Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Bargod]

It is starting to look like the second ammendment was purposely left vague so that Adams wouldn't have to hear it from either side of the issue... yes gun ownership goes back to the writing of the constitution.

In Virginia's constitution, the first in the nation, they say-
"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."
There is no mention of citizens rights to bear arms.

Pennsylvania's constitution says-
"[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State."

The Dick Act of 1903 made state militia the National Guard.
The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933, made the National Guard part of the Army.
The Total Force Policy, 1973, - Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.) [from the national guard page]

So, the militia is there and it's well trained etc. etc. and it is well provided for by the state with weapons. So it is in the realm of possibility that the second amendment could be repealed (although I realise this is totally unlikely) and the constitution would still be followed with it's rules for militias.

Not familiar with those particular laws, but congress can't pass laws in violation of the Constitution

Actually, the constitution puts Congress in charge of raising Armies and the Militia, so any laws regarding the army and militias are Congress' job and protected by the constitution.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 1. Section 8. US constitution - Powers of Congress

[Hellfighter]

Here's another note of interest with Militias, during the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, US Militia units refused to cross a river/bordering with Canada at a critical point in the battle when their reinforcing presence was needed by their comrades battling in out on the Canadian side. They announced their rights to stay on the American side of the border only regarding how far they could be ordered into action.

For all this discussion, I find that an interesting tidbit/fact. A militia willing to defend it's territory, but with no interest to expand. If only the leaders of most nations had felt the same way throughout history.

The whole campaign is facinating too... Canadians had their own local militias too including a small coy. of blacks [as did the Americans at New Orleans -a crazy,brave bunch of Haitians] . In a way the bands of nativeson the Canadian sidecould be described as 'militias' too.

The battles in the campaign could only be described as brutal as those in Europe [Napoleonic Wars] and its unfortunate most Canadians aren't aware of the War of 1812 and its importance after for the country, and the intensity of the fighting on both sides by all combatants and officers that included many militia units on both sides.

I have to clarify U.S militia units would cross the border when the situation was in their favour. At Queenston Heights the militias on the US river side could see Canadian reinforcements arriving to turn the tide of battle, plus the fear-inspiring whooping calls of the 'canadian' natives [kinda impressionable like stuka bombs falling I guess] combined with the Americans literally getting pushed back /off their initial toe-hold on a cliff [canadian river-side] on which the battle centered, all swayed the militia men to take a pass from going into a dubious situation by bringing up the boundaries of the obligations -it wasn't too late to sway the battle, but they chose not to.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/14/07 7:22pm

[Capt. Andtennille]

Just to finish trying to understand you (please type s l o w l y so me and Bargod can understand), I would also assume that since you are against govenment limits and controls of people's life and liberty that you also...

1. Believe in gay marriage, as it is not government that should have to right to impose limits on the definition of marriage, or really any issues of morality

States rights issue and I could support allowing gay marriage in states that choose to do so as long as the other states aren't forced to honor them.

2. Believe Bush and Co. have seriously violated many of your privacy rights by data mining your credit card records and using various search and seazuire techniques without warrant.

No laws have been broken

3. Believe the Iraq war was illegal according to your laws because only congress has the right to declare war, yet did not

Congress authorized the actions in Iraq. Haven't you been paying attention?

4. Believe that you are overtaxed, and thus would seriously want a massive reduction in the size of government including various government programs AND the size of the military, as the US spends more than the next 20-50 countries in the world COMBINED on its military.

I absolutely believe we are overtaxed. Contraray to your limited understanding of the charter of the U.S. Government, defense is actually one of the things they are SUPPOSED to do. We could lower taxes by stopping all the spending that is NOT defined in the Constitution (Social Security, welfare, Health care, education, etc.) and I would be all for it.

Or, if you don't believe in the above, perhas you are neo-conservative, meaning you are interventionist, believe in big miltary, do not dissaprove of massive government spending as much as WHERE it is spent (miltary, farm subsides good, welfare bad).

Just trying to understand, since in this gun debate you keep throwing out the "liberal" label. But the problem is people mean different things by those words. Your strict interpretation of the constitution would seem to peg you as a libertarian actually if it extends beyond merely the gun debate, such as being offended by attempts to expand government data collecting without warrants, or trying to justify torture, or whatever (constitution guarantees against unreasonable search and seziure, for example, and rights to lawyers). However, maybe by "liberal" you merely mean "Democrat" and by "conservative" you would mean generally Republican. If that's the case, I'm not sure everyone fits those labels in this debate.

Here is my working definition of conservatives and liberals:



CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.


Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.



LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

[/size]

[size="2"]

[shazbot]

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

The problem with "CONSERVATIVES" is they feel they have the right to define "traditional American values". I'm a middle of the road kind of person but George Bush and his version of the Republican party has def. pushed my views to the left.

To quote Comic Book Guy (Simpsons Fame) Worst President Ever

Back on topic. Go Guns, yeah Guns.

[Capt. Andtennille]

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

The problem with "CONSERVATIVES" is they feel they have the right to define "traditional American values". I'm a middle of the road kind of person but George Bush and his version of the Republican party has def. pushed my views to the left.

To quote Comic Book Guy (Simpsons Fame) Worst President Ever

I never once claimed that the current bunch are conservatives. History will be kinder to Bush than current polls, conversely, history will be much harder on Clinton.

Back on topic. Go Guns, yeah Guns.

Guns are good.

[shazbot]

Just a quick question for you guys on this topic. Are all the "pro guns" people in ths discussion from the midwest or areas where hunting is more prevalent? Please don't take this as a slight, my family is all from the Green bay area. I'm just curious if people who may have grown up around guns, i.e. hunting are more likely to fall on the "pro guns" side of the fence. I was raised around guns and taught to shoot, handle them, clean, etc but not to hunt. To be honest with you, i don't really care if people own guns. The "hunters" are not the ones I worry about.

Shazbot

[Nothing]

Well, Im from Chicago. I hunt Deer every year. I own a 2 Shotguns and 2 handguns. I use the Shotguns for hunting purposes, and I own the handguns for sport shooting at ranges and also for protection reasons. I know the chances of me actually using the handguns for protection reasons are slim to none, but I feel a little safer knowing we have them if needed.

[*Triggahappy13*]

well, I'm from MN (vikequeens > Green Bay Slackers ) and I kind of grew up around guns, my uncle was more into hunting than my father and we do have a various assortment of shotguns, including a new 16 gauge that i got for my b-day and my father carries a wather when hes at for (CCL FTW) and then we have my grandaddy's colt 1911, I found out not to long ago that he actually was in the battle of the bulge kickin some ass while my grandfather on my mothers side was in the pacific theater. But in all I am personally more into target shooting than hunting and when i turn 18..well lets just say that my money might "dissappear"

[Capt. Andtennille]

Just a quick question for you guys on this topic. Are all the "pro guns" people in ths discussion from the midwest or areas where hunting is more prevalent? Please don't take this as a slight, my family is all from the Green bay area. I'm just curious if people who may have grown up around guns, i.e. hunting are more likely to fall on the "pro guns" side of the fence. I was raised around guns and taught to shoot, handle them, clean, etc but not to hunt. To be honest with you, i don't really care if people own guns. The "hunters" are not the ones I worry about.

Shazbot

He Shazbot.

My family is from southern Wisconsin but I currently live near Green Bay. My guess is that people who are used to the government providing from them are more apt to want gun control and the people who provide for themselves want gun freedom.

Capt. Adntennille

[shazbot]

I guess another problem i have with the whole conservative versus liberal thing is:

1)If Conservatives believe in making their own way then do they deserve to recieve Social Security checks at retirement? Do they deserve help from FEMA if their homes are destroyed by a tornado, etc. Do they deserve to use the government created road system? The reason why i bring this up is, I think people, whether they want to admit it or not, are a mix of both conservative and liberal viewpoinnts. The people who fall on the either the far left or right, are the ones to worried about (gun owners or not)

Sorry, kind of off topic again.

This post has been edited by shazbot: 09/21/07 1:03pm

[Bargod]

The whole Republican/Democrat thing doesn't really stand true any more. If people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to own a gun, shouldn't they have the right to choose what they put into their bodies?
Because the parties are no longer about power of the states vs. power of the national government, but instead about the extremes of liberal vs. conservative, there is nobody representing the majority of Americans.
Abe Lincoln was a Republican who felt that the national government should be held higher than state governments. The Democrats wanted the state governments to have more power.
Today, the Republicans want the states to have more power.
Why? Because the parties stopped standing for political viewpoint and instead started trying to win votes.
So, the Republican party no longer stands for strong national government. It now stands for Christian Conservative, because that's where they got the votes. What do the Christian Conservatives want? Strong states rights. Why? Because they were originally Democrats.
The two party system is flawed because the world isn't black/white. Multi-party systems are flawed because it can split the vote of the majority of people who may want to remove a person from office, but by splitting the vote of the majority, the minority (people who want to keep person in office) win. This happened in the Dallas Mayoral election a while back. Most people wanted our mayor out of office but split the vote between the other 2 candidates and we ended up stuck with our crappy mayor for another term.
It's a lose/lose situation.
So, I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I used to vote Libertarian, but don't do that much anymore. Instead, I find the candidate that seems represent me the best. Right now it's a toss up between Giuliani/Obama and I just like McCain. He really seems like a nice guy.

[Robert]

Thought I would add my 2 cents, as gun control is my 2nd favorite debate subject right after "The War on Drugs". I almost hate to say anything in fear of stealing some Capt. Andtennile's thunder as he's done an EXCELLENT job, a virtual smack down of the apposing side.

BTW gun control has been previously discussed
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...?showtopic=3326


US Constitution.[i]
This has always been my humorous reply to discussions about what the 2nd amendment REALLY means

"The People" in the Preamble means The People.
"The People" in Article 1 Sec. 2 means The People.
"The People" in the First amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Fourth amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Ninth amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Seventeenth Amendment means The People.
But to gun control advocates....
"The People" in the Second Amendment means the National Guard.
which didn't even exist for over a century until it was created by act of congress in 1903

If anyone really wants to know what the 2nd Amendment is really about, all you have to do is refer to the
Federalist Papers
James Madison wrote
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

How about this.
Can everyone agree the US Constitution is a combination of the original State Constitutions?
If so, then we should be able to gain some insight on the true intent of the 2nd Amendment buy looking at the State Constitutions.
This is from the States which mention rights in regard to arms in their individual Constitutions in 1971
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State
shall not be questioned.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the
State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.

Does that change any one's perspective when it comes to the meaning of
"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."

I've always hated the gun control advocates and their attempts to rewrite history to minimize WHY we have the 2nd amendment.
The initial trigger of the American Revolution was The Battles of Lexington and Concord.
British troops were sent to Lexington and Concord to seize and destroy the colonists' weapons.
At Lexington, the path of 700 British soldiers was blocked by a small group of Minutemen.
This is when and were the famous "shot heard around the world" comes from.
This isn't pertinent to the discussion but I've always found it interesting.
Only a dozen colonist were killed in the fight at the North Bridge in Concord where they resisted the British advance. Yet, over ten times as many British soldiers were killed in their march back to Lexington after being turned back by the Minutemen without a single additional casualty among the Americans.
Individuals hiding along the road, fired on the passing British as they marched back to Lexington. The British didn't know how to reply these kinds of attacks by random individuals firing from different locations. The soldiers were only trained how to stand in lines and trade volleys of rifle fire with the enemy.
This might be the 1st recorded example of guerrilla warfare.
Anyway the point is, the Founding Fathers thought the Right to bear arms was so important because the attempted infringement of that right is what had just triggered the American Revolution.

I'm sure some people are going to say...
"Big deal, that was over 200 years ago, so it doesn't reflect the realities of today."
Well then, how about something a little more recent like WWII.
There are three important quotes from Admiral Yamamoto who was the commander of the Japanese Navy and the master mind behind Pearl Harbor.
Some move buffs may recognize this one credited to Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Truth is, it's highly doubtful he actually said that but it does accurately convey his well documented opinion.
When he planned the attack on Pearl, there was suppose to be an official break of relations with the U.S. just prior to the attack.
Due to delays caused by decryption of the coded messages from Japan, the formal notification of a break in relations didn't happen until several hours AFTER the attack.
In Yamamoto's opinion this mistake was a deciding factor in Japan losing the war.
He knew the only chance against the U.S. was an early decisive victory. Which Japan would use to force the U.S. into some form non-aggression pact.
Without the official break of relations prior to the attack, he knew the U.S. would never be willing to negotiate.
Another quote which did happen and is important because it shows just how much of a tactical genius he really was.
Months before the attack on Pearl, Yamamoto told the Japanese Cabinet members.
"I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success."
Which turned out to be incredibly accurate. The Battle of Midway, considered to be the turning point of the War, happened 6 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Now I'm sure you're wondering what the heck this has to do with "gun control"
Actually a lot, at one point the Japanese command was considering an invasion if the attack at Pearl was a success. Yamamoto told them an invasion would be impossible.
Yamamoto knew America better than any one else in Japan's military command structure as he spent several years in the U.S . First he attended Harvard for a few years and then was stationed for another two years in the U.S. as a Naval attache. So he had 1st hand knowledge that America, unlike almost any other nation, had a freely armed civilian populace.
Which brings me to my final quote.
When the topic of possible limited invasion was brought up, he told them.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be an American with a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Don't know about you but for me it puts more recent twist on.
"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."
Maybe it's wasn't just some dumb thing a few guys in white wigs and long frilly coats came up with over 200 years ago.




Then there is the ever popular comparison between the U.S . and Canada in regards to gun laws and crime rates.
Since this concerns statistics, I'll share with you something my teacher said in Statistics class.
"Over half the people involved in car accidents ate french fries in the week preceding the car wreck.
This does not mean skipping fries is a good way to reduce your odds of being in a car accident. "
The point being, statistics don't mean jack unless you can also show an underlying cause an effect relationship. With that in mind, lets take a closer look at this common myth.

Canada has a lower violent crime rate compared to the U.S.
The gun control advocates without any proof, imply this means if the U.S. passed similar gun laws then the violent crime rate would drop. ( ie. the same as it did in Canada )
At 1st glance it seems not only a legitimate argument but common sense.
Less guns = less gun violence
Isn't that the concept gun advocates try to push?
It goes like this......
Canada, being the forward thinking country ( unlike the U.S. ) has greatly restricted gun possession over the last 30+ years with GREAT results.
1977, law passed to require Firearms Acquisition Certificates
1991, Laws passed to tightened up restrictions and established stricter controls on firearms. Bans handguns with over 10 rounds and most semi-automatic rifles over 5 rounds. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued one.
1995 new, stricter, gun control legislation passed and a landmark Gun Registry is introduced.
Gun control advocates often point to Canada as proof of how their gun restriction laws have reduced violent crime.
One small problem, it didn't actually happen.
Violent crime has been on a fairly overall upward climb since the 1st restrictions were put in place in 1977



Or here is an interesting review of crime statistics from the Canadian National Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...c3cee14&p=1
It explains why the violent crime rate in Canada is going up while the rate in the U.S. is going down.
BTW, remember that landmark Canadian gun registry.
Here are a few facts the gun control advocates always conveniently forget to mention.
## When the Gun Registry was introduced it was suppose to cost taxpayers 2 Million dollars, the true cost will actually be over 2 Billion, yes that's Billion with a B.
## Because of the cost, ineffectiveness and lack of support, currently all provinces except 1 have plans to "opt out" of the registry and refuse to prosecute violators.
## The long gun registration has not been postponed for ANOTHER year because people have refused to comply with the law.
Then there is my favorite
"It turns out, criminals do not comply with the gun registry making it ineffective."
The ONLY benefit of Canada's gun laws was a windfall for American gun collectors.
1000's of antique or collector weapons were turned in and were suppose to be destroyed but ended up being sold on the secondary market in the U.S.


This isn't meant to be an attack on Canada's gun policy. I'm only trying to point out a different perspective than the misleading suggestion,
Canada's gun restriction laws had a DIRECT impact on lowering gun related violence.
Someone mentioned comparing Canada to the US was like comparing apples to oranges.
Well they were right.
I can name several countries that have just as unrestricted gun laws as the U.S. but have a much lower crime rate.
Why?
Because the suggestion from the gun control advocates, "less guns = less gun crimes"
is complete bullshit.
Here is a question for you to think on.
If less guns equals less gun related violence was true.
Then wouldn't the opposite also be true?
Then why was there NOT a related increase of gun related violence during the 30 year period from 1970 to 2000 where the number of handguns more than doubled.



True, there are several peaks showing an increase but the overall trend in gun violence is down.
Kind of blows the whole "less guns = less gun crime" away.

Or how about this, if you don't want to compare different countries, we could compare different cities.
DC. had the absolute strictest gun laws in the U.S., for several years it also just happen to be the U.S. murder capital. At it's peak, the murder rate per capita in DC was 8 times higher than the national average.
You don't want to compare Canada with the U.S.
Then how about we compare DC with Arlington Va, right across the river.
DC with strict gun laws, murder rate of 46/capita
Arlington with unregulated gun ownership, 2.1/capita.
No, I'm not trying to make the claim Arlington is safer because it has more guns.
I'm only trying to point out the common " guns = violence" is an over simplification to the point of absolute stupidity.
There are hundreds of other factors that result in these statistics.

Another popular gun control myth "Guns DO NOT prevent crime"
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
national average to 4% below, and still remains below the national average.

Not interested in murder rates, then how about rape?
In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. None of the 2,500 women ended up using their weapon. Ten years later, Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, where as the surrounding metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.



Not enough, then how about we just deal with the biggest Gun Control Myth.
### Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal ###
What they don't tell you....
** This study ONLY counts incidents where someone was shot and killed, FBI statistics show only .1% of the time does the defensive use of a handgun result in someone being fatally shot. So the 99.9 times out of a 100 where a person only shows the gun, fires a warning shot or shoots but only wounds an attacker doesn't count in this 43/1 myth.
** Of the 43/1 myth ( 86%) were suicides. Dozens of studies have shown availability of handguns has no effect on overall suicide rates. If a handgun is unavailable, people simply find another way.
** 9 of the deaths that Dr. Kellerman ranked as "Death of a family member", have another name, it's called self defense. Even though the police ruled 9 of these as self defense and no charges were brought against anyone, ie. A wife shot her husband to stop him from possibly beating her to death. The very biased Dr. Kellerman counted cases of self defense in the "Death of a Family member column" not the "criminal killed column". Changes things a little bit don't you think?
There were additional cases that did go to court and were found to also be self defense.
** The whole study is based on only 1 urban, high population, high crime county over a 6 year period. It's far to limited in scope to prove anything.
** This supposedly unbiased study was funded by a CDC at the request of a DR. who belongs to H.E.L.P.
( Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan )So much for unbiased
** The real show stopper, Dr. Kellerman refused to release his data for 3 years. Within 6 month of him releasing his data for review, he admitted his conclusion of 43/1 as inaccurate and reduced that number to 2.5/1. Which to the majority of people reviewing his data still finds to be misleading because it doesn't account for the 100's of times a handgun is used to prevent a crime and he still counts cases of self defense as "death of a family member" and not as a death of a criminal. Even though the author of the study 10 years ago admitted it was inaccurate and misleading, the handgun advocates still often quote this 43/1 study.
Here is the real breakdown of the 398 deaths that make up this 6 year study.
333 ( 84%) suicides, call me crazy but I doubt it was coincidence he picked the #2 suicide capital of America.
41 (10%) Homicides, at least 8 of these, the court documents show the criminal brought the gun with him but it still counts towards the 43/1 ratio because according to Dr. Kellerman the ONLY requirement is the gun was in the house and it was a family member, it's irrelevant if the gun was the homeowners or brought into the house by the killer. This number also includes several cases where the court found it to be a case of self defense either during trail or on appeal.
12 (3%) Accidents
9 (2%) Self Defense, no charges
3 (1%) Unknown



Bargod said he would rely on UNBIASED information from the CDC before information put out by either the gun control or gun right groups. There is one small problem with that, the CDC has funded several biased studies just like the "43/1" one above.
Studies where the sponsoring group within the CDC supported the author of the study not to release the data they used to draw their conclusions.
For example, the only reason the data was finally released in the 43/1 study is because the author later published his findings in The New England Journal of Medicine, which did require Dr. Kellerman to open his data for review.
Doesn't seem a little strange the Center for Disease Control, a heath study organization, has paid for several large outside studies on gun violence?
All done at the request of doctors in the CDC who also belong to H.E.L.P. ( Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan ), a gun control advocacy group.
Maybe you would be surprised to find out, as of 1996 congress has barred the CDC from using tax dollars to sponsor outside gun related studies.
This doesn't stop them from doing official internal studies relating to gun violence.
It only stops them doing something similar to what they did with Dr. Kellerman.
Paying someone $1.2 million dollars of tax payer money, then only release the conclusions drawn by the study but refusing to release the data the conclusions are based on.

Another outside study sponsored by the CDC, done in the in early 90's showed how gun violence committed in the home by women was rising at an alarming rate, they titled it a new epidemic.
While the study did accurately point to a large increase in the number of gun deaths resulting from a women's use of a firearm over the last decade. It conveniently left out that anywhere from 50%-75% of the time when a wife kills her husband, no charges are filed because it's either the women acting in self defense or defense of her children.
Call me old fashion but I've got no problem with a women using a handgun to "even the odds" when a man is abusing her or her children.

To me the single biggest problem with all the statistics used by gun control advocates is they never separate out
legal use of a legally owned weapon by a law abiding citizen
versus
illegally use of a weapon by a criminal who due to their prior criminal history cannot even legally own a gun.
They always lump the groups together in an attempt to make numbers more shocking.
The majority of gun related homicides are committed by people with criminal backgrounds which prevent them from legally owning a gun.
So call me crazy but I consider control advocates who demand that we take guns away from law-abiding citizens to POSSIBLY reduce the incidence of felons committing crimes against each other or us, I think those views are not only short sighted but dangerous.

[*Triggahappy13*]

OWN3D

[MyWifesMule]

I'm going to put an end to this now.

[Bargod]

Real, is that you?