I dunno Bob - it might have some resonance, if SWWBO's experience is any guide...

Wow - you attack a woman whose husband served Ronald Reagan? A man who was shot while serving Ronald Reagan? That shows just about the smallest testicles in the world. I thought some folks in the GOP still had a sense of decency. Thanks for proving me absolutely wrong.

Talk about misguided. No wonder my Grand Old Party is practically ruined. It has too many philistines slinking around. Perhaps you should spend your time investigating Abramoff, and Frist, and Delay, and less time attacking a woman who tried to prevent more assassination attempts against Republican Presidents from happening. Just a suggestion.

Sarah Brady has lied, used junk science, and now, apparently, malicious advertising out of pure spite in her vendetta against the right to self defense.

Her husband Jim "Bear" Brady was a great guy by all accounts, but his injury by crackpot John Hinkley, Jr. does not give her the right to deny other Americans their right to defend themselves from robery, rape, or murder.

And Sally, if you are going to fake being a "Rethuglican," you'll have to try being a little more convincing that that.

Confederate Yankee -

Thanks for the comments. "Rethuglican?" I don't seem to recall using that term. Oh, and I am a card-carrying Republican and have been since '89. Just like James Brady.

So, maybe if James Brady had a gun in March, '81 - as well as everyone else outside the Hilton - then the shooting would never have happened, right? You think that is the best way to insure guns don't get in the hands of "crackpots?" Funny how you never know the crackpots until they do something. You think you'd, I dunno, maybe want to screen them more thoroughly up front to insure they never get their hands on guns in the first place.

Oh, did you mean "robbery?" After the "Rethuglican" remark, I couldn't tell if you were making up a word or not, so I thought I'd ask.

Last thing: why did you call him "Bear" Brady? Is that how you show support for the sacrifices James Brady's made for the GOP? I think he'd probably prefer you stop implying his wife and biggest fan is some kind of traitor.

You obviously know little about Jim Brady. He was nicknamed "the Bear," and he didn't "make a sacrifice for the GOP." He was shot by a crazed Jody Foster fan. Arguing he was "a sacrifice for Hollywood" would make more sense, not that either argument is valid.

I neither said nor implied the word "traitor"in relation to Sarah Brady. I said she used junk science, phobias, and fear to try to force her will upon others. All of these allegations are true.

Your strawman argument is among the weakest I've had in a while, and your northeast (NYC or northern NJ, perhaps?) liberalism shines through in every word.

Nice try, though.

Someone should run a counter add campaign showing the stats that "Carry" states have a lower incidence of armed robbery etc since they enacted their new gun laws, making them actually safer to be in.

As for "Can anyone point me to any other incident where a political lobby has tried to strike back against an entire state full of citizens who have rejected their ideology? I highly doubt that this will have any impact on Florida's tourism, but it shows just how pathetic some highly-charged, fact-challenged political ideologues have become over the years"

I recall some years back there was a boycott of Colorado over some Homosexual statutes they passed.

What makes it stick in my mind was an interview given by a Gay restaraunt owner in one of the Resort cities, HE claimed the boycott was counterproductive, because it was on the verge of putting him and like minded Coloradians who voted AGAINST the Bill out of business, while those who voted FOR the Bill, didn't like Tourists anyway. So they were very pleased at the outcome. But that did not seem to matter to those running the boycott.

In the late '80s and early '90s there were several shootings and robberies of tourists driving from Miami airport into the city in rental cars. Now why would these thugs target visitors from England and Germany, and not native Floridians? Because they knew the natives were likely to be armed, and the tourists weren't!

Tom T., Thanks for the valid reminder of why FL tourists were being targeted for armed crimes (versus potentially armed citizens).

Sally Jones, Do you really believe you can legislate guns out of the hands of criminals? If you truly believe that…, I have some Oceanside property in AZ that I would like for you to consider buying. Does someone have to describe the nature of criminals to you?

Let’s not forget, while we are at it, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And why shall that right not be infringed? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” And what is a militia? A la Webster, “in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine Corps)…” I guess, constitutionally, I have a RIGHT to keep and bear my arms. My ability to protect myself, my family and my country becomes a moral issue that you have no right to dilute by disarming me.

Lastly, if you will show some moral fortitude and responsibility, research the crime rates per capita in areas with very strict gun control (like Washington D.C.) and compare those figures to places like FL and you will find a tendency for criminals to pick on the unarmed crowd. Less risk of dying in the line of crime!

Confederate Yankee -

Well, then what is meant by saying Sarah Brady was the Cindy Sheehan of her day? How does Cindy Sheehan use junk science, phobias, and fear?

So, you don't think James Brady made a sacrifice for his party then? Seems to me most people in elected office - that is, unlike you, people actually in the potential line of fire from crackpots everyday - make sacrifices for their beliefs.

Nice try trying to label me, as though that would somehow offend me. Oh, and by the way, using the term "Strawman" doesn't make a technical writer a pundit. LOL! What a joke.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Sarah Brady used a relative's injurious circumstances to establish their credibility to make an attack on a political target she already opposed.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Sarah Brady tried to rile emotion by using family member groups to stage a "grassroots" campaign largely subsidized by behind-the-scenes big-money liberal donors.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Sarah Brady has the full backing of what many refer to as the “moonbat left,” the most radical extreme of the Democratic Party. There is a very significant degree of overlap between their supporters.

Like Cindy Sheehan, Sarah Brady pushed her cause using a myopic view, excluding any and all evidence to the contrary, and like Cindy Sheehan, she has decided to make this single cause her career, despite that the fact her efforts, if successful, are almost certainly likely to result in more deaths than they solve.

No, Jim Brady did not make a sacrifice. Being a victim does not automatically make you a sacrifice. Sacrificing means that you made the conscious decision to do something, know or at least suspecting the risks involved. It was not his choice to join a profession where gunplay might be involved.

Making Jim Brady a sacrifice for gun control is roughly the same as making Mary Jo Kopechne a sacrifice for drunk driving. They are victims, not sacrifices.

You were right on one thing, however. Using the term "strawman" doesn't make someone a pundit. I think just about anyone can claim that title.

"Oh, and I am a card-carrying Republican and have been since '89."

Newbie!

Tob

Sally Jones
attacking a woman who tried to prevent more assassination attempts against Republican Presidents from happening.

From the dreaded website: "The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing pro-gun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

It has nothing to do with ensuring no more Republican presidents are assassinated, or Democrat presidents, or independent governors...nothing. Sarah Brady is trying to ensure that guns are not readily available to the population, as if they are "readily available" now.

No, the Brady campaign is trying its damndest to make America another gun-fearing sissy country. They can get away with these ads in the EU only because most citizens there have already become acclimatized to the fact that they can't be trusted with guns by their governments, therefore guns must be evil since it can't be the government that disarmed them. QED.

Guns have always been available to criminals through criminal means. Why doesn't Brady advocate enforcing already existing gun laws, that effect criminals, rather than drafting new ones that effect every law-abiding citizen? Check your own position on this issue before you go off half-cocked, so to speak - or do you want the US populace to be disarmed?

The following is also from the flyer:
'The flyer suggests specific steps visitors should take: "Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them.

-----------------------------------------------

"An argument on the highway, or a disagreement in a restaurant or nightclub, or a dispute over belongings in a public place such as a beach could lead to unnecessary use of force."

Sounds like she's telling the tourists that they need to play nice.

"Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them."

Words to live by. ;-) Learn 'em, live 'em, love 'em. Just don't tell us how its better back where you came from either.

Tob

"Like Cindy Sheehan, Sarah Brady used a relative's injurious circumstances to establish their credibility to make an attack on a political target she already opposed."

Really? I was unaware Sarah Brady was part of the handgun-control movement prior to '85, even after Jim was shot. Could you clarify where you got your information?

Also, about using a relative's injuries, how are Brady and Sheehan different than, say, Lisa Beamer, or the Pentagon in the case of Pat Tillman? Jessica Lynch might like to hear your viewpoint, too.

The "moonbat left" back Sheehan? Well, right-wing Bible thumpers back the GOP. And ... the difference is? One wants women pregnant in the kitchen and everyone to buy into "intelligent design," and the other wants America's kids to come home?

"Result in more deaths than they solve." So, how do you respond to the impact of firearms licensing in the United Kingdom then (you remember, our partners in the War on Terror). 1.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 residents; 853 in all of 2003. American, by contrast, had almost 2000% more than that (FBI stat, 16,503) for the same period. Are those the facts you are referencing?

"Sacrificing means that you made the conscious decision to do something, know or at least suspecting the risks involved. It was not his choice to join a profession where gunplay might be involved."

Really, so, being in public office, being a member of a politicians staff means not assuming risks? Well, that's sounds pretty narrow-minded. I think you have several dead presidents, governors, city councilmen, mayors, and Secret Service agents who would beg to differ. I think the vast majority of people currently serving today would contradict your claim as well. Oh, and last I saw, he DID accept being Reagan's Press Secretary.

And to Josh's remark about gun control centering on making sure that guns are not "readily available." And, what do you need the guns readily available for? You militia? Tax collector is coming, so you better run him out of town? Cruising through the barrio and you might have a need to defend your homies?

It's the 21st Century, not the 18th. You want a gun, what's wrong with the hoops? If you aren't a crackpot intent on shooting a politican, shooting up a workplace, or if you don't have a history of gun-related violence, you'll get one. You're saying that is the mark of a "sissy" society? Interesting. I think it's a mark of an intelligent one. So, I guess everyone walking around with a gun is the smart way to balance power. Then again, it also seems a sure fire way that people will resolve conflicts by pulling triggers instead of actually thinking.

Oh, and whatever happened to that Assault Weapons Ban?

Sally Jones, I'll send you a sign that says "THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE! THERE ARE NO WEAPONS IN THIS HOUSE! ALL INTRUDERS WILL BE DEBATED!" I challenge you to put this on your front door!

"Oh, and whatever happened to that Assault Weapons Ban?"

Mercifully dead, buried, covered in garlic with a stake through its heart.

Tob

"right-wing Bible thumpers back the GOP. And ... the difference is? One wants women pregnant in the kitchen and everyone to buy into "intelligent design," and the other wants America's kids to come home?"

Yikes, I didn't even notice this part. You're not still going to claim that you're a Republican are you ?

Tob

Sally, In case you didn’t notice, the wind blew the cover off your deception. You committed your reserves and it isn’t nearly enough to sway the battle. In fact, it looks like you tried to employ a tactical nuke, but only managed a flash-bang (just light and noise – no damage). The best you can hope for now is that your retreat won’t be pursued by the victors. Next time, don’t rely on a feint to be your preparatory fire. (You’ll have to commit real artillery, not a ruse.) My best advice would be to stay out of battles where you can reasonably expect to be out-gunned.

Sally, one more thing. Dressing yourself in the enemy's uniform is a violation of the Accords of Geneva. (You can be shot as a spy.) Try being a little more forthright. If you're not proud of your own uniform, perhaps you're fighting for the wrong side.

I stopped reading your rebuttal here:

You militia?

According to the framers of the Constitution, yes. I am an able bodied citizen of military age that is otherwise not in the armed forces.

How well the NG and police protected the victims of Hurricane Katrina! I am shocked at the benevolence of the NOPD! Take my guns - I will never need to do for myself with those saints to protect me! [/sarcasm]

An armed society is a polite society. What is the per capita murder/strongarm robbery/home invasion rate in a disarmed society (Washinton DC) versus a similar sized city in a shall issue state (Louisville, KY, for instance)? The most violent nations on earth are disarmed. Every massive slaughter of humans by their governments has been preceded by disarming the public in those nations. There is a correlation.

No one is saying you HAVE TO own a gun - just that you have the right to one. If you choose not to, I hope you post Tom T's sign, but don't try to impose your PREFERENCE on other CITIZEN'S who have the same rights as you. Isn't that the definition of "fascist"...

I couldn't help myself from reading your idiocy...

Tax collector is coming, so you better run him out of town? Cruising through the barrio and you might have a need to defend your homies?

So your both a racist and an anti-government anarchist? You can kiss my half-hispanic ass for your bullshit "barrio" remark. Try living in one for a while then tell me you don't need a gun to protect your home and family when the Sheriff doesn't even bother to respond to drive-by calls anymore. One thing the crackheads and gangbangers fear is an armed citizen - you are more than welcome to move in next door, though.

Then again, it also seems a sure fire way that people will resolve conflicts by pulling triggers instead of actually thinking.

Please tell me how many CCW holders have been involved in illegal shootings? Compare that number to how many righteous shooting have saved the lives of a CCW holder exercising their right to bear arms. The numbers won't support you position.

Oh, and whatever happened to that Assault Weapons Ban?

It went exactly where flawed legislation is supposed to go in a democratic society - onto the trash heap of history.

"It's the 21st Century, not the 18th. You want a gun, what's wrong with the hoops?"

Sally, I'll tell you what's wrong with "the hoops". I live in a state where about the only way I can get a CCW permit is to have a job where I carry the day's receipts to the bank. Therefore, I'm not even legally permitted to have a gun in my car. That means I can't legally defend myself if some thug decides to steal my car out from under me. This can and has happened to people, even out here in the very nice, safe suburbs. And that's just one scenario that shows what's wrong with "the hoops".

MikeM, don't ever forget that two anti-gunnies in the Senate right now; Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Shumer, have never seen a bill that would infringe on our Second Amendment Rights that they didn't support, yet both of them have full handgun carry permits! We elect our public servants, pay them out of our taxes, and their lives aren't worth more than ours!

Well, thanks to everyone for their remarks. They run the gamut. I'll respond to them in kind.

Two comments to Josh. If I came across as making a racially insensitive remark, I apologize. I thought it was pretty clear that I was being sarcastic (hence the remark about running tax collectors out of town). I'm sorry you didn't see that. Also, when I said "You militia," it was a typo. I meant to ask, "Your militia?" Passage should have read, "And, what do you need the guns readily available for? Your militia? Tax collector is coming, so you better run him out of town?" It's a rhetorical device.

Also, I'd avoid the "framers" argument. The "framers" came from a world where governments didn't and couldn't effectively guarantee the rights of people, hence the need for farmers to occasionally defend themselves against other farmers. The "framers" also didn't specify anything about the internet, so perhaps you'd better stop using it then since it wasn't sanctioned by them either, right?

A point of interest. Not one person, not one single person had a response to the fact that the U.K. has 2000% - let that sink in, two-THOUSAND-percent - fewer murders in 2003 than the US. I think it's telling that apparently either none of you care or none of you have an intelligent rebuttal.

Onto the Louisville and Washington, DC comparison. How many of the guns used in those murders are purchased in DC, do you think? Want to know? None. Do you know where they come from? That's right, Maryland and Virginia. So, criminals only need to drive a mile or two to VA where they can practically buy guns from roadside stands (sarcasm, FYI).

The "thug" example. Want to know how that "thug" probably got that gun? Chances are someone just like yourself thought he needed a gun or bought one just because he could. Then, he puts it in his car or stores it in his home, it gets stolen, sold on the black market, and winds up being used in another crime. Criminals aren't getting their guns legally. They get their guns by stealing them from people without any good reason to have them in the first place.

200 million privately held guns in the U.S. So, criminals should step back and say, "That means 2 of every 3 people I victimize could be armed, I probably shouldn't take the risk." Yet crime goes up year after year. How's that for deterrence?

Also, I didn't know how to respond to the battlefield flashback-like ramblings above. Peace is the normal state of affair in any society, and war is the exception. I'd merely say try living in the normal state, it leads to a more paranoia-free existence.

Sally Jones, the greatest demographic group of first gun buyers in the U.S.A. today is Women! Sisterhood is Powerful!

Sally,

I was afraid my comments would fly over your head. Put simply, you blew your feint of being a Republican - blew the covers right off it. Second, if you felt you had to appear to be a Republican to gain some creditability, perhaps you really can't justify your position/agrument.

As for your manufactured or manupilated statistics pertaining to the murder rates in the UK - try reading the following:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862

Also the National Center for Policy Analysis has this to say: "A study published by the University of Chicago found that crime rates are lower when civilians are allowed to carry concealed weapons."

I have no idea what your "farmer" comments are relating to, however, if you are trying to reference the framers (of the Constitution) try this site:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/federalist/

There is no need for you to put words into the mouths of the writers- consult what they "actually" meant.

One of the principles underlying the establishment of our nation was God-given freedom and liberty to include the right to privately own property (something our current Supreme Court doesn't agree with). "A man's home is his castle" is not just a romantic expression. It has a meaning routed in our right to defend our property.

You may feel perfectly safe and comfortable cooperating with or attempting to flee from a criminal. If that's you choice, that's fine. But you have NO RIGHT to infringe upon my right to bear an arm in defense of my family and my property.

Criminals do manage to get their hands on guns stolen from the general populace , however, that amounts to about 10 to 15%. Straw purchase sales is the primary source as stated here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

You may have a passion to disarm this country, but you are outnumbered by those with a passion to retain their firearms. The majority of the voing populace agrees with the gun owners.

Those are the facts, Sally. Check them out!

OK, Sally Jones...you'd avoid placing the debate into the context of the issue, i.e. what the writers of the Constitution intended? Are you even an American? The Constitution, as a document, and the amendments individually are a critically important piece of America. Well I guess we can just get away with that whole "freedom" thing as an outdated commodity framed by farmers with guns, eh?

And no, they didn't specify that we could use the Internet. Wow, how observant. They didn't specify we could have cars either, but you are 53 times more likely to be killed by an automobile than a gun. Tall buildings weren't guaranteed in the Constitution, but you are 19 times more likely to fall to your death than be shot. Fire and water, natural elements, are about 4 times more likely to kill you than a gun, by burning or drowning respectively. Firearms outnumber pools 30:1, yet the risk of a child drowning is between 100 and 500 times more likely than a firearm related death, depending on age.

Your argument about where guns are purchased is irrelevent...no, actually it does serve to demonstrate how criminals will work around the system in place to commit their crimes. Why don't we enforce those already existing laws instead of creating new legislation? Where can people in Washington DC who want to protect their homes and families buy a gun for defense? Nowhere. They are left defenseless by the local government that is supposed to protect them because

FACT: The courts have consistently ruled that the Police are not responsible for protecting you. Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan PD decision states "[I]t assumes a duty to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

AND another FACT: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person, compared to about 2% of shootings by citizens.

Hope that makes you feel safe and snug at night.

As for your "2000%" argument: When you sort the data out per capita (that is, taking into account the US has many more people than the UK) it becomes void. 3.6 people of every 100,000 in the UK are victimized by "contact" crime - armed robbery, murder, sexual assault and assault - versus 1.9 per 100,000 in the US. Handgun crimes were at an all time high in the UK in 2000, years after the government made it illegal for law abiding citizens to own guns.

Further, in the US, we report the actual number of gun crimes. That is to say every negligent discharge resulting in property damage, every theft of a firearm, every assault where a gun is involved - EVERYTHING. In the UK, gun crimes are only reported as such when there is a final disposition of the convicted. Any unsolved gun crimes are not reported. Therefore, their rate of "gun crime" is lower on paper than in actuality.

As to your argument that guns are not deterring crimes in the US, I beg to differ. According to the National Crime Victimization study, using BATF estimates, approx 6800 crimes are prevented every day as a result of an armed citizen. In over 99% of those encounters, blood is not spilled, but the crime is prevented. 60% of convicted criminals admit they avoid crimes in which they know the planned victim is armed. To use the UK again, their rate of home invasion burglaries is 59% of all burglaries. In the US - 13%.

FACT: The murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, VA (where the criminals buy their gun, right?) the murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000. DC is tightly regulated - Arlington does not regulate gun ownership.

FACT: Floridas homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average, where it remains, when Florida passed concealed carry legislation.

FACT: When using guns in self-defense, 83% of robbery victims and 88% of assault victims are not injured. Of those defenses, 76% of the time there is never a shot fired.

FACT: 94% of victims who resisted crime with a gun survived. 55% of victims who used a non-violent response survived.

As a woman, you may be interested to know that women are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured as a result of violent crime than men, but the number of men and women injured when defending themselves with a gun are about the same.

I will say it again. If it is your PREFERENCE not to own or carry a gun, that is your prerogative. Do not attempt to force your opinions on those people who are smart enough to see a correlation in owning a gun and not being victimized. Your choice. I've made mine, as is plainly evidenced.

Great research, Josh. Unfortunately, our facts and "framed" rights will sway not a Lefty intent upon inflicting socialism upon this nation. "Control guns - lower crime" is an old uncuccessful ruse. The real goal is much more insidious.

God bless.

Old Soldier - Eh, I know. I was just doing a lot of research yesterday anyway so I put it to practical use...

For anyone interested in using numbers and facts to make gun grabbers look ridiculous, there is an excellent resource here: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Sally Jones should read the story of Moussin Boujetiff in the U.K. Evening Standard. In a six week period last year, he raided at least 23 homes in the greater London area, armed only with a knife and a fake gun, usually at night when the victims were home asleep, and slashed and stabbed a couple when the man didn't allow him to tie them up! The man survived, but not due to Britain's gun laws!

"FACT: The murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, VA (where the criminals buy their gun, right?) the murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000. DC is tightly regulated - Arlington does not regulate gun ownership."

Eiiiyee. Josh, that has got to be the best statistic based smackdown of that persistent liberal trope that I've read. I'll definitely use it in future arguments.

Kudos
Tob

"I think he'd probably prefer you stop implying his wife and biggest fan is some kind of traitor."

Oh, we won't just imply it. We'll come right out and SAY it. Sarah Brady is a traitor just as surely as Benedict Arnold.

Josh, Old Soldier, et al -

Thanks for the remarks. Unfortunately, it's late so I need some sleep. I'll be happy to address your remarks tomorrow, but there was one egregious error I needed to correct first.

Josh, guess what? Perhaps its time to take a remedial math course. There were 572,059 residents in Washington, DC, and 239 murders that year. That doesn't come to 56.9 murders per 100,000. Perhaps Toby will want to reference accurate math?

Oh, one other thing. I don't know what this wacky ChronWatch site is, but I can smell its partisan . I challenge you to stick to statistics from the CIA, FBI, UK Home Office. Otherwise, I'll be happy to find my own statistics - Republican, Democrat, whatever - which will make you guys look rather foolish.

Night.

That number came from an FBI report entitled "Crime in the United States" published in 1998, 20 years after the District banned guns. Even so, according to your numbers in 2004, that shakes out to 41.8 murders per 100,000.

Guess you showed me!

Well, a bone to pick - according to DC stats (provided by the DCMPD) there were actually 260 homicides in 1998, and "239" were not reported in any given year in the past 12 years, so I have no clue where you pulled that number from. If the FBI stats are wrong, take that up with the FBI.

Just to make your work easier and to make sure you don't try to skew the stats. In 2003:

Murders
DC = 44.1 per 100,000
Arlington, VA = 1.5 per 100,000

Robbery
DC = 682.1 per 100,000
Arlington = 105.6 per 100K

Forcible Rape
DC = 48.5 per 100K
Arlington = 15.2 per 100K

Aggravated Assault
DC = 797 per 100K
Arlington = 103.6 per 100K

Sources:
Arlington
DC

Check my math if you like, check other sources, cry about fractions of percents...it still won't matter. There is a difference in peoples safety when they live in restricted societies and those that grant their citizens the rights and respect they deserve. According to Yahoo maps, it takes under 15 minutes to get from one place to another, yet there is a world of difference.

Josh -

Stop obfuscating. Perhaps we should also stop citing statistics that are 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 years old. Probably better to use last years stats than stats from 8 years ago, don't you think Josh?

Simple question: what were the 2004 numbers? Go look them up for us all and give us a report? I think we'll all find the numbers enlightening. If you can't find them on ChronWatch, let me know; I'll be happy to point you to them on the MPD website.

Go look it up and give us a report. Not about a bone to pick. It's about actually citing real numbers that are relevant.

Thanks.

Sally, as you are so into European statistics, can you tell me what were the homicide rates in Jewish ghettos were after Hitler achived full gun registration in 1938? Yes, that is rhetorical.

What you cannot, or will not, seem to grasp is that the Second Amendment's most basic purpose isn't just about hunting, or target shooting, or even protecting citizens from each other, but about protecting citizens from the tyranny of government.

The Second Amendment is the one right that protects all the others, and far from shrinking in this world, it seems to be expanding, as there is a ground swell for a universal right to be armed in the wake of Bosnian, Rwandan, and the on-going Darfur genocides.

The vast majority of genocides start with a population disarmed.

Condoleeza Rice's own father raised arms against murauding whites in the pre-Civil Rights South, something they were unable to do in Rosewood, Florida in 1922-23.

As we saw as recently as a few weeks ago in hurricane-ravaged states, the government cannot protect you, and it is a well-established legal fact that the government does not have a legal responsibility to protect the individual.

The God-given right to self defense in one of the rights that pre-dates written law, but you cannot rely upon others to apply that law for you. Firearms are the most efficient way to guarantee and apply that right.

Sally, read "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws," by John Lott, and "That Every Man Be Armed : The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephen Halbrook, and most definately, "Point Blank: Guns And Violence In America" by award-winning PhD criminologist (and liberal) Gary Kleck.

Confederate Yankee -

Thanks for your remarks. I hope you had a pleasant vacation this weekend.

Before I address them, I thought I'd help Josh, Old Soldier, Toby and others so they wouldn't have to do the footwork & research themselves.

In 2004, there were 198 murders and 3,057 robberies in Washington, DC. 198 murders and 3,057 robberies. Those are facts.

So, Old Soldier, you are incorrect: the murder rate in DC is NOT 56.9 per 100,000 residents. Josh, your 1998 statistics are outdated (Toby, when laying smackdowns, be sure to cite the correct statistics). Even my 2000 numbers are outdated.

In 2004, there were 198 murders. That comes to 35.1 murders per 100,000 residents. How does that compare, what does that mean?

In 1995, there were 360 murders and 6,864 robberies in Washington, DC. So, that means there's been a 45% decrease in homicide and a 55% decrease in robbery in Washington, DC, in 10 years. Far cry from the "Murder Capital of the World epithet." My stats were from the DC.gov website located Here.

It even appears that DC has a lower per-capita murder rate than the Capital of the "Polite Society," Richmond, VA. Richmond has a population of 194,729 folks (35% size of DC) but they had 89 homicides in 2003 (last year I could find; Richmond Info). That means Richmond, VA, has a HIGHER per-capita rate than Washington, DC, with 45.7 murders per 100,000 residents!

It can't be true! Josh or someone else, could you validate those facts for me? If anything, maybe the residents of Arlington county are beneficiaries of the DC gun ban. Then again, Arlington is only about a fifth the size of DC, so drawing a direct comparison is difficult, hence why I didn't. It's also difficult because the county is so small and so much belongs to the Federal government (e.g. Pentagon, Arlington Cemetary, several military bases). That's all besides the point though, I guess.

Josh, you also cited a laundry list of statistics. Where did you get that information? Since we were all citing outdated information about DC earlier, it's probably worthwhile for everyone to have the opportunity to double-check the other statistics too, right?

It also seems that a lot of folks have some psychological disorder. Where did I say the U.S. should ban guns? I think all I've ever said is there ought to be tighter restrictions on guns. Perhaps you should re-read my earlier remarks, where I stated : "maybe [you] want to screen them [crackpots and criminals] more thoroughly up front to insure they never get their hands on guns in the first place," or "You want a gun, what's wrong with the hoops? If you aren't a crackpot intent on shooting a politican, shooting up a workplace, or if you don't have a history of gun-related violence, you'll get one." Doesn't sound like banning guns to me.

Sorry, but I do favor tighter restrictions on weapons. Then again, if you think that employees of Walt Disney World should be bringing guns to the workplace (go read the news if that's over your head), then it's your prerogative. Have a good family vacation there next year.

Sally Jones, thanks fo your continuing contributions to this discussion, its definitely nice for trolls to atleast cite real numbers for the sake of argument. I don't want to get too bogged down with the exact per capita murder rate because I think that the point is rather that the more restrictive the gun laws, the higher the crime rate. It is probably the case that a better correlation can be made with the composition of the particular population but that doesn't help your point either. You're making the statement, or at least the implication, that crime will diminish where guns are more tightly regulated and most here are simply calling BS on that point. (Also I'm calling BS on your self-proclaimed Republican status)

Tob

Confederate Yankee -

Posted too soon, sorry for that. I wanted to make a comment about disarming people being the first step in genocide.

Historically, yes, that does happen in states where there's no democratic tradition. The countries you cited - Weimar Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan - those countries had/have no democratic tradition, no sense of entitlement to voting. For instance, in 1933, with people starving in the street, the Weimar Republic fell under the Nazi spell because people longed for the old days of a central emperor and military might.

When the economy hits the skids, do Americans call for the overthrow of the government? No - they go to the ballot box. When the KKK burns a cross on a lawn, do people raise the militia and gun them down? No - they go to court and they go to the ballot box. If a politician is found to be corrupt, do we tar and feather him, and run him out of town? No - we go to the court and go to the ballot box.

Much of the early thinking of the Constitution was designed to compensate for three facts: first, after emerging from beneath the shadow of a corrupt monarchy, people distrusted centralized government; second, there was no functioning government to speak of; and third, even if there was, the reality of the situation was it could not act quickly.

You raise a good point though, about a need for protection. However, if you're truly that threatened by your American government, then surely you'll go through whatever application process to get a firearm?

You cite New Orleans as a great example as to why you need guns and how you can't trust others. I'll cite the NYC blackout in 2003 as evidence as to why New Orleans and the aftermath are not the norm.

Maybe you missed the links I put in my "laundry list" for the 2003 data. Reading is Fundamental! Go back and read again. The 2004 numbers, which I did not use, are listed as "preliminary" by the FBI, which is why I used 2003. In 2003, the national homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 compared to 44.1 per 100K in DC, which was actually a decline from "Murder Capital" status in 2002 - are you saying that, since it wasn't that evil outdated 56.9 number, its good? Are you suggesting that Richmond is a closer correlation to DC than Arlington, though one is only a few miles away from DC? FYI - Arlington's population in 2003 was over 196K - gasp! More than Richmond, so I guess you're full of crap or didn't actually look at the numbers?!?!?! (or are they living in the cemetary and the Pentagon...) Maybe the rapidly rising homicide numbers in Richmond could be attributed to some outside exertion of influence, such as the lapse of Project:Exile and the influx of prison releasees into the community - why don't you go do a report on that?

Or are you so blinded by your opinions that you don't really care what the numbers are, how they correlate or what holes there are in your argument, as long as you feel like you've won?

You're a waste of time and typing, and frankly your condescending attitude makes me believe you're arguing purely for the sake of it, so I'm done.

Josh -

You didn't comment on the fact that DC's murder rate has decreased 45% in 10 years, or that the robbery rate is down 55%.

"In 2003, the national homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 compared to 44.1 per 100K in DC, which was actually a decline from "Murder Capital" status in 2002 - are you saying that, since it wasn't that evil outdated 56.9 number, its good?"

No. Going from 59.6 murders per 100k to 44.1 murders per 100k is not "good." However, it's progress in the right direction. It means about 15 people don't get put in the ground annually. It means 15 families don't mourn an untimely death. Based on your tone, it sounds like that doesn't mean anything to you.

People will always kill, that'll never change. You can see that in the story of Cain and Abel. However, if you restrict the choice of weapon, if you make it harder to kill, you will reduce those numbers. That is what a statistic like 56.9 to 44.1 tells me. What does it tell you?

I'll agree though. I think it's very likely that the phenomena is due to some outside cause. Maybe it is the fact that 1,772 firearms have been recovered this YTD, including 340 collected during a successful gun buy-back program. That's 1,772 fewer guns in the hands of people on the streets. Then again, that probably has nothing to do with the reductions, right?

BTW, regarding my "condescending" attitude. I didn't accuse you of being "full of crap," I didn't tell you your opinion "still won't matter."

I think all I've done is asked where you'd gotten those statistics from. You told Old Soldier that you had been "doing a lot of research yesterday," so I thought you'd want to share with everyone your sources. So far as I can tell, your primary source is Guy Smith and his Gunfacts.info website? Is that where all of those "FACT" numbers above came from?

Also, Old Soldier referenced a "University of Chicago" study before accusing me of being a socialist. Old Soldier, would you please share the link to that study?

My observation is the facts seem to illustrate that at a societal and city level, tightened restrictions seems to promote reduced crime rates. My only opinion is I think a reduction in crime rates is something America should stand for, not against.

And Toby, sorry, but am a Republican. Voted for HW, Dole, and Bush. I even volunteered for Dole in my congressional district in Florida. Wish there was something else I could do to prove it, but forbidding scanning and faxing my registration card (which would be questioned and attacked anyway likely), I don't see many options.

"And Toby, sorry, but am a Republican."

Why? What do they believe in that you argee with? Its certain that you don't like many of your fellow members (all those bible-thumpers and war-mongers) so it can't be the party scene.

Tob

To refresh your memory, this is what the party stands for:

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

Tob

Sally Jones,

I agree that less crime, and fewer gun deaths is something to strive for, but crimes of violence will ALWAYS be there, until some figures out how to change human nature!

Someone who will perform a crime of violence is apt to arm themself. Stats are there in all of the violent crimes committed throughout the country.

How does the ‘victim’ of the crime protect themself? (assume rape)

The removal of the handgun from the defender’s arsenal limits them to the use of sprays, tasers (illegal in more places every year), or possibly a knife of less than 3½” long. These, in the hands of an average person, are more of an annoyance than a deterrent.

Is it the defender’s responsibility to put forth years of effort and money to learn a martial art? ("God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.")

When you look at places in the world where the average citizen don’t have access to personal weapons, you will find almost uniform higher rates of violence. There are a few exceptions, like Japan (where the police have draconian powers) and England (where the single most requested donation for their police force is old US bullet-proof vests).

Of course, we aren’t the rest of the world, and I don’t want to be like them. This experiment is on-going.

Yes, there are also innocent deaths due to guns, a horrible price. But we pay a higher price in DUI’s every year, but no-one wants to outlaw cars, people recognize that it’s the driver’s responsibility, not the car or the alcohol. Why is it that guns are different?

By the way…the same arguments and wild predictions of running gun battles on I-95 were made in the late ‘80’s when FL passed a ‘shall issue’ law…and the only thing that happened was a marked decline in violent crimes in the state.

You will never get rid of the guns, and since the criminals will keep them no matter the law, why make laws that will only make it difficult for the law-abiding to use a gun?

'An armed society is a polite society' – Robert Heinlein

Scott Page -

You raise some very valid points and thanks for your level-headed approach.

Do you think there's a discernable difference between cars and guns? I personally think one is an indispensible part of commerce and the other is not. For instance, guns are about "just in case" defense since criminal activity is the exception in daily life (e.g. most people don't live their lives expecting crime to happen). Cars are not really about "just in case" commerce; take away automobiles and there is no commerce.

Also, there are very strict DUI laws in just about every state and jurisdiction. The reason they exist is precisely because history as shown that, when it comes to drunk driving, people don't exercise good judgement.

America also outlawed alcohol consumption once due to it's ill effects (the reasoning was more aligned to moral turpitude than drunk driving, I'll grant). Overturning the alcohol ban was the decision of the people. I don't see why, if there were tighter restrictions on handguns, people would not have the option to remove them if they wanted.

About criminals getting weapons, I agree. However, tighten the restrictions on people selling guns outside sanctioned channels. Tighten the restrictions on all. As I've said countless times, if you have a legitimate reason for a gun, then go through the process of ballistic fingerprinting, national registration, etc., whatever measures the people decide to put in place. Then you'll have the satisfaction of providing for your defense and knowing that the government has better tools to track if that gun falls into the wrong hands.

The FL reference I made earlier was about the current legislation to allow workers to bring guns to the workplace. Today, FL does not allow a worker to bring a gun to an office workplace (e.g. can bring it in the glove-compartment of car). However, the FL legislature wants to remove that restriction. I bring it up is because the single-largest employer in the state is Walt Disney World. What is the rationale in letting people who work around children be armed?

You read in the news all the time of disgruntled employees taking out their frustrations on co-workers. I don't believe that making that possiblity easier leads to a "polite society." I think it will lead to fear and paranoia.

I'd think twice about taking my family to a theme park knowing that any or all of the employees could be armed. I don't need to introduce my family into an environment where people are paranoid and looking over their shoulder, ready to brandish a pistol, even if it is in their own defense.

Toby, BTW, sorry, haven't had a chance to review all of the planks. I could give you the general points of agreement if that suffices? Unfortunately, I'm not really certain the GOP today, as a party, truly emphasizes what the GOP has traditionally stood for (which is the type of Republican I personally am).

National gun registration would violate the Second Amendment's "infringment" clause.

Dictators throughout history have used weapon relgistration to preclude confiscation, from the ancient Chinese through the worst of the 20th Centuries dictators.

Ballistic fingerprinting is useless; it takes no more than a few minutes to swap out barrels in most firearms, many guns are neither barrel nor caliber specific.

I'm sorry, but much of your theory is based upon knowing very, very little about firearms.

CY -

I didn't profess to know everything about guns. I'd rather leave up to the experts how to track weapons and/or provide that registration.

Also, how does registering infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" arms?

You can't carry a gun into a public school today and brandish it; is that an unreasonable infringement? Does that undermine the spirit of the Constitution? The "word" bear also doesn't have the definition "to use"; it does mean to "be accountable for" or "to carry, transport." Does that mean the Constitution doesn't provide for the actual use (e.g. firing) of those arms?

I guess my larger question is, if you have to register a weapon, how does that prevent you from owning a weapon in the first place? Sounds like the only people who wouldn't be allowed to own them would be folks you'd probably not want armed anyway (e.g. crackpots, violent criminals, terrorists, liberals perhaps, etc).

Also, I refer to the comment Scott made earlier. Any law, just like the United States itself, is an "experiment on-going." You don't learn by not taking chances or by just judging them impossible. You learn by trying. Ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work? Then put the research into trying something else that may.

Case in point. Every form of copyright protection for CDs and DVDs has been thwarted by new technologies and cunning developers, etc. Yet, do the RIAA and MPAA don't stop funding the research, give up on trying to find better security mechanisms? No, because the end justifies the effort.

I personally think finding a middle ground between gun ownership and an end to accidental shootings or workplace rampages is also worth the effort too.

Sorry for the typo in the last post. I meant "Yet, do the RIAA and MPAA stop funding the research, give up on trying to find better security mechanisms? No, because the end justifies the effort."

Sally Jones, I'm a gunsmith, machinist, bullet caster, chemist, ammo reloader,etc. There is no way the Government can prevent me from keeping and bearing arms! These are the only property rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If you have some bugaboo about picking up a gun, see your sisters and brothers in the N.R.A.

"Toby, BTW, sorry, haven't had a chance to review all of the planks. I could give you the general points of agreement if that suffices? Unfortunately, I'm not really certain the GOP today, as a party, truly emphasizes what the GOP has traditionally stood for (which is the type of Republican I personally am)."

Feel free, but being truthful, I have lost interest in exposing your sham Republicanism. The deed is done. If you can't say why your in the party, its hard to believe that you are, especially since you would have to rub elbows with all those yahoos and bible-thumpers, tax-cutter and warmongers.

Your posts contain much more cogent arguments than most lefties and you should just be yourself. The 'I was a Republican for 50 years until this President embarassed yaddah yaddah' type argument carries no weight. Your statics and links do. Stick to those.

Tob

Toby -

Well, I don't know how to respond to your post. Actually, I AM a tax-cutter when it makes sense, a small-government, stay-out-of-my-personal life Republican. Last I checked, that was the core of the GOP. Terrorism? Fight it on every verifiable front. Affirmative Action? Against. Ownership society? I'm 100% for that. Estate Tax? Repeal it (families shouldn't have to pay for the success of deceased relatives).

Then again, I'm also a Republican paying $3.45 at the pump for regular. I'm a Republican being forced to accept the Bible as American law, and I don't think that should be the case (I believe in laws designed to protect all religious expression, but not respect any above the others). I'm a Republican being forced to respect policies I don't support, otherwise I'm accused of being (as Old Soldier put it) a socialist.

Perhaps Republicans ought to stop applying litmus tests to one another an realize it is possible to disagree respectfully. Then again, I'm apparently not an American according to some (and that is something my birth certificate contradicts).

So, how can the GOP's figurehead go out and preaches inclusion, yet the party practices the opposite? Sadly, it appears there is no inclusion left in the GOP.

Also, you said: "Your posts contain much more cogent arguments than most lefties and you should just be yourself. The 'I was a Republican for 50 years until this President embarassed yaddah yaddah' type argument carries no weight. Your statics and links do. Stick to those."

I don't know how to interpret that statement. You refer to my "statics and links." What does that mean?