But Guns Do Kill Children!

Five More children were killed yesterday by firearms. Not with clubs. Not with sticks. Not with knives. But by hand guns. Isn't it about time we looked at this dangerous condition we find ourselves so deep into, or do we keep putting off facing real life with the oh so cute, oh so trite “guns don’t kill, people do” kind of illogic?

Will America Ever Change? Can It Change? Are We To Be Forever Doomed By Our Love of Guns? Will America grow up, and give up its love of guns, its fascination of power associated with guns? There was a struggle in the 1990s when the idea of banning assault guns was enacted. No more AK47s. The law that finally passed was barely half a law. To get a law at all, the law grandfathered the existing assault weapons. I don’t know how many of those there are, but if it is not legal to import more, then I think it ought not to be legal to have old ones. Whatever logic prevailed on the ban should have the same efficacy on existing guns.

I support a nationwide firearms buy-back program. To finance the buy-back, I propose a tax on all firearms. It is said 80 million people own 280 million firearms. Suppose one-third of all guns would be turned-in, for between $100 to $500 per gun. That comes to $22.5 billion. To raise that much money on the remaining guns would require a tax of $120.

To make the turn-in work, beginning one year after the law, any gun not licensed and tax paid, would be confiscated and destroyed. I see no need to criminalize untaxed gun possession. We already have too many criminal laws on the books. Each year, a prediction on the number of guns likely to be turned in, and the tax adjusted on the remaining guns so that non-gun owners would not be required to “fund” the gun industry.



[edit on 10/3/2006 by donwhite]

This line of reasoning is so tiring and so lame and so old.

I will answer by saying "but pencils (pens, keyboards, you get the point) do cause mispelled words".

And if you took all of those writing instruments away from everyone, they would still find a way to mispell words by scratching them into the ground with a stick.

Getting the analogy and the point yet?

Crazy people - who happened to (illegaly?) have guns - killed these children. And if you took the guns away, the news reports would have said they did it with a knife or a club or a whatever they could get their hands on because they're crazy, not because guns exist

Next lame anti-gun argument please ....

Right.... so we take away guns.

Now.. A guy goes crazy.. nothing left to live for, the whole world hates him and the cool kids pick on him.

The kid grabs uncle Joe's hunting rifle and some ammo and heads to school for a little bit of sweet sweet revenge and a fast lane to the afterlife.

But the guns are taken away so does our soon to be killer go to uncle Joes looking for the gun and decide to go play hooky instead and maybe take a nap to sleep off a little bit of anger?

Right, because kids who commit mass murder and suicide are rational folk.

How about instead the kid grabs a very large, very sharp cutting knife. He goes to school and while the kids are crowded into the hallways (I remember Highschool shoulder to shoulder like a bad day during rush hour with a nasty accident) and pulls out a very large knife. The kid then evokes a rage of slashes and stabs and no one can run away because the hallways packed, he never has to re-laod, he never has to aim, he never has to reserve ammo. He can run kids down, he can stab quickly, he can kill dozens before someone can restrain him and depending on his size it may take a police officer.... with a gun.

So lets take away cutting knives?

What kills children .. guns? Some one could take down a stop sign at a busy intersection and kill more people then bringing a gun to school!

A good archer could walk out to a playground and kill the same amount of people with a bow and arrow!

If your real pissed and you own a large truck you could drive it into a crowd of cool kids out side a school!

Common folks you have to think logically.. its not guns who kill.. it is our society and how we raise our children. The ways to kill and maim the innocent are numerous, far more ways then to aim a pistol, ending violence will never come about by simply taking guns away.

Guns are tools. You can use just about any tool to take a life. It's already been pointed out that in the absence of guns, we'd see other things being used by perpetrators to take lives. I'm sure that many of today's dynasty-building career politicians would be just thrilled to little bitty pieces to give the gun control lobby their wish. Once that's done, I have no doubt that they wiould rush to appease the society for mothers against sharp objects.

The problem is that is most of the guns that are use for killing people are not registered guns.

So the ones affected by any changes on laws will be the law abiding citizens that purchase their guns and use them responsible.

Any criminal can get a gun kill a few and then kill himself.

So he is not the one that is going to get any punishment, see.

I think that we may see an increase of government geared propaganda to gain support for a total band of guns.

That will be the goal, disarm the population in the name of safety.

But still the killers will keep their guns and still will get them anyway.

The rest of the responsible population will be at the mercy of the government and the killers.

No good, see.

I thought that this article might be of interest.

Myth No. 6. “He was crazy.”

Only one-third of the attackers had ever been seen by a mental health professional, and only one-fifth had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Substance abuse problems were also not prevalent. “However, most attackers showed some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a history of feeling extreme depression or desperation.” Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures

Myth No. 8. “He’d never touched a gun.”

Most attackers had access to weapons, and had used them prior to the attack. Most of the attackers acquired their guns from home.

Link

Make what you will of this personaly I feel quite safe in an society that isnt gun laden.
Cheers xpert11.

You may feel safe in a society where civilians have no guns, but...what will you do if you find yourself under the thumb of an oppressive government? What will your grand-children do?

As unlikely as it may be, the American tradition of retaining firearms to guard against an unjust government is a founding principle. It's true that this principle is under attack, but I'm hopeful that it will remain in force for a while longer. If it does not, we may very well see the events I wrote about come to pass.

Even if that happens, I remain hopeful for the future. We've given our political leaders and lobbyists a lot of slack, and they've taken advantage of it. We have none but ourselves to blame for that. If we end up having to be at the mercy of our leaders for a while, it will teach us a lesson...with guns.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You may feel safe in a society where civilians have no guns, but...what will you do if you find yourself under the thumb of an oppressive government? What will your grand-children do?

Hmm its not something that I have really thought about. My first thought would be to influence an change of goverbnment from outside of New Zealand much like a bunch of ex pat Iraqis did.
Do you understand what Im getting at without me going off topic ?

As unlikely as it may be, the American tradition of retaining firearms to guard against an unjust government is a founding principle. It's true that this principle is under attack, but I'm hopeful that it will remain in force for a while longer. If it does not, we may very well see the events I wrote about come to pass.

IMO the whole argument that guns will prevent the government from going bad is bogus. Heres why.
Which of the following exists in a society with low gun ownership ?
Privacy
Search warrents needed for searchs.
Should we say other standard legal practices.

Answer: New Zealand.

Now which countrie dose the following happen or has happened in a society with high gun ownership ?
Armed people forced from there homes after a hurricane.
Patriot act and its various infrigements on peoples rights.
A government that cares more about fear mongering then taking practical security measures.
The leader of a countrie wants legalize the touture of terror suspects.

Answer: The USA !
By the time any reaslise that they need to take up arms it will be to late.
Personaly I dont care what Americans do on the home front just dont expect me to argue the case for wide spread gun owership here in NZ.

Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less...

It's the crazies behind them pulling the trigger who are the murderous monsters, not the guns themselves. If he were bound and determined to see his way into killing someone, he will...lack of access to guns won't stop him.

The much touted but overblown argument that an overabundance of guns somehow works to preserve our liberties, our freedoms as Bush43 likes to put it, will not stand up to close examination. That stuff comes straight out of the Gun Manufacturers Sales Manual. First, we should keep in mind that firearms kill between 5,000 and 10,000 people in our society every year. We are already giving up that many dead people for the privilege of possessing 280 million guns. That is not an insubstantial number. It deserves some of our attention.

But the real error in this guns make you safe argument, is to be found in the current warfare our armed forces are engaged in Iraq. Urban warfare. A new paradigm for our military. A new doctrine. We are no longer training tank drivers how to race across open fields banging away at enemy armored cars or other tanks. Shooting on the run! A great achievement of tank capability. We are now in the era of the heroic self-sacrifice-type we call suicide bombers. As Rumsfeld said, you fight with what you have, not with what you would like to have.

Consider also another great reservoir of experience available to the “threatened take-over” of American-types. The DEA and 40 years of the War on Drugs. The power establishment will have available 1000s of trained men and women expert in infiltration of other groups, spying techniques, expert in the use of satellites and other forms of observation. I’m saying all that to say this: the governing elite will have the DEA, the FBI, the NSA and the Armed Forces of the US to keep any dissenters under control. Resistance will only be possible in groups that already have a shared experience that predisposes them to resist the power’s that be. Freedom Fighters must have the shelter of the community from which they originate. Owning a gun is nothing if you cannot hide in the daytime so make you available to do dirt to the power structure at night.

As we should have learned in Vietnam where the populace was always move 90% against us, and as we are leaning every day in Iraq, where again the populace is 90% against us, guerilla or insurgent action is only possible with the support of the people. In street terms, this means only the African Americans and Hispanics will be able to raise up any noteworthy force of Freedom Fighters. I don’t like to burst any long held bubbles, but the notion that owning a gun is going to make you free is just not realistic.


[edit on 10/4/2006 by donwhite]

DW,

Exactly what does your last post have to do with this thread that you started? And what does it have to say about all the posts that have refuted your anti-gun premise?

BTW, I'll add one more "theory" about the anti-gun people:

They hate guns because:
a) they are afraid of guns
b) they don't own a gun
c) both a and b are correct

The answer, of course, is c.

The problem is when a group of people, based solely on their fears, tries to force their beliefs on the the rest of us.

So, DW, don't own a gun. Do what you feel you need to do to stay away from guns, but leave the rest of us law-abiding gun owners the hell alone.

Thanks, centurion1211. I was replying to Mr Justin Oldham who wrote above the value of an armed citizenry. I think he is still living in the 18th century. Times have changed to the extent that it is no longer a matter for serious discussion whether the general public could defend itself again the might of a government run amuck. I do not believe it is possible to argue more guns less guns and not digress into the substance of the counter-arguments.

Before there were guns, there was knives, before knives, there were stones. Throughout the history of humankind murder has existed in one form or another and even if you remove all items from this planet people still would find a way. We fight, we get angry and every-so-often something happens resulting in the possible murder of a person or groups of people. Would this stop by removing guns? Of course not - there have been multiple murders with knives in the United Kingdom.

If you Outlaw Guns, only Outlaws have Guns.

Speaking as someone from the United Kingdom, which tried your policy it doesn’t work. From the period when handguns were outlawed [1950 and then respectively in 1997] the rate of gun crime has increased to an all time high. The only people you remove weapons from are innocent people, law abiding people because criminals won’t give over their weapons.

Look at Switzerland, every man over the age of 18 has a firearm. Yet when you compare the rates of murder, you find this:

Source
#56 Switzerland 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

For 6million people, with an estimated 4million firearms. This directly goes against the point you’re trying to raise and so do the top five on your list. South Africa, banned most types of firearms, Colombia, Jamaica, Venezuela and Russia all have strict legal requirements to own firearms.

The Finish Incident

In the 1980’s, Finland did exactly what you suggested. They implemented a “buy-back scheme” for all firearms in the country. By 1997 they had re-legalized firearms. Why? The answer is simple, the criminals had freedom to mug, rob and do as they please.

In reality, we'd all rather see less incidents like this. We never want to see innocent people die, be killed however making it easier for criminals to do just that is all your suggestion will do.

posted by Odium

Before there were guns, there was knives, before knives, there were stones. Throughout the history of humankind murder has existed in one form or another and even if you remove all items from this planet people still would find a way. [Edited by Don W]

Competent studies on this general theme have demonstrated it is not true. Sure, it is akin to proving a negative, but you are allowed to use your intuition when it is appropriately limited and consciously acknowledged. The first point of fact so often ignored by gun proponents is the lethality of guns. I have posted this many times but once more, from the CDC, about 28% to 30% of the people who seek medical attention from gun shots die. Of “all other accidents” for which people seek medical attention, fewer than 1/10th of 1% die. Guns are several orders of magnitude more dangerous (lethal) to life than any other form of injury. The “seeking medical attention” is a threshold. We take it for granted this signifies serious versus non-serious.

We fight, we get angry and every-so-often something happens resulting in the possible murder of a person or groups of people. Would this stop by removing guns? Of course not - there have been multiple murders with knives in the United Kingdom.

I’m not talking about the United Kingdom. I’m talking about the US of A where there are 280,000,000 firearms. That’s nearly 5 guns for every man, woman and child in the UK. The comparable number of guns for the UK would be 50,000,000. I dare say that is 10X the number of guns there now. Even more consequential is the fact - intuition - well known that the kind of anger you described does indeed rise quickly, but in almost every case, it subsides equally as quick. In the scenario you describe, in more cases than not, if there was no handy handgun, the victim would still be alive. These shootings are often called accidental because the shooter did not really intend to kill, but merely to express strongly his disagreement. Culturally, it was appropriate to point the gun to make his point. In the cases of some children, they actually believed the person would get up, chastised, but unhurt. Regardless, this is a lame excuse.

If you Outlaw Guns, only Outlaws have Guns.

So what’s that trite phrase teach us? Do we live by quips? Yes, to answer my own question, if you follow the prescription of the Gun Manufacturers. I happen to believe we can do better than that.

Speaking as someone from the United Kingdom, which tried your policy it doesn’t work. From the period when handguns were outlawed [1950 and then respectively in 1997] the rate of gun crime has increased to an all time high. The only people you remove weapons from are innocent people, law abiding people because criminals won’t give over their weapons.

So when does one equate to the other? That argument is worn out over here. Which does not mean it has not prevailed. It means it has been exposed over and over by students of gun violence, but to no avail here. When the Gun Manufacturers and their lackey, the National Rifle Association, put together their endless gun advocacy campaigns, the voices of experts and gun regulations have little effect. Like the Prophet Isaiah, a “voice crying in the wilderness.” I resent the brash and what I say ought to be illegal political campaign techniques they have waged in the past. For example, they have chosen the five most vigorous opponents to limitless guns and the 10 most ardent supports of “a gun for everyone.” Then they give large sums to the opponents of the first group and equally large sums to the 10 pro’s in the second group. This is so fundamentally wrong, the antithesis to democracy, you should not need a law to tell you that. I’m sure there are many reasons why there are more guns in England today than earlier, but it is not due to restrictions on gun ownership.

With the concealed carry laws, we’ve had that spate of “interrupted crimes” crapola put out by the gun lobby. Once they claimed 3,000,000 “prevents” a year. Aside from a total lack of evidence, the theory is self defeating, if examined closely. ‘Concealed’ being the operative word.

“ . . Switzerland, every man over the age of 18 has a firearm. This directly goes against the point you’re trying to raise . . top five on your list. South Africa, banned most types of firearms, Colombia, Jamaica, Venezuela and Russia all have strict legal requirements to own firearms.

Fortunately, the US of A is not in any relative way comparable to any of the countries you have named. I looked up the Swiss thing a while ago, found it very difficult to confirm or deny the urban legend and came away thinking it most likely is not true at all.

The Finish Incident In the 1980’s, Finland did what you suggested. They implemented a “buy-back scheme” for all firearms. By 1997 they had re-legalized firearms. Why? The answer is simple, the criminals had freedom to mug, rob and do as they please. In reality, we'd all rather see less incidents like this. We never want to see innocent people die, be killed however making it easier for criminals to do just that is all your suggestion will do.

I do not believe this stuff. This seems to be a pro concealed carry story. I’m not disputing your veracity, but I’m doubting your source has told the whole Finnish story. This is too much of a self-serving story to take on its face.


[edit on 10/4/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You may feel safe in a society where civilians have no guns, but...what will you do if you find yourself under the thumb of an oppressive government? What will your grand-children do?

As unlikely as it may be, the American tradition of retaining firearms to guard against an unjust government is a founding principle. It's true that this principle is under attack, but I'm hopeful that it will remain in force for a while longer. If it does not, we may very well see the events I wrote about come to pass.

If the situation ever developed where "the people" needed guns to fight the US government, I'm sure there will be more than enough Russian and Chinese made Kilashnikovs to go round.. I'm sure they'd be happy to supply them!

But seriously though..It maybe a "founding principle" , but this is 2006, not 1806. Whatever the government, individual armed insurection is hardly going to be a good idea. No-one ever pulled it off before. Leave coups to the miltitary, and stick with peaceful mass protest/disobedience. It's historically much more effective. (indian independence, berlin wall, various former USSR states..etc.)

DW, why not write about the famous countries who DID institute gun ownership in teh 20th century (not counting opressive government before which where numerous and where the direct reason why we even have gun ownership in the first place)

1. Hitler instituted gun control and then killed mass amounts of Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, Gipsies, mentally retarded. Not one had the ability to fire back.

2. Stalin killed nearly 20 million people after gun control was passed, who could defend them selves? Let the numbers sink in, it being so large.

3. Polpot After gun control was passed through the use of death squads, fear mongoring, seceret prisions millions die with no way to fight back.

4. Communist China has had a hold on people there for a while, no one can fight back because the people are not armed, when they do rise up you get massive amounts of civilians being shot at random, and pictures of a man standing in front of a tank.

5. North Korea little news comes out of this state, but several times the farmers have risen up because the government takes their food, they have no guns and are often run down by the military.

The reason it is good to have guns, is the government cannot go house to house pulling innocent people and puting them in trains if say their neighbors on all sides have high powered guns. The army would loose the officer and trained military personel FAST, and would have to be replaced with conscripts to do the job. If we became a dictator, which I know most Americans think we live in a historical bubble where bad things like that, we are immune to them in some way, but if we did you will beg for a gun, and you will beg for a man with a gun to protect you.

posted by Rockpuck

DW, why not write about the famous countries who DID institute gun ownership in the 20th century 1. Hitler instituted gun control and then killed mass amounts of Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, Gipsies, mentally retarded. Not one had the ability to fire back. [Edited by Don W]

False. Disinterested historians have searched for that law and cannot find it.

2. Stalin killed nearly 20 million people after gun control
3. Polpot After gun control was passed millions die
4. Communist China has had a hold on people there for a while, no one can fight back because the people are not armed,
5. North Korea little news comes out of this state, but several times the farmers have risen up because the government takes their food

My opinion. Pap for children.

The reason it is good to have guns, is the government cannot go house to house pulling innocent people and putting them in trains if say their neighbors on all sides have high powered guns. The army would loose the officer and trained military personnel FAST, and would have to be replaced with conscripts to do the job. If we became a dictator, which I know most Americans think we live in a historical bubble where bad things like that, we are immune to them in some way, but if we did you will beg for a gun, and you will beg for a man with a gun to protect you.

I busted that argument wide open 2 posts above.

It’s not the Guns fault

In 1998, the American Medical Association published Physician Firearm Safety Guide and in 1999 Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin published Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care debating these exact ideas - they found the largest problem with firearms was how unsafely they are kept and not their availability. They researched over 30,000 incidents in a 5 year period and found the vast majority of these happened because the weapons had no safety features such as: thumb safeties, grip safeties, magazine disconnectors, drop safeties and loaded chamber indicators among many other things such as locks.

If these existed on all guns, if weapons were locked away, kept out of reach, bullets and the weapons separated from one another the rate of injury would decline sharply.

Education not Elimination

Countries which have a high safety record, yet legal firearms are ones where people are taught about weapons. There’s a strong correlation between Nation’s with National Service or compulsory gun education and low rates of gun violence. Again, Switzerland is the pinnacle of this if you checked over the source you’d see their rate of homicide due to guns and amount of people with guns shows something.

The issue at hand with the United States of America is the fact, gun owners do not have to prove that they have completed levels of compulsory gun training. In the hands of an amateur, someone who is untrained the most simple of things can result in being deadly. You don’t throw a child into a car and expect them to be fully road aware instantly - do you?

If people were forced to have to pay for training before they bought a gun. Have to prove they used safety features and a percentage of gun sale profits was diverted into dealing with checking up on this there would be a decline in crime with relation to guns. Furthermore, when people are able to have guns on them street crime does decline. Nation’s like Switzerland, have a statistically lower rate of rape, mugging, burglary, car theft than its European neighbours. That can be compared and the statistics are open for evaluation.

Elimination and who is left with them?

Say tomorrow your idea is put through. It becomes legislation and people who desire not to be labelled as deviant will turn in their guns. The Government then pays all of these people compensation so who doesn’t turn in guns? The only people who won’t turn in the guns will be criminals.

I myself don’t see: Mara Salvatrucha and other such groups turning them over. So you’re left with as you put it: 280,000,000 weapons, firearms, assault rifles, pistols, et al such items. Not all of them will be returned you can reference the United Kingdom, South Africa and many other Nation’s which have made firearm possession illegal.

There is already a black market for firearms. Can you deny this? Will the black market vanish because the Government legislates against it? Let’s look at every single crime that is on the cards at the present moment - when they become illegal [rape in marriage, domestic abuse, drugs] do they suddenly stop happening? So why would anything change?

The only thing that would change, would be more innocent people are left defenceless. Those who live miles away from Police Stations, with no chance of the Police protecting them will be open as easy targets. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of citizens of the United State’s who are so far away from Police Stations [20mins and above] they’ll now be easy to rob.

You’ve yet to explain how this law will function. The Police already can not enforce and regulate the gun market, they can’t close down the black market and they sure as hell can’t stop these organized gangs. Instead you’ve added another law they have to enforce, more police work, more hours and still not enough police officers. The possession of a gun harms nobody, it is the intention of the people who pull the trigger.

Prosecute criminals, do not create more crimes. Do not go down the road the British Government is going down by criminalizing every little action but instead focus on real criminals. It’s about time we stop trying to control every little action of every individual. The real criminals are those who harm other people, you can make guns illegal, knives illegal, walking down the street illegal but they’ll still harm other people.

The guns have never been the problem. People need to realise this and stop trying to make that the issue. There is murder in Nation's where people do not have guns. Yes guns are risky, they're dangerous but only to people who are irresponsible.

Let History show you

Rockpuck, thank you for reminding me.

There’s a precedent established. In 1938, November the 11th §5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935 prohibited Jewish citizens of either Nation from owning and possessing firearms.

The same happened in China, in the U.S.S.R. and many other Nation’s. You can place your head in the sand and claim historians can’t find them. The historians you read just don’t look hard enough. I guess they also forget the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

[edit on 4/10/2006 by Odium]

posted by Odium

“ . . if weapons were locked away, kept out of reach, bullets and the weapons separated from one another the rate of injury would decline sharply. [Edited by Don W]

Why don’t we require that as part of the privilege of gun ownership?

“ . . In the hands of an amateur, someone who is untrained the most simple of things can result in being deadly.

Again, if we know this, then why is not required as a prerequisite to gun ownership or possession?

Nation’s like Switzerland, have a statistically lower rate of rape, mugging, burglary, car theft than its European neighbors. That can be compared and the statistics are open for evaluation.

Switzerland is unlike any other country in Europe. It is small. It is isolated. It has a stable population. It has reached an accommodation with the different ethnicities inside its own borders. I suspect SZ has an aging population. It is a wealthy country. There are many reasons why SZ has a low murder rate, aside from the guns issue. I suggest SZ is not comparable to any place in Europe except maybe Liechtenstein.

” . . Mara Salvatrucha . . “ Not all of the [guns] will be returned you can reference the United Kingdom, South Africa and many other Nation’s which have made firearm possession illegal. There is already a black market for firearms. Can you deny this?

I don’t know Mara S. Explain. We have tax laws and there are tax evaders. Some of them get caught. A lot don’t. But the culture is one to pay your taxes. It takes time to make a culture and time to undo the silly things you have don in the past. Aside: Guns proliferated after War 2. Before that, guns were rare except in Al Capone and George Raft movies and etc. A lot of factors came together to increase the number of guns. No one realized what would happen when millions of guns worked their way into the illegal market. The American Experience should be a warning to any civilized state what can happen when you leave the public’s safety and welfare to unrestrained and under regulated hands of private enterprise.

You’ve yet to explain how this law will function. The Police already can not enforce and regulate the gun market, they can’t close down the black market and they sure as hell can’t stop these organized gangs.

You are right up to a point. America has made bad choices. After 1991, we have been looking for an enemy worthy of a Half Trillion Dollar Annual War budget. No, not Defense. That's hick talk. War! We have no enemies not of our own making. We found Kuwait. Iraq. North Korea. Iran. Not much, as enemies go, but it’s any harbor in a storm.

We have all the resources we need to do anything legal at home, if we decide to spend our money that way. The 6 billion dollars we are spending on the GHW Bush supercarrier is obscene. As if F16s are not sufficient, we are buying F22s and talking about F35s. We’re insane! It is dangerous to the world when a country so rich and so powerful falls into the hands of people who know only war as a way of life. Yet we will not stop the carnage in Darfur. It’s all about choices, priorities. And color. Let’s not forget that. If the Darfur’s were white, we’d have been there long ago.

“ . . guns have never been the problem. People need to realize this and stop trying to make that the issue. You can place your head in the sand and claim historians can’t find them. The historians you read just don’t look hard enough. I guess they also forget the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. [Edited by Don W]

That is the litany. Jacksonville has had its 113th homicide, and there are nearly 3 months to go. 800,000 people. Once I heard the Sheriff say 89% of the homicides were by guns. I find that believable. You can put red pins on a wall map and see where the “problem” is centered. We know how to fix it but we can’t because we do not have the money that takes. Or the will. We have chosen to spend our wealth elsewhere. Last week CBS said the weekly rate of spending in Iraq had reached $2 billion. We fund that “off budget” so the Congress cannot perform oversight. The DoD sends a bill, the Congress votes the funds and the Treasury borrows the money from China. Americans go to Wal-Mart in their SUV. That’s war Republican style. Not at all like the WW2 war.

I was alive and vaguely recall hearing the newscasts about the Uprising. That has nothing to do with guns in America in 2006, but it was a heroic event. It’s little wonder Jewish people wanted a place where they could be safe. And they proved smart enough to get one. But Israel has its own built-in Ghettos and they are constantly uprising. You’d think - hope - survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and their descendants would have empathy for the people of old Palestine.



[edit on 10/4/2006 by donwhite]

Sorry Donny, I happen to like my constitutional rights and don't appreciate people like you who try to take them away. I also like the ability to be able to defend myself against people who may try to harm me or my family. Not to mention the fact that should things get tough, it's nice to know we can always hunt for our food.