Sorry, I was late getting lunch.. made me grouchy... LOL

More guns doesn't always mean more murder. I think even the fairly anti-gun Michael Moore demonstrated this in "Bowling for Columbine" in which he showed how Canadians -- who also have a lot of guns -- have a murder rate only a fraction of that of the U.S.

Also, I would venture to say the murder rate here, in Wyoming, is -- per capita -- fairly low. And this is about as gun-saturated a place as you could hope to find in the country... if not the entire planet.

(Now, our SUICIDE rate in Wyoming is unusually high.. but that's a whole other ball of wax)

I agree with you that Americans are a little "gun crazy." And there might not be a practical need for guns, guns, guns everwhere in some of our larger cities.

What might make sense in terms of gun regulation for New York City or L.A. would be completely overboard in a place like Wyoming.

Out where I live, there IS such a practical use for them. Many people, me included, count on big game meat as a pretty significant source of food. Yes, I could survive without it. But, it certianly makes my grocery bill much, much cheaper. And as I've indicated in posts on other subjects, I live on a VERY tight budget, I struggle. And without the option of putting a deer in the freezer every autumn.. it could become a particularly unpleasant struggle for me.
Besides that, most U.S. beef is so full of fat and chemicals, I'd rather not eat it. Wild game is a great, lean, healthy source of protein, B-vitamins and other nutrients.

I agree with you, Mouse; on the INTENT of the user of well; anything. There are not that many things that could not in one way or another be used to kill another human being. When one person makes this decision to commit this heinous act; a firearm is only a weapon of choice. The act of murder is still going to happen; just with a different tool of CHOICE.

Washington DC has the most strict of all Gun Control laws, it is illegal for you to own a gun in your own home. Therefore according to your logic, Washington DC should have no gn related deaths, yet per capita it has the highest of all cities in this country.

They banned the guns, it is illegal to own one, yet more people are killed with guns in DC. A glaring example that gun control does not work.

dmk

I own a .30/30 by definition that is a rapid fire weapon. I can load one round in the chamber and have six others loaded and ready to fire. What logical reason do I have for owning this, lets see.......bears and wolves. It often takes more than one round to put down a bear, and sometimes it takes several rounds to make that pack of wolves disappear.

Funny you should mention military type weapons, if we are to believe the collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment and the interpretation of the Court in the Miller case, these are the very weapons that the 2nd Amendment protects.

dmk

Stats huh,

In 1999 Time Magazine surveyed 30,000 Americans. It found that only 6.7% of people wanted stricter handgun laws, while at the same time some 92.2% believe that carry a concealed weapon helps to reduce crime.

A 1999 survey by CBS (hardly a pro gun organization) found these responses:

• Only 14% of Americans believe that gun control can prevent violence with guns.
• 56% of people said enforcement of existing laws is the better way to reduce violent crime than
• Only 4% said gun control should be a top issue for the government.

According to an AOL.com poll in March 2000:

How can gun violence be effectively prevented?

Stricter gun control laws 17.8%

Proper enforcement of current gun control laws 22.4%

Ban on handguns 13.2%

Stricter punishment for crimes involving guns 35.6%

BTW a 1999 survey by CNN found that by an overwhelming 85% of respondents that manufacturers should not be held liable for gun deaths.

Damn those facts sure are stupid little things aren't they.

dmk

Again Washington DC has banned guns, yet they lead the nation in Gun Related murders per capita. So it would seem that your logic ignores the reality. There is no censure except of those law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves. The law prohibits guns so there should be no gun deaths, yet there are more here every year than any other city per capita.

So you protect yourself at home, but that is where your right to life ends??? I am sorry, if you only allow people to use guns in their own homes, then criminals will adapt and only attack people on the streets.

Concealed Carry Laws have a free-rider effect. Since criminals do not know who is carry a weapon, they are less like to assault people on the streets for fear of coming accross someone who is carrying a weapon. You see, you don't even have to carry a weapon, and the law is already helping to protect you.

dmk

as long as i am awake ( not self doped, or trick doped,or in a coma or hypnosed etc ) I can protect my GUN & MYSELF. the right to BARR ARMS 1 lock 1 gun 1 gun 1 lock. stated by & as a victom of my own bullet not my own gun not my own hand not my own desire PATCH GIRL lucca REMINGTON CO - FOUNDER THE NRA!........musica........possum........

Banning guns doesn't work, not just your basic form of "gun control" mind you. Gun bans are the extreme scenario when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Gun control laws like background checks and registration are alright in my book, at least the State is trying to keep guns out of the hands of the crazy and the criminals in such a way that it doesn't prevent law-abiding citizens from owning a gun.

Now I agree with you, banning guns altogether is just dumb and I'll you tell why that is so in a few easy bullet-points:

-State X has gun control (And they use it.) but no gun bans, most can purchase a gun through the usual methods. The usual law-abiding citizen can legally purchase a gun without much hassle.

-Those with criminal records or meantal health issues (VA Tech killer) are either limited in their choice of firearms, or just plain not allowed because they are a danger to society at large. These people, not having access to firearms outright, will usually try to obtain one through illegal channels. And in the case of the VA Tech killer, he gets lucky because of human stupidity (Why do you give a crazy guy a gun? Why? )

-Criminals have guns, but so do we, the odds are even at least in that aspect. Add that to the fact that criminals must weigh the risks involved in a mugging or home-invasion because the potential victim might be loaded!

-If State X bans all sales and usage of guns, all people cannot buy firearms for protection. The law-abiding citizen has no way of obtain a legal weapon and most of these people have no idea how to obtain weapons on the streets.

-However, these methods are still known and open to the criminal element of society. In the end, they get the guns, but we are left defenseless. Crime rate goes up because criminals now know that most don't have weapons at home, so the odds are now on their side.

Do you have any idea of how many Americans actually do protect themselves with guns? I would like to see your estimate, otherwise your above statement is without merit. I fear what you consider so obvious is utterly and fundamentally wrong.

A secondary question that I'm sure you will not answer is: how many justifiable instances of defensive gun use would it take for you to state that the private ownership of guns has a viable and necessary purpose? A percentage would be fine. A figure of 100,000 people "hurt" annually from firearms (injuries, suicide, and murder) would be a nice reasonable number to work from . . . So would 20,000 defensive uses be enough? 50,000, how about 70,000 defensive uses?

• During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. -- U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Statistics: Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft April 1994, NCJ-147003

• At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in about 1 percent of robberies and assaults--about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. -- National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence. by Jeffrey A. Roth

How many of those 70,000 people using a gun to defend themselves every year are you comfortable disarming and rendering defenseless? How many are you willing to condemn to death or injury just to bring to fruition your pie-in-the-sky beliefs? Disarm the citizens and watch the death rate climb . . . is that what you want?

How then do you account for the the number of murders dropping in America? Come on; how can there be 8000 fewer murders in 2005 than there were in 1991 when in that period over 100 million additional guns were bought by private citizens? Your premise fails miserably.

If you answer with anything other than "OK, you're right," you recognize and accept that other conditions BESIDES GUN AVAILABILITY are much larger factors upon an nation's homicide patterns.

The reason the majority of Europe is gun-free is not to control the criminal element and provide the people with a nice quiet neighborhood. Europe's gun bans were enacted for political reasons; the rulers wanted a safe and inhabitable society for themselves! Insurrections are squashed by keeping the subjects defenseless; that they are quiet and "safe" now is more an outcome of their historically servile status, not of the fact they just can't own a gun. If it was just "the gun law" that make those nations safe and quiet why hasn't it modified the behavior of Europe's violent immigrants, i.e. England's Yardies?