Gun Control

[Debby]

I think it is absolutely insane to try to take the guns away from good law abiding citizens....if it is made illegal for the average person to have guns, whether for hunting or for protecting themselves, then the "bad" guys will still have the guns, and the rest of us will have no way to defend ourselves against them....do you think that just because it is made illegal that the rapist or the robber is going to say, " oh darn, it's illegal, well I'd better quit using them" Give me a break!!! Drugs are illegal too, but yet they are everywhere!!! And if guns are made illegal, then the only ones who will abide by that are the law abiding citizens who wouldn't be using the guns in the wrong way in the first place!!! Yes it would cut down on the amount of murders committed by people who had too much to drink, and/or were in a rage and grabbed a gun without giving it any thought and killed someone, but we as a country need to have a way of protecting ourselves, even against the government if it turned on us, and it is unconstitutional to do away with that right!!!! any thoughts??

[utah007]

I agree... In fact I think that crime would go down if gun ownership and education were encouraged rather than vice versa.

[4everHis]

Yes, but at the same time, gun manufacturers should take the responsibility to make them safer by making trigger locks. Gun owners need to be more responsible and lock their guns up to keep them away from children.

Too many accidents occur due to guns being accessible by children.

[In_His_Shadow]

I agree Debby. I personally hate guns and we don't own any and probably never will. But, I don't want the government telling me I can't buy one if I choose to.

I also agree that this would in no way stop the criminal from getting illegal guns. Come on, I mean look at the illegal guns they get now. The only difference would be is that the average law abiding citizen would not be able to protect themselves.

I think all they need to do is actually enforce the gun laws that they already have on the books.

CJ

[4everHis]

uath007, You are right. It is true that crime decreases proportunately to to the increase in gun ownership. Where gun ownership (with proper training) is high, crime is significantly lower.

[TWTCommish]

I remember reading about a small town where almost everyone who lives there owns a gun - crime is virtually non-existent. If I were a robber, I know I'd be pushing for gun control laws! It's just common sense.

Want to take guns away from convicted felons? Fine by me, but don't stop me and my family from protecting ourselfs from these hoodlums the Democrats spit out of jail back onto the streets.

[Debby]

I agree completely!!!! And I also agree that the gunowners need to take more responsability for keeping the guns out of the hands of their children!! We wouldn't have so many incidents like the one in littleton, colo. (columbine) if parents were keeping an eye on their guns AND their childrens activities alot closer!!!!

[TWTCommish]

Whoa - switch to decaf, Debby.

I just have to do this..


{fro}
{fro}{fro}
{fro}{fro}{fro}
{fro}{fro}{fro}{fro}

[Debby]

I can get excited about causes I beleive in as well as you can.

[TWTCommish]

Yeah, I know, just messing around. I usually scream in real life, but try to act calm near the keyboard - kind of odd I suppose.

[utah007]

TWT, I read that same article, I wish I could remember where I found it... I'm glad I wasn't hallucinating. :)

[Adam]

"Guns Dont Kill People, Bullets Do!"

[jamesglewisf]

I'm pretty sure you can beat someone to death with a handgun or rifle, so although I agree with your bullets post in general terms, it's technically not true.

It is funny. I had to think about it a second to get it.

[CommunistPanda]

Well, I can definitely see two sides to this.
On one hand, making it compulsory to own a gun is a great idea - there's no crime.
However, on the other hand, gun control legislation is never going to control the criminals. However, it cuts down on deaths caused by a gun being readily available in say, a marital dispute or school shooting.
Still, I would probably prefer the former - it would be a safer society.

[Adam]

My dad has a rifle in the house because he goes hunting every autumn. Hes a law abiding citizen.

[Debby]

Yes, I'm sure he is Adam...and I hope the government never has the power to take his gun away!!!

[Military Mom]

Hey if all else fails, you can always throw bullets! lol

Truth be told, aren't there many other weapons out there that are just as leathal, but not as regulated? Just another exam0ple of government tunnel vision.

Taking guns away wont end violence or tragedy. Its sooo foolish to think that. It is a citizen's right to bear arms. Period.

Of course it's the parents responsibility to teach ther kids to stay away from the guns, keep the guns out of their reach, and provide all saftely measures possible. Nowadays, I don't understand how anyone could - in good conscience keep a loaded weapon in a place like a bedside table if there are kids running around. When I was a little girl, I almost blew my own head off with a revolver my uncle kept under his bed. I thought it was one of my cousin's cap guns! No one ever taught me to stay away - and my uncle certainly didn't keep his gun in a safe place! Boy am I glad it didn't go off! {eek2}

We own firearms, and it will be one of the MOST important rules in our home as our child grows older - NOT to touch it. My husband will also teach him how to safely use it, and to use it under his supervision only. We will keep it locked up, out of reach with trigger locks, unloaded. The amunition is and always will be stored in a separate, distant place. Now those are precautions!

Anyway, further gun control laws are superfluous. Enough weapons are out there being sold/changing hands illegally. What in the world makes anyone think that stricter laws will change that? The ones abusing the guns in drive by shootings and gang wars etc are NOT waling down to Billy Bob's Gun Shop, registering, waiting three days then purchasing it. How silly to think so. That's not how it happens on the streets, duh! lol Tighter gun controls serve only to shut a certain group of people up, and let them feel they've helped win some sort of battle...

But we all know where the real battle starts - in the home. Teach your children well .....

mm

[Debby]

Well said, Military Mom!! :)

[CommunistPanda]

Military Mom, it's fantastic that you're doing that, congratulations to you, but if all gun users did that then there would probably be no need for gun control. However, there are still too many people with unrestrained guns. Though, as I said previously, I'm sitting on the fence here.

[blinc]

My personal opinion is that there should be stricter laws enforced when a gun is used in any crime. Mandatory 20 years added on to any sentence, when a gun is used. No but's about it. You use a gun in a crime, you're spending 20 years (no early release time) in prison, in addition to whatever other sentence you receive for the crime committed.

I think there should be laws that hold the parents accountable when a child of theirs uses one of their guns to commit a crime. I think the parents should be charged as an accessory. Too many teenagers are grabbing their parents guns and killing other children. If the parents were responsible in keeping the guns under lock and key some of these deaths wouldn't have occurred. If the parents think it's too much bother, or don't think it's that important, then in my opinion they aren't the type of people who should own a gun!

[CommunistPanda]

That's a really good idea, as it would probably solve both problems.

[nb]

The idea that more guns makes us safer seems strange to me........how many people have grabbed a gun when angry? If the gun wasn't there, they may have calmed down enough to realize what they "wanted" to do.

I spent many years living in Europe where gun ownership is almost nil.....and murders are also almost nil. Gee..I wonder why? You're right, it's not only the gun ownership, it's the way the whole society is set up........but that's another whole subject that we can get into.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by CommunistPanda
On one hand, making it compulsory to own a gun is a great idea - there's no crime.

I don't know about that - crime will always exist - there'll always be a lot of it, too.

[CommunistPanda]

Much, much, much less.

[keithster]

The thing that really peeves me in this whole debate is the way the media handles it and the way the anti-gun side lies.

Whenever there's a nasty crime committed with a gun, the media puts on their long faces and pretty much handles it from a anecdotal perspective rather than using statistics and facts. But then that's pretty much how they handle most issues.

And the anti-gun side keeps talking about child deaths not telling us that the way they count those deaths is warped. They count up to 20 year olds as children and don't tell the whole story of how most of the deaths are older kids involved in gang type activity. Gun deaths of kids under 10 or so years of age are fairly rare.

But the lies work on public opinion, so they use them.

I'd read somewhere that more kids die drowing in swimming pools than by guns. Can someone confirm that?

If the issue is going to be resolved, there needs to be an honest debate.

[Military Mom]

Hmmm....

Stricter penalties for crimes where guns are involved?

A victim is no more dead because he was killed with a gun rather than slashed to death with a knifeor bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat / lead pipe etc.

The real issue is crime not guns. Make the laws tougher all around then we will see a difference.

Sorry, that idea makes absolutely zero sense.

mm

[Debby]

I agree, the real issue is crime, not the guns....people will still find a way to kill each other....look at Cain and Abel in the bible...and they sure didn't have guns then!

[keithster]

Gun crime, any crime, is merely a symptom of a deeper problem.

[Military Mom]

OK everybody, it was not my intent to come across as condescending in my last post. {good}

The constitutional right to bear arms is an issue that as an American citizen whose forefathers have died to uphold is of high importance to me. It frustrates me to see firearms singled out in the manner suggested here {frusty}. I think the law itself that blinc suggested is an excellent one - just extend it to ALL murders, attempted or otherwise - not just ones done with guns.

If my last post seemed a bit graphic, my goal was to demonstrate how horribly violent deliberate harm to another living being is, no matter how it is carried out. It is painfully obvious that the system we have in place to prevent this violence from happening is sadly lacking. Why compound the already screwed up system by continuing to build blockades around our rights as US citizens? The more regulation imposed upon a right, the closer it edges to becoming obliterated. Why compromise the spirit of our nation becasue of individuals who as a whole do not represent what we stand for?

My apologies for coming across harshly. {karate}

mm

[jamesglewisf]

Thanks, MM. Apology accepted.

Sometimes things we type don't sound the same way they would if we had said them face-to-face. We are at a disadvantage on a forum because we don't get to see facial expressions and body language.

[Nudnik]

You are correct, Jim. You verbalized what I felt for a long time. Probably, the phrases you edited out of my post in the other thread (about two presidents) did not sound as bad as they looked on paper.
On my part, I will refrain from using anything like that in the future. But, like MM, I may inadvertently be harsh: in such case, anyone, please make corrections. And you are free to edit, Jim.

[jamesglewisf]

Thanks for the positive response, Nudnik.

We have members with all different kinds of personalities. The success of FrappyDoo will depend on our willingness to work together, be friendly, and feel like part of a family.

About a month into FrappyDoo, good ole blinc gave me a whop upside the head and told me that I was being too harsh on my moderators. My tone was hurting their feelings, and many of them were about ready to quit.

I beat a path to the Moderators' forum and apologized whole-heartedly. Now I make a real conscious effort to watch the tone of my posts. My intent was never to sound harsh, but that was a real blind spot for me. With the help of my friends, I'm working to overcome that blindspot. I'm not perfect at it, but I am working hard.

What saved me? I humbled myself and responded to correction. So far, I think we have only lost one member to a "be nicer" email. I think that reflects highly on the maturity and maturation process of our members.

Man, I love this place, and I love you guys. You really make it fun. Thanks all!!!!

[Debby]

I guess I didn't see anything at all wrong with your last post, so no apology needed here,Military Mom.

And Jim...I have NEVER thought you to be harsh, you seem like a wonderful guy, and I too love it here!!!!

It is nice to have a place to come and express our opinions and not be judged, and to be accepted as one of the frappydoo family!!! :)

[Military Mom]

I just know that from now on I am staying away from certain topics. I am getting the message that some of my opinions are a bit much for some on this forum. Sometimes I wonder if I belong here at all. I'm just not afraid to speak my mind about stuff, and it has gotten me into trouble in many places {devil}. I do not wish to alienate anyone {alien}. All I want to do is get off my chest what has been running through my head, and perhaps open a few minds in the process.

Well anyway, I think I'll stick to the vanilla from hear on in. {anon}

[nb]

Military Mom: I get the same vibes......my style can be rather confrontational - not so much in r/t, but here we have a newfound freedom to cut through the malarkey. You and I disagree on a few issues, I think, but I don't want you to censor yourself..............just think of the great arguments you & I can have!!!!

[TWTCommish]

I'm the same way. I feel I've made better friends with people after arguments. My best friend Adam and I actually had a few fights that almost resulted in actual fist fights when we were both younger teenagers - now we never go beyond a little bickering here and there.

I welcome you to these forums nb, and as long as you respect my beliefs, that's as long as I will respect yours. I can have respect for 99% of the beliefs out there (even if I find them bizzare) if they can have repect for mine in turn.

I look forward to many educating debates. :)

[nb]

TWT Commish: Oh, I always respect other people's beliefs...tho I often disagree. If I had thought of "malarkey" I would have used it.

[jamesglewisf]

It's not your opinions that are too much for people in this forum, it is your delivery of them (sometimes). We are not here for confrontations, but discussions.

FrappyDoo is a place to unload and get things off your chest, just politely. Disagreeing with people is welcomed, but not if it is in a condescending or rude tone. For instance, I often disagree with Zephyrus' posts, but he words them so well that I don't ever remember being offended by them.

You seem to think some of us need to have our minds opened. If so, then you probably won't enjoy FrappyDoo too much. Why? Because that idea in itself is condescending. When you say that I need to have my mind opened, what you are indirectly saying is that I am not open-minded--I am close-minded, even if it is only about a particular topic.

According to Merriam-Webster's (www.m-w.com), "open-minded" means receptive to arguments or ideasHow receptive do you think people will be to your arguments or ideas if you deliver them in a rude or condescending manner?

I didn't start FrappyDoo to open people's minds. I started it so that people could have a fun place to visit and discuss stuff--even controversial stuff. I was tired of having discussions about controversial topics on other boards that degenerated into cursing, rudeness, or flame wars.

So, MM and NB, I value your participation. When you are gone for a while, it actually disappoints me. A forum where everybody agrees with each other is boring to me. However, no one may participate at FrappyDoo if his posts are not civil. Disagree, but do it nicely.

[blinc]

I'm with Jim on this one. If everyone agreed on everything, it would be like talking to ourselves all the time and that's just not very interesting. But, if commments are made that are rude then it places another member on the defensive... they retaliate in kind... and then before you know it, there is anger and hurt feelings on both sides.

Or, even worse... another member may feel afraid to post their thoughts, because they don't want to take a chance that they may be the next in line to get insulted, if they should post a differing view. Which means we all lose out because of less participation.

I think we're all grown up enough here to be able to express our views without adding in little side remarks to make a personal dig at someone. We just have to be careful how we word things. I know I've had to go back in and edit several of my own posts, because after reading it again it just didn't sound right... or it could have been taken the wrong way. Maybe we just all need to be a little more careful of each other's feelings too, ya think?

[Debby]

I agree with what everyone has said here, but I also want military Mom to feel like she belongs here, too.

I have never found anything rude or condesending about her posts, but maybe that is because i agree with what she has to say, usually.

I do think we have to be careful of each others feelings, but we also need to be able to express our own, with out
fear of stepping on someone's toes. That is what opinions are about.

I for one, have not been offended when someone disagrees with me...even when they tell me I need to have an open mind....I just remember that yes, I do need to have an open mind...but not so open that my brains fall out.

Anyway, I know I probably don't have much right to say anything here, since I am relatively new and all, but I hope noone leaves here, just because they feel they can't express their feelings.

I think as long as we all know we are friends here, we should be able to say what we want, as long as it's not cruel.

Just my thoughts.

[blinc]

Originally posted by Debby
I do think we have to be careful of each others feelings, but we also need to be able to express our own, with out
fear of stepping on someone's toes. That is what opinions are about. [/B]

I'd have to agree with you about not having to worry overly much about wording things "just so". If we have to worry constantly about how things are worded, you're right... it does interfere with being able to express ourselves freely.

However, I do think there is a common decency and respect we all deserve and we all should show one another on the forums. Differing opinions are great! It is what makes any forum interesting. We're concerned that the atmosphere here remains friendly... very concerned. With that in mind, all's that being asked is that we share our opinions in a non-hostile way... express ourselves and our opinions in a manner that doesn't make another member feel that they have to go on the defensive.

I'm not writing this with any particular member in mind. Just as a whole... as a forum, that we can have intelligent people involved in intelligent discussions, without having to fear anyone coming into things and belittling that opinion or idea in a manner that would be insulting. That's all we want... just a nice place, friendly people, good conversation. :)

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by Debby
I agree with what everyone has said here, but I also want military Mom to feel like she belongs here, too.She does belong here. I agree wholeheartedly.
I for one, have not been offended when someone disagrees with me...even when they tell me I need to have an open mind....I just remember that yes, I do need to have an open mind...but not so open that my brains fall out.We aren't talking about someone being offended because of a differing opinion, but because of the delivery of that opinion. For instance, why say, "Excuse me, but we AREN'T talking about someone being offended by a difference of opinion..." when you could leave out the "Excuse me, but" and the ALL CAPS.
Anyway, I know I probably don't have much right to say anything here, since I am relatively new and all, but I hope noone leaves here, just because they feel they can't express their feelings.You would have the right to say something here if you only had one post and joined today. BTW, you have the highest post count for a non-moderator and the sixth highest post count overall. You aren't considered a newbie by anyone.

[Debby]

I understand what you are saying. It is one thing to express your opinions, without fear of stepping on toes...but it is also quite another matter to express your feelings without regards to anyone else's feelings.

Wheew, this gets confusing!!

Anyway, I think we are all doing a good job of not trying to offend anyone...and we all sometimes word things in a way that makes us seem angry, when we actually aren't.

That's the only bad thing about it...like you said, we can't see the person's facial expressions, or see inside their heart.

So I think we just have to sometimes overlook a little bit, as long as noone gets severely offended...because in trying to protect the offendee, we may offend the "offender" without probable cause.

Okay....that probably makes no sense At all....sorry....just trying to make everyone happy, and see both sides. :)

[Debby]

Oh, By the way....that makes me feel really good that I have the highest number of posts for a non-moderator!!

And, that you think I have such a right to speak my mind!!!

I don't know why, but it makes me truely feel adopted here! :)

[Military Mom]

That's the trick - wording what you want to say in a way that will get your point across without being hostile or rude or offensive etc. That is why in real life that I rarely if ever tell someone when I am angry about something they have done because I find it very difficult to censor myself! It's a lot easier on the Net to do it because you have time to think about what you want to say. (That's the great thing about writing!) I, too have been to the places where rather than learn anything it is nothing more than a verbal fist fight.

Also, I have a very dry sense of humor - sarcasm is a staple in my diet, lol. My bark is a lot worse than my bite. (ususally) ;) As I saw someone else mention, if we were actually talking and could hear tone of voice/see facial expressions a lot of what is said in these debates would be taken for what it is - tongue in cheek.

But James, I do wonder, what is the point of hearing what others with opposing views think about an issue if not at least gaining better understanding of that subject? Having your mind opened does not mean converting to the opposite way of thinking, but to me it means making an effort to put yourself in someone else's shoes to understand why they feel the way they do. For most people it is too much of a stretch to even try. Or they have tried to see things in a different light and didn't like the way it looked or made them feel.

It's a challenge to keep our feelings separate from an issue enough to just discuss it. And I agree with TWT, some of the best friendships are forged during an argument over an opposing view. (I have had that happen in my life too.)

Anyone have hot fudge? I can make a sundae with my vanilla ice cream lol

mm

[blinc]

I'm heading back to the topic of gun control... {toothy}

The reason I was thinking that stricter laws are needed for crimes, where guns are used, is because that guns seem to be such horrible instruments when used. Yep, people sure do get killed by being stabbed, beaten, etc... but in 1993 70% of all murders in the US were committed using a firearm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/guic.pr
Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.--About 1.3 million U.S. residents faced an
assailant armed with a firearm during 1993. Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent crimes) the weapons were handguns. Seventy percent of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were committed with firearms, of which four out of five were with a handgun.

During 1993 there were 4.4 million murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults in the United States--more than one-quarter involved a gun. However, the report notes that most guns in the U.S. are not used to commit crimes.

Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large-caliber guns and that juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess semi-automatic weapons than adult offenders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think in 1999 it went down to 65%. (Not positive about that). In that light, that's one of the reasons I was thinking about tougher laws where guns are used. When someone gets out a gun, in the heat of anger... there is such a less chance of survival then if someone comes after you with a club or knife... you can at least have a chance to outrun the person or defend yourself... but with a gun and a bullet speeding at you, how can you possibly defend yourself?

You are right MM about stricter laws being needed all the way around. I read an article somewhere (about 3 years ago) that said the average time a person spends in prison for committing murder is 6.5 years. Now, that's just ridiculous!

I was also thinking that the parents should be held accountable in some way for providing access to a weapon, when a child of theirs commits a crime/murder when using their gun. It's a pretty touchy subject for me. A couple summers ago, a neighbors son down the road from us killed a friend of his with a shotgun. They were in an argument over a Nintendo game. He went into his parents bedroom, got the gun (which was loaded and not under lock and key), came out and shot the other boy in the heat of the moment. Poof, just like that the other teenager was gone. The parents were not held responsible in any way... I think they should have been charged as accessories to the murder.

Yes, the boy could have gotten a knife... a club... anything else, but the fact is, with a shotgun there is just no way you can outrun or defend yourself against the blast. Because the parents were irresponsible in having a loaded gun just lying around, the other teenage boy didn't even have a chance to defend himself. That's what I meant by thinking there should be tougher laws about gun control. To me, it just isn't right that the parents weren't held responsible in any way! Arrgh! It's a very touchy subject for me, like I said.... sorry about going on for so long.

[jamesglewisf]

Having your mind opened does not mean converting to the opposite way of thinking, but to me it means making an effort to put yourself in someone else's shoes to understand why they feel the way they do. For most people it is too much of a stretch to even try. Or they have tried to see things in a different light and didn't like the way it looked or made them feel.I disagree. Being open-minded means "making an effort to put yourself in someone else's shoes to understand why they feel the way they do." Whereas "having your mind opened" assumes that my mind was closed in the first place.

It sounds rather elitist when you say that "For most people it is too much of a stretch to even try." There is no humility in your statement.

To say "Or they have tried to see things in a different light and didn't like the way it looked or made them feel," is a bit of a stretch also. It may be that they successfully considered your opinion and disagreed with it. It may be that they have heard your opinion before and still disagree with it.

This whole mind-opening philosphy is thousands of years old. There was a group of people called gnostics that existed in the first century. Their name comes from the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. They believed that the aim of life was to be awakened by knowledge so that the inner man can be released from his earthly dungeon. Those who were "enlightened" thought of themselves as being superior to those who did not have such knowledge.

There is a feeling of superiority that emanates from your posts. You may indeed be smarter and more enlightened than most of the people around you, but that does not make you a better person. Enlightenment without humility is feckless.

It is possible that I have already considered much of your philosphy and simply disagree. It doesn't mean that I don't read your posts and even learn something new from them. It just means that I will not always agree with you.

[jamesglewisf]

And BTW, it is possible that I am reading you all wrong. If so I apologize. That is just what I perceive from your posts.

[Military Mom]

James, I have responded to your comments in the suggestions forum, I felt it was a more appropriate place to continue on with our intersting discussion there. http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php3?threadid=1124

Blinc,

Those are some startling statistics there! Of course, it is next to imppossible to defend oneself against a gun for the very reasons you mentioned. Working in trauma centers has exposed me to the horrific results of violence of all kinds. Not to minimize the damage done by firearms, but I have seen far more vicitms live following GSWs. It's the stabbings and blunt force traumas that are far gorier and harder to come back from. That is one of the strongest reasons why I stand firm on not singling out guns - no matter what the statisics say. I have seen it firsthand.

At least we agree on penalties for violent crimes as a whole to be heavier than what they are. Its almost as if no one cares if they go to jail or worse yet that they have posibbly ruined someone's life because of their action.

mm

[Military Mom]

I will say this, however. I apologized for the tone of my post. Why, James did you feel the need to chastize me again? I got your message the first time. What more can I say????

What caused this renewed rebuke?

PS I know what the Gnostics are :)

[blinc]

Is it possible maybe you see more of the blunt force and stabbings because the gunshot victims receive so much more damage, that maybe they aren't brought into trauma because they're already DOA? Just curious!

I know about the sentencing part - it made me sick to read that. I couldn't believe that was the average time for committing a murder! Geesh, it's like a slap on the wrist when you consider the emotional trauma the families and friends go through. I don't know if someone killed my husband if I could let it slide like that... of course, then you're looking at vigilantism. grrrr. I couldn't handle it if someone killed Bill and was back out on the streets in 6 1/2 years, think I'd go off the deep end, ya know?

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by Military Mom
I will say this, however. I apologized for the tone of my post. Why, James did you feel the need to chastize me again? I got your message the first time. What more can I say????

What caused this renewed rebuke?

PS I know what the Gnostics are :) It felt like to me that your apology post had another jab in it. I was responding to that.

However, I apologized about all of it in the other thread in the Announcements area. http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php3?threadid=1124

[Military Mom]

Again well said, blinc. A horrifying thought (about losing your mate - deep end is right!).

True, some GSWs never get to us because there is no hope, but quite a few that are clearly beyond hope still do - and I was basing what I said on those cases as well. I don't keep track of numbers, alhough some sturdy, well researched data would be nice to see - but I do have lots of memories. On that note, there are also many DOAs that never get to us that are victims of other traumas (na-na 8-P lol)

BUt seriously, the data you presented clearly shows that guns are the most deadly. I do agree that we need regulation, but youy have to watch because the more heavily a right or privilege isregulated, the closer we get to losing it altogether. I think that is the heart of what people are afraid of. They don't want their rights infringed upon, they want to use guns as a means to defend themselves or for sport of hunting, and also feel that the government gets way too involved in too many things.

Well, Unseen is here, breathing down my neck - literally - it's his turn on the puter. There will always be more to say on this topic. I have had my say, and I respect the views of others as well.

mm

[Military Mom]

How was that, James?

We need a fluttering eyelash smiley for just such a salubrious occasion. hehe

I MAKING JOKES HERE, GUYS .... lol ok?

[blinc]

{toothy} How about {angel2} I kinda like that little innocent look that has the suggestion of an impish smile!

I do agree about being careful to not cross the line into regulating so much that it would be immpossible for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun. I'm not for total gun banning!! not at all! I think you brought up a very valid point... fear of being an unarmed citizenry... that probably is at the heart of what people are afraid of.

I'm for people who do own guns to be made more responsible for acts that are committed with their guns... erm.. does that make sense? In the cases of parents not taking the care of locking up their weapons, a child gets ahold of it and kills herself/himself... or a teen gets a weapon in the heat of anger and kills another teen. I am for making people more responsible... not taking away the right for people to own a gun at all.

Yup, clear as mud huh? {toothy}

[keithster]

The primary problem with gun laws is that they can only be foisted upon law abiding citizens.

I've frequently asked anti-gun folks a couple of questions.

First, if you believe that having guns is such a bad thing, would you be willing to put a sign on the front of your house stating that there are no guns inside?

No takers. Why? Criminals are not stupid. They'll go where the chance of harm is lowest. Even the anti-gun folks know this. I did read an interesting article a few years ago on this. The criminals the author talked with in prison favor tough gun control.

Second, before I give up the right to my weapons, tell me how you are going to take the weapons away from the criminals.

No response. They can only go after law abiding citizens. And I think there are plenty of folks in this country who would rather break the law in this case than give up their protection.

CA found this out after it banned one type of rifle. There was a deadline to turn it in and the govt didn't get the number expected.

Common sense is needed here instead of the emotional appeals that pass for news.

[Military Mom]

I dunno 'bout you, but if I were a criminal (let's say I was a chocolate burgler) I would AVOID the house with the truck parked in front with the NRA stickers all over it, lol....

mm

[keithster]

Several years ago in Florida, the bad guys were hitting rental cars because they knew the tourists couldn't bring a weapon with them. It was so bad that the car rental companies took all company ID off the cars. Some enterprising individual was selling NRA stickers to incoming tourists.

Common sense ain't so common any longer.

Here's a link to a bunch of articles on guns written by a physician. I knew it was low, but didn't realize that less than 1/2 of one percent of child deaths result from guns.

http://www.newsmax.com/columnists/Brown.shtml

[jamesglewisf]

Look at this story:

http://foxnews.com/national/020201/school_attack.sml

Five kindergartners, two teachers and a principal were wounded Friday when a man wielding a machete and a baseball bat tore through the halls of a Pennsylvania elementary school.

Authorities said the man, whose name was not released, burst into the school and chased the principal during the 11:30 a.m. attack at North Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary School in central Pennsylvania. The suspect was captured and arrested about 20 minutes later.

[jamesglewisf]

Can you imagine what those kids were going through? That must have been incredibly frightening. It sounds so crazy that it's almost like something out of a movie.

[Debby]

It just goes to show, it doesn't matter what the weapon is, it's the person using it who kills the people.

[keithster]

Some people seem to forget that guns aren't the cause of the problems. They are simply a symptom. Treating the symptom rarely cures the disease.

[jamesglewisf]

The magical fifth page. I'm shutting this long one down.