiting period to root-out passion criminals.

And what happens when people who can pass your requirements decide to sell or give them to someone who doesn't? Nothing is going to stop the "wackos" from aquiring the weapons on the black market. Its as stupid an idea as prohibition of alcohol was. Actually, its even worse since your proposing the majority of the population would be able to legally buy the arms, and only a small portion not be able to.

[Mr. P]

One of the more disturbing arguments used by anti-gun groups is that normal, law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own firearms because they might just snap one day and go on a homicidal rampage. This contention has become part of the gun ban philosophy in countries throughout the world and here in the U.S. One must ask, is there any truth to this argument or is it just another example of a gun control fallacy?.....

Over a dozen studies have been carried out by various pro-gun, anti-gun, neutral, and even Department of Justice investigators to determine the value of civilian gun ownership in how many times citizens use their firearms for self defense. The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year. ......

This issue has also been a crucial topic when concealed carry laws have been proposed in various states. Currently, 31 states allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm through various licensing procedures. Another dozen states allow some form of concealed carry, although such licenses are hard to obtain by honest citizens because of the discretionary nature of the law. One state, Vermont that also happens to have the lowest crime and violence levels of any U.S. state, allows all respectable citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm. Only seven states, which interestingly happen to have some of the highest rates of crime and violence, currently prohibit all forms of concealed carry by peaceable citizens. Inevitably when concealed carry is discussed, the anti-gun side states that such laws will lead to Wild West shootouts and blood on our streets over minor disputes. Yet, in the 31 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms none of the fears raised by the anti-gun side have become reality. Instead, the opposite has occurred, and the results were lower crime and violence.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=836

[theHawk]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=836

Mr.P, the reality of what happens in states with concealed carry laws flies in the face of anti-gun libs. Why aren't the "wild west" gunfights happening in these states? Well, I doubt our token libs can answer....

[hjmick]

It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons.

These things are not an issue for me personally. Sadly, however, there are many who would have us relinquish our right to own guns and they work endlessly to achieve this goal.

[Monkeybone]

They don't "attend" crowded events. Unless of course they're there to shoot them up. They're not lining up to join glee club or to attend gun seminars populated by skoal-dipping walking cowboy hats. It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons. You act as if these three safety requirements are some unbearable burden on your "freedom" when in reality you're just a fundie who likes to pretend he's a cowboy when he goes out into public wearing his cowboy hat and his pistola on his waist and you're resentful that society would dare impose requirements upon you first before allowing you to do so. :rolleyes: BOOHOO

these are already in place. in fact some states make you take classes and then prove your compentency (sp? sorry, i suck) with said hand gun and safeties. but what are we to do when there are already checks in place and a shooting happens? there is almost nothing you can do about it armed or not armed, especially since the shooting at crowded places seems to be the "cool" thing to do now.

i do agree with the more extensive background one for mental health and such to go as far as a national database.


Remeber, gun rights advocates don't want to force everyone to own a gun. We have no desire to impose our views on the entire populace. That has never been the agenda. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of gun control advocates. :clap: and i love this. awesome way to put it.

[Mr. P]

These things are not an issue for me personally. Sadly, however, there are many who would have us relinquish our right to own guns and they work endlessly to achieve this goal.

I used to have this in my sig line...

"Gun control is NOT about guns, IT'S about CONTROL"

I think that is 100% accurate.

[Nukeman]

I've posted this before and I feel it needs to be brought up again.


When seconds count, the police are only MINUTES away

I love this simple little saying that pretty much sums it all up!!!

[Hagbard Celine]

And what happens when people who can pass your requirements decide to sell or give them to someone who doesn't? Nothing is going to stop the "wackos" from aquiring the weapons on the black market. Its as stupid an idea as prohibition of alcohol was. Actually, its even worse since your proposing the majority of the population would be able to legally buy the arms, and only a small portion not be able to.

(shrug) The same thing happens with cocaine, cannibis, heroine, bombs, etc. There will always be a backdoor way to acquire things that are illegal and a small minority of criminals will be smart enough to figure these out. But making them "illegal" or putting restrictions on them in the first place goes a long way to controlling the magnitude to which these items are procured.

[Mr. P]

(shrug) The same thing happens with cocaine, cannibis, heroine, bombs, etc. There will always be a backdoor way to acquire things that are illegal and a small minority of criminals will be smart enough to figure these out. But making them "illegal" or putting restrictions on them in the first place goes a long way to controlling the magnitude to which these items are procured.

Only by those who follow the law. A criminal will always have a gun if they want one, and they're not going to the store to buy it legally. The odds that they will try to use it in the commission of a crime fall drastically when they know that anyone, or a large part, of the population is potentially armed. Most criminals are dumb, but they're street smart.

[Pale Rider]

I don't see how anyone can dispute the fact that guns deter crime. There's overwhelming evidence proving it. Is there a comprehension problem here?

[Little-Acorn]

(shrug) The same thing happens with cocaine, cannibis, heroine, bombs, etc. There will always be a backdoor way to acquire things that are illegal and a small minority of criminals will be smart enough to figure these out. But making them "illegal" or putting restrictions on them in the first place goes a long way to controlling the magnitude to which these items are procured.

Right.

As you pointed out, we made cocaine and cannabis illegal, and look how scarce they are now. How nice to know that gun laws would result in an equally "small" part of the population having them.

Little haggy does it again, citing examples that completely disprove the point he was trying to make. :lol:

[Abbey Marie]

(shrug) The same thing happens with cocaine, cannibis, heroine, bombs, etc. There will always be a backdoor way to acquire things that are illegal and a small minority of criminals will be smart enough to figure these out. But making them "illegal" or putting restrictions on them in the first place goes a long way to controlling the magnitude to which these items are procured.

Ok, then let's apply your logic to outlawing abortions. Stop justifying them based on the fear of back alley abortions, put restrictions or outllaw them all together, and it will "go a long way to controlling the magnitude to which these [abortions] are procured". Beautiful!

[waterrescuedude2000]

Is that what you really think? Seriously, if everybody has a gun, how many sane people are actually going to use one without provocation? Look at NRA shows. Bad things don't happen there because everyone's armed. Look at the ACTUAL history of the 'wild' west, and you'll find that gun battles were a rarity because of the fact that starting one was a death sentence. If everyone is allowed to have a gun wherever, there won't be mass shootings, because anybody who tries will get shot before the body count breaks double digits. Also, look where the violence is now. It's in places where guns aren't allowed, because only lawbreakers have guns there.

If this whole shootout-a-minute thing is even remotely true, explain to me why places where there are lots of guns allowed (outside military battle zones), places like NRA conventions, the Kentucky machine gun shoot, and military bases, NEVER have mass shootings and, in fact, have little to no violent crime at all whereas 'gun free' zones are the ONLY places mass shootings occur.

you forgot the nevada machine gun shoot!!!!

[DragonStryk72]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

you're actually purposely overlooking a key sentence in the article to even make this argument. The choice should be there, not a mandate that everyone be armed.

Almost every family in the revolutionary era had at least a musket for hunting, but again, no apocalypse. In the Va Tech shootings, the only reasons so many got killed was because there was no one else with a gun on campus. I'll say this again, as I've said on other posts, psychopathic killer do not care about gun laws, when you hit the commit murder point in your thinking, illegal handgun is an irrelevant distinction.

[Psychoblues]

And almost every, as you rely, murder in the US is perpetrated with a gun. Are you happy with that statistic?

[DragonStryk72]

And almost every, as you rely, murder in the US is perpetrated with a gun. Are you happy with that statistic?

and if they committed with knives, should we outlaw those as well? Murderers will murder, hence the term Murderer. It existed long before guns, you can look it up, it even existed in the Bible, pre-Jesus.

Now, if one person has a handgun, obtained illegally, with 13 bullets, and there are six people in the room who are not armed, how many can he kill?

Back up your stats with the number of those gun-related deaths with the figures on how many of those guns used were illegally obtained

[Psychoblues]

Obviously you have a fixation on the "illegal" guns of which I never mentioned. When high school kids are killing each other with guns I am alarmed. I never saw or heard of a gun being presented in my High School, other than of course my ROTC handling of a WWII vintage M-1 carbine, and I never feared of anything beyond a fist fight. Times have changed.





and if they committed with knives, should we outlaw those as well? Murderers will murder, hence the term Murderer. It existed long before guns, you can look it up, it even existed in the Bible, pre-Jesus.

Now, if one person has a handgun, obtained illegally, with 13 bullets, and there are six people in the room who are not armed, how many can he kill?

Back up your stats with the number of those gun-related deaths with the figures on how many of those guns used were illegally obtained

Is it due to cowardice in the face of fistfights or the readily available guns?

[DragonStryk72]

Obviously you have a fixation on the "illegal" guns of which I never mentioned. When high school kids are killing each other with guns I am alarmed. I never saw or heard of a gun being presented in my High School, other than of course my ROTC handling of a WWII vintage M-1 carbine, and I never feared of anything beyond a fist fight. Times have changed.






Is it due to cowardice in the face of fistfights or the readily available guns?

Our fear of guns, really, is my opinion. we make guns out to be the be all end all. Not swords, axes, or any other thing, the gun is an icon in our country: Guns of the South, Guns of the West, we are so afraid of these guns, and it comes across repeatedly in the way that these speeches turn it into the most fearful thing. when did we become such cowards?

[-Cp]

Hmmmm...

Guess what police are finally admitting about guns?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the Second Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled on March 18, and the LEAA brief is just one of 46 that have been filed on the side of seeking affirmation that the Second Amendment does, indeed, document a right for individuals to own guns in the United States.

The brief notes when the Georgia town of Kennesaw decided to require all residents, with exceptions for conscientious objectors, to keep a firearm at home, home burglaries fell from 66 to 26 to 11 in consecutive years.

In Orlando, the deterrence to criminals who simply knew that their victims may have a gun and may know how to use it and may be willing to do just that had a significant impact, because while Orlando's rapes were plummeting, assaults were up 5 percent across the state and 7 percent nationally.

The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

"Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that 'One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'" the study said.

The brief suggested the nation's crime rate could rocket should more restrictions be placed on guns.

"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so "the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent."

Deeds said it's always hard to predict the U.S. Supreme Court, but ideally the ruling would clarify the Second Amendment means exactly what its words say: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

He compared it to the discussion of freedom of religion, should the Bible be banned. "For Christians there's no effective freedom of religion if they didn't have a Bible," he said.

"To have the Second Amendment right on paper, but to be denied the effective means of exercising that right at a moment of truth, when you're trying to defend yourself or your loved one from an aggressor, [is wrong,]" he said. "The gun is the only answer."

Where the rubber meets the road, he said, is when a good guy needs to survive an encounter with a bad guy, he said. There are two possible results: Police arrive on the scene later to have the innocent victim hurt or killed, or they arrive on the scene to "find the victim hearty and the offender on the floor."

"Every cop in American is going to pick the second closing of the story," Deeds said.

He said gun control originally was sold to Americans as a way to lower crime, but he disagreed. "People who sell this idea that bad guys are going to stop because of one more law are just full of it," he said.

"That's a lie. That's a fraud," he said. He also said it's a terribly slippery slope to say that under the Second Amendment, some gun restrictions are good because they are "reasonable."

"We are hoping that they [the Supreme Court] make a very clear, very unambiguous decision in favor of the Second Amendment," Deeds told WND.

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. already resolved any dispute about the meaning of the Second Amendment when it defined in Montana's compact under which it became a state that "any person" has the right to bear arms.

And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has led a congressional delegation in asking President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the Second Amendment.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned: "If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[actsnoblemartin]

it is quite apparent that your skills as a post are exquisite, not only for originality but for finding excellent articles to back them up as well

excellent job

:salute:


Stossel nails it.

How long will it be before legislators realize that their laws to "control guns" work about as well as their laws to "control illegal drugs"?

--------------------------------------

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/02/27/guns_save_lives

Guns Save Lives

By John Stossel
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.