Well, if I read that correctly, in 1998 there were:

Age:             Deaths due to firearm missiles:



1-4               19

5-9               34

10-14             68

15-19            141

20-29            119

They were just kids.

How about this for an idea -
As some people said before, gun owners should be registered, just like car owners are. On top of that, a gun owner should be liable for what happens with his gun. That would make the responsible gun owners that much more careful with their guns. It would punish irresponsible gun owners. Of course, there would be a way to report a stolen gun. People could certainly abuse the "stolen" loophole, but it would make all gun owners think twice about how much they actually want their guns. It would force gun-owning parents do deal with the risk of having guns and children in the same house - the guns should be locked up, and children should be educated about them. If a parent has a child who has reached the point of drilling open a child lock to kill himself or somebody else, perhaps it's probably not a good idea to be keeping a gun in the house.

Now that April 1st is history, I suppose it is time to offer a more serious opinion on what is a complex subject. Actually, I embedded a few serious points in my previous post but no one (probably to their credit!) rose to the bait.

I can personally attest to the fact that firing off a pistol, M-16, M-60, M-79 grenade launcher, and even a LAW (light antitank weapon) can be a lot of fun. It really helps in the fun department if the target is something inanimate like a derelict 6x6, a defunct APC, or a Coke can. Look at all the fun those biathletes have!

At some point in my life, it was no longer possible to fire the occasional LAW, protests to my elected representatives notwithstanding. I tried to point out the role of the LAW in home defense and my rights under the Constitution, but my protests fell on deaf ears. It seems that some completely arbitrary line had been drawn preventing me from owning a LAW. Sawed-off shotguns, too!! Oppressive government at work!!!

Yes, I was bitter for a while, but after a long period of reflection, I came to a number of (sometimes conflicting) conclusions. What follows is a number of highly developed theories, hypotheses and Jimtistics (uniquely customized statistics)...

Depending on where you look -- cities, suburbs, rural areas -- gun ownership cuts across the class/politics spectra. That being said, gun ownership (especially short arms and auto fire items) is much higher among folks that would consider themselves politically conservative. It is higher yet again in groups who can rightly be considered "fringe" -- survivalist, New World Order kooks more of less. Somebody protect me from the people who want to protect me from the government!

The Left's opinions and statistics on guns are not perfect or 100% percent consistent. They are generally consistent. One place this leaves the Left is: seriously outgunned.

The NRA is morally bankrupt. We could have 5 or 6 Columbines a year and they would still trot out the same old party lines.

Fully 50 percent of folks who joint the NRA do so just to get the little sticker to put on their car in the vain hope that they'll deter car thieves.

I don't think I want to spend a whole lot of time socializing with the dudes that drive around with "This Car Protected by Smith and Wesson" bumper stickers. If by some amazing coincidence they all developed a fatal illness or moved to the same deserted island as that guy with the "My Other Ride Is Your Daughter" bumper sticker, I would not be very upset.

WRT guns, some folks decry and even make fun of countries like the UK. I wonder whether unarmed constables is the perfect approach, but I still consider it an accomplishment of sorts. Give me the UK's gun problem over our gun problem any day.

Different countries take different approaches on this issue. None of the approaches is perfect. Some, I would say, are better than ours. France, for instance, only issues pistol permits to mentally ill paranoid folks if they have a solid history of target shooting. When I travel to Canada, the government gent at the border makes a big deal out of making sure that I am not armed. When I cross the border, I am no longer covered by the NRA's misconception of the 2nd amendment, but, amazingly, I don't feel like I have driven into the heart of a brutal repressive dictatorship. I don't even feel less free. Amazing.

My careful research shows that some of the guys who get the *most* fired up about handguns have what I would call control issues...they also are prone to PIED (premature idiopathic erectile dysfunction). Well, that's why they call them short arms.

The good news for these guys (and perhaps the sad news for some of us)? : You Can Relax. You've Won. Manufacturers and gun shops have pumped so many weapons into the hands of private citizens (whether law-abiding or criminally inclined) through the inconsistent matrix of various state laws that there is really little hope of going back. Even if police melted down every weapon confiscated from criminals (after being stolen during a break-in) and if serious new restrictions on new manufacture/purchase were put in place, the number of guns out there would remain huge.

This being the United States, if anything happens in this arena it will be the result of: litigation. Personal injury lawsuits against the owner who did not secure a weapon which killed that (statistically insignificant) 4 year-old.

Well, there it is. I'm not going to spend a lot of energy defending particulars since, as we all know, YROFMV.

There's no need to try to insult people who have opposing views just because you can't come up with any significant or concrete evidence for your point of view.

As for children being killed by guns, it's a terrible tragedy but there's not much you can do except for making sure it doesn't happen to your children. I would bet that there are more children hit by cars while crossing the road every year than there are shot by guns. Should we get rid of roads so children won't try to cross them? No. You teach your child to look both ways or to not cross the road at all.

And while we're banning guns and roads, we might aswell ban small, choke-able objects, anything sharp, trains (so they don't wreck), houses (fire hazard), anything that can be used as a strangling device, pillows (suffocation), bath tubs (drown prevention), stoves (burns), food (could be poisoned)....In fact why don't we just invent a drug that will vegetablize a human being for life while he sits in a padded chair, fed intravenously. There will be no pain, no suffering, no war, no death. We will all be able to live out our lives in peace without a care in the world. Face the truth, a human being is not capable of taking care of himself. We are too stupid to make logical decisions such as keeping a gun from a child. It is necessary to have a government to tell us what is right, what is wrong, what is safe, and what is unsafe. We can not trust ourselves. We might do something illogical like shooting ourselves with a gun. But it won't be our fault. It's the guns fault. The government must protect us from these perilous devices.

"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."
Amendment II
U.S. Constitution

It is hard to believe some people are misinterpreting the second amendment. It's obvious that the framers of the constitution were refering to the limbs protruding out of the shoulders, not weapons.

We are too stupid to make logical decisions such as keeping a gun from a child

Yes, that would appear to be the unfortunate truth.


I think you need you actually read Jim's post more carefully. If you had you would have appreciated the humour in it, and also the fact that his statements were fairly balanced - he reserved his rhetoric for those who most deserved it on both sides of the debate.

And a point of view does not need any evidence whatsoever. It is purely one persons perspective. Now if I were to make some factual statements, then I'd need to back them up with evidence. If I were to discourse on how so many 'Myths' were purely myths, and why, I'd better be able to provide evidence. But, then again, I'd probably start by crediting the source of the information first. I have to confess that I stopped reading after your first post - it was taking too long, and it was quite obvious that it was purely a cut&paste regurgitation of NRA-slanted rhetoric which turned me off completely. And then I had to scroll down past God-Knows-How-Many more posts of the same. I'd much rather read something that showed an original line of reasoning than something that shows what a party-hack you are.


And while we're banning guns and roads, we might aswell ban small, choke-able objects, anything sharp, trains (so they don't wreck), houses (fire hazard), anything that can be used as a strangling device, pillows (suffocation), bath tubs (drown prevention), stoves (burns), food (could be poisoned)....In fact why don't we just invent a drug that will vegetablize a human being for life while he sits in a padded chair, fed intravenously. There will be no pain, no suffering, no war, no death. We will all be able to live out our lives in peace without a care in the world. Face the truth, a human being is not capable of taking care of himself. We are too stupid to make logical decisions such as keeping a gun from a child. It is necessary to have a government to tell us what is right, what is wrong, what is safe, and what is unsafe. We can not trust ourselves. We might do something illogical like shooting ourselves with a gun. But it won't be our fault. It's the guns fault. The government must protect us from these perilous devices.


Re-read the thread, and you will see that no-one has suggested banning guns. You are so conditioned to get defensive to protect your rights that this fact has eluded you.

"you would have appreciated the humour in it"

Oh, I appreciate the humor. It was very funny.

"If I were to discourse on how so many 'Myths' were purely myths, and why, I'd better be able to provide evidence. But, then again, I'd probably start by crediting the source of the information first."

I think they backed themselves up with a whole assload of fact, and if you go to the website, all of the stats/info are cited. You see those little numbers that appear seemingly randomly inbetween the sentences in those posts? Those are footnote links on the website.

"I'd much rather read something that showed an original line of reasoning than something that shows what a party-hack you are. "

It is an original line of reasoning. Just someone else's. And one that I happen to agree with. And party-hack? What's that mean? That I'm conservative? Why aren't liberals ever 'party-hacks'? Oh yeah, because they think like you. Why is it that so many so-called liberals like yourself display pure hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you? And then they'll go and call them 'close-minded'.

"Re-read the thread, and you will see that no-one has suggested banning guns. You are so conditioned to get defensive to protect your rights that this fact has eluded you."

Perhaps it has eluded you that guns are already banned for many on this BBS. And perhaps it has eluded you that many people DO want to ban guns. And perhaps the fact that gun-control has been an ever-increasing trend in the last few decades in the U.S. has eluded you as well.

Why don't you just stick to the subject instead of trying to intimidate people into agreeing with you through personal attacks? You sound like a school yard bully. You have passed the 6th grade haven't you? (Now we're even)

The only 'guns' I own are all my Boomerangs.(and my brain to use all of it ....)

But just for fun and pleasure.

Thanks for the new sig...LOL.

That's because you don't know what the problem is. All you're thinking about is yourself.

Calvin

I think you're really funny too. But you should stick to the subject, and stop being so hypocritical. And there is no need for insulting everyone who has an opposing view just because you can't come up with concrete or factual evidence for your point of view. I'm not talking about what you wrote, but mostly commenting on your attitude, especially when you throw around insults and don't provide some sort of substance in your arguments instead. Neither you, nor anyone else has the right to tell me how to think, so i am not listening to you. Oops, I didn't mean to make you cry, I was kind of going for laughing. What can I say, I'm a straight-shooter. No need to be beating around any bushes. I think it is time you stop judging people on their morales, and stop stereotyping everyone who doesn't agree with you. Damn conversatives, damn literals, damn capitalismists. Anyway, what do you want? A cookie? See! You are brainwashed.

Calvin

P.S. B.T.W. (what is an acryonym?) I have the right to go out there and make copies of anything I want and what I do shouldn't matter to Y3zed. ;-p

No, it doesn't matter.

this si an age old arguement, i doubt anyone will convince anyone. I had a gun, i sold it. i will buy another some time i am sure, why, because i enjoy shooting (target and the odd burnt up stolen car in the desert)

when i leave my house, my gun is diassembled into at least 5 pieces, firing pin locked in a safebox to which only i have the key. WHen i have a gun around a child the gun is either on me holstered, with a safety, or in a lock box, with a trigger lock, unloaded, with teh bullets in another place.

If you are buyign a gun for home defense it is a bad idea.. 99% of the time you won't have time t shoot someone first, or if you do shoot them first you will face criminal charges.

What DOES need to be cut down on is the unregisterred gun buying from gun shows and private citizens. When i sold my gun i sold it to a store, for less money, specifically so i didn't have feduciary responsibility if someone wound up dead because of it. IF i would have run an ad, someone could have come up to me and said

"hi, i am a local phoneix resident and i want to buy your gun"

i wouldn't have even had to card him. That needs to change. The resale of guns is part of the problem, not the first sale of guns.

and also, fwiw, the NRA spends more money prosecuting gun offenders then anything else.

"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."

So, tell me Yz... just what well regulated Militia do you belong to that gives you the right to keep and bear arms?

tanstaafl.

I'm starting my own militia. It's called the Dude's Army Militia Marching In Texas, also known as DAMMIT. The DAMMIT Foundation, Inc., not only believes in gun rights but also in the right to arm bears. Wanna join?

Oooh! Another lovely Jim Baen book. I'm pretty sure that they get monkeys to do jacket design, and then only give them two fonts to choose from, and a copy of some really crappy software that actually induces them to use extraordinarily heavy drop shadows and borders and extreme stretching.

Back off, Bitt, one of my best freinds is published under Baen and is personal friends with Jim. I happen to think her covers look quite nice.

Oh, come on. I could do better in my sleep. I'm pretty sure Jim does them himself. He's a nice guy, too. Just a little on the cheap side, apparently. I'm sure that it's because of the tiny print runs that he isn't able to spend much money on stuff like that.

Note that this isn't intended to reflect on the quality of the book. David Drake (known local boy) writes some of the better military sf around, and he's largely Baen-published. And it's wonderful that there's a well-distributed small-run sf publisher still out there. (I mean, there's also Arkham House, Four Walls, Eight Windows, and Mark V. Ziesing, but you've gotta really search for those.) And he keeps his back catalog up. And he offers some older books online for free.

But you can still pick out a Baen offering from across the room just from the cover, unless it's next to a late 80s Tor book.

And you get an honorary badge upon joining.

For me it was the taste of vinison, and of course the commonly quoted word, comroderie (or however you spell that), running around in the woods with no one else around, the quiet (when lurking around), and the acrid smell of gunpowder and cordite.

I wouldn't say killing is fun. Shooting is fun, eating is good, the hunt is fun, but not really the killing. When I had a full freezer, I'd still hunt, just not shoot or otherwise kill, and I still had a blast.

g

Man, you have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Calvin

Think of the Beatles. John Lennon, George Harrison, both attacked by fanatics in different countries with different gun laws. John was shot and killed, George survived with stab wounds.